One Nation Divisible      


Harry T. Cook

By Harry T. Cook
1/9/15
 

At the beginning of every day in the first grade of Royal Oak, Michigan's Longfellow School, my classmates and I were bidden to stand by our little desks and recite the Pledge of Allegiance: "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands: one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

 

That was a decade before two Michigan congressmen and one of its U.S. senators led the drive to add "under God" to the pledge. The idea was that anyone anywhere can pledge allegiance to the flag of his country, but certainly no person living in what was then the hated Soviet Union could with impunity say that it stood "under God," as true believing Americans would conceive of the idea.

 

But never mind the "under God" amendment to the pledge. I refrain from repeating it when I find it necessary to recite the pledge in company. It is as pointless as it is offensive in a country whose founders deliberately created a secular republic and which has become home to a wide variety of religious expressions -- some of them that do without a deity. In any event, I'm more interested for purposes of this essay with the idea of one nation, indivisible.

 

I wonder how the grade-school student in Alabama 50 years ago heard "one nation, indivisible" as its governor and legislature were claiming "states' rights" in order to continue the Jim Crow treatment of African-Americans, and that at a time when people in other parts of the country were imbibing the sentiments of Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech.

 

Or earlier during the 1948 election campaign when the so-called Dixiecrats walked out of the Democratic Party convention over its attempts to put the end of segregation into its platform, what would "one nation, indivisible" have meant?

 

Concerning what on the face of it may seem to be a more trivial issue, did the one nation idea occur to the editorial board of the Detroit News when last month it heaped scorn upon federal laws that require school lunches to be healthier with respect to fat and sugar content, saying that local officials and parents know better what their children should eat and that the feds should butt out? How is that "one nation, indivisible" or commonsense, for that matter?

 

Is the starchy, sugary, fatty fare that might be served up in school cafeterias in Tulsa, Oklahoma, less harmful than that which might turn up on a hot lunch tray in Traverse City, Michigan?

 

Then there is the legal tangle of lawsuits concerning what is called "gay marriage," being decided here and there by federal judges across the country. Some judges, based on the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in U.S. v Windsor*, have ruled that, since the U.S. government cannot refuse to recognize the marriages of gay persons and lesbian persons, the states must follow suit. Yet the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals is sticking to the "states' rights" argument, insisting that the People, say of Michigan, can decide what marriage is within the borders of that state.** This is madness.

 

And what about all this fuss over the Common Core, its curricula and the idea of national standards? Potential presidential candidate Jeb Bush said recently that he was horrified at the idea of national standards on the grounds that the several states are the authorities to establish such things. Meaning that the mathematics faculty of Florida State knows more or better than that of the University of Iowa or that of Colorado? Mathematics is the same on the Moon as it is on Earth.

 

The idea of state sovereignty is threadbare and means only that there are 52 sets rather than one set of opportunities to run for high public office, to be a chief executive or a state legislator, perhaps on the way up to national politics.

 

How is it that only 16 of the 52 states created health care insurance exchanges that were made possible by the Affordable Care Act to help those without coverage obtain it with federal subsidies? What was that about? We know what it was about. It was about telling an African-American president to go to hell. It was, in fact, a denial of "one nation, indivisible."

 

Do either Social Security or Medicare discriminate based on what state a beneficiary lives? No. In the days of the military draft, did it matter from what state a draftee came? No. Can one travel across and up and down the United States of America without a passport and freely enter or exit any state? Of course. Is Katherine Lee Bates' "America the Beautiful" about only those locales with amber waves of grain and purple mountains majesty? No.

 

Do the television and radio networks beam different programs and newscasts to different states? No. Do the teams of the various professional sports leagues play only in the cities and states of their homes bases? No. Are the members of United States Olympic teams associated more with one state than another? No.

 

America's strength is in the unity of the 50 states, not in their individuality. The concept of states' rights is pass�, and rightfully so. One nation, indivisible... 

 

*U.S. v Windsor is a 2013 landmark civil rights case in which the United States Supreme Court held that restricting federal interpretation of "marriage" and "spouse" to apply only to heterosexual unions is unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

 

** In 2004 Michigan voters (2,698,448 to 1,926,721) adopted a constitutional amendment providing that marriage must be defined as a union of a man to a woman.

 

 

* * * * * 

 

Postscript

 

In the same day's news one could read of the Muslim jihadists' slaughter of French journalists and of two Muslim groups in southeastern Michigan contributing $100,000 to help poor Detroit residents who cannot pay their water bills and face shutoffs. Considering the demographics, the Muslim effort is clearly an act of outreach to people likely not to espouse Islam. My local imam friends do not refer to Allah as "the merciful" for nothing. This latter act does not excuse the former. Neither does the former diminish the value of the latter.

 

 

 


Copyright 2015 Harry T. Cook. All rights reserved. This article may not be used or reproduced without proper credit.
 


Readers Write
Re essay of 1/2/15 To Do and Not to Do
 
 

Blayney Colmore, La Jolla, California:

Because I subscribe to virtually every piece of your agenda, it pains me to suggest that the emotional pitch at the end about the old veteran in your grandchildren's parade, is the paradox that prevents any changes. How is it that those who want government out of their lives, and those who want government to take an active role in addressing real needs, both tear up at the sight of that noble old man? The first will support any effort to continue our hegemony. The second believes our claim to being exceptional has foundered on our neglect for our own needy. Until we acknowledge a common interest: a nation in which hard driving, ambitious people can prosper; those who fall between the cracks (for any reason) won't be forgotten, we will be at each other's throats. That I think it self-defeating for us to neglect our roads, schools, airports, Internet, and those who fall between the cracks of our prosperous nation, makes me a socialist, or worse, in the eyes of those who have been persuaded that taxes of any sort are confiscatory. I no longer argue with my friends who believe that. I wish I were prescient and could come up with a way to describe how we might come to some common mind about the obligations of citizenship. Perhaps a universal draft into some sort of national service? In the meantime I continue to honor the old vet who honored his obligation as a citizen.

 

Brian McHugh, Cotacachi, Ecuador:

Oh you hopeless delusional you! Have to admire you, though. We, on the other hand, have absconded. Ecuador is charming.

 

Mark Bendure, Grosse Pointe Park, Michigan:

Happy 2015. May you have more happy new years so that we can continue being treated to your thoughts and wisdom. My daughter, who was born on New Year's Eve, brought me immense joy when she recently posted a message on Facebook (that new-fangled technology that befuddles geezers like myself) thanking her mother and me for teaching her to stand up for what she knew was right. Depressing as the state of the world may sometimes seem, as long are there are folks like you and her willing to stand up for what is right, and others of future generations are as well, there remains hope that this new year, and others to follow, really will be cause for celebration.

 

Earl Troglin, Spartanburg, South Carolina:

[You wrote] "You ask if I am living in a dream world, if I am out of my mind to expect this or any Congress to behave in such a way. No, I am not out of my mind. And, yes, I do dream a lot about what my country could be and do if it got its collective thumb out of its mouth and buckled down to do not what is expedient but what is right." Yes, you are living in a dream world and you would be out of your mind if your only expectation is that what you call for is a likely outcome of your dream.  The increasing fear for those who cling to such dreams is that the dreamers would cease dreaming and give in to the current saga of reality. What a tragedy that would be.  I have a dream based on decreasing hope, a sense of hope that is dulled by following the legislative voting records of the South Carolina senators and house keepers.  My dream is that one day a collective voice would emerge in Congress that is committed to doing the right thing for the "common good" of "we the people."  The reality is that they go with a "to do" motivation of support for the elite and corporations (persons) that is favorable to their biased political positions in order to gain and retain a seat of power in assuring that they move our country in the "right" direction.   Their "not to do" reactions are fueled by a determination to block and defeat any legislative bill that threatens their determination to do what favors a selective core of  the rich and powerful at the expense of the rest of the people.  The list continues to shorten with those who really give a damn about "the rest of the people."  My hope for the dream continues to fade as the reality gets deeper and entrenched as the masses of the rest of the people vote for them while they do not support their welfare in the ranks of the common good of we the people.  When I hear the elected say it is their job to represent the interests of their constituents I know what they mean and they know what they mean, and that harsh reality makes my dream increasingly impotent.

 

Francis Bloch, Reno, Nevada:

What planet are you from? You must have been toying with us in your essay about what this Congress will do. You must be a man of boundless hope.

 

Dewey Barton, New Smyrna Beach, Florida:  

Great essay. I am deeply disappointed in the politics of today.

 

Dorothy Clore, Alden, Michigan:

I sincerely hope you have sent or will send a copy of this to every member of Congress. We are late to appreciate "House of Cards" but we watched three episodes last night, loved it, but feared we were watching a reality show.

 

George Stevens, Arlington, Virginia:  

I can almost see the Capitol from here, and I cannot see the people who work their for The People doing any one of those things you have proposed. I admire the resiliency of your hope. You should only live so long!

 

Sulette Brown, Gore, Oklahoma:

Well said. The conversation of this nation has been to degrade, demean, or demote those of the less fortunate rather than those in elite board rooms and the "ruling class." Even ads in magazines have no concept of what is a normal life of the ninety-nine percent. Having recently moved back to Oklahoma, I am now even more aware of this terrible difference between those who have and those who have not.  Yet the blindness of some of the lesser folks continues to put into office some of the most destructive of our government representatives. There is so much poverty that no one sees or hears about -- even those whose bodies are worn down from hard physical labor that benefits the very wealthy corporations.  My own family, a long line farmers in Illinois, watch neighbors and friends lose farm land, incur terrible debt due to demands of companies what control how and what they grow or raise for our nations food and pray that they don't become ill.  Maybe I need to watch shows on TV that are more uplifting.  At least I can live in a dream.

 

Herb Kaufman, Beverly Hills, Michigan:

I still have a coffee mug given to me some years ago.  It states, "I'm on a No Carb diet", and has the pictures of Cheney, Ashcroft, Rumsfeld and Bush. I often think back with frustration and anger to imagine what a different country, and world, this would have been without these arrogant criminals.   

 

Gloria Stephens, Juneau, Alaska:  

Well, wish you luck with your do's and don'ts for the incoming Congress. I suppose you have noticed that the senate will now be run by Mitch McConnell. You must believe in one powerful deity if you think any of those good and sensible things will get done in Washington, D.C. in the next two years. And here comes another Bush. Jesus.

 

Pamela Neubacher, Milford, Michigan:

Don't know if you were ever a follower of Superman, but your second paragraph makes me think that we're heading towards Bizzaro USA.  That is, the opposite of all that we should be.  

 

Robert Causley, Roseville, Michigan:  

Superb essay as always!  I agree with one of your readers, your essay is a great start to Friday. -- The sad truth is that our elected officials have forgotten they are chosen to represent the people. OH!! I forgot that the massive corporations are now people, thanks to the Supreme Court.  You ask that we get back on the rails. The problem is that the rails are now trails, one only has to look at the current urban landscape. I guess that urban jungle would be more correct. You ask for the elected to get the thumb out of their mouth. Yes, and maybe their head out of the bankbook long enough to see the real world. The rule of money is dangerous and as we have seen before the wrong leadership can be catastrophic! Thank you again for the breath of air that is the truth. 

 

Cynthia Chase, Laurel, Maryland:
Yes, I too dream a lot about what my country could be and do if it got its collective thumb out of its mouth and buckled down to do not what is expedient but what is right. Alas, we seem to be a nation a bawl-babies.

 

Jean Witt, Gulf Shores, Alabama:

As I read the essay, I could see that Obama tried, unsuccessfully, to start correcting all the points you mentioned but was thwarted on all sides so nothing could be done. I don't understand why the citizens of this country can't see what is and has been happening. If they did they would have seen to it that they voted in the last election. But they didn't.

 

Fred Fenton, Concord, California:

Alas, other than the possibility that President Obama will veto the Keystone pipeline, not one of the reasonable and important goals you propose for the incoming Congress has a chance of being accomplished. Ours is a government of, by, and for the plutocrats. In 2016, they will present us with two establishment candidates. They are likely to be Bush and Clinton. When will this national nightmare end? 

 

What do you think?
I'd like to hear from you. E-mail your comments to me at revharrytcook@aol.com.