American Values?

I just got done listening to Fred Thompson bash Rudy Giuliani's "New York" values on Fox News (which, I think, is headquartered in New York...is this a tacit affirmation of those NY values?). In 2006 the Republicans attacked Nancy Pelosi for her "San Francisco values." Then of course, there are all those "values" voters, a code word for right-wing Christianists.

Today, we celebrate being gay-Americans, Jewish-Americans, African-Americans, etc., with the emphasis placed on the left side of the hyphen. But can we define what the word on the right-hand side means? Can we define an American "value" that transcends communities, religions and regions? We throw words like "liberty" and "freedom" around with as much sincerity and meaning as we would in telling the grocer to "have a nice day." And yet we fight wars -- cultural wars and blood wars -- over these words.

Post 9/11, I'm not even sure "freedom" is the goal anymore. Today the goal is "security." And that word can be defined by the lack of attack on the homeland. And thus, without the values of freedom and security acting as a balance, a president and Congress can justify any act as long as it makes us more "secure."

I wish a leader in the presidential race would take Americans through a discussion of what freedom and liberty mean in a way that isn't sectarian or provincial. America is having an identity crisis. We increasingly, in our mad quest for security, have forgotten who we are. And our politicians play to our fears over our differences by throwing around code phrases like "New York Values." It's much harder to win elections talking about what unites us.

Our original national motto was "E Pluribus Unum," Latin for "out of many, one." We're doing good on the pluribus part, not so good on the unum part. And with the current crop of sorry presidential candidates, the marginalization of America will continue.

Have a nice day.

On Thompson and Reagan

A whithering -- and, I think spot-on -- look at the Reagan/Thompson comparison.

It's bogus.

And it also spotlights what is so different about all the candidates (with the possible exception of Obama) running today vs. the former movie actor president. Reagan believed in things. His views when elected in 1980 were views he fleshed out in the 1960s. He may have used polls and imagery to help him sell his ideas, but he was no finger-in-the-wind chameleon ready to adopt whatever position would win him the most votes.

Reagan wanted to be president because he wanted to do certain things. The candidates running today try to figure out what things they need to do in order to become president. Such is the difference between giants and dwarves.