Americans love to invoke the past and indeed are often happiest doing so in direct proportion to their ignorance of it. One oft-repeated historical reference (much beloved by President Ronald Reagan along with many others) offers an excellent case in point. According to Reagan, the first migrants to New England thought of themselves as creating a model for the rest of the world. Advocates of this view cite the lay sermon of early Massachusetts governor John Winthrop, known as "Of Christian Charity." The tradition that the first settlers thought of themselves as prospective world leaders (or at least as guides to the rest of the world) flowed directly into the conviction that the United States had not only the right but the duty to take Indian and Mexican lands in its advance across the continent; it has been seen as a precursor to the 19th century idea of "Manifest Destiny." Echoes of it appear in the most arrogant foreign policy statements, especially when U.S. leaders claim that America has a duty to act in the affairs of others. The misreading this represents likely will never die, so fundamental has it become.
John Winthrop preached "Of Christian Charity" because, as its informal title implies, he worried that the settlers would not take care of each other. Preached in anticipation of the move to New England, the sermon warned colonists that they had to behave charitably toward their fellow migrants. The road ahead would be difficult, he warned, and the society they sought to create was far from assured. Winthrop wanted both to maintain social distinctions and to ensure that each person felt responsibility for the others. The idea of "a city on a hill" did not represent a beacon to draw the world's people or their attentions, but warned that their social experiment would be scrutinized and judged. He reminded them that they wanted to set up a godly society, worthy of their religious beliefs. In failure, they would embarrass their faith. Far from a blueprint for creating a world power, or even a beacon to prospective migrants, the sermon cautioned rather than celebrated.
Reagan's use of this idea (which was so much a part of his public discourse that his eulogist Sandra Day O'Connor revived it at his funeral) never followed Winthrop's tone or meaning. Rather for Reagan the "city on a hill" went along with his intention to "make America great again." This slogan, used in Reagan's presidential campaign in 1980, is currently in play once again.
One of the great ironies of Reagan's use was how he invoked the image to support a particular image of the United States, in which independent, self-sufficient men and women came to build a great nation, one that could stand up to Soviet Communism. That he employed the image even as he advocated drastic cuts in social program (mental health, welfare, etc.) shows how far his meaning was from Winthrop's, since the earlier leader argued FOR the early modern version of social programs, care for the poor and less fortunate. Quite likely, calling this use Reagan's "reading" gives a false sense of the late President's engagement in the text. He probably lifted the famous phrase without exploring its context or trying to interpret its original meaning.
Like all short-hand political phrases, "the City on the hill" performed particular work. Reagan cared less what Winthrop intended and more about his own goals. A historical reference, however taken out of context, added a patina of tradition to his political and social policies. Winthrop was not a Reaganite by any means, but his words were nonetheless used by Reagan to great effect.