The Virtue of Nationalism by Yoram Hazony

Basic Books, New York, 2018

The term Nationalism, as a descriptor of political philosophy, cultural identity, and governance methodology has been undergoing a reexamination in recent years. This evaluation is resulting in political lines being starkly drawn around how civil and partisan engagement is to be exercised among the citizens of 21st century sovereign states. The significant emergence of populist right-wing movements in a number of western countries during the 2010s is forcing us to review the advantages and disadvantages wrought upon societies and economies concerning the manner in which globalization’s interactions and integrations have been playing out over the past thirty or forty years. By investigating the way in which global exchange practices are developing in this increasingly hyper-connected world we can better determine whether nationalism, a profoundly universal social innovation, which emerged from the Enlightenment three centuries ago, continues to be a beneficial and relevant social organizing principle going forward.

Recent reading and podcast listening of mine in the areas of politics, economics, and philosophy has brought to my attention the latest work from Yoram Hazony, an Israeli political philosopher, entitled The Virtue of Nationalism. The impression initially given to me from the above sources is that this work is popular among conservative intellectuals as a serious promotion of nationalism’s positive effects and praiseworthy underpinnings going well beyond mere political theater and hyperbole to instead a revealing and scholarly justification of the concept’s current embrace among many on the political right.

Nationalism used to have a positive connotation with me, but since the Trump phenomenon its reputation now seems personally tarnished by its associations with xenophobia, jingoism, racism, and extremism. All told, this seemed like a good time to try understanding my political opposition more by peering into an erudite attempt to explain nationalism’s measure, worth, and modern relevance.

I went into this reading with a view of nationalism shaped largely by two influences, one my study of conventional American history, which by and large speaks of American nationalism as a blessed and hard fought gift to the world, created out of righteous revolution and gallantly sustained throughout numerous external threats and invasions. Secondly, beyond the American experience, I’ve observed nationalism as the glue that has held the world’s people together in an appropriate order of self-governing societies bound by common histories, languages, cultural traits, and religions. My key observations are that nationalism encourages pride, patriotism, and a rallying of collective spirit, leaving each citizen feeling as if they belong to something grand and historic. The national state model allows people to join in a synergistic manner to establish and protect their independent means of continuing prosperity and cultural longevity while safeguarding themselves against external threats. If one nation can’t defend its interests alone, then it joins in alliances with others whom they share concerns. I have always thought this arrangement was a marked improvement over the primitive feudalism of previous eras with its near constant bloodshed and tyrannical rule. Overall, nationalism has felt natural and fitting — until this time.

Nationalism has become a political hot potato and as with many topics of late with which there should not be widespread disagreement, such as environmental protection, universal access to healthcare, and shared prosperity, nationalism is now the cause célèbre, pitting those on the right, who seek a return to an allegedly diminished sovereignty, with liberals who view cooperative global connectivity among peoples as inevitable and positive.

For many, nationalism has revealed a dark side. Areas of contention include claims that a form of neo-nationalism in the west has arisen of late characterized by regressive and revisionist thinking; claims of racial superiority; intolerance of diversity; an embrace of outmoded social behaviors; denial or rejection of cultural and historical changes now underway; less respect for the rights of all citizens; a willingness to increase conflict with other countries such as allies; and less readiness to initiate and establish international alliances. In short, a debate now exists about whether or not nationalism contributes to universal welfare, peace, and prosperity around the planet or if it is instead an outdated relic of a more pugnacious and bellicose past.

Also, nationalism now has a novel and disturbing face to it. Donald Trump, Brexit supporters, eastern European strongmen, white supremacists, and angry old white men (and some women) many of whom possess only a basic level of formal education. It’s reasonable to ask, can there be anything redeemable of an idea endorsed enthusiastically by this lot?

To be fair, there have undoubtedly been tensions leading to a reassessment of how international relations are deployed and of globalization’s value more broadly. Growing numbers of Americans and Europeans see unsustainable and uncontrollable levels of immigration occurring; trade agreements that seem to favor cheap labor abroad at the expense of domestic workers; technological and business shifts overly favoring the highly educated; greater corporate empowerment leading to increased wealth inequality; terrorism targeted at the wealthy nations; and a sense that multi-state federations and alliances, such as the European Union, United Nations, and NATO, are weakening nations’ ability to determine their own policy initiatives and address adequately their own unique national interests.

Together these issues have called into question our rush to tightly connect the world technologically, economically, politically, and culturally. Many are welcoming this set of challenges as an excuse to reaffirm the benefits of nationalism and caution against any alternatives away from it.

Yoram Hazony constructs a thoughtful, well researched, ardent, and academic defense of nationalism, placing the practice in a long-term historical context. For critics of  nationalism as it has become to be understood today, in particular as a reactionary political movement, it is worth reading this sober and reasoned rationale advocating a means of governing and ordering of societies that is still quite recent in the annals of history. One element of credibility I expected from Hazony was his perspective on the topic as an Israeli citizen and self-admitted Zionist. The Hebrew nation was intentionally forged from centuries of enmity, bigotry, conflict, and genocide, providing Hazony and perhaps all Israelis, with a profound reverence for a system codifying independence, self-reliance, and empowerment for the Jewish people. He did indeed deliver his thesis from this vantage point, giving his claims added authenticity, if not veracity.

A principal dichotomy Hazony relies on to gird his central argument is the fundamental choice countries must make between having governments rooted in self-determined independent sovereignty or authoritative and centrally planned multi-state aggregations. The question is which system is worthy of development that best advances freedom, prosperity, peace, and moral integrity. Is it a belief countries should be free to pursue their interests, further their cultural traditions, and navigate their way through a world brimming with threats and opportunities? Or is it one ingrained with the notion global integration is a requirement for reducing racism and belligerence, while promoting tolerance, fellowship, and fairness? In other words, Hazony views the essential preference as one between nationalism and imperialism.

Hazony reaches into history to provide guidance and justification for the crucial ruling decision nations must make today. Empire has a long track record in the western world stretching back to Assyria, Persia, Babylonia, and Egypt. It is due to the latter empire with its authoritarian brutality and forced devotion to polytheism and pharaonic command, which gave rise to the reactive origins of nationalism found in the Old Testament. The Bible became the first document to present a political order alternative to imperialism as well as the tradition preceding it, tribalism. Of note, Mosaic law prohibited Israelites from launching incursions into nearby kingdoms and stipulated internal governing standards, which together formed the early parameters of the national state.

Later significant expression of nationalism occurred during the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century. Rejection of the imperialistic Roman Church, following the invention of the printing press, occurred in England, Scotland, the Netherlands, France, and Sweden, leading eventually to the Thirty Years’ War, which broke the Roman church’s hold over much of Europe, resulting in the formation of national states throughout the continent. A common attribute of these nations was a self-proclaimed right of self-determination and adoption of moral requirements determining the legitimacy of governments, often codified in constitutions. This continued to serve as the building model of most nations reaching into the 20th century.

Nationalism today has been altered substantially by two penetrating developments—the philosophical emergence of what Hazony calls the “liberal construction of the West” and Germany’s 20th century attempts to forcefully apply nationalism as a springboard for empire building. In the first case, western political thought has been dominated since John Locke (1689) by a sanctified belief in individual rights and consent. By superseding loyalty and kinship to cultural, religious, and tribal origins with individual freedom and equality the nation state loses its moral fiber and tradition-bound purpose. In addition, the rationale for national boundaries is diluted or seen as unnecessary in a liberal world where universal principles that improve the lives of all humankind can be put into practice the world over. Hazony complains that defense of old-styled nationalism is not even given the time of day among the multiparty educated elites who are all in with the Lockean paradigm.

Germany saw the nations of England, France, Spain, and Portugal forming colonial empires around the world and thought they should have one too. The difference with the Germans was in their belief that instead of colonizing far-flung parts of the world they could establish their empire in Europe. Hence, World Wars I and II. Following the atrocities of Nazi Germany, a conclusion widely accepted was to believe nationalism could be inherently extreme and the cause of such horrendous crimes. By taking away their status of nationhood peace and prosperity would instead reign over Europe.

The result of these traumas is that the true national state, as Hazony sees it, has given way to a neo-imperialism most glaringly expressed in the European Union, United Nations, and Pax Americana. The faith buttressing these entities assumes the western world has identified liberalism, by which is included the rule of law, market economies, and individual rights as the true all-encompassing way to achieve peace and prosperity. He contends this comes at the expense of a conviction in nationalism based on self-determination and moral allegiance principles as the correct and proper way to govern. As is obvious to him, this doctrine can best be achieved via international alliances and other state integration schemes, which smack of imperialism and a drift away from sovereignty. The current wave of nationalism in Europe. Brazil, the U.S. and elsewhere is a rejection of the liberal construction of the West and the neocolonialism it implies.

Mr. Hazony attempts a reasoned case for his preference of nationalism over the other major political order alternatives, those being clans/tribes and imperialism. He basis his claim not on mere emotional devotion or an infatuation with institutional tradition alone, but through a carefully constructed logic centered on the ultimate eminence of people’s mutual loyalty to one another. Beginning with an endorsement of the idea that political order needs to precede philosophies of government he goes on to recognize politics as a means of persuasion uniting like interests of a community toward achieving common goals. Members of any collective join for one of three reasons: they are coerced, paid off, or see the aims of the group as sharing in the same values as their own individual aspirations. This latter motive, the most influential of the three, leads to an all powerful mutual loyalty, which is foundational to the formation of families, clans, tribes, successful institutions, and nations themselves.

The precious bond of mutual loyalty, progressively arising as it does from families and clans to tribes and nations, outweighs in importance personal gain, one’s survival instinct, and even the ability to live totally free and independent, according to Hazony. Any philosophy of government must take into account this fundamental truth — group cohesion resulting from reciprocal fidelity creates the highest quality and sustainable associations and institutions. To diminish or to be blind to this tenet is to follow a path toward enabling organizations with weak attachments and a fragile ability to meet threats, to benefit from opportunities, or to satisfy the individual needs of constituents. He accuses the current liberal construction of the West as falling into this trap by relying solely on individual consent and freedom as the keystone of government.

Hazony offers a useful analogy to make his point, by which he compares the two institutions of business and family. In business, employees and customers engage with the organization to greater and lesser degrees depending primarily on an expectation of what benefits are to be derived which will enhance one’s lifestyle and material well being. We could say it is a consensual relationship. The family, on the other hand, is comprised of members to whom one is devoted well beyond what comforts they provide. Indeed, family members may be quite difficult, nevertheless parents largely accept the obligation to pass on cultural inheritances to their children, which they had received from their parents, grandparents, and ancestors. The commitment to one another within families is a much stronger bond than is found elsewhere, particularly more so than within commercial relations. The claim is therefore made that a true lasting connection to one another in a nation is much closer to family than to business.

Nationalism is the sweet spot between the rule of clans and tribes, which leads to near constant warfare and anarchy, and empire with its inevitability of subjugation. It is only in the national state where citizens of common heritage, language, religion, and history join to form and give allegiance to a political order that in turn provides national freedom to all. Hazony claims a collective freedom must precede individual freedom and to think any individual can be free when their family or fellow citizens are not is folly. National freedom as expressed in free institutions and domestic power centers strengthens domestic peace and common well-being. Moreover, national freedom is founded on a empirical belief that the truths which hold a people together must result from a plurality of viewpoints over time rather than from a single universal precept delivered on high.

Hazony concludes his book by trying to address one persistent criticism of nationalism — the charge it promotes intolerance and hatred. The counter argument boils down basically to: ‘Well, imperialist movements do so too.’ Finally, much time is spent defending Israel’s nationalism, which frankly to me appears as an open and shut case given the history Jews have faced, despite their inability thus far to temper or mitigate the aggressiveness imposed by them onto their neighbors.

In general, I have to give Hazony credit for laying out a solid case for the continuance of nationalism. I agree with much of his rationale. Primarily, his placement of nationalism between tribalism and imperialism and his critique of these extremes is credible. A political order whereby individuals are able to benefit from established cultural teachings, uphold the future of their civilization, and further an idiosyncratic but legitimate expression of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is clearly acceptable. I embrace an approval of intercultural diversity, tolerance of differences among peoples, and a context requiring negotiation among disparate parties. A world of national states sets the stage for such interaction. He makes an obvious case that tribalism and imperialism impede such a scrum in favor of a more minimized and overly reductionist outlook favoring restricted thinking of how communal interplay should occur.

It’s also hard to quarrel with the value of mutual loyalty among like people, a fundamental dogma of his pro-nationalism argument. The bond folk experience from common backgrounds, values, and interests is profound and motivating. The sense of belonging is integral to personal mental and therefore collective health. Anyone who feels pride in their heritage, which is most individuals, knows how significant fealty and homage to one’s people is. Such fidelity to a group’s ancestors and the culture they imparted over generations should be honored, refined, and respected. However, it is on this overarching topic of mutual loyalty where I begin to question Hazony’s premise.

He makes clear that there are limits to mutual loyalty. In Hazony’s nationalistic world citizens begin forming the bonds of loyalty first to their families and from there to their local communities and to country. Historically, loyalty followed a path from family to clan to tribe and over time to nation. But that is as far as collaborative devotion can apparently reach. His claim is that without the ties of tradition loyalty toward others dissolves. What we are left with at best is a grasping of like interests from which to form political alliances with those outside of our cultural and national sphere. The default position is that members of a nation exclusively contain a limited and unique set of objectives necessary to sustain their people which are not shared with foreigners. And because there is not a universal commonly accepted principle that applies to everyone around the planet, or so he says, there is a natural constraint as to how far mutual loyalty can go. I ask myself, are the world’s inhabitants really that separate and different from each another?

Technology and a global economy join people in interdependent ways. We rely on each other for our common welfare and bounty in ways that is increasingly difficult to do at just a national level alone. International trade and cultural exchanges benefit a nation beyond what domestic practices, policies, and programs alone can do in the modern era. Not only that, but global climate change places everyone in the same existential boat. Our very survival no matter where we live is largely subservient to how global decision makers react to the scientific data beckoning us to act in a coordinated manner. Do we not jointly participate in a world marked more by what unites us than what divides us? Is not our common need to live fruitful lives in the here and now, while fashioning a plentiful future for our children, the elusive universal principle Hazony claims does not exist?

Hazony seems to have a limited view regarding the foundational thinking pertaining to political order, which emerged from the 18th century’s age of reason known as the Enlightenment. He restricts it to Locke’s reasoned claim of “perfect freedom” and “perfect equality” or in short, individual freedom, as the one grand unifying principle driving the theory of government that now dominates the West. However, I suggest expanding the notion of what qualifies as ordering principles derived from the Enlightenment beyond just individual freedom, as noteworthy as it is. Other conditions conventionally thought of as forming the basis of the good life inspire contemporary political action as well. Steven Pinker highlighted such requirements in his book Enlightenment Now (2018). In addition to freedom and happiness he identifies health and longevity; sustenance and abundance; peace and safety; literacy and knowledge; and environmental quality as critical outcomes all people should experience. Surely, attempts to ensure individual freedom and results such as those noted by Pinker together serve as a more complete unifying principle agreeable to all nations supporting a theory of government. Perhaps Martin Luther King put it best: “We are tied together in the single garment of destiny, caught in an inescapable network of mutuality. And whatever affects one directly affects all indirectly.”

To be clear, the above criticism is not a rationale for empire building. Hazony lays out quite well the pitfalls of a single multinational governmental structure. I agree the loss of national sovereignty can lead to a weakening of culture and a reduction of local decision making, both of which fly in the face of self-determination.

Be that as it may, Hazony singles out the European Union as a particularly flawed imperialistic gamble personifying the way nations should not be going. As is obvious, the EU is modeled on federalism and is populated largely with nations and citizens who want to be a part of it, especially now that the UK is gone. Advantages of the union include protection of basic political, social, and economic rights through implementation of a single market with no cross-border transaction fees; high uniform standards of food safety, consumer and employment rights, and environmental regulations; added global relations clout coming from a unified voice instead of 27 smaller voices; enhanced minority citizen rights; and more. Above all, the greatest benefit to date is the degree of relative peace throughout the European continent. After the bellicose debacles of the twentieth century this is no small achievement. I find it difficult to share Hazony’s glum assessment of the EU’s impact on governance and on the lives of European citizens.

Lest one think Yoram Hazony is simply a dyed-in-the-wool conservative, I would like to point out a fundamental point of his that popular liberalism can take comfort in. He goes to some lengths criticizing individual consent or freedom as inadequate on its own for basing a political theory. Indeed, this is the crux of his problem with the historic liberal construction of the West. Rather, he expounds on the virtues of mutual loyalty as the crucial missing component of current western political thought. What Hazony then actually does is to promote collectivism, community, and public cooperation as paramount while debasing an over-reliance on individualism. This plays right into the popular liberalism of American Democrats and European Social Democrats and says to popular conservatism in the West that its ideology is left wanting.

In summary, Yoram Hazony has prepared a sagacious defense of nationalism that I recommend to anyone drawn to a consideration of political theory, governing principles, and what is motivating the political right these days. Yet, I’m still left with the feeling that to promote nationalism without explicitly condemning its obvious shortcomings in the areas of racism and intolerance, not to mention the impracticality of isolation in a commercially globalized world, is leaving me somewhat unconvinced of Hazony’s brand of nationalism’s purity. Also, I don’t get that if in an empire one member’s national views are disregarded by the empire’s leaders it is despotism, but within the nation state if a minority’s views are ignored by a nation’s leaders it is an accepted price to be paid for the larger good of nationalism, then I see an inconsistency.

But even with these foibles I cannot support a removal of nationalism in favor of a one-world government. Nationalism is a system that may need reform, but not revolution. And thanks to Hazony, I can now better separate nationalism’s true value from the lunatic rhetoric delivered by the cast of nationalistic characters on today’s political stage.

I haven’t written much over the past three months. Some, but not as much as I expected to given I had a three-month period with precious few things needing productive attention and which were largely months that were mine to use as I chose. I can’t point to my lack of output to a busy schedule, or identify others as making too many demands of me, or even claim I was the victim of a damnable unexpected obstruction life sometimes throws across our paths without warning. Instead, I think I’ll blame it on Spain. After all, this is where those three months were spent.

Spain, or to be more specific, Andalusia, the autonomous southern region of the country where this time was almost exclusively passed, is a total distraction for an introverted, goal-oriented, New England-bred old man with an imagination deficit. I’m used to getting things done concretely in an environment where cultural and meteorological conditions are conducive to setting aside scheduled time dedicated to accomplishing large and small tasks every day. Especially during winter, with its sharp and biting edges, urging us poor souls to find warm shelter where we’re forced to occupy our time with meaningful indoor pursuits that keep us grounded and somewhat sane.

But winter in Andalusia generates no such exigency. Nearly every day exhibits traits seemingly designed to prevent an over-indulgence of objective-achieving activities. Plans to work on something can be easily thwarted. One’s normal laser-like focus can become refracted illuminating options for your day you didn’t earlier consider. Days can slip through your fingers with velvety abandon. Another night makes its presence and you are again surprised how smoothly the retreating day slid by like a passing skater effortlessly flowing down the paseo maritimo.

This part of Spain sends a message that living matters and we should be here on this earth to enjoy it. Rather quickly upon settling into these surroundings the senses begin influencing the brain to divert dusty patterned and sequestered thoughts and feelings outwardly toward possibilities only revealed by an abundance of sunshine filled skies and the big blue sea. The charm of Spanish culture ushers American sensibilities to a seat at any one of many cafes or bars where attentive and unhurried service awaits. Sipping this existence slowly can relax jumpy minds, reverse impatience, and if allowed, excite. Andalusia has a distinctive style shaped from a rich and turbulent history to share with those who go there willing to look, listen, and learn. It is a place confoundingly compelling and engaging and enticing. And that is why I haven’t written much in the past three months.

Arriving in Spain at the beginning of December for a pre-planned stay that involved living in a rented casa along the Mediterranean’s Costa del Sol for as long as the European Union visa laws allowed (three months) meant we were here for a relatively long haul. On the docket was a desire to visit other parts of Andalusia in addition to venturing out of Spain briefly. What eventually transpired was a two-week trip to southern Germany and Austria in late January. Other than this out-of-country trip, our time was encircled in Andalusia, including greater Malaga and the cities of Granada, Sevilla, Cordaba, and Cadiz. Also of note, this was not our first trip to Spain or to Andalusia. We rented a casa in the same locale for two months during the winter of 2015. So, we had a pretty good idea of what we were likely to face. Nevertheless, this fresh encounter with Spain expanded my appreciation of its more salient and positive traits.

High on my list of observed positive Spanish attributes, and one counter-intuitive to my own manner of being, is the Andaluz passion for life. The people strike me as very social and outgoing, especially among each other. Much time is devoted to long visits and energetic conversations, particularly over food and drink. Meals can go on for hours consuming entire afternoons or stretching late into the night. Family and community are revered. Time is gratefully committed to growing relationships. As has been observed by others assessing the Spanish psyche, the Spanish don’t live to work, they work to live.

This is not to say Spain is an unproductive country. On the contrary, it appears to function quite well. Municipal and private services abound. One observes things getting done, although patience is sometimes necessary. The manaña syndrome, or tendency to get around to task completion when one is good and ready, does make a not infrequent presence, or so I’m told. Urgency may not match northern European or American levels, but by adjusting to the Iberian pace quality of life need not suffer a decline, rather it can possibly be improved.

Another appealing feature is the weather. My, but the sun shines a lot there. Costa del sol is an apt description. Real estate agents, backed up by the country’s national meteorological agency, claim there are 320 days of sunshine per year. A harsh winter day is a cool, cloudy day with some rain and temperatures in the mid-fifties Fahrenheit. Coming from New Hampshire, this is a joy to take. Most days over the three months in Andalusia were sunny and in the sixties. Perfect winter weather!

Over recent years, I’ve noticed that I really like sunny days. Sunshine lifts my spirits, improves how I feel, and assists me in having a more positive outlook on life. These consequences appear to be having a greater impact as I age. It’s said sunshine boosts the brain’s delivery of the hormone serotonin, resulting in enhanced mood, calmness, and focus. Given my need for help in all of these areas I was very grateful for the daily solar exposure.

My daily walks were a pleasure. Energetic romps through the streets of town and especially along the paseo which followed the shoreline of the Mediterranean gave me not only exercise and time to think, but contact with the aforementioned sun. I often explored the streets where tourists did not venture, but instead where generations of local residents made their homes. Sure, they sniffed me out as someone not from there, but I was never made to feel uncomfortable. Whenever I travel I love wandering and observing people and places different from own experience. I am not so naive to know this is impracticable and unsafe to do in many locations around the world, but so far my excursions in many far flung spots has been rewarding.

To imply my stay in Spain was all comfort and leisure free of any mental exertion, leading to my dearth of writing is not completely accurate. There was another reason. I seriously tried to take my understanding of the Spanish language to the next level. This was really hard and pushed my brain to what felt at times like its limit.

Let me back up to make a disclosure. The learning of another language has been an unfulfilled lifelong desire. I studied my mother’s native tongue, German, for all four years of high school and one year of college. But as most of us know, this encounter rarely produces a proficient speaker, listener, reader, and writer of another language. Life went on and I never was able to comprehend and express myself in German beyond a rudimentary degree. Then, after our 2015 stay in Spain, I developed an enthusiasm for their language. Given its widespread use across the western world, including its growing presence in the US, I thought I could and should handle this one. I still think someday I will.

Learning a new language in one’s sixties is considered tough to pull off. I recently heard a linguist contend the older one gets the more difficult it is to learn a new language. Agreed. He went on to disclose, perhaps in an attempt to make people like me feel better, it was only necessary to learn about 500 keywords to become functional in a language. However, he didn’t say which 500 they were. Nevertheless, I persisted. And I made progress I’m happy to report.

As a base from which to build more Spanish language aptitude I had a year and a half of occasional lessons with a teacher in Mexico conducted via Skype over 2017 and 2018. This helpful introduction in combination with some more recent online grammar work, or should I say dabbling, provided me with a little background from which to extend my learning.

The approach I began with during this three-month language intensive largely consisted of trying to master those words and phrases most needed to conduct business in stores, restaurants, and other commercial contexts. From there I ventured into conversational attempts with locals. I relied heavily on two aids in tandem to accomplish this. One, the Google Translate app on my phone and two, my memory. I can’t applaud Google Translate enough. I would anticipate what I wanted to say prior to an engagement, look it up on the app, and then try to memorize as much of the text as possible. This exercised my visual memory in ways I haven’t done in years. Over time, this approach increased my learned vocabulary and communicative functionality immensely, not to mention giving my memory a well deserved workout. Before long I had a serviceable list of words and phrases I could speak in a natural manner without relying as much on the app. This was satisfying, indeed.

My most demanding situations were social ones, during which I tried conversing with native speakers who knew little to no English. Granted, these discussions didn’t get into great depth, but I found that when pressed I could conjure a large enough number of words to make myself mostly, or ahhh, should I say somewhat understood. To be honest, these sessions were mentally exhausting. Nevertheless, it was exciting to see myself begin to learn a new skill. As we age we typically rely on engaging in activities with which we already have some familiarity. It’s part of our chosen need to remain in our comfort zones. Trying to expand my ability to speak Spanish was a deliberate attempt to step out of that zone.

Of course, every glass is at least half empty, right? Being more a visual rather than an auditory learner in general I anticipated difficulty in comprehending the Spanish spoken word. Was I ever right. I left Spain knowing I never made as much progress in listening to people speak and understanding what was said as I wanted to. If the language is in print, it is much easier for me to process. Coming at me as verbal speech and I’m often lost. The one shred of progress I can claim in this auditory area is that spoken Spanish doesn’t sound as rapid fire as it used to. For most of my life I always thought Spanish speakers talked really fast. Now that isn’t necessarily the case. The speech now strikes me as slower, but unfortunately so is my ability to understand it sonically.

So, I have left Spain physically behind for now, but have taken a piece of it with me. I will continue to practice the language with the hope of one day being able to say and demonstrate that I can speak, read, write, and LISTEN to Spanish fluently. Also the pace of life revealed to me in Spain is one I hope to incorporate into my retired life. If not now, when as they say? And though I can’t take the Spanish sun with me wherever I go I can always carry the memory picture. I look forward to returning.

And now no more excuses. Back to writing!

Short story from late 2019 

I have seen you closely. I have seen you from afar. Your story reverberates in a continuous loop that saddens, warms, and captivates me. I can’t and won’t turn away from you. Ever. 

You clearly remember the whoop of excitement ringing out from your colleagues working closely by you in the kiln test pit the group was carefully revealing. One group member, Madeline, called to you by name urging you to see the pottery sherd they had just discovered. It was a reddish jagged ceramic fragment measuring about 12 cm by 7 cm and clearly part of a larger work given its image of a single eye with its deep red swoosh of an eyebrow flowing down the left side of a partially revealed nose bridge. At that moment you were more thrilled to hear her wanting you to join in her excitement than by the discovery of the actual artifact itself. Being invited into someone else’s joy was still a novel experience. You let the pleasure radiate for a moment before congratulating Madeline and the others on their find.  

As one of six first-year students from UCLA’s graduate institute of archeology, who were all selected to participate that summer with Spanish archeological officials to assist in the excavation of a newly discovered Roman site on a hill overlooking the southeastern Andalusian coast, you were living the dream. This is what you worked and studied for, an opportunity to systematically excavate with a team of like-minded enthusiasts while being supervised and taught by masters in the field. Your emotions ranged from pride to profound satisfaction as you emerged from the long slumber of stultifying childhood into assuredness and professionalism.  

You’ve reflected on that moment in the kiln test pit often. It has attained a symbolic status rooting you to a brief but significant apex in your development as a person. Sometimes you still carry regret for what might have been, but maybe not as often as you used to. Self-reflection was never something that came to you easily. Why should it? Your parents never seemed to encourage or even practice anything approaching rumination. But feeling badly for yourself. Now that always came more easily. It’s at these times you recall the meticulous unearthing of the stone column centered within the round brick kiln dating from the second to third century with people who felt like friends and remember what happiness was like.    

Although being a child didn’t bring for you many moments of exhilaration there were times of contentment. These moments stemmed largely from you not minding to be alone. You actually preferred solitude most of the time. Your interests were your best friends. They consisted of situations and characters involving meeting challenges head on, overcoming hardships, clever problem solving, gutsy self-reliance, and codes of honor. In short, gallantry. However, when you read stories and watched movies replete with such incidents, they weren’t enough to fully satisfy your attraction to these themes. In your search for more information on these topics what developed was a pursuit of understanding people from far off places and times, stepping stones really which led eventually to your love of archeology.  

Archeology represented for you opportunities to interact and commune with tangible links to ages in which you imagined such valiant deeds most often occurring. Your fascination began with weaponry, armor, and all things militaristic, but in time involved an appreciation of the primitive and mundane technologies, such as the development of pottery, fabrics, tools, and other material culture. You would envision simple people carving and shaping an existence out of the world as they found it. Individuals and communities battling with challenges presented by nature and fellow humans, while they also fashioned art and religion. This enchanted you. It still does. 

You spent time alone in the woods and fields around your home practicing archeology as a boy. Despite knowing western New Hampshire had been occupied by peoples for thousands of years it wasn’t as if you could easily find human skeletal remains, Native American artifacts, or musket balls from early English settlers. You sure tried hard to do so, though. Rather, you learned about the historic record told by the woods themselves, especially of the many topographic mounds and cavities that told of tree blow down events from long ago, the intent of the builders behind the peculiarities of stonewall constructions, and what prompted placement of colonial era homes as evidenced by long abandoned cellar holes. You felt peace and purpose during those outdoor explorations and adventures. 

As inconsistent as this may sound, another observation about your past is that you did care about what others thought of you. You cared very much, especially from members of your peer group.  There were several, although few, other boys in school who shared at least part of your interest in things historic and archeological. Together you shared stories, played games, searched for artifacts, and watched movies. There was that Saturday when you and Joey made cavemen dioramas in his basement and the time Thomas’s mother took three of you to visit America’s Stonehenge in Salem. These are still good memories. But for the most part you were seen as aloof and well, weird. You realized quickly how feeble your attempts to interact with regular kids often led to embarrassment and self-doubt. It became easier for you to retreat into your own safe self-devised frameworks. 

Of the little more than 500 students in attendance at your high school, coming as they did from your downcast hometown, a former cotton and woolen textile mill town having seen better days, there was hardly anyone you really knew or cared to know. The feeling seemed to be fully reciprocated. Not many of them wanted to know you either, except for you to serve as a ready recipient of teasing, bullying, and general harassment. There was a rock hound club that met after school on Tuesdays, which came close to an interesting school activity. However, the teacher who ran the club was young and although he had minored in geology, he wasn’t terribly inspiring. The numbers of student members attending continued to drop. It’s fair to say, your time in that school was often a silent and lonely hell. 

You were smart, though. Grades throughout high school were very good, such that it wasn’t a stretch for you to get accepted into the University of New Hampshire to study anthropology, which you planned to use as a launch pad into your eventual field of archeology. Your time at UNH was certainly a life improvement. It got you out of your hometown and meeting other people. There were a few you could actually call friends. Not being into the college party scene disadvantaged you socially, however. There was a lot of time spent in your room and at the library. Overall, you were more accepted in college, enjoyed your studies, and continued meeting with success academically. You also found yourself wanting to stay in Durham more than returning to your parent’s home when school breaks came.  

Then during your senior year came the big break! Acceptance to the University of California Los Angeles’s graduate institute of archeology with a generous financial aid package. You felt elation at the prospect of living so far from home studying a topic that always spellbound you and at a university that seemed alluring and exotic. The Westwood section of Los Angeles was trendy, bustling, and engaging with a warm winter and a cosmopolitan atmosphere. You dove into your classes and other program offerings at the institute. You enjoyed the city’s diversions. And what started as an intent focus on the historic story behind buried artifacts quickly turned into an appreciation and enthusiasm for disseminating this rich body of knowledge to localities and communities hungry for specific information about their pasts. You thrived on opportunities to share the work being done on conservation and field projects with community groups, museum guests, and public school students. The more subject matter you absorbed the more you wanted to share it with others. Occasionally, a thought would actually cross your mind that you might enjoy becoming a teacher in addition to an archeological research expert and scholar. 

Given the related pursuits of your college peers you made friends and acquaintances surprisingly easy. These relationships began simply enough due to assigned collaborations on class projects, but in time several of these interactions developed into true friendships — some of them the most genuine and satisfying of your life. Over the course of your first months in LA, it was as if a great weight of insecurity and dearth of confidence had been lifted. Your intellectual self was merging with a social identity, creating in you an certitude and conviction never before realized. Optimism started to make appearances into the back streets and hideaways of your days. You had never been happier. 

Alas, this gratification, this enlightenment, this indulgence was not to last for you. About a month into your second year at the institute you received the frantic call from your mother in New Hampshire. There had been an accident involving your father. Your dad had a small excavating business, which he had started as a young man after a stint in the Army. He generated a small name for himself in your area and managed to secure just enough business to keep your family afloat financially. Each fall it was his habit to pick up as much work as possible before the winter settled in when he would again rely on his snowplow. This fall was no different. One late afternoon in mid-October your dad was operating his bulldozer alone at a remote site some distance from town. He apparently stepped out of his machine to pull on something of interest from the freshly scraped earth when the idling dozer suddenly advanced pinning him to a large white pine. He wasn’t found until the next morning. You were told with precious little tact by the land owner that he was found unresponsive with a swollen blue face and well beyond the use of any life saving techniques. Your mother was called by the police and told an investigation was ongoing, but that it appeared this was simply a “tragic accident”.  

You are an only child. And in your family in-depth disclosures of feelings were never typical conversation topics. Hearing your mother’s anguish on your phone was unlike anything you had ever heard before. Her voice was so profoundly sorrowful. This sound shocked you more than the actual news of your father’s death. There was no question, but that everything you had going on at UCLA would have to be immediately dropped, so you could be with your mother straight away. In a stupor, you arranged to fly from LAX to Boston and from there took a Dartmouth Coach to Lebanon where you had arranged for a ride to take you home. The silence and darkness that awaited you in your house was more than unnerving. Your mom was sitting alone in her easy chair. She looked up at you once when you turned on the light, but said nothing. She didn’t need to. The woeful look and swollen eyes said enough. 

Your mother needed help and you had just lost your father. You were unquestionably in mourning for both of your parents, but the event didn’t paralyze you. It felt odd to you that you could carry on with burying your father and helping your mother put one foot in front of the other. In retrospect, you see it was a show of strength. But at the time, you were just doing what needed to be done. Not to say any of this was easy for you. Once your dad was laid to rest there was the matter of closing his business, dealing with his creditors, finding other excavators to complete his unfinished jobs, and selling off his equipment. You approached these tasks as if they were school assignments. You researched, formulated strategies, developed processes, and implemented each step systematically. This approach would have been improbable had you not had the training provided to you in college. For that you were grateful. 

There was never any going back to normal for your mother. She descended into an incoherent, depressed, and agitated state, which fluctuated greatly. Not very social to begin with, she withdrew almost entirely from friends and the community. Continuing her office administration job at the furniture and lighting fixture retail store where she had been employed for years was impossible. Anxiety ruled her days. She would veer from days of staying in bed for hours upon hours to pacing around the house during early mornings, because she couldn’t sleep. Soon it was clear to you that by remaining a constant presence in her life was helping her to achieve relatively functioning plateaus. This realization solidified a decision you were hoping to avoid. You were not going back to Los Angeles and school. 

Your degree in archeology was never completed. You never accepted this. Why should you? Rather, you only surrendered to it. This distinction left you feeling forsaken. Nevertheless, the pressure to find work took hold. The thought of your mother losing her home in addition to the upheaval her life had already become turned into an urgency. Fortunately, in short time your passion for learning and your disdain for taking a less than stimulating job combined to crystalize a pursuit you never considered before.  

While walking in your old woods one afternoon, feeling wracked with uncertainty and confusion about how to carry on with a job search, you were struck by the stature of a grand red oak. This beast of a tree was probably one hundred and fifty to two hundred years old. Being winter, only a few brown crinkled leaves remained of its crown. Still, the massive diameter of its trunk and reach of its stout limbs spoke to you of strength, endurance, and fortitude. Standing at the tree’s base you removed your gloves and placed the palms of your hands on its gray deeply crevassed bark. In the field of archeology, you were practiced at holding artifacts both precious and mundane and would feel their presence. You perceived an aura from these objects as if waves of long past human experience were being communicated to you. You found these encounters extremely satisfying.  

As you pressed your hands against the magnificent oak it too spoke to you. An ancient wisdom, viscerally tasted, produced a connection between the plant and you. Minutes passed. The tree continued to transmit and articulate its message, obscure at first, but increasingly evident. The environment in which you were destined to remain rooted was heavily forested. Trees could be the living and tangible artifacts of your life going forward. A notion began to take shape, transferring your thirst for knowledge about concrete substances and materials from the past to actual, palpable, and physical entities of the present may lead to a possible path out of your despair. 

Today, you are working toward building a specialty in the creation and maintenance of groves and orchards. Spaces that are often functional or aesthetic for your customers, but which are to you are sacred. Knowing things could have been different continues to interfere with what is. Your salvation, such as it is, involves being in these woodland places of light and growth where you need to forget what was and envision what can be.  

I remain ever hopeful for you.            

An opinion written during the fall of 2019 

The great challenge for the people of the United States as we move deeper into this century is to extend the privileges of democratic engagement, economic opportunity, and the capacity to shape cultural assimilation and definition within an increasingly complex and diverse citizenry.  

For more than 240 years America has been continually faced with an epic mission presented to us by the nation’s Founders. It was simply to create a government “of the people, by the people, and for the people”. Doing just this, however, has been anything but easy. Demonstrating democracy with its inherent need for political participation and engagement within a pluralistic society, one which is comprised of traditional and shifting ideals and principles, has been and continues to be an existential exercise of both profound significance and enormous difficulty. Despite all of the practice and history we as a people have with perfecting democracy there is much progress yet to be made. 

It can be disheartening to realize there is no fully successful period we can look back to over the past two and a half centuries to claim American democracy had reached superiority. At no time has there been a commonly shared fortune of power apportioning, wealth allocation, or a broad set of mutually recognized voices determining who we are as a nation. Power and wealth tend to concentrate among those making up preferential groups. Historically, governments were organized around the ideals of aristocracy or some other form of autocracy, in which it was widely accepted that all-powerful authorities held reign. America was supposed to be different. Our revolution stated control was to be self-assigned equally. All would have a say in how the pursuit of happiness was to be achieved. To date, we have fallen short in honoring and realizing this value. 

As socially divergent as America was from European aristocracies at the time of its founding the country simultaneously carried the burden of class and race segregation adopted from Europe. While we were giving expression to Enlightenment principles at a scale never before done in the history of the world, we were also furthering many of the features of group domination over those people deemed to be weaker. This was consistent with despotic rule. Our country’s story is replete with examples of dominion, most often by white male and monied interests, lording over ethnicities, races, and genders not fitting into this Euro-centric mold. 

Each generation has included and elevated those individuals with passions for universal fairness, inclusion, and equality. Though up against great and at times insurmountable odds these circumspect and forward-leaning patriots have led movements and missions that over time have integrated deep-seated and liberating levels of egalitarian practice and recognition among the people. Prime examples include ending slavery, child labor, and civil rights discrimination, while instituting women’s right to vote, labor unions, and gay marriage. Now, as we burrow into the 21st century we are acclimated as a people to readily voice fairness concerns when any group is disenfranchised, including even those who once represented cultural, racial, and economic leadership. 

This time is no different. Discrimination and racism are still with us. The needs of large swaths of Americans are underserved and underrepresented. Cultural and economic ascendancy for a finite few can easily be recognized. In short, the rewards of prosperity and inclusion are not widely enough distributed. Inequality continues to reign, justice is denied, dreams are unrealized, and lives are unfulfilled. 

However, while we remain stuck in social disparity America’s challenge at this point in its history does present a unique arrangement of conditions. The current conflict is centered on two major problems, one primarily economic and the other cultural. Economically, we are living with the consequences of decades of neoliberal, free market fundamentalism in the corporate sector that has boosted Gross Domestic Product and for the most part Wall Street, but has not lifted the living standards of all citizens. Secondly, we are now in the midst of a long-term demographic realignment that is presenting as an increase in the numbers of formerly minority populations of African Americans, Latinx, and Asians with a corresponding decline in the percentage of the overall population occupied by Euro-based Caucasians.  

Both of these significant phenomena, which are occurring simultaneously, require not only weighty political interventions, but an all-hands-on-deck grappling of what it means to be an American. To repeat, the Founders laid down a dare for themselves and for future generations—are we going to fashion a representative government that allows everyone to participate in national gain or are we going to continue the long unjust and inequitable governing traditions of our past? This choice is unmistakable and unavoidable. What follows are thoughts concerning the achievement of successful results on both fronts, in particular regarding democratic engagement, economic opportunity, and cultural inclusion. 

•••• 

The basic economic outcomes being sought by most people adding up to a decent life are not complicated. Nor should they be elusive. They include employment with fair pay; safety and security for oneself and one’s family; an ability to be educated and to educate one’s children; having a long-term home; good healthcare; and means to live a dignified retirement. Relative equality in these critical and much desired areas should not be too much to ask from the citizens and leaders of a rich country. When there is widespread cultural adherence to the values of social justice and universal opportunity these outcomes should result. However, given 11.8% (2018) or 38+ million Americans live below the poverty rate (family of four living below an income of $25,465) and with many others living close to this edge we are faced with a reality that too many citizens are not realizing basic humanitarian living outcomes in this country.  

There doesn’t appear to be prevalent agreement that the conditions stated above are a problem. For example, a common refrain heard from supporters of President Trump is that too many losers, troublemakers, outsiders, criminals, perverts, etc. are quick to take handouts from hard working average Americans who are having all they can do to make ends meet. The idea of giving healthcare to illegal immigrants yearning to be American, for example, is particularly upsetting. In general, poor minorities are seen by many as somehow deviant. Since they were not raised with all of the same values and behaviors, never mind the looks, of the white dominant class they are not worthy of assistance or care. It’s worth noting 76.5% of the U.S. population is white and that proportion is in decline. Moving beyond systemic racism must precede debates about what is fair and what we should expect from one another as Americans.  

Acceptance and inclusion of all people able to call themselves American must occur before the fruits of economic well-being are to be shared in a reasonably equitable manner. Cultures historically seem to have a default mode of self-imposed segregation and preservation rather than an inclination toward tolerance of differences and assimilation. As the late Samuel P. Huntington, a political scientist, wrote during the 1990s, sustaining the characteristics of civilizations will continue to shape the nature of global politics more powerfully than ideologies or even nation states. Culture, or the traits that define shared behavior and thoughts, form the underpinning of the organizational development of like citizens known as civilization. The visceral power of culture and by extension civilization cannot be understated when determining the interactions of people around the world.  

America claims to be exceptional. Our unique founding with its philosophical foundation based in republican ideals rather than centered in a single ethnicity or conventional heritage makes our experiment extraordinary. Despite the culturally English and monarchical background of the founders they nevertheless were inspired to institute a representative democracy, a form of government never before brought to such a large scale. Fundamentally, this was an expression of the nation being of the people and not the sole possession of any family or divine ruler. By declaring itself as a representative democracy the young nation announced to the world that this place was different, better, and welcoming. This concept was and still is revolutionary. 

Given our history of not entirely living up to a pervasive representation of all members of our diverse society and also given the present moment of our political polarization, it is of great importance that all Americans unite culturally, societal, and enthusiastically to reassert our collective pledge to honor universal inclusion of all Americans, no matter one’s race, ethnicity, background, or religion, and to dismantle any remaining barriers or future designs intended to discourage full democratic participation. As the American writer-activist James Baldwin put in in the 1960s, “We are trying to forge a new identity for which we need each other…”. We are indeed. 

Principal impediments to this ideal are expressed by antiquated beliefs of racial purity, a long-standing expectation that minorities should aspire to conditions set by the dominant class, and a profound inability to comprehend the perceptions and prospects of those born and raised in other communities and circumstances. These handicaps lead to disjointed interactions among the citizenry with the result being some people are disenfranchised while others belong. And it is difficult for the in-crowd to see this disassociation. Psychiatrist Karl Menninger once wrote, “It is hard for a free fish to understand what is happening to a hooked one.” Hard, yes. Impossible, no.  

The United States of America has achieved iconic greatness as evidenced by countless countrymen and countrywomen bearing and fostering lives of delectation, purpose, and abundance. America’s challenge, therefore is that there should be no rest, no complacency, and no satisfaction until collective purpose as exemplified by general opportunity, means, and fellowship are afforded to each and every American. It is what we owe one another as allied compatriots.