Who will govern us all ?

It's presidential election time.  Feel free to shudder at the thought.  Fortunately, the hardcore media blitz has barely touched us here in Virginia, across from the nation's capital.  Republican primary states have been getting the worst of it so far.  But, the campaigns and their henchmen, hiding behind the cloak of "action committees," will inevitably blanket us with the same invective that unfortunately characterizes certain brands of political discourse of late.

My impression is that all of the clamor and rhetoric seem particularly divisive and mean-spirited this time around.  (I'm aware that nasty slurs and ad hominum attacks have always been a part of American politics.  Read what the press and opponents had to say about John Adams or even Thomas Jefferson.)  But, I haven't given up on our electorate or those who govern us.  There are good people in government at all levels and good people who make the choices that elect them.   The key in this election, I believe, will be moving beyond the rhetoric to focus on one simple question:  Who will govern us all ?

Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, Eugene Robinson, in this morning's Washington Post, addressed that question while examining the inflammatory rhetoric of the current crop of Republican presidential hopefuls.  With so many challenges facing people in this economy and at this point in our nation's history (jobs, unemployment, balancing the budget, the collapse of our social safety net, a widening economic and social divide, the nuclear arming of Iran, our role in Afghanistan, etc.), Robinson questions why Republican candidates spend more time railing about "defeating this president" than addressing our national issues.

Their stump speeches and campaign literature drum away on the theme, "We've got to take this country back."  I've heard more of this kind of apocalyptic language from Republican candidates--and a good bit of the same from the far left--in this election cycle than ever before.  The world is coming to an end, they shout, unless we send to the White House and Congress an army of right-thinking, self-righteous, government-dismantling firebrands, who will build on the "My way or the highway" approach that has so successfully brought our legislative process to a stalemate for the last two years.

"We've got to take this country back."  The question is, take it back from whom?  And for whom?  As Robinson asks, "Who is in possession of this country of yours?  And what makes it yours, not theirs?"   What has happened, he wonders (and I wonder) to the notion that this is our country?

Arthur Schlesinger's 1991 book, The Disuniting of America:  Reflections on a Multicultural Society, prefigures this loggerheads.  In it he expresses his fears for the American democratic system, because of its attack by those who would elevate personal or group identity above national identity.  Although he was referring mainly to ethnic minorities, his thesis certainly applies to our political times.  Every day another splinter group emerges.  We appear to be breaking into tribes, armed for battle to the death at every little insult.  I am alarmed by parents who scream cultural or physical "genocide" when their children are exposed to something with which they disagree--an idea that does not fit their limited view of the world (evolution, global warming, a religious faith unlike their own, baked goods with too much sugar, schools that mix their obviously gifted children with "those kids who don't want to learn").  Look around.  There are plenty of places in the world where people have broken into enclaves, rigid tribes that refuse to budge a centimeter on any issue, spewing hatred towards anyone unlike themselves.  We cannot afford to do the same.

There is hope, especially given our democratic tradition.  As Schlesigner notes, our country has absorbed people from every corner of the globe, from every class, from every religion.  We have managed 200-plus years of the peaceful transfer of power through a democratic political process.  How has this been possible?  The answer is instructive for our times:  By what we share as a people taking precedence over what divides us.  What we share (or at least have shared, for the most part, up until recently) are a set of values expressed most poignantly by our founding documents (Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights) and by our most honored president, Abraham Lincoln, in his speeches and inaugural addresses.  Life.  Liberty.  Equality.  Freedom of expression.  Freedom of religion.

We hear these terms bandied about by candidates, but they are being used to mean life, liberty and freedom for us on our terms; and certainly not for those who do not look or think or act like we do.  It's our heritage and we don't want to share it with homosexuals, Muslims, immigrants (legal or not), socialists, or anyone who will ask us to restrain our own behavior in any way (gun control, regulation of financial institutions or industry) for the good of the community.

Why is it that these values are so distorted during our electoral process?  What we need, more than ever right now, is someone who can transcend the accepted wisdom that getting elected in America depends on appealing to the basest fears of the electorate.  Someone who can remind us that our diversity is an asset, not a liability.  That we can work together to build a better nation, instead of shouting that those who disagree with us are responsible for the destruction of civilization.  We need candidates to remind us that our common values make it possible for us to stand behind our elected leaders, once the rancor of the campaign has ended.

I have been lucky enough to live and travel outside of the U. S. most of my adult life.  There's nothing like travel abroad to give you some perspective when you return home.  We complain about government intruding into our lives.  But spend some time in mainland China or Nepal, Burma or Nicaragua if you want to see what it's like to live under a government that treats you badly if you are not aligned with the ruling autocrat/dictator/oligarchy.  The elected and appointed officials in our government--all branches and at all levels, from local to national--may not stand for much of anything you hold personally important.  And their decisions may result in policies with which you disagree or even find reprehensible.  But, because we have a tradition of rule of law, equal treatment, and democratic elections--no matter how flawed they may be--we can wake each morning knowing that jack-booted soldiers will not be knocking at our door to haul us off to prison without cause, never to be heard from again, no matter what the fearmongers are spewing on Fox News.

If talk show bloviators and paranoid politicians tell you otherwise, stop a minute and look around.  We are still the most prosperous nation on earth.  Our universities attract students from every corner of the world.  Immigrants leave family and friends to start new lives within our borders, because we offer them the chance to realize their dreams in a country free of tyranny and full of opportunity.

Former U. S. Representative and ambassador to India in 2009, Tim Roemer, writes about how deeply admired the United States continues to be worldwide.  True, he notes, we have problems:  millions of Americans out of work, an enormous trade deficit, news stories that chronicle the latest scandal of greed and corruption, a Congress paralyzed by partisanship.  But having lived and travelled abroad, he knows that all countries face similar challenges, many much worse.  What we need to be reminded of is our shared values and our resiliency.  We can deal with this moment in history, as we have dealt with others.

Our "decline" as a nation is largely imagined, he says, because of the pain we currently feel for our circumstances.  Others simply do not see us in that light.  Roemer reports on students abroad still eager to enroll in our colleges, entrepreneurs eager to tap into our markets, capable immigrant technicians headed for Silicon Valley.  We are still the nation of innovation and problem-solving, as reflected in the number of Nobel Prizes we garner.  Our government has invested in vital research, such as that which developed the internet, and has kept our national infrastructure strong.  (Drive on the roads in Costa Rica or Nepal if you want to see what limited federal government looks like.)

I retain hope that we will stay true to the belief that this is a country where change is possible.  Hurrah for the Occupy and Tea Party movements, no matter whether I subscribe to what they espouse.  Kudos to the watchdogs (like my friend Phil) who attend hearings, gather legal advice, monitor behavior, and rail against unsafe industry practices in oil and gas exploration, manufacturing, drug and food production.  A round of applause for all of those who say "We can do better."  All I would add to their slogans is, "We can do better together."

We must continue to be a place where differences--of opinion, of religion, of politics, of lifestyle--are acknowledged, but where common values make it possible for us to live together in peace.  When we face decline in these values, then we have truly lost our way.  I do not think we are there yet.