In this opinion piece, I review a recent commencement address and its longing to return to basic American values. In doing so, I discuss the challenge of applying traditional American values to our country’s modern problems. Here, I note how the inherent conflicts among values complicate the project. Yes, it is a bit wonky, but I am responding to academia. You can find my extended discussion of life’s paradoxical dualities in Muddling down a Middle Path: Wading through the Messiness of Life.
Academic Purity – Vice or Virtue?
I read with interest – and some amusement – the Imprimis synopsis of Victor Davis Hanson’s 2025 commencement address at Hillsdale College. First, I endorse Hillsdale College’s policy against seeking or even accepting federal funding. However, I am not against higher education pursuing governmental grants to address issues of health and welfare in today’s society. I’m not sure who else would be better equipped to tackle these problems . Neither today’s federal government nor the various Washington think tanks exhibit the required objectivity for the task. Yet Hillsdale has the right to maintain its classical traditions, unsullied by the complications of modern life.
Which American Values?
I am somewhat perplexed over the choice of American values (i.e., tradition, honor, optimism) espoused in that speech. Our founding fathers were hardly traditional in rebelling against the British monarch. And proposing a democratic republic in those days was rather radical. I have no quibble with the virtue of honor. Still, it can be rather self-serving, as the phrase “honor among thieves” suggests. Often, the honor code serves a select group to the exclusion of others – consider the 19th Century “robber barons.” And optimism should be realistic, not Pollyanna-ish. Thus, it requires a solid appreciation for the complex challenges facing our polarized society. This involves a realistic appraisal of our shortcomings, as well as of our strengths. It is here that I take issue with the thrust of this lecture.
Freedom and Justice
In particular, I find the speech’s handling of our American values fairly simplistic. I would argue that our positive values are often in conflict, and inherently so. Barry Goldwater perhaps best exemplified the conservative naivete regarding this matter. He famously proclaimed, “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.” Yet unfettered liberty means having no limits or restraints. This allows the dishonorable to get their way at the expense of others, which just is not just. And ultimate justice would necessarily involve undue constraints on our freedoms. Thus, we need to find a proper balance between liberty and justice.
Living for Today vs. Planning Ahead
Freedom vs. justice is not the only inherent polarity of values we must contend with. Other relevant ones include order vs. spontaneity, security vs. adventure, and being vs. becoming. The latter duality is expressed in the common saying, “You can’t have your cake and eat it, too.” This presents a false “either-or” choice. A “both/and” option would state, “You can halve your cake, eat one half now, and save the rest for later.” This issue is particularly relevant today, when our government faces the challenge of budgeting our current programs and obligations without incurring overwhelming debt for future generations.
From “Us vs. Them” to “We, the People”
The fractious “us vs. them” mentality pervades our polarized society across these and other various issues. Our failure to reconcile our conflicting American values provides opportunities for diabolical agents to exploit. These forces use division and fear to constrain both liberty and justice, laying the groundwork for an authoritarian state. Thus, respecting our differences and honoring one another is essential for preserving our democracy.
https://roguepsychologist.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/nothing-in-stone1.jpg
Applying Values – No Simple Solution
I hope that the above discussion presents a compelling argument that the network of positive American values is too messy to lend itself to simple solutions. I would argue that, instead, it requires a more thorough study of the specific applications and a recognition of the inherent trade-offs involved in each of these situations. Yet the commencement address mocked the various “studies” courses, even though they might offer the opportunity to apply classical values to current situations. Furthermore, the speaker appears to dismiss such contextual applications as “situational ethics,” a code phrase for moral permissiveness.
Bridging the Political Divide
I recognize that the above critique offers a challenge to the conventional wisdom of a strictly classical education. Hopefully, though, this rebuttal encourages the application of these values to modern life. I welcome the opportunity to assume a bully pulpit, from which I am not just preaching to my choir. I view it as essential to a democracy that we have meaningful dialogues across our political divides – otherwise, divisive ideology prevails. Such discussions can facilitate the tempering of our opinions. This is true for both meanings of “tempering” (i.e., both modulating and strengthening our positions). Reviewing this commencement address has helped to sharpen and articulate my own values and opinions – even if by contrast. Such is the value of true education, as opposed to mere indoctrination.