13 August 2006

An Old E-Mail To A Foreign Friend

[A Canadian friend once asked about Americans' penchant for describing ourselves as a city on a hill. My response should also explain why Wiinthrop's "Model of Christian Charity" is one of our founding documents.]

The "city on a hill" metaphor comes ultimately from Matthew 5:13-16, in which Jesus says:
You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled by men. You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.
The metaphor was first applied to America by John Wintrop in 1630 aboard the Arbella as the Puritans made their stormy crossing.

Now the onely way to avoyde this shipwracke and to provide for our posterity is to followe the Counsell of Micah, to doe Justly, to love mercy, to walke humbly with our God, for this end, wee must be knitt together in this worke as one man, wee must entertaine each other in brotherly Affeccion, wee must be willing to abridge our selves of our superfluities, for the supply of others necessities, wee must uphold a familiar Commerce together in all meekenes, gentlenes, patience and liberallity, wee must delight in eache other, make others Condicions our owne rejoyce together, mourne together, labour, and suffer together, allwayes haveing before our eyes our Commission and Community in the worke, our Community as members of the same body, soe shall wee keepe the unitie of the spirit in the bond of peace, the Lord will be our God and delight to dwell among us, as his owne people and will commaund a blessing upon us in all our wayes, soe that wee shall see much more of his wisdome power goodnes and truthe then formerly wee have beene acquainted with, wee shall finde that the God of Israell is among us, when tenn of us shall be able to resist a thousand of our enemies, when hee shall make us a prayse and glory, that men shall say of succeeding plantacions: the lord make it like that of New England: for wee must Consider that wee shall be as a Citty upon a Hill, the eies of all people are uppon us; soe that if wee shall deale falsely with our god in this worke wee have undertaken and soe cause him to withdrawe his present help from us, wee shall be made a story and a byword through the world, wee shall open the mouthes of enemies to speake evill of the wayes of god and all professours for Gods sake; wee shall shame the faces of many of gods worthy servants, and cause theire prayers to be turned into Cursses upon us till wee be consumed out of the good land whether wee are going: And to shutt upp this discourse with that exhortacion of Moses that faithfull servant of the Lord in his last farewell to Israell Deut. 30. Beloved there is now sett before us life, and good, deathe and evill in that wee are Commaunded this day to love the Lord our God, and to love one another to walke in his wayes and to keepe his Commaundements and his Ordinance, and his lawes, and the Articles of our Covenant with him that wee may live and be multiplyed, and that the Lord our God may blesse us in the land whether wee goe to possesse it: But if our heartes shall turne away soe that wee will not obey, but shall be seduced and worshipp other Gods our pleasures, and proffitts, and serve them, it is propounded unto us this day, wee shall surely perishe out of the good Land whether wee passe over this vast Sea to possesse it;

Therefore lett us choose life,
that wee, and our Seede,
may live; by obeyeing his
voyce, and cleaveing to him,
for hee is our life, and
our prosperity.

So, the metaphor is double edged (to mix metaphors). We are a light unto the nations, so that by our example we can lead the rest of the world. But, equally, we cannot hide. Whenever we fail to live up to our own ideals, the rest of the world will notice. Our failure will also be chalked up as the failure of our various ideologies: see, faith in God doesn't work; see, markets don't work; free trade doesn't work; democracy doesn't work, etc.

Winthrop's vision probably was of one lit city, surrounded by darkness. After all, the Puritans were leaving England and Europe because they had not been able to live according to God's law as they understood it. Their intent was to establish the first virtuous City. My vision is more as you describe it: a series of cities, more or less lit, on hills and valleys as their individual circumstances would allow. But I think its also fair to say that the US bears a greater burden of the world's focus of hope and envy than the other cities. So, yes, we do want to "treat, trade and make friendships" with the other cities, and not even all that guardedly. Nonetheless, our responsibility for the health of these other cities is bounded by our own self-interest. "With Malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the world we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds."

Your second point [why Democrats kowtow to foreigners and Republicans scorn them] is very interesting and not something I've thought a great deal about. My sense has always been that we're pretty insecure about our standing in other countries -- a clear implication of the "Citty upon a Hill" metaphor, by the way -- and jump on even the weakest support. This is, in part, why our reaction to the French and, sad to say, Canadian positions on Iraq look like an overreaction. We're very sensitive to what we see as betrayal and, frankly, scared that "wee shall open the mouthes of enemies to speake evill of the wayes of god and all professours for Gods sake; wee shall shame the faces of many of gods worthy servants, and cause theire prayers to be turned into Cursses upon us till wee be consumed out of the good land whether wee are going." In a sense, we're always worried that any failure will, in the eyes of the nations, call the whole enterprise into question. (This probably applies only to Republicans and conservatives.)

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

"Why do Republicans scorn foreigners..."
While I'm not a Republican, (or, more precisely, no longer GOP), I've scorned my share of foreign peoples and nations.

In my case, it has to do with two factors: Culture and foreigners' foreign policy.
I think that human societies ought to have several goals. They ought to provide security to their members, in all aspects - a military defense, if necessary; a civil police force and justice system; a functioning economy; and medical care.
They should provide as much individual freedom as is possible for their members.
They should also be forward-looking, and not use up all available resources today, including a clean environment, leaving nothing for the future.

Now, many of those goals are somewhat opposed, so there's a tension in most societies about how to go about meeting those goals, and which to emphasize.
There are many successful solutions to the problem, and deciding which is "the best" is fairly subjective.
However, what's not subjective is that there are many, many failed societies and nations, ones that meet only a few or even none of those goals. Since it's not like they don't have plenty of examples of which kinds of societies work, and which fail, I hold those failed groups fully accountable for their lack of success, and feel that, at some level, they're making a choice to be less-than-the-best.

For instance, the people of France, while quite "successful" now, are also currently and clearly choosing to use tomorrow's seed for today's dinner. That's a foolish choice, one that earns them my scorn.

While France is a good example, along with Germany, of societies that are refusing to change to meet tomorrow's challenge, at least they are currently fairly pleasant places. There are another fifty or so places that are both currently lousy places to live, if not downright hell-holes, and many of them are getting worse.
To the extent that such is the fault of their populations, and in some cases it isn't, I hold them in contempt.

Secondly, I scorn foreign nations and organizations that shrink from working to make the world a better place, or which are actively making it a worse place, that also freely criticize those nations, societies, organizations, or peoples which are working for a better world. Stay on the sidelines if you like, but if so, shut up.
Those that don't lead or follow, but also refuse to get out of the way, earn my scorn.

Anonymous said...

Can the American dream survive without a constant stream of fresh blood to take up the torch?

I would argue "yes", but that's moot. There is going to be a constant flood of fresh blood, for at least the next few decades, and at least a constant trickle after that, for the rest of the 21st century.

America remains the world's legal and illegal emigrants' destination of choice, and an American labor shortage through at least '40 will assure them a welcome, however grudgingly.
It's quite possible that technological advances over the next twenty years will allow the U.S. Congress to actually close the borders of America to most illegal immigrants, should they choose, but even if so, I expect that several hundred thousand people a year will still be allowed to legally immigrate to America.

As with religion today, does contempt for it necessarily increase with material success in life?

Yes. Humans tend to value things in direct correlation with the amount of effort needed to secure them. In America at least, they also tend to be fairly or even totally ignorant of what those things cost their ancestors, both for themselves and their descendants.
When the livin' is easy, people tend to think that it's always been easy, and always will be.
Just like the masses came to believe, (according to polls), that it's natural for the markets of Wall Street to climb by 30% a year, and to now believe that it's "conservative" to estimate that the value of their homes will increase by 10% annually.

Is it easier for a rich man to pass through the eye of a needle than to be a proud American?

The average American is proud. It's just that many Americans who are opposed to their own society feel a need to blather on about it.
Or, more charitably, content people don't feel much need to say so, and people who are discontent speak up, to try to change the situation.

David said...

Michael: Current immigration law allows only about 1 million people in each year, of which only about 150,000 are new immigrants coming over to take up jobs. (The rest are family members of citizens, family members of legal permanent residents, refugees, etc.) That number seems ludicrously small.

Oroborous said...

I agree, but I also think that it's a large enough number to qualify as "fresh blood".

One million a year means that cumulatively, over decades, no less than 5% of the population is going to be first-gen immigrants, and an even greater number are going to be second-gen.

And, as I wrote, it'll be a few decades yet before we can effectively seal the borders, so from a "fresh blood to keep the American dream alive" viewpoint, the official quotas are irrelevant until then.

From a "rational immigration policy" stance, yes, of course America's immigration policy is stark raving mad.
But there's currently no political support for a smart, wise, policy. Even if Bush's "guest worker & earned citizenship" plan were to become law, that would still be only a small step towards the ideal.

Oroborous said...

America doesn't have to stop accepting the downtrodden. It's not "either/or", it can be "and".

Those with no education or skills, but with a willingness to make the journey, bring with them an optimism and can-do attitude that is well-aligned with American culture.
However, there's no reason for 60% or more of immigrants to fall into that category.

Further, the current legal immigration policy pays only lip service to Emma Lazarus's words, so it's the present stupid, foolish, situation that can't be squared. Or at least, not officially; unofficially, I guess that we're letting in those poor and huddled masses, yearning to make a lot of money...