Featured

Is the United States of America under Siege?

Following the storming of the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021, in the ordinary course of legislative business, one must ask the place of this event in history. To what does it give rise, where does it lead America, and what does it indicate for its citizenry?

One could argue that there is too much hostility within the American majority, too much dissension, for America to continue with a republican form of government, for the United States Constitution to remain. A democratic military relies upon patriotism and a caring respect for government. Its military is derived from the majority population. If the majority no longer believes in justice and freedom under the U.S. Constitution, the military will not possess the moral force to protect the government from threats both at home and abroad.

The storming of the American Capitol was a rebellion, a failed revolution. The cause cannot be deemed that of madness or irrationality. Rather, it must be acknowledged to be an expression of a competing ideology. For, regardless of the methodology of the acts of violence against a government, such acts embody and express an ideology.

Consequently, diplomacy is required to reach agreement and compromise, to heal a country and the world. Denial of the existence of the beliefs and positions of the rebelling entity begets further uprisings and intermittent rebellion. An inclusive truce is necessary. Moreover, in the world’s history, uprisings, rebellions and revolutions, including the American Revolution, have long been subjected to the ad hominem of madness and irrationality, without their being evidence of proof other than reference to acts embodying a competing ideology.

Why Did the Attempted Revolution Occur?

Throughout the world’s existence, history’s development and progress has exhibited great hardship and horror. The storming of the American Capitol could be an example of the development of the world by means of such hardship and horror. Many deem this to be development through the reason and spirit in history, the Hegelian dialectic. According to Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, in the world there is the existence of the status quo; the critique or destruction of the status quo; and then the collective synthesis of a new, positive result in history. One would attribute to this phenomenon, the slow but developing and evolving state of human progress.

In some sense, Hegel deemed this the actualization of the known and preexisting universe and cosmos by the spirit of history. Yet, those living in each intermittent era of unknowing naivete ask why the negative, destructive critique of the status quo is necessary to evolve and develop, regardless of the result produced. Does it have to do with human nature and the mind of man? Does reasoned critique possess limits necessitating a reliance upon negative destruction? If a destructive negation is not necessary, perhaps society should strive to divert destructive animosity toward reasoned discussion.

In the thought of Hegel, we ask what is the positive result of the negative undoing and destruction of the U.S. Capitol. Does the storming indicate that, in addition to criminal penalties, some form of political reform will or should result? Could the rebellion give rise to either the creation of third and or fourth political parties, or a parliamentary form of government?

If third parties are cultivated, ideology through rebellion could express itself lawfully in the form of party platforms and representatives in elected office. If transition into a parliamentarian form of government, the United States would no longer rely upon a separately elected executive with a greater concentration of power in the form of a right of veto over the legislative body. Parliamentary government would require a significant reform of American government. Yet, rebellion and attempted revolution are significant acts.

There must be a humane and positive response by government and society to the rebellion, regardless of what one believes to be its cause. Rebels seek an answer to their demands. They seek their definition of justice. We cannot loft above them an ideal, utopian definition of justice which has been long deemed beyond reach by the world’s greatest elected officials, academics and philosophers. We must seek and strive toward a viable definition of justice: the right of all people to political participation through peaceful expression.

If America abided the principles and text of the Constitution, specifically, and rule of law, generally, differences and disagreements would be settled in the context of traditional political debate and law making. The United States must maintain the quality of its existence as a representative democracy governed by a natural aristocracy. It must act according to law and include the concerns and needs of all within the course of day-to-day debate. Ignoring any segment of the public results in an emotional response such as rebellion. Providing justice to all will avoid such in the future.

America should not attempt to avoid Hegelian peaceful critiques of the status quo, for debate and critique are the basis of the American political system. But, Americans must channel critique within structural modes of expression. From the ordinary member of the public to those occupying the highest office in the land, political participation and the ability to self-govern combine to avoid the recent cathartic event witnessed in the storming of the American Capitol. For, no rebellion or revolt takes form in short order. No one person could be responsible for persuading so many to act against their country. Revolt and rebellion result from a long felt disheartening of many people with their country. The only remedy is to provide a sense of enfranchisement and receptive, meritocratic government.

As J. Hector St. John de Crèvecoeur stated: from soil values grow. American democracy is premised upon the dignity of the individual and respect for all. A storming of the bastion of the people’s government indicates that an overwhelming number of citizens require that government be restructured to meet their needs. The United States needs to bring democracy closer to the soil of America.

Third Parties May Be an Answer to America’s Current Debate

Third parties are often factions that leave major parties over certain issues. America must discern the grievances possessed by America’s rebels. They ostensibly are supporters of former President Donald Trump. However, such violence coalesces and surrounds more than one person. It evolves over time and involves a plentitude of issues. The Capitol revolt was not the temperance party, the women’s suffrage movement or Teddy Roosevelt’s Bull Moose party. These ideological expressions were serious and longstanding. Yet, they did not reach the level of violence as the recent storming of the American Capitol. Consequently, the deep seated, violence inducing concerns and grievances of the Capitol rebels rely on more than what might be offered by one person. For, in expressing their grievances, they sought to destroy the very government former President Trump represents.

Permanent realignment of the two major political parties in America into third parties may require some phenomenon such as a rebellion or near revolution. Broad based, grassroot rebellion expressed in the form of movements such as the Capitol rebels could coalesce to form a third party. Some of the rebels could be akin and ideologically similar to the Libertarian party which acknowledges an expression of faction and inter-party strife within the two major parties in America, with the Libertarian party combining fundamental American ideals with conservative economics.

Despite the dramatic events of January 6^th, would the Capitol rebels fail as a third party as have most others in American history? The two major parties in America could adopt the ideological grievances and positions of the Capitol rebels and thus lessen any incentive to form new parties. Yet, the Capitol rebels may be so long underrepresented in politics and government that they cannot avail themselves of traditional forms of political participation that a political party offers. Perhaps, for the sake of democracy and diplomacy, citizens who agree and are sympathetic with the positions of the Capitol rebels should lead a new party to which the rebels could belong. This would transcend typical obstacles to formation of a third party such as inadequate financial resources and local and state support. And, a greater increase in popular participation in politics would benefit the emergence of a new party.

The Capitol Rebels Are Due the Benefits of Political Association

Regardless of punitive sanction, the civil self-government of the Capitol rebels should be cultivated. Political parties provide an opportunity for self-expression and civil debate in pursuit of principles and public policy goals. Parties provide a didactic function in educating their members in the art of civics and government. Most importantly, parties foster trust among members by encouraging members to self-govern in a trustworthy manner. Political parties permit representation in a republican form of government. Political parties diffuse the tyrannous majority. This is the guidance the Capitol rebels need.

Political parties embrace general philosophies and thus permit inclusion of as many people as possible. As a result, over time America has evolved into a two-party system. The party of traditional moral values and business interests is the Republican, and the party supporting working class labor and minorities is the Democratic. To transcend this duopoly, third parties must draft a broad-based philosophy that is not a single-issue attraction. In what way do the two major parties not offer ideals, principles and ideology appealing to the Capitol rebels so that a third party would not be a viable alternative?

Is the American experiment in democracy more democratic, more fair and more just with two, adverse political parties willing to expand and be more inclusive? To return to sound and civil government, America must enumerate the possible philosophical bases for third parties, including the Capitol rebels.

In what way do the Capitol rebels represent diversity within the United States? Are they urban and rural, of higher education and not? What are their unifying principles and concerns? In what way did the ideology of Donald Trump find expression in the rebellion of January 6^th? Could the Capitol rebels support the theories of meritocracy and natural aristocracy upon which the United States is founded? Promoting a third-party expression of fascist rebellion could be avoided in a free democracy. Listening to and incorporating itinerant concerns into the political structure would be preferable to forcing violent forms of expression. Third parties possess grievances often expressed through violence when the subject of structural exclusion.

Supporters of former President Donald Trump indicate that they are considering forming a third “Patriot Party.” This demonstrates the perceived need for structuring the public support he possesses into a viable form of expression. Whether one considers Donald Trump to be a “cult of personality” leader or not, he cannot utilize his support unless it assumes effective form. Also, he must create a generational legacy amassed around his positions, opinions and ideology that transcends his being deemed a mere one election figurehead.

Perhaps, the Capitol rebels will create a fourth party. Another grassroots movement may become as entrenched and as well-known as the Patriot Party. Would such a fourth party readily follow on the coattails of the Patriot Party if it quickly announced its existence?

Former President Donald Trump holds grassroot Republican support and must maintain its trust. He must do so by cultivating civil participation. A rebellion or attempted coup is an indication that the cultural voluntary servitudes of entertainment and athletics are no longer an effective panacea. They are enjoyed but do not support or supplant reasoned self-government. Rebellion indicates the cry for a remedy, and the rebels themselves have no answer. Exchanging attributions and projections of blame by governing officials will only result in continued public negativity. People must be encouraged from a grassroots level to engage in traditional political participation.

Representative Democracy Is the Answer

As a republican form of government in the modern era, America is a great, expansive experiment. In merely three hundred years, it has demonstrated a slow but effective development toward justice, fairness, equality and inclusion. A small yet painfully effective rebellion cannot undermine three hundred years of history. Rather, violent uprisings indicate a need for even further progressive democracy.

A democracy must be premised upon trust held by the people in each other, among themselves as they engage in self-government, as well as trust evoked by the government between it and its citizenry. A political party must similarly remain true to its principles and party platform. Promises unkept are hypocrisy. In the recent era of duopoly, no competition exists between the parties. They each have turf dominated by party leadership and no incentive to honor promises made each election. As a result, elections flip flop with exchanges in elected figureheads with no real change in power possessed.

As a result, the U.S. Capitol was stormed by the partyless and unrepresented. They are ostensibly amassed by and the adherents of Donald Trump. But, do they know anything more than that he sought their support. What specifically do they stand for given that they sought to destroy the government they sought for him to lead? The only answer for the rebels is their participation in the American government in some structured form. And, this means participation in the form of a political party, one currently existing or a new, third party. Or, do they remain American citizens who feel that they will always be outside the bounds of government, always unrepresented.

Lori Gayle Nuckolls

Investment is Participation

As residents of a democratic republic, we self-govern and participate in ways other than merely through the ballot box. Participation in our market economy is required to safeguard the freedoms and liberties of a just democracy. Consequnelty, I am sharing a comment I submitted today to the Securities and Exchange Commission regarding investments of a type with which we are all familiar.

Lori Gayle Nuckolls

April 26, 2020

Sent Via Email to:rule-comments@sec.gov

Vanessa A. Countryman

Office of the Secretary

Securities and Exchange Commission

100 F Street NE

Washington, DC 20549-1090

Re: File No. S7-04-20

Dear Secretary,

I write with interest in Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC” or the “Commission”) Release Nos. IC-33809; File No. S7-04-20, dated March 2, 2020 (the “Release”) concerning the Request for Comments on Fund Names (the “Request for Comments”) and the discussion therein of the possible amendment of the Commission’s regulation of names of registered investment companies and business development companies (hereinafter referred to as “Funds”), specifically 17 C.F.R. §270.35d-1, promulgated under section 35(d) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-34(d)) (hereinafter referred to as “Rule 35d-1” or the “Name Rule”). The essential purpose and rationale for the Name Rule, as stated in the Commission’s release announcing its adoption dated January 17, 2001, remain unchanged. (Release No. IC-24828; File No. S7-11-97) (66 Fed. Reg. 8509-8519)(as corrected at 66 Fed. Reg.14828-29) (the “Adopting Release”). Consequently, I recommend that there is no need for significant amendment or revision. Rule 35d-1 continues to meet the Commission’s regulatory objectives in the main.

Since the Commission’s creation almost a century ago during the administration of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, the Commission has maintained a two-fold purpose: serving a perceived need for investor protection and facilitating our nation’s commerce through guidance of public and private companies. The Name Rule is a recent regulation that achieves both of these objectives. As a primary example, the United States has long recovered from the economic catastrophe of the Great Depression and the existence of unregulated markets that inspired the Commission’s creation. Both those selling securities and those investing in securities have learned to not misuse or misread, respectively, terms including the name United States, U.S. Treasury, etc., in the description of financial instruments. Thus, the proscription against doing so contained in §270.35d-1(a)(1) has long achieved its didactic purpose and it should remain as drafted.

The Commission has noted a concern regarding the Name Rule’s current requirement that any Fund whose name suggests that it “focuses its investments in a particular type of investment or investments” or in a particular industry or type of industries must adopt a policy to invest at least 80% of the value of its assets in the particular type of investment or type of industry suggested by its name “under normal circumstances.” 17 C.F.R. §270.35d-1(a)(2). If fund management decides to vary from the investment policy suggested by the fund name it must provide its shareholders with at least 60 days advance notice of a change in the policy governing its investments. 17 C.F.R. §270.35d-1(a)(2).[1] If the Fund does not comply with these requirements, the name of the Fund is considered to be “a materially deceptive and misleading name.” 17 C.F.R. §270.35d-1(a).

The Adopting Release of the Name Rule sets forth the Commission’s position as to the proper interpretation of the “80% requirement.” As stated at 66 Fed. Reg. 8516:

“Only those investment companies that have names suggesting a particular investment emphasis are required to comply with the rule. In general, to comply with the rule, an investment company with a name that suggests that the company focuses on a particular type of investment will either have to adopt a fundamental policy to invest at least 80% of its assets in the type of investment suggested by its name or adopt a policy of notifying its shareholders at least 60 days prior to any change in its 80% investment policy. The 80% investment requirement will allow an investment company to maintain up to 20% of its assets in other investments. An investment company seeking maximum flexibility with respect to its investments will be free to use a name that does not connote a particular investment emphasis.”

In the absence of comment by Funds that the 80% requirement proves too burdensome a restriction since its adoption in 2001, this percentage should be maintained. The public as well as the ordinary investor perceives in the ordinary course that the stated purpose of Rule 35d-1, that of providing the public with an accurate understanding of fund policies and objectives, requires a significant commitment to the investment objective suggested by the Fund name. The 80% requirement is one readily understood by investors and lessening it is not indicated. Investors are expected and do alter investment allocations under the theory of the 80% requirement. The leeway provided funds to depart from the 80% requirement when incurring other than ordinary market conditions is an exceedingly permissive exception to the 80% requirement, for it defers to the discretion of Fund management as governed by fiduciary duty subject to SEC review on a case-by-case basis. Lastly, while the 60 day notice to shareholders requirement places the burden upon the ordinary investor to alter investments upon a change in Fund investment policy, a longer period would undermine the purpose of providing some profitable market flexibility to Funds.

Market conditions have changed in both the increased growth and diversity of potential investments. Consequently, emerging markets and their attendant risks are numerous. There is an even greater need for the 80% requirement. It provides Commission guidance in defining the information to be provided investors as well as apprising Funds of potential liability. By maintaining the 80% requirement, the Commission discourages abstract and vague Fund names through requiring acknowledgement of a need for specificity in the marketplace. For, an investor should know and expect to be informed as strictly as possible as to the nature of the Fund’s investments and the 80% requirement achieves this end.

As the Commission suggested in the Request for Comments, market conditions pose issues of whether regulation is needed for Funds devoted to “qualitative” policy objectives, such as investments guided by environmental, social and or governmental concerns. 85 Fed. Reg. at 13224. Such lack of regulation may lead to investor confusion and the avoidance of investment. To ease investment, compliance and enforcement, the Commission could require that a Fund engaged in such qualitative objectives comply with a standard similar to that currently governing Funds whose investments are tied to certain countries or geographic areas. 17 C.F.R. §270.35d-1(a)(3). In doing so, the Commission could require that the Fund enumerate a qualitative criterion or set of criteria that are set forth in the governing documents of the entities in which it invests. The criteria would reflect the Fund’s qualitative objective or objectives and aptly be reflected in the Fund’s name. Restricting a Fund to one qualitative factor or criterion in its name might unduly restrict market activity and competition and result in a multiplicity of Funds in order to achieve several qualitative objectives. Requiring disclosure of the criteria would avoid the vagueness and abstraction of the “ESG” (environment, social or government) termed Funds.

Regulation of Funds whose name connotes global or international investments is probably not necessary. For, the ordinary investor would understand the wording used in these types of Funds. If greater specificity is needed by investors, market competition would result in more narrowly designed Funds. Requiring greater specificity in a Fund name and disclosure materials as to the type of international investments would, however, shift the primary burden of review from the investor to the Fund.

Similarly, in governing derivatives, Rule 35d-1 ably meets the Commission’s primary concern of disclosure of risk to the investor. Use of the asset-based test of market value rather than notational value to determine whether a Fund is in compliance with the 80% requirement instructs the investor without further inquiry and also guides the Fund in compliance. Marker valuation better indicates price sensitivity.

In conclusion, investors properly rely fundamentally upon Fund management and its due diligence, judgment and maintenance of fiduciary duties. The Commission, and Rule 35d-1 specifically, ably guide Funds and investors in market participation. In reviewing the Name Rule, the Commission must decide how much diligence should be borne by the ordinary investor.

I thank you greatly for the opportunity to comment before you. And, if additional information might be of assistance, I may be contacted as indicated above.

Sincerely,

Lori G. Nuckolls

[1] If the Fund is a tax-exempt fund, such a policy is deemed a “fundamental policy” and may not be changed without a vote of fund shareholders. 17 C.F.R. §270.35d-1(a)(4).

What Is An American?

Horace Kallen (1882-1974) was a Polish-born American philosopher well respected for an article entitled “Democracy Versus the Melting Pot: A Study of American Nationality,” which appeared in The Nation in 1915, in two parts. In this article, Kallen discusses the principle of liberty and Americanism from the time of the revolutionary war in America to the time of his writing in 1915. He ably addresses the then and now current issue of applying the principles incumbent in the Declaration of Independence of life, liberty and happiness, over time, in a changing country and changing world.

The American revolutionaries did not demand freedom and democracy on behalf of all residing on colonial soil at the time of the Declaration. Kallen argues that the signatories were probably not “abolitionists” in tenor and temperament, and they, themselves, “owned other men.” (190) The literal text of the Declaration ably applies words of liberty and freedom to the entirety of American society. (190) In Kallen’s view, Americanization is possible and necessary if we, as citizens, adopt a shared self-consciousness and like-mindedness based upon the Declaration and its fundamental principles.

Necessary in Kallen’s mind is the “Americanization” of our society, every person in each generation. The philosophy of the Declaration and of being an American cannot be inherited. America is a country and society of diversity and, continues in existence as it began, as one of newcomers. All must be taught to be Americans, both the descendants of forefathers as well as immigrants newly arrived. Kallen illustrates the efficacy of the Declaration beyond the American Revolution.

In Kallen’s view of history, the Declaration of Independence is “an instrument in a political and economic conflict” rather than a document setting forth “abstract principles” or “formal logic.” (190) It constituted both “offense” and defense” within the context of the era of Revolutionary America. The function of the Declaration was to “shield” “national rights” from those seeking to enforce the “superiority” provided by a government founded upon a belief in authority conferred by “divine right.” (190) The political and economic peril of the colony was the “occasion” giving rise to the Declaration; the cause was the “like-mindedness” and “self-consciousness” shared by the ethnically homogenous colonials in mental peril. (191) At the time of his writing in 1915, Kallen believed that ethnic diversity, development and preservation in art, literature and culture are only possible with homogeneity, self-consciousness and like-mindedness which he found resulting in individuality and autonomy by 1915.

Yet, after the Revolution, in the 1810’s to 1820’s, the British inhabitants lessened in majority as they, themselves, migrated westward and faced relative diminution with European immigration. This resulted in ethnic and religious diversity. They, too, sought economic and political liberty and freedom. The immigrants of Ireland, Germany, France, Scandinavia and Slavic territories were present. And, in Kallen’s words, also were, in the American South, “nine million negroes, whose own mode of living tends, by its mere massiveness, to standardize the ‘mind’ of the proletarian South in speech, manner and other values of social organization.” (192)

All residents, suggests Kallen, are “Americanized” over a period of six to seven years. (192) For, those present during colonial times, new immigrants, and citizens of our modern era are included. America’s abundant environment makes this possible in permitting a free choice, laissez-faire economy. In words that are truly applicable today: “What poverty and unemployment exist among us is the result of unskilled and wasteful social housekeeping….” (192) For, “economic equilibrium” must be reached within a population steeped in abundant resources. (192) A democratic government and meritocratic, market economy establish Kallen’s America.

Our cultural and religious diversity grew as the population spanned from East to West. The once American aristocracy of the Anglo-Saxons of New England gives rise to a cultural leveling unto an equality at the highest plane through free social contracts and the imitation of meritocracy based upon a free enterprise market. (192) With transportation and mobile populations and public schools, America becomes a country of an American race. Said by Kallen as it might be said today.

Kallen describes the efficacy and value of the principles of the Declaration. He subtly states that our founding principles have been newly understood. We no longer profess that all men are equal, but, as of 1914, rather that some men are better than others. In his words, “’Human rights versus property rights’ is merely the modern version of the Declaration of Independence.” (193) Further, attention in America was in 1915 focused on the “equalization of the distribution of wealth,” in Kallen’s analysis, “not socialistically,” but presumably economically and politically as sought by the signers of the Declaration. Kallen views this the “dualism” of the “rich and poor” coming to an end. (193) For, the newfound ethnic diversity in the marketplace no longer permits ethnicity to achieve class domination or monopoly. Rather, difference is based upon achievement in a laissez-faire economy based upon merit. Legal restrictions in the marketplace would only be required to counter greed profiting improperly from child labor and illiterate immigrates, etc. (193)

The “fundamental institutions” of America are a “durable expression” of our “ethnic and cultural unity” as a “free and equal” citizenry. “’American’ is an adjective of similarity applied to Anglo-Saxons, Irish, Jews, Germans, Italians, and so on.” (193) And as Kallen’s most fundamental theory in this article, he suggests that the similarity of Americans is “one of the place and institution, acquired, not inherited, and hence not transmitted. Each generation has, in fact, to become ‘Americanized’ afresh and, withal, inherited nature has a way of redirecting nurture of which our public schools give only too much evidence.” (193) As a result, class consciousness is not coextensive with racial division as the second generation seeks similarity. (194)

Yet, we all, for the most part, retain our ethnicity. There is no “American” race or ethnicity. (194) Rather, the forefathers of New England were aristocrats because of their being first to arrive as all such are aristocrats in Kallen’s thought. Arising are organizations looking back upon ancestors such as the Sons and Daughters of the American Revolution in face of confrontational immigrants. The homes of forefathers and noteworthy Americans are likewise enshrined, Kallen notes. We must note that such shrines have far continued since 1915 and include all racial groups long immigrated to America. Kallen foretold the result of “inevitable equilibrium between wealth and population.” (194)

In Part II of “Democracy Versus the Melting Pot: a Study of American Nationality,” Kallen shares his view that the American race arises from our like-mindedness which he professes gives rise to our nationality. (217) The English language is that of the majority, dominant classes. The weakness of the lesser classes promotes a sense of individuality and an inclination toward assimilation. A privilege of reinforcing language and religion of the lower classes lessens assimilation and Americanization, such as parochial schools. Kallen notes that President Wilson similarly objected to hyphenated identities and not referring to all citizens as Americans, though immigrants from another country. Kallen asks, though not challenging hyphenation: how do we achieve harmony within the cacophony of diversity of tunes that is America? For some “populations … national self-consciousness is perhaps the chief spiritual asset.” (217) In this respect, ethnic group self-respect grows with group cultural and economic development and the loss of the label “foreigner” and thus the becoming of being Americanized in public schools and libraries when they share their culture. These people came to America to escape persecution and or starvation and Americanization is a source of “spiritual self-respect” and inclusion within the “body-politic,” replete with the “responsibilities of American citizenship.” (218)

Americanization includes four phases. First, becoming well fed and assimilating to attain economic independence. Second, a comfortable return to one’s own sense of ancestry and nationality. Third, dissimilation begins with a focus on a group’s own art, literature and culture. Fourth, a maintenance of Americanization in political and economic relationships conducted in the English language, while cultural achievements related to nationality transcend from “disadvantages” unto “distinctions.” (219) America’s institutions are the cause and background of “cultural consciousness.” (219) In Kallen’s words: “Americanization liberates nationality.” (219)

In returning to the Declaration, Kallen reminds us that the forefathers did not possess ethnic diversity among them. In 1915, Kallen offered in contrast that democracy and federalism have encouraged the peopling of America’s land with all nationalities. Yet, in Kallen’s view, a laissez-faire capitalist economy may only be the subject of a government controlled by the plutocracy with the entire nation focused upon the country’s bountiful resources and wealth it produces. (219)

Of greater concern is ethnic unison as we sing “America” and focus on the “conditions of life” and not the “kind of life.” (219) American law and institutions are at issue. For, they do not support the unison and union required of Americanization. Kallen called for the nationalization of American educational institutions, abolition of parochial and private schools, abolition of teaching in a language other than English and the concentration of American and English history and literature. This, he believed, would achieve Americanization. For, required is a “unison of social and historic interests,” the subject matter of our existence. In part, American law and society long ago have demanded this in its academic institutions. No more is probably needed. Rather, American citizens need to defer to Kallen’s premise that each generation must learn our fundamental principles of freedom and liberty.

For, in addition to union, Kallen sought ‘harmony” among us. (219) We would eliminate waste and become more efficient in our social organizations and their interrelationships. By definition: “’Americanization’ – that democracy means self-realization through self-control, self-government, and that one is impossible without the other.” Our organizations must be in harmony one with another. To do so, all must be given conditions “under which each may attain the perfection that is proper to its kind.” (219) This selfhood is inalienable yet achieving it requires “‘inalienable’ liberty.” (220) We derive this from our ancestral endowment and happiness, in Kallen’s words: one’s “psychophysical inheritance.” (220) A democracy assumes that this is necessary for the self-realization of one’s innate original being. Government acts as an “instrument” to achieve democracy by liberating and protecting. To eliminate the waste and social chaos among ourselves, our organizations and our government, we must abide original principles of the Declaration and our founders. Kallen deems this the freeing and strengthening of our ethnic groups by our fundamental law and institutions and the achievement of self-realization and individuality.

Without the foregoing, Kallen believed that social and political chaos reigned, and perhaps it still does. Yet, in his optimism, Kallen suggested that government, as an instrument was flexible and subject to change and reform, in response to “changing life” and “changing opinion.” (220) “Intelligence and wisdom prevail over politics.” When our inalienable talent and ability transcend the confusion of our “common life” a great democracy emerges. Kallen stated that it is a “Federal republic in substance a democracy of nationalities, cooperating voluntarily and autonomously.” (220) This occurs as citizens self-realize unto the perfection of their kind. Do “the dominant classes in America want such a society?” (220)

(Horace Kallen, “Democracy Versus the Melting Pot: A Study of American Nationality,” The Nation, Part I (Vol. 100, No. 2590, pgs. 190-194, Feb. 18, 1915) and Part II (Vol. 100, No. 2591, pgs. 217-20, Feb. 25, 1915)).

Lori Gayle Nuckolls