The American Dream
by David Yeagley · October 28, 2010 · 4 Comments · ShareThis

What exactly is the American dream? Is it a doctrine? Is it written down somewhere? Is it a universal cultural fantasy? Is it defined by dollars?

Our American political parties seem to base their advocacies on prosperity. Material prosperity. ‘Vote Republican’ or ‘Vote Deomcrat’ are slogans essentially about materialism, about which party offers the most to the most people. The political rhetoric is always shaped around socio-economic advancement and opportunity. It’s all a sell, nothing more.

When I taught humanities courses at OSU-OKC, I had a focus on nationhood. What is a nation? Why do nations exist? What is their purpose? I taught the general understanding that a nation offers a way of life to its people. That nation is valued most highly that offers the most to the most people. A nation has a government, however, and that’s what allows the conversation about advancement or reverses. The people and the government represent two agents in a dialogue about prosperity. It is a sociological dialectic. The people come to expect the government to offer them the best deal, that’s all.

But, how did this predicament come about, where the government should be suspect of withholding or interfering with the people’s advancement?

A nation cannot exist without government, and a contractual agreement with the people it governs. Since humanity never exists except in hierarchical forms, from the family, to the tribe, to the nation, this contract always exists. And this dialogue between two agents continues.

America has come to be understood as a place where its citizens expect a clearly prosperous life, if but relative. If such a life is not happening, the government is the first suspect. The government is to blame. Those in authority have prohibited or otherwise prevented the people from their rightful prosperity. This is the Democrat philosophy, as dominated by the Communist intuitions therein. The Democrat response to the people’s complaint is to make government responsible for the people’s prosperity, collectively, if not individually. This is the American form of Communism. Prosperity for the people is the responsibility of the government. The Democrats simply offer a much lower and limited level of prosperity.

The Republican philosophy emphasizes the individual’s power to achieve for himself. The present government is indeed the inhibitor, and therefore should be minimized to defense of life, liberty, and property. Nothing more. Anything more is interference, and tyrannical in nature. The Republican party today, however, continues to preach the American dream as one of material prosperity. Freedom is understood as the opportunity to prosper, essentially. While the Republican party does not promise equal distribution of wealth, it does promise equal opportunity to achieve. Nevertheless, the Republican promises are still viscerally affined to materialism.

The America dream is to be married with children, to own a home, a couple of cars, and to be able to pay for your children’s college. It includes good health care, vacations, investments, and comfortable retirement. This is all being articulated quite specifically by both political parties in their quest to persuade Americans to vote for either party’s candidates. In this sense, there is no difference between the parties. Prosperity is the sell, albeit the Republican Party does hold out a greater prosperity, even in theory. The Republican sell magnifies the glory of the individual, and appeals to one’s sense of aspiration, daring, and manhood. The Democrat Party appeals to weakness, dependency, and to group identity.

In defense of poverty, however, I say both parties have manifested cowardice. They are afraid to say that poverty is a morally innocent condition in and of itself. Poverty is not a fault, or a moral failing, by itself, certainly not according to sacred scripture. Any political rhetoric that implies that it is, is deceptive motivation tactic–for votes, not for self-improvement. If the parties said anything else, if they even implied that poverty was okay, they’d lose many votes. Poverty has to be wrong, or at least something to be strictly avoided. Otherwise, we have no conversation.

We say life’s basic needs are food, clothing, and shelter. Even in this, relativity is principle. How much, what kind, how many? What kind of food, how expensive the clothing, or how elaborate the home, and in what kind of neighborhood? Poverty, real poverty, tends to shorten the life, indeed. Inadequate food, the wrong kind of food, combined with inadequate protection from the elements of nature, from cold or extreme heat, all wear on the health, and can shorten the life expectancy. Of course, the whole subject of life expectancy is relative as well. How long should a person expect to live? What is the standard, and how do we know when something has gone wrong?

Most people want long life. If a modicum of happiness is experienced, it generally calls for more. Enjoyment and pleasure are self-perpetuating. Sorrow and pain, if not unbearable, engender a hope for the time when they shall pass, and in this sense, sorrow and pain also tend to strengthen the desire for longer life. Most people want life. A whole lot of people at least act like they’re interested in eternal life.

And the quality of life is a key factor in one’s desire for life. One does not wish for a miserable, unhappy, and painful life. One wishes for happiness. But as the political parties would have it, that happiness is based on material prosperty. Republicans call it freedom; Democrats call it government responsibility. Republicans promise opportunity, even equal opportunity, though not equal material outcome for every individual. Democrats promise less opportunity, and coerced, measured outcome in all things. Democrats, through government coercion, offer most to the fewest, and less to the most number of people. Both parties use poverty as the threatened results of voting for the opposing party. Both parties see poverty as an ill, a wrong, or something to be avoided.

The Bible doesn’t say poverty in itself is a sin. But King David, himself a homeless fugitive for the better part of twenty years before he became king, did say,

I have been young, and now am old; yet have I not seen the righteous forsaken, nor his see begging bread. Psalm 37:25

There is definitely something wrong with behavior that causes dependency. But, poverty without dependency is not condemned.

It seems then that the entire political dialogue in the world is a moral affront. The worldly, secular view is that poverty is shameful, and wrong, and should be avoided. The whole impetus for the political process is prosperity. Vote this way, or that way, and you’ll be better off–you’ll live longer, have more money, and be happier.

Sounds like a temptation of the Devil, if you ask me.

But, it is important to keep level head. American society was based on the idea that you had a completely wide open opportunity in your face. If you didn’t make something out it, you were a sinner. You were a moral failure, and an irresponsible good-for-nothing bum. That is the very foundation of the American ethos. It’s up to you, baby. Go for it, or die. Democrats, however, have intervened. It is the government’s responsibility to take care of you, just because you were born. Quite a different philosophy. Quite un-American. And I think, probably quite evil.

To my compatriots in poverty, I say only one thing, really: do not envy those that prosper. That is weakness in you. Don’t covet their success. That is unbecoming to a man of integrity and strong spirit. Success is not wholly confined to materialism, or keeping up with the Jone’s. I presume there are other goals besides success. There are other purposes than to win the world’s approval. Such purposes may tend to poverty, but, one must have the freedom to choose one’s path–to weal or woe. Just make sure you don’t complain, too loudly, about the woe you may have chosen.

http://www.badeagle.com/