On America

America is an incredible country. In the history of the planet there has never been such a place, such a convergence of human spirit and will set free to sail the winds of chance and discovery and fortune.

The human mind is unrelenting in its creativity and objectivity: it is inherently curious and conveniently endowed with the capacity to ferret out answers to the questions posed by itself. Individually, we each possess these attributes in different qualities and quantities, and when we commingle in the free market system known as Capitalism, we erupt in a synergy that expands our species’ very notion of possibility, if not in fact reality.

As a capitalist free nation, American citizens are free to endeavor in legal enterprises and then be rewarded as the marketplace sees fit. But financial reward, materialism, should never be viewed as the enduring blessing of freedom. Because my passions and gifts differ from the mechanic’s whose differ from the surgeon’s whose differ from the teacher’s, we are each variously compensated by the marketplace. When the joy of living and of being an American is reduced to how much stuff we can acquire (viz a viz money), we have prostituted our joy and freedom, exchanging that which has intrinsic value for that which possesses only fleeting worth.

America is a sacred trust. For everyday Colonial farmers and merchants to have been compelled to engage in a war of impossible odds against the military might of the Crown belies the desperate political environ that had grown up around them. These Colonists were stirred to action while at the same time drawn inexorably toward the destiny that would become self-government. Today, like every day since the Colonists declared war against Britain, we personally experience freedom to pursue our own happiness because of the courage and dedication to principle to which the Revolutionaries had committed themselves.

What are the principles that motivate Americans today? How might those who brought America into nationhood view our performance as keepers of the trust they handed to us?

America derives its blessings from her moral grounding, the fruits of human ingenuity, and from certain provisions of the government for the general public, namely a national defense and an infrastructure that benefits the masses. The role of government in the United States of America is not, and shall never be, the intentional redistribution of wealth from one individual to another. The position of most liberal and even some moderate politicians today would be viewed by our Colonial predecessors as heretical, a dereliction of duty, an extinguishing of the sacred trust that is the heart of America.

Today America is synonymous with Freedom. Freedom to try, freedom to fail, freedom to succeed. But not the freedom to demand money from others simply based on disparity. Consider this: In academia the student is given the opportunity to perform to the best of his or her ability and to be rewarded with an education and a GPA that will serve them for years to come. But since not all students are equally intellectually endowed and/or motivated to excel academically, should we instead redistribute the wealth of the overachievers to the underachievers, handing over points and grades from the first group to the latter? The successful students’ A grades become C’s, and the failing students’ become C’s. Hardly a worthy objective or means.

Certainly we have among our citizenry those who need extra help and attention. People with physical or mental disabilities may be limited in their ability to participate in capitalism. And that is why the human spirit is also dressed in compassion. We help those who truly need a hand.

But we should never think it courageous or honorable or even acceptable to demand from others their rightfully acquired possessions. If it is not right for me to approach my wealthier neighbor and demand money from him, it is no more right for the government to do so in our stead.

Thanks, but no thanks.

Truth or Veneer?

A brief conversation with a friend this past week got me to thinking about truth.

What concerns me is that we may largely be a people who do not seek truth so much as solutions.

The topic of conversation was Intelligent Design and Darwinism. The University of Kansas has been hosting a weekly or monthly forum that regularly invites icons of either school of thought: Intelligent Design (ID) or Neo-Darwinism. At one such meeting the renowned atheist Richard Dawkins was the guest icon for Neo-Darwinism and he was by all accounts quite eloquent and passionate in both his grievances against ID and support for Neo-Darwinism and atheism.

Because we have become a culture of veneer values, I suspect we are too easily smitten by such polished speech. President George W. Bush has revealed this penchant of ours in its negative form. I don't suppose there's a single late night comedian that doesn't denigrate Bush at least twice per show for his substandard delivery of the English language.

But to what extent are content and delivery related? Has our appetite for Oscar Award entertainment so deadened our minds that we cannot listen to and evaluate spoken ideas that are having a bad hair day? Do we really prefer the silver-tongued orator whose content and logic are flawed over plain (or even stammering) speech that is sincerely spoken?

Do we value polish and veneer, or truth?

I fear our expectations have begun to mirror the Hollywood gauntlet: those who would be stars must be flawless. Doesn't matter that it takes self-starvation, enough silicone to heremetically seal two Boeing 757's, and an ego the size of a small country to create the myth. No, what seems to matter is that they give the appearance of being this deity of perfection, and what they really are or are not is of no consequence.

So knowing that everything that glitters isn't gold, what about us still allows us to give a pass to the smooth,impeccable and passionate delivery of a speech whose content is evasive and nonsensical? Is it that a finely constructed fortress of words appears beyond breach, so no countermeasures (i.e. THOUGHT) are deployed, leaving the message to stand as approved and accepted?

Or is it that the dissenters cannot find print space?

It is imperative that we never cease pursuing the truth.

If we expect to find something of value in this life, then we had best be in the market for Truth. And if Truth is what we hope to find, then learning to identify false logic and empty but intimidating rhetoric must become part and parcel of our thinking.

In a few short months the 2008 presidential candidates will begin to announce their candidacy. Americans will be inundated with plenty of ideologies and promises and plans, some served up with great panache by gifted orators, some by the not-so-gifted. But with any luck, U.S. Citizens will step out of their American Idol mindset and work very hard to dissect the promises, arguments and accusations that are about to be launched at them. We don't need a superstar. We need leaders who are not afraid to lead, leaders about whom it can be said, 'what you see is what you get.'

Wanting solutions can be very different from wanting the Truth.