Whenever this country comes to a great divide over issues, there is a long held myth that any public acrimony is somehow the antithesis of America. Speaker Nancy Pelosi said as much in a recent column.
Pelosi, along with House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, questioned the patriotism of those who have recently disrupted the town-hall meetings on health care. Pelosi and Hoyer wrote that this behavior is "simply un-American."
I can certainly understand Pelosi's frustration, but is it un-American? In 1791, George Washington's first Treasury Secretary, Alexander Hamilton, amassed enormous powers en route to becoming a controversial figure.
The assumption of the debt, under Hamilton, expanded the power of the federal government. But Hamilton set out to reshape the fledgling nation.
Hamilton put a series of proposals before Congress, with Washington's blessing, instituting a national currency, the dollar. He established a national bank, the precursor to the Federal Reserve.
Moreover, Hamilton's vision stimulated the growth of the stock market. He also proposed the government get directly involved in the development of large-scale industry.
Those such as Thomas Jefferson saw Hamilton as laying the groundwork for a monarchy. Jefferson feared Hamilton was creating a powerful central government that would threaten individual liberty. For Jefferson, Hamilton's policies were too reminiscent of the European state. It was two competing visions of what America should be.
Jefferson and his allies formed a loose political alliance, known as Democratic-Republicans, but commonly referred to themselves simply as "Republicans." Hamilton and the supporters of Washington's administration were called "Federalists." This divide is the first sign of what would ultimately become America's two-party system.
The battle between the parties became a public fight that spilled onto the streets. A new political culture was born; the opinions of ordinary people took on increasing importance, giving rise to highly partisan newspapers unabashedly lobbying the cause of their side.
Hamilton and Jefferson hired journalists to carry their political water and to denigrate the opposition.
Hamilton's Caribbean origins and immigrant status even led to innuendo through the press that he was part black. It was, in the words of Hamilton biographer Ron Chernow, "the golden age of literary and political assassination," depicting the Founders as not exactly a harmonious group in lock-step marching toward a democratic utopia.
Jefferson understood the power of public opinion much more so than Hamilton and he won the public debate. I don't doubt the sincerity of Jefferson's disagreements with Hamilton, but his winning the public battle created one of the great ironies in U.S. history.
Hamilton, the immigrant, the self-made man would be the one cast as an elitist, while Jefferson, born into the Virginia gentry, owner of slaves, his wealth creation greatly aided by unpaid labor, is viewed as the man of the people.
But 218 years of hindsight allow us to see in many ways Hamilton is the quintessential American story. He's a self-made man who comes to this country with very little and through luck and ingenuity built a legacy that we remain the beneficiaries into the present day.
The other ironic historical twist is that although Jefferson (along with Hamilton's own self-destruction) managed to ensure that he and not Hamilton would become president, it was Hamilton's visionary thinking that led to America having the highest credit rating in the world. When France gave President Jefferson the opportunity to purchase the Louisiana Territory and double the area of the United States, money and credit were readily available.
Beginning in the 19th century the canals, the railroads, the heavy industry, the huge cities and the boom in technology that led to the greatest prosperity known to humankind -- can trace their lineage to Hamilton's vision.
But in the 18th century during the heat of battle, those in the public conversation siding against Hamilton and for Jefferson did so against their self-interest. Driven by emotion, influenced by propaganda, bombarded with false facts, nervous about radical change, many saw in Jefferson what they wanted to see, though in many ways Hamilton's story was their story.
This is why I take issue with Pelosi's characterization of those who disrupt the town-hall meeting and ostensibly the health care debate in general.
Are their tactics frustrating? Yes. Are they filled with misinformation? Yes. Are many debating against their self-interest? Yes.
But can we call their actions un-American?
Byron Williams is an Oakland pastor and syndicated columnist and blog-talk radio host. He is the author of Strip Mall Patriotism: Moral Reflections of the Iraq War. E-mail him at byron@byronspeaks.com or visit his Web site: byronspeaks.com
Follow Byron Williams on Twitter: www.twitter.com/byronspeaks
Josh Rosenblatt: Conservative Protesters Show Their Liberal Side on the Streets of D.C.
At this point the fears of white conservative America go beyond losing elections. They're losing the country, losing the culture and losing the future. Hence the three-ring circus that is American democracy in 2009.
We were protesting the killing fields, not healthcare for all.
Byron Williams is not helping here and he is no lover of human life.
Do you doubt this? Is it an American position that if you want to get information that might not support a particular position, the way to deal with it is to whout down anyone who disagrees? Is it the American position to go out of your way to intimidate with aggressive behavior (including prominent display of firearms coupled with slogans supporting assassination) those who might want to attend a venue to get information?
That may be Fox America, or even a large proportion of Republican America. It must not be mistaken for honest America. If it becomes so, we are truly lost.
-----
Apparently so, think Iraq.
Do you have any hard evidence that shows this, other than Fact chek
How again did Hamilton die?
I am fully aware that disruption of opponents' political gatherings was practiced in the Revolutionary era, and in all time since. That's history. But it was a deplorable practice then, and it is a deplorable practice now. And if it ever became "American" -- in the sense that it was common, rather than exceptional, behavior -- it would have long since led us from representative democracy to mob rule.
BTW, very nice interjection of the race card. Not germane, but a nice distraction attempt,
They are not exercising their first amendment rights. They are not engaged in political speech. They are not engaged in meaningful or intentional discourse of any kind.
They are mobs formed at the location town-hall meetings. They cloak themselves in the first amendment in order to deny citizens their first amendment rights.
Denying citizens their constitutionally protected first amendment rights is indeed unamerican. Doing so under a flimsy and patently false patina of exercising first amendment rights does not make it American. That they are, at least in part, the result of the government agents, in the form of Republican Congress-members makes them not only unamerican but unconstitutional; exactly what the first amendment was designed to prohibit; the government denying citizens politcal speech and associations. The fact that Republicans try to hide their obvious association does not mitigate their involvement.
We are always so eager to give lies the same weight as truths as if false equivalences were indeed real to the point where all to many Americans seem no longer capable of logical or even rational thought.
You know, with the people who are disrupting and keeping others from speaking, being all educated and up on the facts and stuff.
Factor in also, that the claims of the 'protesters' were not only factually false, but were geared to intentionally misinform. Protesting is American. Lying to prevent a dialogue on policy in not protesting.
Given all that, its hard to argue in this context what the shouters were doing was patriotic.