American Values – why can’t we just agree about them? Why are we so polarized? These are important questions, but first, let’s start with a basic definition we can agree upon. I’d propose that a value system is a set of rights and responsibilities that enable us to function as a society. Pretty basic, no? Beyond that, though, we soon encounter controversy over the nature of values. Do we view values as fundamental and absolute entities, or do we consider them simply as social conventions? While we could view this disagreement as only a philosophical issue, it has real-life consequences. Here, we will be exploring this matter by reviewing a recent commencement address at Hillsdale College. Though contrasting with my own perspective, it has helped clarify my understanding of conflicting values and polarization.
(Yes, this is a bit wonky, but I am responding to academia. If this is too wonky, though, stay tuned for a scaled-down, practical version. Or you can learn about life’s paradoxical dualities in Muddling down a Middle Path: Wading through the Messiness of Life.)
Returning to Traditional American Values
I recently read Victor Davis Hanson’s 2025 commencement address at Hillsdale College, summarized in the Imprimis newsletter. Here, he advocated for a return to past Western values to restore American excellence. (Hmm, wait – that message sounds familiar – where have I heard that before?) In particular, he espoused the American virtues of honor, tradition, and optimism. While Dr. Hanson apparently views these values as fundamental and timeless, my examination reveals them as subject to social convention, and at times riddled with inconsistencies. Honor involves adherence to a moral code of conduct, yet whose code? Traditional values share longevity and time-honored acceptance, but not necessarily much else. And optimism spans a spectrum from hopeful determination to complacent blind trust. These features matter when we apply these principles to real-life problems.
A Question of Honor
I have no quibble with the virtue of honor as such. Still, its value hinges largely upon the particular social norms which it supports. The standards 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 Gilded Age’s “robber barons.” And currently, Congress is grappling with the critical issue of allegiance to leader and party vs. to country.
The Challenge: Putting Honor into Practice
I commend Dr. Hanson for including compassion as a component of honor. And I certainly support his inclusion of being honest, confronting bullying, and protecting the vulnerable. Furthermore, I endorse his condemnation of neutrality toward dishonorable behavior. I just wish that he’d be more consistent in calling out that indecency. Notably, his speech focused fairly extensively on a campus episode of bicycle theft. Still, he remained silent on Trump’s dishonesty, intimidation, and retribution – a much larger ethical concern than petty larceny. Furthermore, he praised Hillsdale College’s neutality in staying above the political fray. Yet Hillsdale’s stance against taking federal funds makes it less vulnerable to retaliation for speaking truth to power. This undercuts the excuse of “discretion being the better part of valor” (though granted, not his argument). Therefore, I would include courage is an essential element of honor. So, practice what you preach!
The Case of Conflicting Traditional Values
Traditional values as such share limited essential common ground beyond their longevity and time-honored acceptance. Thus, inconsistencies should come as no surprise. Contradictions often arise, as many of our traditional values align themselves in counterbalanced pairs:
- Freedom vs. Justice
- Order vs. Spontaneity
- Adventure vs. Security
- Individualism vs. Cooperation
- Living in the Moment vs. Planning for the Future
Even though each pair reflects a contrast in values, both sides of the duality have general acceptance. Daily, we make trade-offs between such contrasting values without much thought. These dualities establish the contrasting values as linked to one another, rather than being independent properties. Thus, these polarities pose challenges to those whose ideology views one or both values as absolute and fundamental. Here, Barry Goldwater enters Stage Right.
Freedom vs. Justice
Barry Goldwater once notably proclaimed, “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.” In an ideal world, perhaps we could approximate both these aspirations. Yet living amongst us are the dishonorable, the entitled, and the careless. Here, unfettered liberty means having no constraints, even on those violating or simply disregarding the rights of others. Conversely, measures designed to guarantee those rights equally for all would necessarily impose significant constraints on our freedoms. Thus, we require a balanced approach, so that we all can enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Goldwater apparently failed to appreciate the fundamental incompatibility between his absolute ideals, thus allowing him to maintain both extreme positions. Unfortunately, he has not been the last to assume this posture.
Being vs. Becoming
Another relevant polarity of values is that of being vs. becoming. The popular practice of mindfulness extolls the benefits of living in the moment, while practicality recommends planning ahead. The common saying, “You can’t have your cake and eat it, too,” addresses this tension between living for today and preparing for tomorrow. Note that each position has its legitimate place, yet the adage imposes 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 interpretation conveys the benefits of a trade-off between the two positive values. 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.
Balancing Competing Values
Freedom vs. justice and being vs. becoming are just two inherent polarities of values facing us. Other relevant ones include order vs. spontaneity, security vs. adventure, and competition vs. cooperation. In each of these dualities, we encounter competing values, each with a valid claim to virtue. Our pursuit of one value as an absolute virtue necessarily restricts its polar counterpart. Instead, we have the option of finding a healthy balance between the two poles. These various dualities are not just interesting philosophical phenomena – they carry real-life implications for a healthy society. Unfortunately, the unwelcome intrusion of absolutist ideology often brings with it disdain for compromise.
Optimism – Looking on the Bright Side
Dr. Hanson proposed optimism as a third virtue to guide the recent graduates throughout life. As with the other guiding principles, this one demonstrates a variability that affects its helpfulness. Does it involve an unbridled hopefulness that all will turn out well, regardless of our understanding and effort? Or does it inspire our striving to prevail over imposing obstacles? As with the other virtues, there is an either/or option for optimism. This perhaps is best summarized by the 1940’s Arlen & Mercer tune, Ac-Cent-Tchu-Ate the Positive. The refrain applies this perspective by advising us to “accentuate the positive, eliminate the negative.” The tune’s caution, “Don’t mess with Mr. In-Between,” clearly espouses an “either-or” mentality.
Disregarding the Shadows
While Dr. Hanson does not specify an “either/or” sort of optimism, his comments suggest it. He notes how it is “now chic to be moody and pessimistic and uncool to be upbeat and cheerful.” Furthermore, he contrasted reverence for past generations with shame and self-loathing focused on our historical shortcomings. Many, particularly Blacks and Native Americans, would view this positive spin as a form of whitewashing. A complete and balanced history, rather than an “American exceptionalism” ideology, serves our national viability. As George Santayana reminded us, “Those who do not understand history are doomed to repeat it.” A critical assessment of both our strengths and shortcomings does not necessarily imply shame and self-loathing. Rather, it might cultivate healthy humility and compassion – essential values for bridging our cultural divide.
From “Either/or” to “Us vs. Them”
Unfortunately, the misleading “either/or” choices are prevalent in today’s social/political environment. While seemingly offering clear-cut answers, absolutist thinking provides little guidance for resolving the competing poles of our paired values. It is only a small step from “either/or,” right vs. wrong outlooks to a fractious “us vs. them” mentality. Such thinking pervades our polarized society across various issues, with “compromise” often treated as a dirty word. Our societal failure to reconcile our conflicting American values provides ample opportunities for diabolical agents to exploit. These forces use fear, distrust, and resentment to divide and conquer, laying the groundwork for an authoritarian state. In contrast, honoring our differences and respecting one another offer realistic optimism for preserving our democracy.
Our Western Heritage and “Either/Or” Logic
Dr. Hanson rightly cautioned the recent graduates about the moral decay in today’s materialistic society. He then offered the classical Greco-Roman culture as an antidote. Yet this tradition, too, has its limitations, particularly related to Aristotelian logic. With its Laws of Identity, Contradiction, and Excluded Middle, deductive reasoning lends itself to “either-or” conclusions. While logic helps to solve problems, it is inappropriate for resolving paradoxes, such as the countervailing values previously discussed. Instead, we require a “both/and” approach that balances the contrasting values. Here, we can benefit from expanding beyond our Western heritage to encompass an Eastern perspective.
An Eastern Perspective on Competing Values
Eastern culture offers an alternative to an “either-or” approach. Instead, it presents the concepts of yin and yang as complementary, rather than merely opposing forces. Similarly, Buddhism advocates personal balance through the pursuit of the Middle Path. From this perspective, the various values present as virtues when practiced in moderation, yet vices when applied at the extremes. Thus, while “either/or” thinking predisposes us to polarization, the “both/and” perspective encourages bridging our divides.
From “Us vs. Them” to “We, the People”
Entertaining the Eastern perspective presents an opportunity for integrating values from both Eastern and Western traditions. Thus, we can maintain our traditional values as the yang that complements the yin of Eastern philosophy. In doing so, we can pursue “both/and” resolutions that draw upon a more encompassing understanding. Of course, proponents of American exceptionalism might repudiate the introduction of Eastern perspective as a challenge to Western civilization. For them, we can point to our humanities, with their examination of societal values, as complementing logic and science.
Dealing with True Believers
Yet there are among us some who are suspicious of both humanistic and scientific perspectives. These are often the most vulnerable to authoritarian propaganda and the most resistant to logical reasoning. These “true believers,” as Eric Hoffer labeled them, gravitate toward fanatical cults, absolutist ideologies, and charismatic leaders. When others challenge these allegiances, they usually become defensive, close-minded, and verbally combative. Here, attempts at reasoning appears futile. Conversational discussions, focused around personal experience, and with minimal reference to abstract values and principles, will likely go better. Even with such a low-key approach, there appears limited chance for mutual understanding, let alone agreement.
Applying Values – No Simple Solution
I hope that the above discussion of values presents a compelling argument that the landscape of American values is too varied and complex to lend itself to simple solutions. I would assert instead that it requires a more thorough analysis of the specific applications. Such exploration would likely entail a more nuanced view of American virtues, as Dr. Hanson pursued in discussing honor. I expect that these discussions would lead to decisions involving an inherent trade-off in values. While the commencement address mocks various “studies” courses, I’d propose that they provide an opportunity to apply our values, traditional and contemporary, to current situations in a more thorough, thoughtful manner.
Contending with Ideology and Dogmatism
Of course, just having “studies” courses for applying values to particular issues is no guarantee for success. Optimally, such courses need to be open to diverse perspectives, rather than being wed to specific ideologies, whether traditional, libertarian, so-called “woke,” or other. After all, we can learn more from our adversaries than from our allies, who usually teach us what we already know. But first, we must listen. A little humility can go a long way toward being open-minded. And next, we need to recognize our own biases, and not just those of others. Also, nonjudgmental curiosity can in turn encourage open-mindedness and receptivity in our opponents.
The Charge of “Situational Ethics”
I would be remiss if I ignored the speaker’s dismissal of contextual applications of values as “situational ethics.” This term is a common code phrase implying moral permissiveness, as appears the case in this speech. I readily acknowledge the biases, whether liberal or conservative, involved in any given ethical dilemma. Here, “bias” is not a dirty word. Rather, it simply refers to the differing weights we assign to our various values used in decisions. Discussion offers the opportunity to address these differences of emphasis among the various, often-conflicting values. While such discussions might not achieve consensus, they can still foster mutual understanding – an increasingly rare commodity.
Bridging the Cultural/Political Divide
I recognize that some will view this critique as a challenge to the conventional wisdom of traditional Western values. Alternatively, this rebuttal offers a viable “both/and” framework for incorporating these values into modern life. I welcome the opportunity to assume a bully pulpit, from which I am reaching out beyond my own choir. I view it as essential to democracy that we have meaningful dialogue across our political divides. Otherwise, divisive ideology prevails. Open discussions can facilitate the tempering of our opinions. This is true for two meanings of “tempering” (i.e., both moderating 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, in contrast to mere indoctrination.
