OPINION:
On my many business trips to Europe and Africa over the course of many years, I have repeatedly been asked to explain why the United States has been so successful as a nation. My answer has consistently been that America’s success has depended upon a profound belief in a single word: the word “hope.”
I have also regularly noted that most people who live in the United States believe that anything is possible. In most other nations, a person’s origins or their status in society, will likely have a determinative impact on them. What schools they will attend, what profession they will pursue, and how much wealth they will accumulate are most frequently dependent upon the family and social strata into which a person is born. But not in the United States.
For generations, Americans, regardless of their origins, have believed that they can accomplish virtually anything in the United States. There is good reason for this perspective. In this country, it has traditionally been personal accomplishment that matters.
I have explained to my foreign interlocutors that this optimism has been one of the reasons that poorer Americans have not favored taxing the rich. After all, with hard work and a little luck, even the poorest American can become rich and, of course, if that is achieved, who would want to be heavily taxed.
I actually felt rather vindicated in my analysis when then-Sen. and later President Barack Obama adopted the word “hope” as one of his two anchor concepts. He seemed to be echoing my belief that America’s strength lies in its belief in an inevitably better tomorrow.
But Mr. Obama chose to add the ill-defined notion of “change” to his campaign slogan. I thought that this concept was rather meaningless when devoid of detail, and Mr. Obama assuredly did not provide many details. Change for change’s sake is not a great value. Ultimately, Mr. Obama certainly did not bring about any impressive change, with the possible exception of the Affordable Care Act, whose ultimate impact remains open to conjecture.
The reliance of the 44th president on the dual notions of “hope” and “change” has led me to consider what concept would actually be better conjoined with the fundamental concept of “hope.” In contemplating this question, I thought of Hillary Clinton’s view that “it takes a village” to raise a child. I have concluded that there may be some merit to Mrs. Clinton’s perspective, but only if she really meant that it takes a community, and, especially, family rather than the euphemistic “village.”
But regardless of whether the term is “village,” “community” or “family,” the relevant question is, what is it that the village, the community or the family brings to the table that is so important?
I have ascertained that the underlying concept that should properly be attached to the notion of “hope” is assuredly not change. Rather, it should be the somewhat similar-sounding but dramatically different word “shame.” Hope, by itself, without ethical constraints or guardrails can be false and misleading. But “shame” can provide guidance toward ethical behavior upon which hope can be predicated and success can be achieved.
Much maligned today and even viewed by some as detrimental to good mental health, shame has been one of the forces that have reinforced social cohesion. Traditionally, shame has been part of communal life, serving to strengthen a proper respect for good behavior and disdain for harmful conduct. Religious establishments, educational institutions, places of employment and, most importantly, the family itself have been at the core of those components that have guided generations to channel their aspirations within lawful and ethical practices. And the fear of causing embarrassment has been a powerful guide and force for good.
When I was young, if faced with a quandary respecting a course of action, I would often ask myself whether the action could bring shame to my parents. If so, I would invariably refrain. As I grew older, that same consideration applied to my own family. Would my conduct embarrass my wife and daughters? The answer to that question always guided me to the better path and, I believe, helped me to fulfill my life’s aspirations without causing harm to others.
Today, Americans still feel a large dose of hope in our lives. But there is little left of the traditional concept of shame, the guardrail of any society.
Few seem inclined to religious observance, with its shame-inducing constraints. And shockingly, too many appear not to feel a need for positive personal accomplishment. Bodies are covered with odd tattoos. Ingestion of hallucinogenic drugs seems common. Stealing, taking that which belongs to another fellow human being with impunity, has been increasing dramatically. Bringing children into the world without any commitment to a spouse or even to the child itself is widespread.
Mr. Obama rode his mantra of “hope and change” to victory in two presidential elections. But more than a decade later, the words ring hollow. In fact, it can be argued that the vagueness of that motto served to create some of the disillusionment that we can now feel permeating our society — a society that may be in decline.
Perhaps, a future presidential candidate will yet again try to promote hope, but, instead of using an ill-defined concept of “change” to accompany hope, that candidate will reenforce it with its powerful guardrail: the fundamental notion of shame — a notion that we so sorely lack and so vitally need today.
• Gerard Leval is a partner in the Washington office of a national law firm. He is the author of “Lobbying for Equality: Jacques Godard and the Struggle for Jewish Civil Rights During the French Revolution,” published by HUC Press.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.