A Dream

What is the American Dream?

I know we toss the term around quite a bit, as if we all know what each other is talking about, but what is it?  Can you verbalize what it really means?

I used to think it had something to do with home-ownership, a somewhat common, albeit narrow, view of our common Dream.  Various researchers over the years have surveyed Americans in an attempt to provide a common definition of the American Dream, and have come up with various concepts, ranging from dreams of abundance to the dream of home-ownership (that I once shared).  Incidentally, this latter dream is come by honestly; in 1774, the Royal Governor of Virginia, Britain's representative in the colony at the time, wrote somewhat sarcastically that Americans were uniquely infatuated with the idea of land-ownership, and even went so far as to say that even if an American had attained Paradise, he would move on if he heard of a better place farther West.

But I've come to realize that land ownership is merely one manifestation of the achievement of our Dream.  It's not the Dream itself; it's a representation of, in one small way, having achieved the Dream.  The Dream is really something more fundamental than merely a quest to own land (a noble quest, incidentally, and rooted in our Constitution; in nations where there exists a more rigid and structured social order, it's often nearly impossible--and sometimes even illegal--for "average" citizens to own land; land ownership is reserved for nobility).

The other day, on my way into the office, I stopped at the gas station, and as I waited at the counter to pay for my fuel, I overheard the owner, a kind middle-aged man with a vague accent, talking with his daughter about her college experience.  I asked her where she went to school (Berkeley--she just graduated) and what she studied (Economics) and if she was done (no; she's going back to Berkeley for an MBA).  I was impressed--and told her as much, to the obvious delight of her proud father.

Her father made a comment about his college experience, so I asked him where he'd studied; Berkeley as well.  Somehow, my quick fuel stop turned into a 15 minute chat, and I learned much about this man who, until that morning, was merely the guy who ran my favorite gas station.

He'd emigrated, with his family, to the U.S. as a teenager, and worked hard (at the perpetual urging of his parents) to go to college.  He landed at Berkeley, graduated, married, and some years later owned (among other things, I suspect) a gas station, convenience store, and a small chain-restaurant franchise--and had an obviously intelligent daughter also studying business at Berkeley.

But somewhere in the middle of the conversation, my new friend showed me exactly what the American Dream means to someone born and raised in a place where such a Dream is not allowed.

"So many people I meet," he told me, "are just looking for the government to help them with this or with that--to give them a job or food or money.  That's not why I came to America.  I came here because I wanted a chance to make something of myself and my family."

I realized that most people who immigrated to our great country did not come with the goal of tapping into our great unemployment programs, or our medicare system, or our social security plans.  In fact, my friend, the gas station owner, was very clear: he'd be insulted if you tried to offer to "help" him through one of these government programs.

For him, the American Dream was about him, and what he could achieve.  It was merely him finding a place where, by definition, he started on equal ground with everyone else; he asked for nothing more than that, and wouldn't accept anything more than that if offered.

It's, perhaps, a subtle distinction, but I don't think our friend, the gas station owner, wants a nation that "compensates" for the things he wasn't born with, or the opportunities he "missed' because he wasn't born into the right family.  In fact, for him, it's a matter of personal pride that he has achieved what he has achieved without any programs to compensate for his relative disadvantage.  All he asked for--and what we gave him--was the same opportunity as anyone else.

I almost cried--literally--as, near the end of our conversation he, with a fierce look on his face, told me, "You know what?  This country is the greatest place on Earth.  This is the land of opportunity; it gave me the opportunity to do everything I've ever dreamed of, and I wouldn't trade it for anything.  I love America."

It's been a long time since I've heard anyone so passionately in love with our country.  And you know, as I listened to him talk about his fierce loyalty to America, it occurred to me that I've met numerous people who interpreted the American Dream as meaning they "deserved" certain things--like a certain level of income, or guaranteed income at retirement, or paid-for healthcare, or income regardless whether they were working.  And none of those who I've known who've seen these things, these programs, as central to the American Dream--none of them have ever told me how much they love America; I've never heard a single one of them tell me passionately how great our country is.

There's a frightening trend in Washington today, and it's not just a Republican or just a Democrat thing.  Virtually every politician running for office somehow weaves into their platform a theme that outlines what they are going to do for us.  It's as if, in order for a politician to get elected, they have to demonstrate that they can give us more, get more for us, expand programs to include more people.

And as a supporting theme, our would-be representatives tell us how they are going to eliminate the unfairness that's keeping us from receiving those things that they want to do for us.  They're going to rectify the fact that wealthy people don't "pay their fair share" in taxes.  Or, as President Obama proposed recently, they are going to pass laws allowing job applicants who aren't hired to sue their would-be employers for discrimination if they believe they weren't hired because they've been unemployed for an extended period.

But there's something wrong with this--and it's not simply whether you believe the wealthy should be taxed more or less, or whether job-seekers should be allowed to sue for discrimination if they aren't hired.  It's our increasing tendency, as Americans (or at least, as a group of politicians who purport to represent Americans) to point to others as the reason we, individually or collectively, haven't achieved prosperity.  It's our collective tendency to depend on our representatives in Washington to "do more" for us to enable us to achieve prosperity.

But that's not our Dream.  Our dream is more noble than that; it's about opportunity unencumbered by the weight of social ceilings or by legal barriers constructed for the purpose of excluding some to the benefit of others.

It is, as historian James Truslow Adams wrote:

"a dream of being able to grow to fullest development as man and woman, unhampered by the barriers which had slowly been erected in the older civilizations, unrepressed by social orders which had developed for the benefit of classes rather than for the simple human being of any and every class."

Why do we, as a nation, insist of cultivating a dependent citizenry?  A nation as great as ours should have, by now, weaned ourselves of our dependency on our government for our income, food, healthcare, transportation and retirement.  Yet it seems as though we've done the opposite; it's as though our representatives in Washington count it a mark of distinction that we have increasingly created a dependent class through our ever-expanding suite of social welfare programs.  A nation as great as ours should birth noble people, driven to achieve personal success despite all obstacles, and as a gift from no one.  Our increasing reliance on our government to provide for us is not a mark of distinction.  It is not great--and gives no one cause to fall in love with our country.

There is little noble in receiving a grant to prosperity; and prosperity granted yields no satisfaction for the recipient.  My Dream, the true American Dream, I think, is of an America that offers me nothing but an opportunity.  I ask for no guarantees and no backup plans.  I simply ask for a right to pursue prosperity, and for the right to call that prosperity mine--and only mine--if I achieve it.

What is your Dream?

Revolution?

Unless you've been hiding under a rock (or you can't seem to escape the vacuous pull of the Facebook homepage...sheesh) for the past few days, you know about the various Tea Parties that cropped up all over the U.S. on Wednesday. For those who haven't heard, I trust you recall the original Tea Party (in Boston...a few years ago...when Sam Adams and his rabble rousing buddies drunk on the idea of Liberty--and just a little too much of his soon-to-be-trademark ale--unloaded a whole bunch of tea into Boston Harbor in protest against mother England's unfair and burdonsome tax on the stuff). Well, the Wednesday (tax day, not coincidentally) events were in protest of the progressively oppressive tax burden on U.S. citizens, or of the corporate bailouts that Obama and his merry band of aspiring investment bankers keep pumping out (depends on who you ask).

At any rate, basically U.S. taxpayers are fed up--either with the taxes they're being forced to pay, or with the way the money's being used. And in many cases, both.

The Tea Parties were remarkably well-attended (I was travelling, or I would have attended); I think it scared some folks. Including this guy at a site called Mother Jones (which, after a cursory read, seems to provide an extremely one-sided perspective of politics and policy in the U.S.).

But this guy, Ridgeway, wrote a blog post called, "Conservatives Branding Themselves 'Right-Wing Extremists'". It's a long, rambly post, most of which is utter nonsense (which is OK; everyone has a right to be wrong). But his final sentence just irked me. He said:

Do the Tea Party attendees really want to paint themselves with the same brush as guys like this [neo-nazis], just in order to get some victim cred?

First, what self-respecting writer would ever use the phrase, "just in order to"? I can see, "just to get some victim cred," or "in order to get some victim cred," but his language is just appalling.

That's not really what got me though. He's trying valiantly to liken Tea Party participants to neo-nazis! What?!? I missed something somewhere. I didn't see the news stories where Tea Party participants were yelling hate-filled racial epithets, burning ethnic effigies, or taking baseball bats to the legs of their opponents. Did you? How in the name of all that is rational can you even begin to compare the Tea Party protesters with neo-nazis?

I know, I know: he's TRYING to make the point that CONSERVATIVES are painting THEMSELVES in that light, but that's just utter balderdash. Maybe SOME conservatives are trying to capitalize on the success of the parties, but the truth of the matter is, this wasn't really a conservative movement--any more than the original Tea Party was a conservative movement. Both were about Liberty--plain and simple. The overwhelming message is not that "we are victims." It's, "you, our elected representatives--from BOTH parties--have done a deplorable job in carrying out your elective responsibilities. We, therefore, put you on notice: change things, or we will."

You tell me: does that sound like the talk of a victim? I think not. Rather, it's the sound of a patriot! A true American, stepping forward and standing up for that Liberty and Freedom that our founding fathers, with incredible foresight, established in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

On the upside though, when status-quo bloggers start writing nonsense like this, it means they're scared.

It's working folks! Feels like revolution to me!

Freedom & Responsibility

Viktor E. Frankl, an Austrian holocaust survivor, once said: "I recommend that the Statue of Liberty be supplemented by a Statue of Responsibility on the west coast." I've come to realize that with much freedom comes much responsibility. An environment in which one exists without equal parts of the other is not a wholesome environment, and is destined for failure.

Consider the stereotypical teenage rich girl whose parents lavish upon her every luxury. She has it all, wants for nothing, yet works for none of it. You know one of them, I'm sure (and maybe one of them was your sister growing up; not mine--because my sister reads this blog). They are generally wasteful, ungrateful and disrespectful. Responsibility doesn't enter into their vocabulary (remember Paris Hilton's DUI convinction--while driving her 3/4 million dollar Mercedes SLR McLaren--and subsequent citation for driving without a license?).

We see an excellent example of this in post-Katrina New Orleans. Thousands of homeowners who'd been unable to secure flood insurance on their property (with good reason; what insurance company would choose to insure a property situated on the coast, but below sea level?), were suddenly faces with demolished homes, and no means to rebuild. They chose to exercise their freedom--their right to own property--and purchased a home with no protection from what almost certain to be impending disaster. Yet, in steps the government, and absolves them of all responsibility. They've provided funding atop funding in the form of program after ineffective program to rebuild the homes of poor New Orleans homeowners. And what do we end up with? A bunch of rebuilt, un-insurable homes, in an area destined for disaster.

Innefficient by all accounts. Why? Because weve allowed freedom, but we've not required those with the freedom to take responsibility for how they exercise that freedom. We've allowed--in some cases even asked--the government to step in and be our insurance, often to protect us from our own stupidity. And in doing so, we have enabled further future stupid, and overwhelmingly irrational decisions--all of which detract from the overall value created in our economy.

Freedom without responsibility simply will not work.

Neither, though, will resposibility without freedom. Consider an environment in which you and are I forced to pay taxes, yet have no meaningful (and I mean meaningful) input into how those taxes are used. We bear the responsibility in that we pay, but we have no freedom (in that we have no say into the use of the funds).

Consider, then, the political climate today. It's widely acknowledged that we are in the midst of a severe economic decline. For all intents and purposes, we're in a recession. Some would indicate it has all the makings of a depression. We look around and see examples of individuals and businesses taking their personal freedoms to the extremes. Foreclosures due to borrowers buying beyond their means are rampant. Big businesses who lost sight of efficiency are in dire straights, and begging for help. Banks across the nation are broke--some literally going out of business.

Look across every front of this crisis, and a familiar face keeps popping up: personal freedoms used foolishly. In every case we can see someone who took advantage of their freedom without adequately weighing the cost in terms of their responsibilities. And when circumstances align, and the bottom drops out of so many different things at once, and responsibility rears it's ugly head calling for its due, what is our collective response?

In part, it's been an $800 billion bailout of big business and another nearly $800 billion in "economic stimulus" spending--including a great deal of money to help people who are losing their homes keep them.

And I read today that something like 60 percent of Americans favor this stimulus plan. It's proof positive that we Americans want all the freedom that comes with being American, but don't want to bear the responsibility that great freedom brings.

This, dear readers, is a dangerous place. The moment we ask to relinquish any measure of our great responsibility is the moment we are forced to hand over some of that precious freedom. It's appalling to me how short-sighted we Americans can be. Is our freedom really that valueless?

I, for one, am not content to relinquish any of my freedom. If that means that I'll have to bear the responsibility for each and every one of my decisions, so be it. Freedom is that precious, that important, and I'm ashamed that America is choosing time and again, the meager insurance that our pathetic government offers over the freedom that our forefathers envisioned as our birthright.

Yet we remain, as always, apathetic, sitting like the proverbial frog in the water as they ever so slowly turn up the heat.

It's time, I say, to leap. I leave you with this:

"...whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."

-The United States Declaration of Independence