Fair   50.0F  |  Forecast »
Bookmark and Share Email this page Email Print this page Print

Shouldn’t we all be Americans first?

Op-Ed

Sep 13, 2012 - 03:40 PM

I was first elected to Congress in 1964. That was the year Lyndon Johnson won a full term as president in a landslide. If ever a president had a popular mandate to pursue his goals, it was LBJ in the few years that followed that election.

  Yet one of my strongest memories of him is not of a president reveling in partisan supremacy, but of his cautioning against it. Johnson used to love meeting with freshman members of Congress, and after taking office we Democrats who’d been elected along with him had every expectation that he would allow us to bask at the expense of our Republican colleagues. He didn’t. “I’m an American first,” he told us. “And I’m a Democrat second.”

  It was a bracing affirmation of a quality essential to national leadership — a firm conviction that the good of the country comes first, even if it runs counter to the interests of one’s political party. I can’t help thinking of it today, in an era when deep, seemingly unbridgeable differences divide Democrats and Republicans, and when these divisions are being stoked by the current presidential campaign.

  It has been apparent almost since the beginning, that our nation’s welfare rests on how well political leaders balance the needs of the country against their partisan goals. In 1796, preparing to step down from the presidency, George Washington devoted much of his Farewell Address to this question, and to the destructiveness of what he called “the fury of party spirit.”

  Surveying with alarm the regional discord and the growing hostility between Federalists and the Republicans that took hold in the final years of his second term, he set out to warn Americans that the very permanency of the Union depended on “a government for the whole.”

  Other national leaders understood the sentiment. Patrick Henry’s famous statement, “United we stand, divided we fall” was followed by these words: “Let us not split into factions which must destroy that union upon which our existence hangs.” 

  “We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists,” Thomas Jefferson said in his first inaugural address.

  Each of these leaders signaled a bedrock belief in the importance of working together to bridge differences and find common ground because the nation’s welfare demanded it, regardless of the dictates of a party’s extremes.

  Now, I’m not urging that we be naive. We’re not going to abolish parties, and we shouldn’t. They help us organize our political choices, define and advocate issues, and make sense of elections.

  But if we’re not careful, they can be carried to such an extreme that they divide government, when what we need is unity of government. We need it in foreign affairs, where the more united we are as a nation, the stronger we are. And we need it in domestic policy, where excessive partisanship agitates the people and creates animosities among them. It leads to distrust within Congress, mistrust of Washington, weaker administration of government and an inability to resolve the problems that press against our future. If you doubt any of this, just look around.

  It is extraordinarily difficult to create a government that works together for the common good. One reason most presidents end up talking about the unity of the country and of government is because they, more than most of us, can see the centrifugal forces of region, ethnicity, religion and ideology at work. They know that there is no magic formula for balancing them all.

  But in this era of unforgiving partisanship, it is too easy to forget the importance of trying – and of working hard not to fan the flames of divisiveness.

  It is crucial to avoid painting the other side as un-American or eager to betray the national interest, just as it is to recognize that we have more in common than we have differences.

  Our differences are important; they are part of who we are as a nation. But if we want to overcome our challenges and preserve our greatness, unity is indispensable. The great work of our democracy, as it has been for more than 200 years, is learning how to reconcile the two.

• • •

  Lee Hamilton is director of the Center on Congress at Indiana University. He was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives for 34 years.

 

Please note: Your full name will be published with your comment.

Old to new | New to old
Sep 14, 2012 06:17 am
 Posted by  Phineas Worthington

In a society where 50% are tax producers and 50% are tax consumers, unity is hard to come by.

Sep 14, 2012 12:47 pm
 Posted by  Tom Sokolowski

Phineas, we are not really divided the way you seem to think we are. We are a society in which 100% of us contribute, or at least try to, in one way or another. Your idea of dividing our country between givers and takers is unrealistic, and doesn’t really reflect our society in any way. It’s just old fashioned class warfare, which I’m pretty tired of by now.

Sep 14, 2012 04:25 pm
 Posted by  Wayne Hardy

I wish "100% of us contribute" were true Tom. Half of Americans
don't pay Federal Income tax. I say let the poor pay their fair
share.

Sep 14, 2012 07:08 pm
 Posted by  Tom Sokolowski

Wayne, If half of Americans don’t pay Federal Income tax (because they don’t make enough money), that doesn’t mean they don’t contribute. It just means they contribute in other ways; community service, volunteerism, non-profits, helping others, raising a family, serving in the military, charity work, and many other ways. It’s not always about the money Wayne, it’s about what you give of yourself to your society.

And your point about half of Americans don’t pay Federal Income tax; well that’s true. But they pay sales tax every time they buy something; and they pay fees, duties, and surcharges also. Further, half of Americans don’t pay the Federal tax because they don’t make enough money!

American medium household income is about $55,000 a year. That means 50% of American families make less than $55,000 a year. The bottom 20% of Americans earn less than $18,000 a year, and the next 20% earn less than $34,000 a year (How can anyone live on $34,000 a year?). After adjusting your gross income to taxable income, adding child tax credit deductions, home mortgage deductions, charitable deductions, many people probably don’t owe any money. But that doesn’t mean they don’t contribute, not by a long shot.

Does your concern for paying, as you say “your fair share” extend to your boy Romney and others like him, who pays 13.9% on what we know about, while not having a clue about the “fair share” on his assets hiding in the Caymans?

Sep 17, 2012 10:24 am
 Posted by  Wayne Hardy

I have already addressed the issue on Romney's taxes.
He paid 15% while Obama paid 20%. I paid apx. 8% so
I guess that makes me more greedy then Romney. Obama
is a saint and Romney is a scrooge because of a mere
5% difference in the taxes they pay. Please!! It's a
non issue Tom.

Regarding the 50% who pay no taxes. Then explain to me
how those people who pay no taxes get refunds and added
federal benefits. I know a person who gets every social
benefit they can and boast about the federal refund they
get at the end of the year. Everyone should pay taxes
Tom!! Especially if they are receiving social benefits
which we all pay for. And to say these people contribute
with all their time is flat dreaming. Nice try..but I'm
not buying it. So your on record with the belief that no
one under $55K per year should pay taxes?

Sep 17, 2012 03:06 pm
 Posted by  Wayne Hardy

To elaborate some more Tom. I really don't have a problem
with the bottom 20% getting a refund for most...if not all..
of the Federal Income Tax they paid. What I do have a problem
with are those people that get refunds for more than they
paid in F.I.T. I know this is a very common occurrence for
individuals and families that get all kinds of governmental
assistance. Much of which cost very little or is free. My
question to you is this. For people who take advantage of
government assistence programs is it out of line to require
them to pay something in Federal taxes? Or, to at least
forfeit the refunds that were behond the Federal taxes that
they paid?

Add your comment: