Not My Party

~ thefiddler@cox.net

Party loyalty and ideological orthodoxy damages America. It is destructive to everything the founding generation believed important to a strong America. George Washington reminded us that the “real design” of parties is “to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities.” It was, Washington said, “destructive” and “of fatal tendency.” James Madison dedicated Federalist Number 10 to the dangers of factionalism. Though he believed it was impossible to avoid factionalism, he was optimistic that the new federal constitution would moderate partisan tendencies. Even Thomas Jefferson, arguably among the most partisan of the founding generation, understood that Americans must rise above partisanship. “We have called by different names brethren of the same principle,” he declared in his first inaugural. “We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists. If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.”

Today party and ideology are not just present but dominant. They have become intolerant. It leaves most Americans, I believe, wondering what happened to “reason.” Have we lost the ability for patriots to gather and openly debate and reason out differences of opinion? Unfortunately the answer is yes. As a result, many of us are left adrift without any political affiliation, neither Democrat nor Republican, neither conservative nor liberal. Even more are left alienated from politics altogether, believing they have no say and no way to participate that’s worth their effort.

I love freedom. Freedom is a liberal value. As an American I believe that I should be free to own the property I desire, love the person I love, raise my family to reflect my values, worship God in my way, and speak my mind in support of the causes important to me. I do not believe that I should control these decisions for other people and I am offended when others try to impose these decisions on me. I do not denigrate someone else’s freedom and I do not appreciate those who attack my freedoms.

I also believe in equality. Equality is another liberal revolutionary value. As expressed in the 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights, I believe “That all men are by nature equally free and independent.” Yes, all humans, no matter their gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, or economic station. As George Mason’s declaration says, “no man, or set of men, are entitled to exclusive or separate emoluments or privileges”—there is no gentry, no royalty, no earls or duchesses in America. In all essential elements of the republic we must be equal. Every citizen should have the opportunity to vote. Every citizen should find equal treatment before the law and our government institutions, with no group or individual privileged above another. Every citizen should have equal opportunity to employ their talents for the betterment of themselves and their family. Every citizen should have access to education, because an educated citizenry is a responsible citizenry.

I believe in the conservative value of responsibility. Individuals who avoid responsibility dismay me. Politicians (Democrat and Republican) who authorize military action and social programs without allocating the funds or raising the taxes to pay for it anger me. It’s irresponsible. If it’s important to do, we should raise (not borrow) the money to accomplish it. As a responsible citizen, I pay my taxes. It’s my patriotic duty. Those who cheat and pay less than their fair share offend me.

And speaking of responsibility, I believe it is my responsibility to conduct myself for the betterment of my community, to note how much I have given and to take less in return. That includes stewardship of everything from natural resources to the education of children in my community (not just my own children). It means that I am responsible to assist the less fortunate and disadvantaged in my community. It’s my responsibility to help build a strong community and if that means buying insurance, donating to causes, paying my taxes, and dedicating my time, so be it. I expect my representatives to shoulder their responsibility as well.

I believe that power corrupts. The founding generation held this same conservative belief. It offends me when politicians close ranks around party instead of my community’s best interest. The exorbitant profits and salaries of corporate shareholders and CEOs offend me. It’s just another example of consolidating greed and power. And I believe that public servants (elected representatives, government workers, the military, police, and others) are especially answerable for their actions, because of the additional community responsibility they carry. I have little tolerance for the kind of corruption and indiscretion that harm the citizens these people serve.

I believe there are a lot of frustrated Americans like me. It shows in the low vote of confidence that presidents, governors, legislators, and judges receive on opinion polls. I want them all to work for my community’s best interest, not theirs, and not for a political party’s.

There is a lot of pessimism out there right now, but “We the People” need to put it aside. This whole experiment we call the American republic is idealistic. It has been from the very beginning. Our founding generation believed that common everyday human beings could rise above their self-serving instincts and collaborate for the common good. It’s time we got back to work. It’s time we started taking to each other with the kind of empathy that engenders respect for the individual. It’s time we start demanding that our politicians work across party lines for our common interest or step down. It’s time we found leaders who will—no mater their political party—step forward and say (to paraphrase Mr. Jefferson): We are all Republicans. We are all Democrats. We are all liberals. We are all conservatives.

Yes, real differences separate us. But the ideologues and partisans are wrong: There is no single secret pathway back to the “Garden of Eden.” We will not get everything we want in the coming debate. But we have most of what we need if we start talking and listening to each other. The current winner-take-all battle strategy is failing. We are failing ourselves, our community, our state, our nation, our nation’s future; we are failing the vision of our founding generation. Why? Because we cannot step aside from dogma long enough to have a frank, honest discussion? Because we cannot talk with reason? It is simply not acceptable. We’d better figure out how to do better. We’d better figure out how to create a new future. And we the citizens will have to figure out how to build it together.

The Town Mouse and the Country Mouse

~ thefiddler@cox.net

This article was also published on the Huffington Post Blog

It’s a story as ancient as Aesop’s Fables, a story we tell over and over again. The sophisticated urbanite comes to visit a country relation and makes fun of the simple home, simple meal, and simple morality of rural life. But when the poor country cousin visits the urban cousin, we see city life full of excess and danger. The moral is clear: Unadorned country living is good and the corruption and vice of the urban metropolis is bad. Twenty-first century Americans still hold this belief, but today even the country mouse is tainted with city life.

Every era updated this story. The satiric London painter William Hogarth applied this urban-rural moralism in his Harlot’s Progress paintings. American revolutionaries in the 1770s saw themselves as the country cousins upholding the purity of the British Constitution, which had been corrupted by the excesses of an urbanized King and Parliament. The populism of the late 1820s brought Andrew Jackson into the presidency—the rough-and-ready westerner sweeping away the corruption of elite eastern urbanites. William Henry Harrison capitalized on populism by painting himself as the rural common man in his 1840 “hard cider and log cabin” campaign. Twenty years later, “Honest Abe” Lincoln the Rail Splitter did the same. The silver-spoon New Yorker, Teddy Roosevelt, parlayed his western rancher and Rough Rider image to become a populist figure. Rural values are celebrated in the classic paintings of Norman Rockwell. Beginning in the 1950s, rock-and-roll was labeled an urban scourge foisted on the countryside. We see the conflict of urban/rural values in Richard Nixon’s notion of the “silent majority” and in Ronald Reagan’s emphasis on “family values.” And our twenty-first century has a new era of American populism.

But things have changed since my grandfather listened to humorist Will Rogers on the radio declare, “What the country needs is dirtier fingernails and cleaner minds.” America has witnessed a seismic shift.

In 1900, only 45% of Americans lived in urban areas. Farmers were nearly 40% of the labor force. By the end of the century, more than 75% of Americans were city folk, and today, fewer than 3% work on farms. Like it or not, America—all of America—has been citified. At the start of the twentieth century most Americans lived close to their work—they had to. For most, a ten-mile trip to town was a weekly or monthly event. Today, Americans drive an average of 30 miles per day. In 1900, the Western Union telegraph or U.S. Postal Service was the most efficient means of long-distance communication. Today, digital voice, email, and text communications reach every segment of American society. With these innovations comes a flood of urbanized information, content, ideas, and values. No matter where you live and what you believe, urban values are integral to your lifestyle. Americans are no longer country and city cousins—we’re just one big urban family.

We may not like this very much, but the truth is hard to escape. Americans can no longer avoid each other. The citified cannot retreat to the cosmopolitan “Metropolis” and avoid the provincial. Traditionalists can no longer wrap themselves in the isolation of the countryside. Only a nanosecond separates us.

It is time for us to put Aesop’s story on the shelf. It no longer describes our world. America is no longer a series of small independent communities isolated from each other. We are a cosmopolitan nation. What happens in Nebraska is important to me on the Eastern Seaboard. Southern values are northern values; Western values are eastern values—and vice versa. We must care for all our diversity—racial, ethnic, economic, social, religious, and those disadvantaged by health. The struggle of minorities cannot be isolated. Urban financial centers and corporations must embrace their impact on small-town “Main Street.” And rural America must look past traditional community rhythms and patterns. Change is coming. In many ways it is already here. We must understand that together we are creating a new America. No one can hold back the flood of technological innovation. It touches each and every American. We need to embrace it—embrace each other—and innovate to create an America for the twenty-first century. This is not a contest of ideologies. We are all Americans in a quest for individual freedom and equality. What we have in common is far stronger than any of our divisions. Working together is the only way to insure this nation will continue to be a beacon of liberty.

Of Course the Press Is Biased!

~ thefiddler@cox.net

[This entry was also published in  the Huffington Post Blog on December 28, 2016.]

Fake news. Biased reporting. Commentators and pundits everywhere are wringing their hands predicting the fall of the fourth estate, and with it the end of American democracy. They are blinded by the myth of objective journalism and, consequently, they all miss the point.

In fact, all press is biased and we should not expect it to be otherwise. Today’s crisis is not the demise of journalism, but our failure to educate citizens. American citizens are not critical enough, analytical enough, or investigative enough to evaluate information, conduct an open honest debate with each other, and discern a viable path for the collective future.

We humans are shaped by life experiences—our interactions with each other. There is nothing objective about that human experience, especially when it comes to making decisions in our social and cultural interactions. The human condition requires that we express a bias when we interact with the world. Each woman and man trudges forward in life lugging a host of unique individual experiences that inform each and every step we take. Reporters, news editors, producers, managers, corporate officers, the corporations who own them, and the individuals who consume the news are all part of this human process. It is not possible to live otherwise.

Historians have long understood this aspect of humans and their expressions. As we unravel the past, we constantly identify the bias of our evidence. The author of the letter, the composer of the music, the craftsman who created the table, the laborer in the field, all left evidence of their life. The historian examines that evidence trying to uncover the life of those past individuals and extract meaning from it. But we understand that when a slave owner wrote a letter lauding the institution of slavery, they did so with the bias of an individual whose life experience affirmed that they had a right to own other human beings as property. We know that the patron who commissioned the symphony biased the work of a composer. We understand that the table expresses its maker’s lifelong synthesis of creativity, style, form, and practical use. And we know that the marks and artifacts people leave on the landscape are a product of their circumstances as well as their choices. Just as important, we also understand that our own life experiences influence which stories of the past we choose to tell and color how we tell those stories.

The history of free press in America is a study in humanity—in bias and partisanship. Our country was created because colonial American printers articulated a biased view of the world to American patriots. We are proud of that heritage. In the 1760s, Virginia legislatures worried that the single printer publishing in the colony was biased, owing his allegiance to the royal governor. They sponsored a rival printer, William Rind, whose masthead motto was “Open to all Parties but Influenced by None.” But it was not long before Rind too was subject to accusations of bias.

Federalist and Jeffersonian presses were rife with bias and outlandish accusations. Jeffersonian plots to confiscate Bibles, close down churches, and bring the horror and spectacle of the French Revolution’s guillotine in the public square were the grist of the Federalist press. In 1800, the Jeffersonian press tagged John Adams—who in 1776 was a member of the committee to draft the Declaration of Independence—as a secret royalist hoping to ascend the throne of America and pass it along to his son. It was fake news and biased reporting.

The 1820s and ’30s were no better. Jacksonians attacked the “corrupt bargain” and Nicholas Biddle, President of the Second Bank of America. And Jackson’s opponents, too, accused him of monarchical tendencies. Partisan press railed against immigration in the 1850s and saw the rise of the American or “Know-Nothing” Party, with their secret oaths and pledges to vote only for “American born” candidates. Nor should we forget how partisans employed the press to demand the immediate abolition of slavery while at the same time the Southern press, just as vehemently, insisted on the continued enslavement of African Americans. It was biased reporting to influence people’s political opinions and it was a staple throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries—through muckrakers and Jim Crow and Cold War McCarthyism and civil rights protests and the counter-culture. It continues today.

But sadly, most Americans are ignorant of this history because we don’t teach it to our children. We don’t teach our children that the issues shaping America are hard-fought battles about ideas. We don’t teach students that generations of patriots used biased partisan press to convince other patriots that one or another idea was best for America’s future. Perhaps worst of all, we no longer cultivate the crucial skill of critical thinking in our future citizens. We no longer teach them to evaluate evidence and make critical judgments. They, consequently, do not understand that it is their responsibility to examine the news carefully, critically, and from all sides. And because we don’t teach these basic skills of citizenship, they are susceptible to fake news and biased reporting. Worse, too many Americans are so stupid that they read fake news and biased reporting as objective fact.

We must improve the education of our citizens—children and adults. This thing we call the “American experiment” cannot continue without work and investment. Dedicated citizenship is the required investment—citizens dedicated to self improvement and education, to investigating the news, learning from diverse opinions, engaging in civil civic debate with those who disagree, divining a course through critical analysis.

The founding generation understood that a free press provided information both accurate and inaccurate, partisan and impartial, inflammatory and calming, divisive and unifying. We see the same thing today today. Still, men like Thomas Jefferson believed free press with all its flaws was essential because the people were the depository of “ultimate powers.” The people held in their hands the “true corrective of abuses of constitutional power.” In 1820, Jefferson wrote, “If we think them [the people] not enlightened enough to exercise their controul with a wholsome discretion, the remedy is, not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education.”

Where Are the Leaders?

~ thefiddler@cox.net

[This entry was first published in the Huffington Post Blog on September 21, 2016.]

I know it’s popular to tag Millennials as the “entitled generation,” but it simply is not true. They are bright, idealistic, intelligent, and engaged. They are a great generation of emerging Americans. My “baby boomer” generation is the entitled one. We’re acting like irrational spoiled children. And worse, we’re letting young Americans down.

Look at the current political mess. Where are the leaders? “We the People” need inspiration, but there is a dearth of leadership. Across the political spectrum—local, state, and national politics—selfishness, denegation, dishonesty, and partisanship are the rule.

We know how leaders should act. We saw it during this summer’s Olympics. Athletes sacrificed to accomplish their goal. They were modest about accomplishments; they supported teammates and often their rivals; they showed us how honored they are (win or lose) to be on the field; and to a person they are patriotic representatives of country. These athletes are heroic. We need to ask ourselves why American political candidates exhibit hate, uncivil speech, partisanship, and self-aggrandizement instead of the sacrifice, mutual support, and honor like our nation’s Olympic athletes.

The American system has always been fragile—always seemed to some to be on the verge of collapse. We should never forget that the American Revolution nearly failed. Americans held on by the skin of their teeth as social, economic, and political turmoil wracked the former colonies. The Constitution had a traumatic birth. The disagreement over national government—loose confederation or centralized strong republic—pitted patriots of the Revolution against each other. The first crisis of the new republic saw President George Washington leading an army of Americans against other Americans, marching into western Pennsylvania to end the Whiskey Rebellion. A few years later Federalists in the John Adams administration suppressed free speech with the Alien and Sedition Acts. Decades later, when South Carolinians took steps to nullify a federal law, Andrew Jackson threatened federal military intervention. And don’t forget the slavery crisis that overshadowed all of the century’s politics. Throughout the 19th century, Europeans constantly predicted the United State’s demise. In 1861, a French publication, Le Monde, declared that “the republican tree” planted 80 years ago was dead, “its spoiled fruits had fallen, and its roots were rotten.”

Our struggles continued. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the fight for workers’ rights erupted in violence again and again. The Great Depression devastated families and communities across the nation. African American demands for equal rights were met first with thousands of lynchings, then with bombings and other bloody attacks. The tumultuous protests at the 1968 Democratic Convention were preceded that year by the assassinations of national leaders Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy. Six years later, President Richard Nixon’s Watergate scandal and resignation shook the foundations of the republic.

Today is no less tumultuous.

But in the past, we had leaders who reminded us that, as Americans, our revolutionary heritage lived within us. They encouraged us to accomplish the task, right the injustice, and create a more perfect union.

Today the rhetoric is altogether different. It is selfish: no trust, no empathy, no collaboration. Under the cover of faux patriotism, we spew vitriol at fellow citizens. We attack without any concern for facts or accuracy. We attack without offering constructive or collaborative solutions for proclaimed maladies. We create division among people to foment destruction. Rumor, innuendo, and flat-out lies are offered and accepted as truth.

We have forgotten that our democratic principles—the foundation of the republic—require the open, honest debate of well-informed and well-intentioned citizens. We have forgotten that maintaining our republic requires the sacrifices of many citizens, not just a few and not only those in uniform. Our freedom is not cheap. We all pay for it with devotion and sacrifice for the betterment of the polity. We are not just individuals; we are citizens and we must work together. Our revolutionary ideals are as remarkable today as they were 250 years ago.

We, the citizens of this nation, are sovereign. The success or failure of the republic rests with us. It is now our time—our responsibility to excise the cancer of partisanship, rancor, and selfishness. From presidents, to members of Congress, to state executives and legislatures, to local government and civic organizations, we must demand better leaders, even offer ourselves as those leaders. We must demand that leaders put our community, our state, and the nation first—before party, ideology, and selfish interest. Citizens will not all agree on the right course. We will debate it vigorously, but we must now hold ourselves to a higher standard than the feeble politicians claiming to be our leaders. We must open our hearts to the realization that each of us—no matter our background, creed, region, or social standing—are American citizens. We the citizens are not each other’s enemies. We each want the best for our children, our community, our state, and the nation. Collaboration and compromise is the only way to achieve it.

I may be too idealistic. But if so, I’m in good company because across our history we have been fortunate to find leaders inspired by American ideals. In 1832, Andrew Jackson was desperately trying to hold the nation together in the midst of a constitutional crisis with South Carolina nullifiers. He ended his December 1st proclamation with this prayer: “May the great Ruler of Nations grant that the signal blessings with which he has favored ours, may not, by the madness of party or personal ambition, be disregarded and lost; and may his wise Providence bring those who have produced this crisis to see the folly, before they feel the misery of civil strife; and inspire a returning veneration for that Union which, if we may dare to penetrate his designs, he has chosen as the only means of attaining the high destinies to which we may reasonably aspire.”

Consequences of Freedom

~ thefiddler@cox.net

 

[This entry was first published in the Huffington Post Blog on June 30, 2016.]

Blog 160629 imageWith Independence Day looming, we hear a lot about “freedom.” The holiday is our national celebration of freedom and the word echoes through our consciousness like no other. But this year, I hope we stop and really consider the meaning of freedom. We need to, because mostly our national conversation echoes with shallow regurgitations of trite expressions. Most of these voices believe in an irresponsible absolute freedom, an unimpeded freedom to do and say and be anything. In fact, that has never been the case. Freedom is not absolute. Freedom is the essence of responsibility. Exercising freedom is risky. Those who exercise freedom often suffer consequences. The real heroes of freedom we celebrate on the 4th of July are responsible risk-taking citizens.

Mary McDowell was a well-qualified New York City teacher in 1917. She had a degree from Swarthmore, had studied at Oxford University, and boasted a master’s degree from Columbia. Remember, this was a time when the vast majority of people did not attend college. Few women held college degrees. McDowell had accomplished much. She was a twelve-year veteran teacher. Her record was exemplary and her evaluations confirmed that she was dedicated and effective. She was also a Quaker and a pacifist, though many testified that she never proselytized about her religion or her pacifist views. Still, as Dana Goldstein describes in her book The Teacher Wars: A History of America’s Most Embattled Profession, McDowell’s decision to exercise the freedom of speech and conscience had significant personal consequences.

With the advent of U.S. involvement in World War I, the school district demanded that every New York City teacher sign a loyalty pledge. That pledge required a declaration that the individual support the military policies of the national government, the president, and Congress, “making the world safe for democracy.” It’s important to notice here that teachers were specifically required to swear loyalty to the president and the Congress. Not even soldiers of the U.S. military were required to do that. Instead, members of the armed forces swore first to protect and defend the Constitution and then to obey the military orders of their superiors.

Mary McDowell could not reconcile the loyalty oath with her religious views and she refused. In an administrative trial by the New York City Department of Education in May 1918, despite a host of support and testimony from the community and colleagues, McDowell lost her job. So did other teachers. The public applauded the move. The New York Times encouraged the Board of Education to “root out all the disloyal or doubtful teachers.” Mary McDowell exercised her freedom of speech and conviction, but it was not without consequences. She is only one small example in American history.

In 1765-66, Americans protested by refusing to pay the stamp tax. Local courts did not meet and thus it was impossible to collect a debt, probate a will, or record a deed of sale. Merchants and ship captains could not register a manifest, so ships sat idle in the harbors. No goods were shipped in or out of the colonies. Colonists exercised freedom—the freedom to ignore a tax—and many suffered the economic consequences.

In antebellum America, thousands of enslaved men and women attempted the risky escape to freedom. Most didn’t succeed. Some never survived the journey. Of those who did, most never again saw their family—spouses, children, parents, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, or cousins. Many spent the rest of their lives one step ahead of the slave-catcher. It was a life without any legal status. Yet, they risked everything for the freedom to provide for themselves and make their own decisions, to be free of slavery’s depravations. Freedom requires sacrifice, and it has consequences.

Every decade of American history has similar examples.

The very opportunity to exercise individual freedom is a precious thing. It is the essence of our American character. It is the legacy of men and women who, in 1776, dreamed of a world based on Enlightenment principles: that every individual—not government, and not just a privileged few—is vested with unalienable rights including “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” The authors of the Declaration understood that the exercise of freedom had consequences. They risked everything. They girded themselves for the work ahead, pledging to each other, “our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”

Americans today are quick to claim freedom, liberty to do whatever we want to do. But when things get tough—when there are consequences—we act like children in the schoolyard, whining and blaming someone else for taking away our toy. We no longer appreciate the responsibility or the sacrifice our freedom requires. If we expect to have freedom, we must dedicate ourselves to the hard work of freedom. This weekend, like the founding generation on that first Independence Day, pledge yourself to the work ahead with the full understanding that we will—we must—sacrifice for freedom.

Business Leaders Need Not Apply

~ thefiddler@cox.net

[This entry was first published in the Huffington Post Blog on June 21, 2016.]

Blog 160622 illusOver and over again, Americans laud “business practice” and call for businessmen and businesswomen to fix our government and public institutions. A local government’s elected board congratulates itself when they hire an administrator with business experience, not local government experience. They assume that “real-world business practice” will solve the locality’s problems. People running for political office tell us that their business experience qualifies them to be the best elected officials. Public institutions—museums and other not-for-profits—hire corporate executives to “straighten out” the institution.

But “business practices,” it turns out, are volatile. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, almost half of business establishments fail within five years. There were more than 29,000 corporate bankruptcy filings in 2015. The American Productivity & Quality Center study demonstrates that nearly half of all new product launches are unsuccessful and that only 45% of those new products are launched on time. That’s what counts for success in the business world.

We don’t tolerate that rate of failure in government. A failure of national defenses is catastrophic. We don’t tolerate a 50% safety rating for our drinking water (witness Flint, Michigan). Nor is that rate acceptable for roads, public safety (police, fire, and rescue), and the other infrastructure we rely on. When the electricity goes out, we demand accountability. We don’t gamble with preservation of our national treasures. And when government fails to pay its creditors, the ensuing economic crisis impacts every citizen. We are outraged if government and public institutions exhibit the 50% success rate of the “for-profit” business world. We expect our public institutions to perform consistently and conservatively.

Most Americans believe that government and public institutions need reform. They need to improve efficiency and accountability. I agree. We cannot do that, however, by simply calling in a few businesspeople. Government and public institutions are not businesses. Government and public institutions are mission-driven—not profit-driven.

Our military forces undertake the sacred mission to “protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Every single member of the force swears allegiance to that mission. The mission of the local water utility is to provide the public with an adequate, clean water supply. The mission of the local government finance director is to insure that government funds are expended appropriately and with adequate oversight controls. The mission of the local museum is to preserve, display, and tell the story of the collections entrusted to its care. Each government and public institution has a public trust that they must maintain above all other considerations. They cannot cut their losses. They cannot shut down the product line. They cannot declare bankruptcy. They cannot fail.

Our school systems are a prime example. The effort to improve education through business metrics and acumen is not a “best practice” success story. A 2006 Harvard Business Review article summed up the challenge: “Business leaders . . . have been extremely generous with money and counsel for urban districts, only to be frustrated by the results. As some corporate executives are beginning to realize, urban school systems are vastly more complex than businesses. . . .” Still we persist. The charter school movement to privatize public education does not improve student education or outcomes. For-profit universities have exceptionally poor student graduation levels and leave young adults with staggering amounts of debt. And high-stakes testing analytics punish educators instead of helping teachers respond to the instructional needs of their students. We’ve lost the mission of public education—to create educated, informed citizens for our republic—in a haze of misapplied business clichés.

So let’s all stop with the trite platitudes. Just because an individual makes a profit in the entrepreneurial world does not mean that he or she can focus the mission of a government or public institution. It does not qualify them to lead the community, the state, or the nation and accomplish an essential mission. The profit/loss equation may increase the return for a corporation’s shareholders, but it will not necessarily accomplish the mission of a government or public institution. Business metrics may say a lot about the delivery of a product or service, but they do not describe the value of a mission.

The broad realization that business leaders do not hold all the answers had better come soon, because reliance on business leaders in government and public institutions is not arresting the alarming deterioration of our public infrastructure and institutions.

Politically Incorrect

~ thefiddler@cox.net

[The following was first published on the Huffington Post Blog on May 24, 2016.]

Remember when people could talk and not worry about offending someone? Remember when American culture wasn’t so obsessed with the meaning of words? When it was okay to describe ethnicities, races, genders, and religions in plain terms? It seems all the rage today. Popular culture prizes plain speech. Tell it like it is! Say what you mean! Don’t hold back! You find “plain speaking” everywhere. It invades politics and everyday conversation. It dominates online news and especially reader’s comments. What’s most interesting is that those who use such speech are buoyed by nostalgia for “the way it used to be,” recalling with pleasure a time not so long ago when America was not “politically correct.”

I don’t remember this previous era of plain speaking. I ought to, I suppose. I am a white male past middle age who grew up in the South. I remember segregated facilities. I was raised with prejudices about people who were not like me. I attended Wednesday evening prayer meetings and church revivals. I remember warnings about the evils of rock-and-roll and hippie culture. I do not claim to have been an especially good child. I learned all the words that young boys learn and I can still gather together a pithy string of obscenities and blaspheme when the mood strikes me.

But I also remember clearly that responsibility was the theme hovering above every lesson. My parents, my grandparents, my teachers, my pastors, and other role models demonstrated for me and expected from me, civility. To be hurtful and defamatory to others was, in my family, irresponsible. I was expected to show respect for others, even those whom I understood to be “different,” with whom I disagreed, and whom I disliked. I remember my mother being upset even if I called someone “stupid.” I was disciplined when I used unseemly language. My mother cast the withering gaze she referred to as “the look” and I was informed, “We do not use that kind of language.” That does not mean I was expected to suppress my opinion of situations or even other people. I was required, however, to express myself civilly and to articulate those opinions without demeaning others. In short, I was keenly aware that I was responsible for my words.

Today we may call it “authenticity” and “plain speaking,” but we have lost any sense responsibility for civil speech. Truthfully, much of our public discourse is just indecent. Referring to any individual in a sexually demeaning way is not “plain speaking.” It is offensive. Denigrating someone’s religion is not proselytizing. It is scurrilous. Using racial slurs does not communicate the speaker’s superior intellect. It is abusive. Advocating violence against others is not strength. It is loathsome.

Of course, this is not the first time in our history that we have celebrated “plain speaking.” We should not forget those past eras. The American people have, in the past, justified the enslavement of African Americans, the destruction of Native American nations, discrimination against Catholic immigrants, the exclusion of Chinese people, internment of Japanese Americans, and the suppression of civil rights. It was all justified by uncivil words.

Nor do I suggest that political correctness is not a concern. The term was first used to describe the way Nazis suppressed the free press in Germany. It was used in the Cold War to describe the Communist Party suppression of free speech in the Soviet Union. Americans, too, have suppressed opposition speech. The first time, perhaps, was when the Federalist Congress passed and John Adams signed the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. And in 1918, President Woodrow Wilson signed a sedition law that made it a crime to speak against the government’s war activities. But today, quite frankly, I do not see a suppression of speech. Americans are perfectly free to spew hateful rhetoric across the full political spectrum, from liberal to conservative.

Free speech is the cornerstone of our republic. Open, frank political discourse is essential to the good governance of our communities and our nation. But free speech is also a responsibility borne by each and every citizen. When “We the People” encourage or even tolerate demeaning, abusive public speech, we destroy the very purpose of free speech. Hateful, defamatory, and abusive language does not help citizens solve problems and address issues. It simply destroys the fabric of decent society that generations of Americans have worked so hard to build for ourselves, our children, and our grandchildren.

Do not turn a blind eye. Do not giggle like the schoolchild who heard a cuss word. Do not blame “the opposition.” If we want a civil discourse, “We the People” must insist on it. We must demonstrate it ourselves. We must demand it from others—especially our leaders. We must ostracize those who are uncivil, or better yet, drown them out with civil speech. If we fail, we doom ourselves to the kind of unbridled factionalism and infighting that may well prove to be our republic’s demise.

Norfolk Town and the Stamp Act Protest

~ thefiddler@cox.net

[The following is an excerpt from my dissertation: William E. White, “Charlatans, Embezzlers, and Murderers: Revolution Come to Virginia, 1765-1776” (PhD diss. The College of William and Mary, 1998).]

 

Captain Jeremiah Morgan of His Majesty’s Sloop of War Hornet was no stranger to Norfolk. He knew the ways and business of the place very well. During his long stay in Virginia waters Morgan rented a house in Norfolk and lived there when the Hornet was in port. He knew personally the town’s leading citizens. On Saint George’s Day, April 23, 1766, for example, Morgan and his officers sponsored a celebration “at the house of Mr. Runsburg.” The company, which included several “other Gentlemen” from the town of Norfolk, closed with twenty-two toasts as the Hornet’s tender fired salutes from its guns. The first glasses observed the prerequisite homage to King, Queen, and Royal family. As salutations continued, toasts included a whole series of more general sentiments. Many attending that night, no doubt, belonged to Norfolk’s “Sons of Liberty” protesting the Stamp Act. The toast to the “true Sons of British Liberty” held very different meanings for Royal officers and the town’s people present that night. They drank a health “To those who dare to be honest at the worst of times” and wished “no scoundrel be in the post of Gentleman.” They yearned for “all bullies” to be “tamed by cool courage” and ended their evening with the cry “Community, Unity, Navigation, and Trade.”[1]

The naval officers and the Norfolk gentlemen shared the same community. Navigation and trade were their livelihoods. These men either profited from trade or protected it. But differing ideas concerning the course of that trade caused problems between Morgan and some Norfolk citizens. Norfolk was not just a haven for “deserters,” it also harbored smugglers. Morgan’s key mission in Virginia waters was to inhibit smuggling. He apparently did his job quite well.[2] Virginians and North Carolinians tracked Morgan’s success along the coast. Once captured, a smuggler’s ship and all its contents became prize of the Hornet. In January 1767, Morgan auctioned one of these prizes in Newburn, North Carolina. The cargo alone (some sixty-seven hogsheads of rum) sold for more than four hundred pounds. The ship itself “went cheap” on the auction block to some enterprising buyer.[3]

Those monitoring Morgan’s exploits described him as a “very assiduous” man. According to one observer he let “nothing escape him.” His diligence “in some measure put a Stop to their Illicit Trade.” Some in Norfolk did not appreciate the captain’s success, and told him so. In the fall and winter of 1765, Morgan received anonymous threats against his life, threats to burn down his rented house while he slept in it.[4]

Morgan, no doubt, treated these threats seriously. In the spring of 1766, he witnessed the citizens of Norfolk in action. A strong Sons of Liberty organization headed the town’s Stamp Act resistance. Norfolk’s members were neither the most prominent nor the least prominent Virginians. The majority were merchants or tradesmen of the city. Their primary interest was flourishing trade and commerce for the city of Norfolk. That interest intertwined with the larger issues of provincial, colonial and imperial politics. When something stood in the way (Virginia resident, Royal Navy, or Parliament) Norfolk residents stepped forward.

In April 1766, the Norfolk Sons of Liberty published their resolves against the Stamp Act. The next month they wrote a congratulatory letter to Colonel Richard Bland on the publication of “An Inquiry into the Rights of the British Colonies.” For his “glorious undertaking” the “Sons of Liberty beg you will accept of their hearty thanks and best wishes.”[5]

The March resolves of the Norfolk Sons of Liberty declared that “whoever is concerned, directly or indirectly, in using, or causing to be used, in any way or manner whatever,” those “detestable papers called the Stamps, shall be deemed, to all intents and purposes, an enemy to his country and by the Sons of Liberty treated accordingly.” The liberty men had full intention of backing up their sanction. Merchants, in particular, took pains to associate themselves. Vendue master Joseph Calvert, for example, identified himself as a “Son of Liberty” in his advertisement of May 1766. The declaration assured the public that he would not conduct his business with stamped paper and probably also insured his business would continue unmolested by the Stamp Act protesters.[6]

Captain Jeremiah Morgan of the Hornet was in Norfolk when the Sons of Liberty met in March 1766. He had been in the harbor town more than two months while the Hornet underwent refitting. Watching the anti-imperial movement grow, Morgan felt certain it involved just the Norfolk hotheads. The resistance movement would not grow enough to even slip south across the Elizabeth River and infect the neighboring town of Portsmouth. “There is not a Man of Portsmouth side the Water I believe that will sign the [anti-Stamp Act] Paper.” Several days later Thursday, April 3, however, the Sons of Liberty proved just how effective and coercive they could be.[7]

William Smith, a Portsmouth, Virginia resident, mastered a Virginia schooner. Several local merchants owned the ship as a joint venture. When one investor, John Gilchrist of Norfolk, requested that Smith come to Norfolk and sign Bills of Loading, he doubtless thought little of it. When Smith stepped ashore in Norfolk on April 3, 1766, Gilchrist, Matthew Phripp, John Phripp, James Campbell, and Captain Fleming seized him immediately. With prisoner in hand, they escorted Smith to the market house. The Sons of Liberty accused Smith of informing against Captain Peter Burn of the snow Vigilant. Royal authorities had charged Burn with smuggling. The justice dispensed by the Sons of Liberty was summary. According to Smith, “tho’ they could find no Evidence against me they bound my hands, and tied me behind a Cart” like a felon led to execution.[8]

City officials did little to interfere with the proceedings. In fact, the Mayor, Maximilian Calvert, encouraged the gathering and joined in throwing stones as the crowd paraded to the wharf. Once at the wharf, they coated Smith with tar and feathers. The mob strapped the poor captain into the dunking stool and pelted him with rotten eggs and stones. Finally, they tired of dunking the man and “Carried me through every Street in the Town.” The parade ended with a return to the wharf. The crowd with their prisoner “came abreast of the Hornet Sloop of War.” As Jeremiah Morgan looked on, they hurled threats and insults at the ship, telling Morgan that if he came on shore they would treat him the same way. With drums beating and “all the principal Gentlemen in Town” looking on, John Lawrance ordered Smith thrown into the water. They bound the captain with a rope around his neck intending to see him drown. George Veale, a local magistrate, stepped in at this point and protested the attempt at murder. The crowd then loosened Smith’s bonds and threw him “headlong over the Wharf,” where a friendly boat took him up before he could drown and took him to sanctuary on board H.M.S. Hornet.[9]

Captain Morgan assisted Smith as much as he could. He took his statement and forwarded it on, with his own observations, to Governor Fauquier. The Governor laid the case before the Council for advice. They ordered the King’s Attorney General to prosecute Norfolk rioters for their “inhuman Treatment of Capt. Smith.” Accordingly, seven men received indictments. Most likely they were the individuals listed in Smith’s account of the event: Maximilian Calvert, James Campbell, Captain Fleming, John Gilchrist, John Lawrence, John Phripp, and Matthew Phripp. Though indicted, no one ever came to trial for tarring and feathering William Smith, despite pressure from the Board of Trade. They deemed the incident “a Scandal to Government, and the . . . Abettors of such Violence ought to be proceeded against with the utmost Severity of the Law.”[10]

Virginia’s government could not proceed against Stamp Act protesters with any “severity,” however. The protest was too widespread and even members of the Governor’s Council expressed sympathy for the protesters. What is more, the local community would not give up those indicted and the Governor did not believe his political strength sufficient to force the issue. In Norfolk, and other American communities, protest against imperial policy (the Stamp Act) combined with local concerns (protection of the smugglers in Norfolk) proved rallying points for the community. The anti-stamp proponents in town flexed their muscles. Sons of Liberty gathered ordinary citizens and used the Stamp Act along with a local offender, Captain Smith, to unify the community. And it is significant that William Smith was from Portsmouth, not Norfolk. By directing action against someone outside the community – not a Norfolk resident – the Sons of Liberty minimized the possibility that neighbors would defend Smith and split the loyalty of the community. When the enemy was external – that is, when the enemy did not divide loyalties within the community – the community could act swiftly and effectively against almost any threat.[11]

 

            [1] Virginia Gazette, ed. Purdie, 9 May 1766, 2; To Jeremiah Morgan from William Aitchison, Norfolk, 30 November 1765, PRO. Adm 1/2116.

            [2] Middleton, Tobacco Coast, 207-213 discusses Chesapeake smuggling.

            [3] See Virginia Gazette, ed. Purdie and Dixon, 1 January 1767, 2 and 19 February 1767, 1, for accounts of Morgan’s prizes and auctions.

            [4] Jeremiah Morgan to Francis Fauquier, 11 September 1767, Fauquier Papers, 3:1500-1502; Virginia Gazette, ed. Purdie and Dixon, 1 January 1767, 2 and 19 February 1767, 1; To Jeremiah Morgan from William Aitchison, Norfolk, November 30, 1765, PRO Adm 1/2116. Aitchison acted as agent for Mr. Steuart who owned the property Morgan rented. Aitchison requested a deposit from Morgan equal to the cost of the house because of threats to destroy the property.

            [5] The Norfolk Sons of Liberty modeled themselves after the example of Boston. The Boston Sons began as the Loyal Nine. Boston’s Loyal Nine were John Avery, Jr., Thomas Crafts, John Smith, Henry Welles, Thomas Chase, Stephen Cleverly, Henry Bass, Benjamin Edes, and George Trott. These middling Boston artisans and shopkeepers were neither conspicuous nor prominent in the Stamp Act opposition. They were, however, the prime instigators of the August 1765 protest in Boston. Edmund S. Morgan and Helen M. Morgan, The Stamp Act Crisis: Prologue to Revolution (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1953), 121-123.

To date I have not located a listing of the Norfolk Sons of Liberty. Their names did not appear with their resolves in the Virginia Gazette. Jeremiah Morgan identified a few of the principal Sons of Liberty in his April 5, 1766, letter to Francis Fauquier. William Smith identified others in his letter to Morgan. Fauquier Papers, 3:1349-1350. They listed several names, but only a few occupations: Mayor Maximilian Calvert, Davis Parson, Paul Loyal, Mr. Bush [Boush?] (clerk of the county), Mr. Holt (lawyer), Anthony Lawson (lawyer), Mr. Parker (merchant), John Gilchrist (merchant), Matthew Phripp, John Phripp, James Campbell, Captain Fleming, and John Lawrence. One other individual, Joseph Calvert, called himself a Son of Liberty. Virginia Gazette, ed. Purdie, 23 May 1766, 3. According to Morgan there were at least thirty Sons at their first meeting in 1766.

Maximilian Calvert and Paul Loyal seem the most prominent and wealthy of the group. They had shared a 400,000 acre land grant on the New River in 1749 with sixteen other petitioners. Peyton Randolph was one of the petitioners. Both Calvert and Loyal served as local magistrates and were Mayors of Norfolk. Executive Journals of the Council of Colonial Virginia, ed. H. R. McIlwaine and Henry Read (Richmond: Virginia State Library, 1966-1978), 6:191 and 197. The Calverts were a merchant and seafaring family. His brother Cornelius Calvert, who also shared in the 1749 land grant, owned and captained a sloop based out of Norfolk. Executive Journals, 6:231, 232 and 233. Another brother, Joseph Calvert, was an insurance broker who also conducted public auctions, private auctions and acted as an agent for lotteries. Virginia Gazette, ed. Purdie, 2 May 1766, 2 and 23 May 1766, 3. James Campbell was a merchant in partnership with Robert Tucker, John Hunter, William Aitchison, James Parker and Archibald Campbell. Virginia Gazette, ed. Purdie and Dixon, 17 May 1767, 3. John Lawrence was partners with William Bolden in the Bolden, Lawrence & Company merchant firm of Norfolk. Virginia Gazette, ed. Purdie, 11 April 1766, 3; 16 May 1766, 3; 13 June 1766, 3; Virginia Gazette, ed. Purdie and Dixon, 27 June 1766, 2.

The proceedings of the Norfolk Sons of Liberty were published in Virginia Gazette, ed. Purdie, 4 April 1766, 3 and 30 May 1766, 3.

            [6] Virginia Gazette, ed. Purdie, 4 April 1766, 3; and 23 May 1766, 3.

            [7] Jeremiah Morgan to Francis Fauquier, 5 April 1766, Fauquier Papers, 3:1349-1350.

            [8] William Smith to Jeremiah Morgan, 3 April 1766, Fauquier Papers, 3:1351-1352.

Smith’s seizure by the same men who invested in his ship seems curious and opens the possibility that Gilchrist, the Phripps, Campbell and Fleming were conspirators in a smuggling operation. If Smith had turned in one smuggler, he would turn in others. These investors apparently felt the need to silence Smith. There must have been some advantage to damaging their investment in Smith’s ship. It is interesting to speculate that the advantage was the protection of a larger more profitable smuggling operation.

Several historians have described the Norfolk Stamp Act affair including: Thomas M. Costa, “Economic Development and Political Authority: Norfolk, Virginia, Merchant Magistrates, 1736-1800” (Ph.D. diss., College of William and Mary, 1991), 127-134; Mary Ferrari, “Artisans of the South: A Comparative Study of Norfolk, Charleston and Alexandria, 1763-1780” (Ph.D. diss, College of William and Mary, 1992); and Thomas J. Wertenbaker, Norfolk: Historic Southern Port (Durham: Duke University Press, 1931), 52-54.

            [9] Ibid.

Magistrate George Veal is the same Veal attacked two years later in the Virginia Gazette by Timothy Trimsharp’s satire on the Portsmouth Church scandal.

            [10] Francis Fauquier to the Board of Trade, 8 October 1766 and The Board of Trade to Francis Fauquier, 22 July 1766, Fauquier Papers 3:1375 and 1388. I have not been able to locate the actual indictment.

            [11] Maier, From Resistance to Revolution, 51-112 and Morgan, Stamp Act, 125-186 analyze American resistance and violence protesting the Stamp Act.