Tuesday night, while political junkies throughout
America were preparing for one address, I was talking to my young niece about
another. Delivered 154 years ago, its
writer didn’t think much of his own craftsmanship in penning the speech. His mind was focused elsewhere, on the men
who inspired him to write. As I
explained to my niece, a fourth grader from Zionsville, Indiana, some of those
men fathered kids they would never get to know.
Duty required them to leave their families and head off to war, a conflict
of cousin versus cousin, classmate versus classmate, American versus American. One summer day, on a Southern Pennsylvania
field, these men fell by the thousands, the victim of rifles, cannon balls or
some other instrument of death. “Imagine
being one of their young children,” I explained to my niece. “You’ll never remember your daddy, but you’ll
sure come to honor him.” After all,
these men have been immortalized through a 154 year-old address that still
moves folks like me to tears.
I read the
entire speech that evening to my niece, and the final paragraph I read twice.
“But, in a
larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow
-- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have
consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will
little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what
they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the
unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It
is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us --
that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which
they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that
these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall
have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the
people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”
These men, I
explained, gave their lives both for people they knew and for people they’d
never know – folks like us who are alive in the year 2018. They gave their lives so that the United
States could exist forever as a bastion of freedom and democracy. These men died so my niece and I can live in
an America we can both be proud of. A
place where statesmen put the interests of “the people” first and
foremost. Where partisan bickering takes
a backseat whenever the Union’s security or fundamental justice is
threatened. Where patriots come
together, despite their ideological differences, and tackle whatever big projects
the nation requires. Where the voters choose their leaders, but the leaders don’t
get to choose their voters.
How, I
wondered, would the fallen of Gettysburg think about the state of our union
right now? A big speech was delivered Tuesday
night, but nobody is talking about it.
Instead, we’re embroiled in what is yet another round of partisan
squabbling, probably the 15th or 20th such round we’ve
witnessed since the beginning of the Trump Presidency. To be sure, this problem didn’t start in
2016 – ever since the rise of Talk Radio in the late 80s, our country has been on
the verge of a second Civil War. What we’re
seeing now, though, is different. The battles
are heating up. No, we don’t fight with
bullets or swords or even leave a body count.
Nor, however, can we take seriously mottos like “E Pluribus Unum” – out of
many, one. This no longer feels like one
country. It feels like a battlefield.
In the new
American landscape, our leaders use words and documents to metaphorically spit
in each other’s faces. This allows each
group to fight on for another day, but it also leaves a field of spit for “we
the people” to deal with. Instead of
representing the Blue and the Gray, our leaders represent the Blue and the
Red. They huddle in separate caucuses
like football players, and then, when they are interact with each other, they
fight like combatants on the gridiron – except that it always seems to be “we
the people” who are getting the concussions.
Last year was especially
noteworthy for this new Civil War. Didn’t
it seem like the Redcoats were saying that the Bluecoats didn’t matter
anymore? That the war was over – the Redcoats
won – and it was the Bluecoats’ job to step aside and let the victors decide
alone who gets to have money, who gets to have health care, and who gets to
decide what the Constitution means? What
was remarkable about last year was that there wasn’t even a token effort
devoted to compromising between the two armies – the Redcoats simply told the
Bluecoats to sit in the back of the bus and shut up because Blue means “minority”
and Red means “majority” and that’s all there is to say. To make matters even more comical, the
Redcoats used this strong-armed strategy despite the fact that more people
voted for the Bluecoats for President and for Senator in the past
election. These are the kinds of things
that happen in the new American Civil War.
Honestly, as
Civil Wars go, I prefer this one. I
abhor violence. Now, thank God, we have
figured out a way to threaten our union without killing one another. That’s surely progress over the situation in
the early 1860s. But I’m not exactly
pleased by the situation. I still remember an America where, at least at
times, we all seemed to be paddling in the same direction. An America where Purple dominated Red and
Blue. Where Walter Cronkite reported,
and the whole nation listened. I still
remember an America that would have done the fallen of Gettysburg proud.
Now? We have an America where a President sets out
to begin a speech called the “State of the Union” and nobody is even willing to
hear it because we already think we know all we care to understand about the
State of Union.
When you’re
watching a mammoth tug of war, there is no union. There are just two groups of
guys – one who will fall face-first in the mud and another who will fall
butt-first on the ground. These are not
wars anyone wins.
No comments:
Post a Comment