"What do we mean by patriotism in the context of our times? ... A patriotism that puts country ahead of self; a patriotism which is not short, frenzied outbursts of emotion, but the tranquil and steady dedication of a lifetime. The dedication of a lifetime: These are words that are easy to utter, but this is a mighty assignment. For it is often easier to fight for principles than to live up to them."
Before we share who said it, we may ask if the above quote embraces our current experience, or "the context of our times." Some say not, referring to the simple phrase of putting country ahead of self. Self at the highest levels of leadership or position, as well as a focus of our own lives, seems today to be existentially corrosive: gnawing at our institutions and their social and political structure and norms. And debilitating and rendering impotent relationships that buttress our moral underpinnings.
The quote? Adlai E. Stevenson said it in August 1952 during his campaign for the presidency. The other candidate that year, and again in 1956 when the matchup was repeated, was Dwight D. Eisenhower. No less a paragon of American virtue, institutional civility, and moral and military strength. I need not tell you who won. Twice.
Will we be OK? I believe we will.
The current state of affairs, and the situation in which we find ourselves, was expressed recently by Richard Rohr. (Rohr is a Roman Catholic priest and Franciscan friar who is the founder and academic dean of the Center for Action and Contemplation in Albuquerque, N.M. I read a lot of Rohr.) Rohr said, "I see our species' collective shadow on full display today in the United States, exposing intolerance and bigotry at deep levels. Under the guise of avoiding political correctness," Rohr believes, "truth-telling has been twisted into fear-mongering and scapegoating."
If so, how are we ultimately going to be OK? How will we come out on the other side of the current "context of our times," and be better for it?
Well, seems to me the stoking of our fears--of immigrants, lawlessness, lack of fairness and objectivity in our institutions, doubting the mutual benefits of our alliances--could turn from gaslighting to spotlighting. And with this illumination, the destructive nature of those who voice and promote opinions that outwardly expose their prejudices (and our hidden ones) will flip the focus from self to the greater good. In fact, our own self-preserving egos will demand it. A paradox, I suppose.
Faith is trusting the truth. Wherever you can find it. But in order to find the truth, you have to look for it; to seek it, and to uncover it when blanketed by the lies of convenience, manipulation or omission. It takes curiosity.
What may be revealed in the search is what Arkansas' U.S. Sen. J. William Fulbright called "the two Americas." Writing in his well-regarded 1966 book, The Arrogance of Power, Fulbright said, "There are two Americas. One is the America of Lincoln and Adlai Stevenson; the other is the America of Teddy Roosevelt and the modern superpatriots. One is generous and humane, the other narrowly egotistical; one is self-critical, the other self-righteous; one is sensible, the other romantic, one is good-humored, the other solemn; one is inquiring, the other pontificating; one is moderate, the other filled with passionate intensity; one is judicious and the other arrogant in the use of great power."
We can at once, he said, be full of magnanimity and farsightedness, while at the same time demonstrate pettiness and spite.
Which America will out? I believe the former. For Americans, Arkansans, neighbors, want to be seen as giving, unselfish, fair, curious and cheerful. And would so be self-described.
It should follow, then, when the opposite is exposed, "the better angels of our nature," the desire, as Lincoln believed, for a collective sense of belonging, will come to the fore.
------------v------------
Craig Douglass is a Little Rock-based communications consultant.
Editorial on 07/23/2018