The Enduring Vision, Chapter 4, "The Bonds of Empire"

The Enduring Vision

Chapter 4 (“The Bonds of Empire”)

     I was surprised to learn (on page 83) that James Oglethorpe was against slavery, and that slavery was initially illegal in the Georgia colony. That came as complete news to me. I had always been under the impression that slavery had never been opposed in the South. Of course, the book goes on to state that “Oglethorpe’s well-intentioned plans failed” (The Enduring Vision, p. 83) and that “in 1750 slavery became legal” (The Enduring Vision, p. 83) in the Georgia Colony. Still, it is encouraging to know that not everyone in the old days was a racist.

     When I read that “political leadership fell to a small number of wealthy families with a tradition of public service” (The Enduring Vision, p. 85) in British America, it sounded to me an apt description of some aspects of today’s political landscape. Naturally, we have a long history of rich, political families here in the U.S (the Bushes, the Reagans, the Clintons, the Kennedys, the Daly family in Chicago, etc.). In the past, I hadn’t given this much thought. But looking at U.S. history from a more global perspective has given me the chance to view our system with increased detachment. Political family dynasties are commonplace in the U.S. today. Rich people getting into politics is also something that still happens a great deal. In fact, some presidential candidates in my lifetime are people whose primary qualification for the job appears to be (at least from my point of view) family wealth or self-made fortune. I’m thinking of people like Steve Forbes, Ross Perot, Meg Whitman, and of course Mitt Romney. As a side note, it is interesting to see that none of those deep-pocketed candidates actually won. It's not that they don't have a right to run, of course they do. But, the question is: how has it come about that money is at least as important as ideas when it comes to politics?

     I think it is a shame that our political system is so money-driven, and that to be a serious contender for president, a candidate has got to have immense financial backing. In American culture, children are raised to believe that they can be anything they want to be when they grow up. As inspiring as this sounds, the reality is that high political office in the U.S. is all but reserved for those who make a lifelong career out of politics, and/or those who make giant amounts of money in business (including show business) and then decide to become politicians.. It is also striking to note that it is pretty much mandatory for all candidates for high-ranking state and federal roles in the USA to profess their Christianity, as well as to appear heterosexual. For a country founded in the name of religious freedom, it just feels wrong to me that when we choose a president, or other elected officials, people care so much about the candidate’s religious affiliation and sexual orientation. I am looking forward to the day when we elect a gay, agnostic or atheist candidate to a high-ranking federal office.

 

     Change is starting to come, especially at the level of state and local government. For example, when I lived in Houston, TX in 2008, I was delighted to hear that Annise Parker had been elected as the Mayor of Houston. Parker is a lesbian who has a very supportive partner, and several children of mixed race via that same partner. Right after the election, I heard some grumbling about Mayor Parker from the arch-conservative set. Some didn't like the idea of a woman mayor. Some didn't like the idea of a lesbian woman mayor. Others didn't like the fact that her children didn't all look like her because their other mother is black. But overall, I believe most Houstonians held her in high regard. For a place that is widely seen as being insanely conservative, I give Houston kudos for being fair and voting for the person they found to be most-qualified to lead their city, even if she was a little different than previous mayors.

     Finally, I guess it is interesting to me that throughout US History, the right to participate in the political process (I mean even to vote, let alone to run for office) has been given to people in a piecemeal fashion. Previous courses I have taken in junior high school and high school did not get into the level of detail that our text does about precisely who could vote and when. Given our history so far, I'd say the US has come a long, long way toward free participation for all, at least in terms of  voting. What is odd to me is that such a large number of people choose not to vote or don't inform themselves about politics. I suppose this is the complacency of people who take for granted the right to vote, and just consider it a chore. Others may feel like their vote doesn't count, so they don't bother.  Or some people only vote when there is an issue that concerns them, I would guess. But, I do love something that my parents always used to tell my brothers and me: "if you don't vote, then you have no right to complain about the government." I'll buy that.