Loyalty is important to any society or social group. Dissent, naturally, tends to be frowned upon because it weakens group cohesion. Does this mean that dissent is something that needs to be repressed or can dissent actually help a group in the long run by providing alternatives?
- What is the new loyalty? It is, above all, conformity. It is the uncritical and unquestioning acceptance of America as it is — the political institutions, the social relationships, the economic practices. It rejects inquiry into the race question or socialized medicine, or public housing or into the wisdom or validity of our foreign policy. It regards as particularly heinous any challenge to what is called “the system of private enterprise,” identifying that system with Americanism. It abandons evolution, repudiates the once popular concept of progress, and regards America as a finished product, perfect and complete.
- It is, it must be added, easily satisfied. For it wants not intellectual conviction or spiritual conquest but mere outward conformity. In matters of loyalty it takes the word for the deed, the gesture for the principle. It is content with the flag salute, and does not pause to consider the warning of our Supreme Court that “a person gets from a symbol the meaning he puts into it, and what is one man’s comfort and inspiration is another’s jest and scorn.” It is satisfied with membership in respectable organizations and... concludes that every member of a conservative one is a true American. It has not yet learned that not everyone who saith Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of Heaven. It is designed neither to discover real disloyalty nor foster true loyalty.
The above sounds like a biting indictment of the current state of American society, but it’s not. It’s a biting indictment of American society 50 years ago. It’s a quote from Freedom, Loyalty, Dissent, written by Commager in 1954.
Meet the “new loyalty” — it’s not merely your father’s loyalty, it’s your grandfather’s loyalty.
It’s almost as if there has been little social progress in the last 50 years. There is tremendous pressure against anyone who suggests anything resembling socialized medicine. The “race question” has changed because we are now debating the extent to which discrimination continues to occur rather than whether desegregation should occur, but there is still a reluctance to admit that discrimination may be an ongoing problem.
The situation facing those who challenge the wisdom or validity of America’s foreign policy is much worse, though. People can become labeled traitors and attacked in a variety of ways. The “if you’re not with us, you’re against us” attitude continues to have a strong hold on those with little imagination. There is only one way to tackle terrorism and Islamic extremism; anyone dissenting from that plan must therefore be “objectively pro-terrorism.” There’s no shortage of pundits who argue that American liberals are in bed with Muslim extremists because those liberals disagree with how conservatives conceive of the problems and solutions in foreign policy.
I suspect that by “evolution” Commager had in mind something like “social evolution,” but as it stands it works equally well for the scientific theory of evolution and there’s no question but that the current conservative conformity has been consistently abandoning science in favor of whatever religious or political ideology is perceived as important. This includes evolution and the American president actually suggests that evolution isn’t as much a fact as anything else in science.
The growing demands of conformity are interesting — and distressing. We regularly hear about people kicked out of official, taxpayer funded events because their cars or their shirts have depicted some message inconsistent with government policy. If you give any indication that you may not agree with the president or vice-president, there’s a good chance that you won’t be allowed to hear them speak or ask them questions.
We are seeing a negation or twisting of the concept of harmony. A democracy requires harmony because unless people are willing to work together to govern society, government won’t work. Someone else will come along to govern it for them because people will be calling for more effective leadership. Harmony, however, does not exist when everyone is required to sing in the same voice. Harmony is achieved through many different notes coming together and creating something larger and better than any could achieve individually.
Paul Woodruff writes in First Democracy:
- “Democracy depends upon listening to opposing views, but in time of crisis, people forget this. If you speak out against a popular measure, you may be branded as an enemy of the people. But that is not democracy at work; it is the majority of the moment acting the part of a tyrant, having its way by the use of fear and intimidation.”
Meet the new loyalty, same as the old loyalty.
