Sunday, January 25, 2009 at 7:09PM | in Governance Are there limits to unity?
Sussex, EnglandThe New York Times recently carried a couple of letters to the editor, which raise concerns about what a new call for American unity will mean for the spirit of individualism. The letters come in response to an editorial by David Brooks, in which he argues that the cultural terrain of America is shifting towards traditional themes of unity, cohesion and responsibility. The authors of the letters to the editor reply:
We should all hope that the ideological battles of the last 50 years, with radical shifts in policy at each new presidential administration, can be put aside in favor of pragmatic solutions to the problems we now face. But solutions made by a group are not the only path to achieve great goals.
More often than not, it is a lonely "expressive individualism" that leads the way.
The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. did it for civil rights, and Rachel Carson did it for the environment. I hope that politics in the "age of cohesion" will not stifle this kind of individualism.
These are important and interesting questions to raise, and they are ones that every community (national, local, religious, cultural) must grapple with: how to promote a coherent vision while not crowding out the voices that bring the freshness of new ideas.
(Hat Tip: TIF)
Sunday, January 25, 2009 at 7:09PM | in Governance 
Reader Comments (3)
We Americans take so much for granted.
The fundamental freedoms and material prosperity we have has been enjoyed to excessive extremes while millions of people in the world are still deprived of the most basic necessities of life.
We have a long way to go in the exploration of the nature of the human existence. I have no doubt that "expressive individualism" will reach even greater heights in a world living in peace, where fundamental needs of life and education are met.
Thanks for your comment, Liz. I don't think the points raised by the letters concerned global inequality -- they were rather warning that a discourse of national unity can be used to marginalize progressive or challenging voices. Their point highlights the balance between unity and diversity.
"how to promote a coherent vision while not crowding out the voices that bring the freshness of new ideas." I'd be interested to hear you explore this more. You've identified one key dilemma of leadership, Geoff. I don't know the answer, but believe that leaders must be willing to listen, avoid micro-management, observe results of policy - both good and bad, and change their position when necessary. This means allowing and even encouraging dissenting voices that might possibly contain an element of truth.