The American Dream; J. Nestler

spiritual. As I well know from my own family, Hungarian refugees who immigrated after World War II, America was seen as the land where you could make a decent living by the sweat of your brow, where no one would tell you how and for whom to vote, and where your religious and moral beliefs could enjoy open profession. It was precisely for this reason that Friedrich von Gentz, the eighteenth-century German philos opher, in his pamphlet comparing the French and American revolu tions, granted the American Rev olution validity, but not the French. 1 The American Revolu1 See Friedrich von Gentz's Uber den Ursprung und Charakter des Krieges gegen die franzosische Revolution and other works. Stefan Possony has added an appendix to Gentz's work in which he also compares the Russian Revolution to those of Amer ica and France. He concludes that the Russian Revolution was invalid for the same reason the French Revolution was invalid - it did not dispel the evils it arose against, it merely substituted new evils.

593 594 THE FREEMAN October tion succeeded in replacing tyran ny with a free and moral system of government. The French Revo lution merely followed the path of previous revolutions which, as Bernard Shaw observed, "have never lightened the burden of tyr anny; they have only shifted it to another shoulder." Caution! I do not know whether I would have supported the American Revo lution. Being a traditionalist, I would have been cautious and wary of sudden change; but, then, so were the signers of the Declaration of Independence. Few of them truly welcomed the revolution - the Thomas Paines were the exception, not the rule. But I like to think that I would have possessed the discerning eye of an Edmund Burke, who, as had Gentz, forcefully denounced the French Revolution but gave his fullfledged support to the Ameri can Revolution. The cries of "lais sez-faire" which resounded when Frenchmen stormed the Bastille found a home, not in France, but across the ocean.

The American Dream was im bued with the concept of the in dividual: each man would reap the fruits of his own labor. America was the land of the rugged indi vidual, who carved out his life with his own hands and accounted to no one but himself for his failures. This is not to say that America was regarded as a land of permis siveness; to the contrary, only a blunt mind would equate freedom with license. Rather, America was regarded as the personification of those ideals of freedom which lay in the hearts of most men. Today, In Contrast Let us compare this view of the American Dream with that of to day. Whereas the American Dream \vas once equated with certain prin ciples of freedom, it is now equated with things. The American Dream has undergone a metamorphosis from principles to materialism. Decades ago, a man would have said he wanted a day's wages for a day's work. Wasn't that material ism? No, because what was being emphasized was that each man, as a free and individual agent, has the right to as much as the market will pay for his efforts. Today, a man would say merely that he has a right to live comfortably; the fact that comfort must be earned is ignored; the question of whether the person is deserving of comfort never arises.

I am reminded of the welfare recipient on the David Susskind Show a few years ago, who de manded that she receive a more substantial Christmas welfare bo nus. When asked why she held this 1973 THE AMERICAN DREAM 595 opInIon, she replied: "Because I have a right to a color T.V. set and things like other people. I am a hu man being, too, you know." This at titude has permeated our society: things are what is important, prin ciples are not. When people are concerned more with the attainment of things than with the maintenance of principles, it is a sign of moral decay. And it is through such decay that loss of freedom occurs. This metamorphosis of the hu man spirit did not come about un foreseen. Although he was not writing specifically about America, Jose Ortega y Gasset, in his The Revolt of the Masses , clearly de lineated the process by which the individual would eventually be sac rificed to the mass-man; the mass man thereby destroying that which made possible his very existence.

In the disturbances caused by scarcity of food, the mob goes in search of bread, and the means it employs is generally to wreck the bakeries. This may serve as symbol of the attitude adopted, on a greater and more complicated scale, by the masses today toward the civilization by which they are supported. 2 Respect for the rights of the in dividual has been the foundation 2 Jose Ortega y Gasset, The Revolt of the Masses, CW. W. Norton & Co.. Inc.), 1932,p.60. for America's greatness; it was the reason for the immigration to America from all around the world. It is precisely this respect which has deteriorated as a result of the efforts of the mass-man in Amer ica, this laying the groundwork for a totalitarian welfare state. The fact that individualism was once revered and welfare abhorred does not mean that people were heartless and unconcerned about one another - this being the pic ture most often presented by our liberal media. In fact, there were more private charitable organiza tions before the advent of the wel fare state than since. A more per sonal concern existed among men, because an individual was free to aid another individual if he wished to. That was charity in the true Christian sense.

No Longer by Choice Nowadays, we are forced to con tribute to the welfare of others, whether we wish to or not, whether others are deserving or not. That is said to be true humanity. But, as suming for the moment that it is humane to aid others (which, of course, does not hold true for the indiscriminate distribution of aid), is a person humane or vir tuous if he so acts only when forced at gun-point? Obviously not. Yet, that is the welfare state we "philosophically" admire, the one 596 THE FREEMAN October that coerces every individual to sacrifice his own interests and in discriminately aid others. It is not charity I oppose, but robbery. Let me try to make my position clear. I do believe in the viability of the free market and in the right of men to govern themselves, but I do not believe every man always is moral or that the free market would solve all human ills. Freedom entails responsibilities, and too few of us are willing to assume responsibility. Fortunately, tradi tion forms the basis for laws and provides us with guidelines, al though imperfect, on what is cor rect human conduct.

For example, I will defend any man's right to express his opin ions, but I will not allow anyone to utter obscenities to my sister. I would call on the police to appre hend such an individual. I believe there is a difference between right and wrong, and defend or excuse no man's persistence in the latter. Such problems as what is meant by freedom of speech do not dis turb me. As a conservative, I view human nature as tainted, prone to error. In fact, too often have I seen libertarianism used as an ex cuse for libertinism. Therefore, I disagree with those who offer un limited and unprincipled liberty as the ultimate solution, for I view such a belief as Utopianism. No system can compensate for man's inherent defects. The Totalitarian State A recent article by Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn in National Re view B points out, for example, that what "Hitler aimed at was 'a century of the common man' in the sense in which Henry A. Wallace used the term in the 1940s." Here we may substitute mass-man for common man - a frequent misuse of terms. Hitler implemented this plan not through a military coup but through "Germanic democ racy."

The totalitarian welfare state is emerging in America, through democratic means, just as it emerged in Hitler Germany. The individual is no longer sacrosanct, and Ortega's prediction of the sac rifice of the individual to the mass-man seems more realistic every day. National Socialism and Commu nism are alike in that both sys tems are socialistic; that is, both systems regard the individual as a pawn for manipulation for "the greater good of the community." It was this concept of socialism that was responsible for Tocque ville's vision of the coming of "democratic totalitarianism." (I 3 Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, "From the Continent" in National Review, July 20, 1973, p. 790.

1973 THE AMERICAN DREAM 597 America has already changed, and this change is noticeable in the metamorphosis of the Ameri can Dream. The individual's free will is reduced by taking away the opportunities for exercising indi vidual and voluntary decisions. This is immoral, and contrary to Christian precepts. This change is not causeless it is the result of moral deteriora tion, of the mass-man's turning the concepts of good and evil to his own purpose. The mass-man prefers materialism over prin ciples, and the American Dream Crowd Culture reflects the efforts to enforce this preference. Yet, we must not despair, the situation is far from hopeless. The solution is to assert the old prin ciples, our concepts of right and wrong, our belief in the inalien able freedom and liberty of the individual. Then, the American Dream will regain its former iden tity, and America will remain the best of all possible lands, admired by all the world. But this will come about only with the active participation of us all, and by the grace of God.

IDEAS ON LIBERTY By THE MERE FACT that he forms part of an organized crowd, a man descends several rungs in the ladder of civilization. Iso lated, he may be a cultivated individual; in a crowd, he is a bar barian - that is, a creature acting by instinct. He possesses the spontaneity, the violence, the ferocity, and also the enthusiasm and heroism of primitive beings, whom he further tends to re semble by the facility with which he allows himself to be im pressed by words and images - which would be entirely without action on each of the isolated individuals composing the crowd and to be induced to commit acts contrary to his most obvious interests and his best-known habits. An individual in a crowd is a grain of sand amid other grains of sand, which the wind stirs up at will. GUSTAVE LE BON, The Crowd Challenges ofthe Communications Explosion PHILIP LESL Y ALMOST EVERYONE is aware that there has been an explosion of communications in recent years.