CHAPTER TEN (Draft)
Our beliefs, our expectations, our political differences have all collided with hard realities in the 21st century. A long record of ineptitude, irresponsibility and short-sightedness has contributed to societal degeneration at every level, political, ethical, social and economic. On the foregoing pages I have attempted to survey the historical progression of ideas, behaviors and conditions that have brought us here. In the previous chapter I focused specifically on free will and the ground of being, which together provide the capacity and foundation for independent choice and personal responsibility. This dynamic truth—freedom’s truth—is the basis for personal integrity and right reasoning. And it will provide the basis and grounding for an American future we can respect and depend upon, if we are determined to make it so.
It is my hope that every American will come to recognize that the challenges presented by liberty and justice which confront us today are implicit in our nature as human beings. They would be meaningless—even incomprehensible—if we were living in isolation from human society. We are social beings. There are unavoidable realities of relationship, both interpersonal and societal, which cannot be disregarded or manipulated. We cannot afford to live without respect for the order we depend upon.
We stand at an historic turning point. It is a moment of reckoning for Americans, both as persons and as a nation. We are called to think constructively about the future in which we wish to live. Whatever our personality, philosophy or religious belief, we each have an unavoidable choice to make. Either we retreat into ourselves, accepting what is given as beyond our control, or we will step forward to engage with emerging challenges, and do so with responsible intent.
Living in a time of existential crisis, this choice takes on great importance—for ourselves, for the communities around us, and for the world. The American model for governance, and the vibrant creative spirit it has engendered, have served as a beacon of hope for people everywhere. And, the world is watching.
We have entered a period of severe and sequential crises, some of it the consequence of unavoidable structural change, and the rest brought on by ourselves. If we are to protect our families, organize the means for safety and security among our neighbors, and recover the promise of this nation, we must engage constructively. This is our challenge.
To react precipitously on the basis of misinformation or false assumptions will damage our ability to defend cherished ideals and will cut us off from the very future we hope for.
I come to you with a premise and a pragmatic proposition. I will argue here that only in genuinely functional local communities will it be possible to respond effectively to the challenges of the present hour. Only in such communities will authentic dialogue be possible. And only in personal working relationships, sustained by such dialogue, will the resuscitation of trust be possible.
Without this, the future can only spiral into degradation and loss. There are a number of reasons why this is true. I will outline them below. The remainder of the book is devoted to understanding the principles, perspective, and practical skills that will be necessary if we are to rise to this challenge.
I do not suggest it will be easy to do. It will not be easy to do. What I am saying is that we have no choice. Either we rise above our fears, adjust our thinking, and place America ahead of selfish interests, or we will join an inexorable slide into a darkening chaos.
To hesitate here is to react as victims rather than as Americans, to choose loss over promise, helplessness over responsibility. We each possess the capacity to live with purpose and determination. The responsible, free-thinking person will sometimes struggle with the contradictions between freedom and necessity, or might be intimidated by extreme circumstances, but we will never give in and never lose sight of the emergent light on the horizon.
Functional local communities will not protect us from uncertainty, but they will position us to better keep our balance—physically, mentally, economically. Choosing to take control of our destiny will require that we create dependable communities with our neighbors, exercising tolerance, perseverance, and self-control. We must work together despite our differences—to create safety, resolve local problems and seek economic stability. And, no, it will not be easy.
Working with other people is among the greatest challenges in life. The need to engage meaningfully in trustworthy interpersonal relationships is basic to our humanity. Yet, finding the fortitude to be supportive of others, despite our own sorrows and frustrations can be quite challenging. There will always be difficult people to test us. Our job is not to be heroes. We will advance one step at a time. What is imperative is that we each step forward to give of ourselves to the extent possible—come what may.
Foundations for Stability
Several generations of Americans have looked to an ever-growing bureaucracy as the guarantor of our basic needs. It has not always been this way. For the first time in human history centralized government has come to be accepted as the sole defender of economic security and social stability.
It might seem reasonable to think a powerful central government would be effective at securing the order and safety formerly provided by local and regional communities. But this idea fails to hold up in practice. Dependence on even the most benevolent of governments raises concerns, and no centralized government has proved resistant to the seduction of power for very long. Furthermore, it has become increasingly apparent that a dynamic and productive order cannot, in the words of Robert Nisbet, “be maintained in a monolithic society. Pluralism and a diversity of experience are the essence of true freedom…. No large-scale association can really meet the psychic demand of individuals because, by its very nature, it is too large, too complex, too bureaucratized, and altogether too aloof from the residual meanings which human beings live by.”[i]
This is not to suggest that strong government is itself the problem. On the contrary, traditional conservatives and liberals alike prefer strong government. What is missing are the mediating institutions that provide perspective, balance, and authority in the relationship between the individual and government. Such intermediate authority can be provided by interest associations of every kind, but especially by extended family and local community.
Why have local communities served an unparalleled role in the stability of social order throughout human history? And why has this become especially important today? For many of us the foremost concern at present is the growing need for safety and security at a time of multiple crises. Without neighbors we can depend on, the immediate future appears bleak. Physical survival will require dependable community. Safety is essential, but it is not everything.
“The only proper alternative to large-scale, mechanical political society,” Nisbet writes, “are communities small in scale but solid in structure. They and they alone can be the beginning of social reconstruction because they respond at the grass roots, to fundamental human desires: living together, working together, experiencing together, being together. Such communities can grow naturally and organically from the most elementary aspirations, they remain continuously flexible, and, by their very nature, they do not insist upon imposing and rigid organizations.”[ii]
The greater the threats to social stability, the greater the need for trustworthy relationships as sources of practical knowledge, life-experience, and learned skills. Personal identity and autonomy are nurtured by engaged relationships and mentoring as we mature to adulthood. And a healthy society depends on a pluralism unavailable from the monolithic domination of unmediated government.
Ultimately, the challenge of rebuilding a damaged social order and kick-starting local and regional economies will require effective working relationships. Knowledge and skills can only be learned and strengthened in functional, mutually supportive communities. Are we capable of building such stability? Americans have little experience with genuine community. Many of us are barely acquainted with our neighbors.
I am proposing that we learn how to do this; that we build a society where both security and prosperity have a foundation in local independence, knowledge, and initiative—where our children can be safe and where personal autonomy is respected. To do so will require that we construct a stable environment for addressing problems, managing conflict, and organizing local and regional projects. Shared values need to be identified and affirmed. Differing values must also be identified and respected. Conflicting values are an inevitable reality, and yet creating security in the face of hardship requires the trust, dependability and skill-sharing that comes with authentic community. This challenge is addressed on the coming pages.
The strategy introduced by this book is inspired in part by the role of communities early in our nation’s history, but there are important differences. Among the primary differences is the practical need for inclusive diversity. The extreme conditions confronting us will require practical resources only available with diversity—knowledge, experience, learned skills. We cannot afford to have our access to practical resources limited by personal prejudices.
Another difference will be the intentionality with which we can agree on felt needs and mutual goals. In the American past, most communities included people with similar cultural roots and ethnicities. We cannot afford to revert to that pattern today for obvious reasons.
American communities have been rearranged radically by the shifting demographics and economic consequences brought about by the domination of corporate mass society. Many of us have been living in a state of repetitive transitions and fluctuating circumstances. We no longer know our neighbors and are unable to depend on them. Our lives are burdened by the weight of our discontents. We are disconnected, alienated, isolated in a crowded world.
It has become apparent that a diversity personalities, perspective, knowledge and background are all essential for the security of communities. But distrust and fault-finding make this difficult. While the idea of engaging with different kinds of people might feel uncomfortable at first, we will soon come to recognize its value for safety and stability. The local challenges we face call for neighbors with a diversity of skills, experience and practical knowledge capable of meeting basic needs and a multitude of unprecedented social and technical problems. And this is important: Those who have already been tested and strengthened by hardship will be the most dependable.
In Chapter Three we saw how the effectiveness of problem-solving is greatly enhanced by a diversity of knowledge and perspective. In complex situations open-mindedness and a multiplicity of experience can forestall disaster. ‘Group-think’ is an invitation to trouble. As we face worsening conditions, we will depend on the diversity of practical experience and resourceful talent that America is blessed with. A positive attitude can save lives, regardless of race or childhood background. Skills and creative intelligence come in all forms, colors, and ethnicities.
We would do well to value black Americans, indigenous native Americans, and recent immigrants for their resilience and strength of resolve in the face of tests. These people are survivors—every one of them. They know hardship and the necessity for loyal dependability under extreme conditions. They will carry America through the darkness and out the other side, while the rest of us might easily be frozen in fear or indecision.
Given the antagonism and negativity that dominate the United States at this writing, the reader might reasonably question how local cooperation and serious problem-solving can be made possible. On the following pages I will respond to this doubt, offering practical guidance for those with the courage and fortitude to embrace the task. If the survival of the United States as a constitutional republic is important to us, we will rise to the occasion.
Identity, Belonging, Trust
As significant as the foregoing issues are, it will be critically important that Americans come to understand what genuinely functional communities actually are. How does authentic community function? What essential purposes does community serve in human society and in a productive economy? Community cannot be created simply by wishing for it.
Let’s be clear: We depend on community for much more than physical survival. Community is the seat of civilization. For thousands of years, it has been the basic unit comprising human societies, the structure in which justice, social order, and cultural identity are grounded. It is here that the individual learns values, finds emotional equilibrium, and gains a sense of belonging. Genuine community invites active participation. It encourages members to express their unique identity, character, and creativity. So it is that community, when endowed with the full engagement of its’ citizens, becomes the substructure for freedom and security. No other institution is capable of serving this purpose.
Among the essential roles of community is to anchor the diversity of organized functions, institutions and associations, which form a healthy civil society. This is of great importance for the individual. Without diverse opportunities and choices for meaningful involvement with others, the individual becomes disengaged and disoriented, set adrift, vulnerable to dishonest, despotic and predatory influences. The absence of such mediating institutions thrusts the individual into a vulnerable reliance on an increasingly pervasive central government. This is a primary concern as we address the loss of social stability and ethical integrity that Americans face in the 21st century.
Why have people so often abandoned their independence for the charismatic control of politicians or ideologues? What were they missing? The answer is not so mysterious as it might seem. All of us possess a deeply felt urge to belong, whether it be to family, a place, or a community where we are valued. To be fully human we must belong somewhere, to a group, a nation, or a coherent historical stream. Americans are no different from any others in this regard.
This truth is important for personal reasons as well as for the health of a free society. We cannot seek freedom from the cage of isolation except through engagement in a supportive community, and with a sense of belonging in ones’ own generation and society. It is in these bonds of relationship that we come to know who we are. And it is with the loss of such bonds in the destruction brought about by mass society, that Americans have found themselves without trustworthy relatedness.
If we care about the integrity of freedom with responsibility, we must feel needed and productive, and the experience must be local. Without a community where we feel at home, where we can serve the greater good, where people know our name—the quest for belonging can easily deliver us into the hands of authoritarian tyranny.
American history has left us dissociated from the normal human experience of possessing a “living center” where we naturally belong. While we might have a feeling of loyalty to the United States as a whole, the consciousness of belonging to a place, a locality, a neighborhood or community, has essentially disappeared. Uprooted by economic necessity, and facilitated by the ease of travel, we have spread ourselves thinly across a great continent.
Having subordinated our labor and creative faculties for the benefit of mass society, we find ourselves exploited by a corporate colossus loyal only to wealth and privilege. This has left millions of Americans vulnerable to personal isolation and a deteriorating social and economic order. The loss of jobs during the final decades of the 20th century, torn out from under working people and exported to foreign shores, was a shock. There was no consideration for the consequences. Motivated by the wish to maximize profit, it was pursued without concern for American lives or, quite strangely, for the strength of the consumer economy upon which those profits depended.
When citizens recognize that their historic role in society has been devalued or disregarded, it is normal that they might feel degraded. The societal costs of this reaction have emerged into view with the contagious degeneration of social coherence and moral responsibility. It has permeated our sense of self
. And, arguably, it has led ultimately to the dysfunction of political institutions. It is this condition among vast numbers of once comfortable Americans that must be rectified and the damage healed.
Unfortunately, the problem is more complicated still. The long history of the American experience with mass society cannot be ignored. The social violence of the industrial revolution in the 19th century wreaked havoc with communities. The widespread destruction of local communities catapulted Americans into uncertainty and disorder. By the beginning of the First World War the loss of community-based associative institutions was largely complete. This led to a profound sense of insecurity and generalized unease throughout a society newly dominated by corporate interests.
Robert Nisbet describes the consequences:
“The greatest single lesson to be drawn from the social transformations of the 20th century from the phenomena of individual insecurity and the mass quest for community, is that the intensity of men’s motivations toward freedom and culture is unalterably connected with the relationships of a social organization that has structural coherence and functional significance.”[iii]
“Separate man from the primary contexts of normative association… and you separate him not only from the basic values of a culture but from the sources of individuality itself.”[iv]
Psychoanalyst Erich Fromm goes a little deeper. A community that supports the freedom and well-being of the individual, he writes, will be one that encourages personal productivity and wide-ranging choices for engagement. People need to feel productive, and communities represent the foundations for productive engagement. In his essay, “The Moral Powers in Man,” Erich Fromm is unequivocal:
“If society is concerned with making people virtuous, it must be concerned with making them productive and hence with creating the conditions for the development of productiveness. The first and foremost of these conditions is that the unfolding and growth of every person is the aim of all social and political activities, that man is the only purpose and end, and not a means for anybody or anything except himself. The productive orientation is the basis for freedom…. Every increase in joy a culture can provide will do more for the ethical education of its members than all the warnings of punishment or preaching of virtue could do.”[v]
We would do well to recognize the deterioration of the foundations of human society that has taken place. The widespread loss of community during the second half of the 19th century created a receptivity among millions of people to the seductive assurances and utopian promises of communism and National Socialism. Profound insecurity and the loss of social cohesion opened the way for despotic tyranny, mass murder and total war in the 20th century.
Human beings respond to invitations for belonging wherever it appears most dependable. The disintegration of traditional structures, followed by the extreme stress and disenfranchised conditions of industrial society, brought us face-to-face with the barren emptiness of mass society.
We must learn from this. An authentic American future must engage effectively with the realities of the human spirit, and in a manner that restores independent self-confidence and renews the soul. We are not helpless. We can do better.
The Individual and Mass Society
Lyman Stone produced a study for the American Enterprise Institute (2021) in which he focused on the state of associational life in the United States, past and present.[vi] While his observations concerning the limits imposed on associational life for Americans over the previous half century are objective and perceptive, he fails to note the vast impact of industrial society on lives and communities since the 19th century.
“Tracing the history of associational life from America’s founding” Lyman Stone writes, “reveals that not all associations are created equal. Some popular associations provide undeniably positive benefits for their participants and society (such as churches or labor unions), while others have proven deeply destructive (such as the Ku Klux Klan).”
We can certainly agree, noting the powerful attraction of associational life offered by totalitarian fascism in the first half of the 20th century. What we miss, however, is recognition of the widespread loss of associative grounding in the destruction of local communities.
“Most of the change in associational life,” he writes, “can be attributed to essentially one factor: technological improvements leading to a higher standard of living. A wealthier society provides more benefits via the state instead of private organizations, even as the invention of radio and television displaced many traditional information networks. Piggybacking on mass media, popular sports have conquered the American calendar, displacing numerous other activities. This history cannot be undone.”
True enough. Yet, most of my readers will recognize that this is not the whole story. The failure to recognize the systematic destruction of local communities as the originating cause of disorder has its own implications. We have failed to account for the resulting fragmentation in the way we see, think, and approach problem-solving. This blinds us to the disengaged disorder that Richard Weaver identified midway through the 20th century.[vii] And, it misses the propelling impetus for the deepening degeneration of American society since that time. A shallow understanding thwarts the possibility of effective long-term solutions.
No, history cannot be undone. But, neither can the need for community be ignored. We must not allow our concern for the loss of authentic associational relationships to be diluted in or confused by the opaque superficiality of current circumstances.
Most Americans did, in fact, turn away from despotism in the 20th century. Yet, the barren emptiness of mass society drew us into numerous unproductive excesses and addictions: television, professional sports, drugs, alcohol, and an obsessive preoccupation with sex. Together these formed the extent of many of our lives as we entered the 21st century.
It is in this context that I have drawn your attention to the threat to both individual independence and to social stability posed by the immense structural dominance of mass society. This is a concern for freedom of thought and local self-sufficiency. We touched on this in Chapter 7, where I shared the following words of Reinhold Niebuhr:
“The social and economic destruction of individuality [came as] a consequence of the mechanical and impersonal elaborations of a commercial culture which reach their culmination in the development of industrial civilization. Modern industrialism pushes the logic of impersonal money and credit relationships to its final conclusion. The process of production and exchange, which remained embedded in the texture of personal relationships in a simpler economy, are gradually emancipated and established as a realm of automatic and rationalized relations in which the individual is subordinated to the process….”[viii]
So it was that the consciousness of personal individuality, which had emerged over several hundred years, began to break down. The haunting unease this has caused is profound.
The loss of community in American life has led to the illusion that the individual and society are two entirely distinct domains, each having an independent and unrelated reality. Some political philosophers have actually believed that the two lack any basis for comparison or relatedness, that they are in fact incommensurable, and that the creative freedom of the individual thinker can only exist in isolation from society.
This belief represents a radical departure from previous human experience. For thousands of years human communities have been grounded in the order and consciousness of the civilizations to which they belonged. For most of human history, people have found security, identity, and creative motivation in the cohesive reality of the communities in which they lived. All this vanished in a short time.
Subsequently, negative tensions have grown into open antipathy as people have found themselves treated as faceless functions of an impersonal order. The human potential for transcendence and self-realization is entirely denied by corporate culture. In such circumstances the personal identity with which we each engage socially, and which allows us to “belong”, can never be the real “self”. The individuality perceived by mass society is never who we truly are, and it never honors what we have actually achieved. Our only value has become our value to society.
We must recognize the danger this presents. Having become accustomed to this perception in the 20th century we might accept it without critical reflection. But there is good reason to be concerned. Indeed, as we look around it is not hard to see the consequences. Robert Nisbet alerted us (see Chapter 6[ix]) that for well over half a century political polling in the United States has revealed ongoing deterioration of trust in political institutions and in groups perceived as related to political institutions.[x] Distrust has permeated American society. It is important that we understand the steady growth of distrust in these times as it relates to our submersion in mass society.
Distrust has been heightened by numerous factors, including the myopic insensitivity of political and moneyed elites. However, it has emerged from the ground of anxiety and suspicion which has been with us much longer. As a problem that has evolved unimpeded, and which appears rooted in the intellectual delusions of the European Enlightenment, this is not a problem to be resolved politically. The isolation of the individual faced with the vacuous nature of mass society is a threat to one’s sense of personal identity and self-confidence. And, the domination of distrust is resistant to rational argument.
This condition will not be corrected through confrontation, but only in a lengthy transformative process that heals the damage. Here, again, we encounter the essential role of community, and the diversity of civil society which community makes possible. This is a challenge that calls for patient, concerted, and steadfast commitment, and can only be engaged at the foundational levels of society. Personal initiative has largely evaporated, and can only be gradually restored through the experiential engagement made possible by community-building.
Each of us is challenged to clarify our ethical principles and to stand firmly on the foundation of truthfulness, trustworthiness, and responsibility. Before we can listen to others with understanding we need first to be comfortable with ourselves. Building trust requires sincerity before all else. It is among friends and neighbors, people we have a genuine interest in, that we can gain the understanding and build the confidence we need to envision the future, and to look forward from the degradation and disorder of the present.
The Present Challenge
Having considered the reasons why community has provided the foundation for civilization throughout human history, we now turn our attention to the challenge this presents to Americans in the 21st century. From the beginnings of mass society, the loss of authentic community in America has led to alienation and loss—and an ever-deepening crisis.
With a better understanding of how and why this has happened, we are better able to understand one another, to build what we need, and, in doing so, to create a future we can respect and believe in.
Consequently, the foremost obstacle before us is the atmosphere of divisive antipathy and alienation which resists cooperation or dialogue with people who look or think differently from ourselves. It has become impossible to resolve basic practical or procedural problems, much less to form functional communities. The pragmatic strength normally available with a diversity of inputs is obstructed.[xi] We often appear determined to close ourselves off from one another and, indeed, from a functional society.
Emerson famously said: “People only see what they are prepared to see.” More recently Stephen Covey put it similarly: “We see the world, not as it is, but as we are—or, as we are conditioned to see it.”[xii] The reasonable person shudders at the immensity of the task.
As a practical matter, living and working with neighbors does not require agreement about anything other than the immediate purpose or concern at hand. It can potentially be of great importance to address a problem or to engage in decision-making without assuming the necessity for political agreement or social sameness. The problem concerns trust. And trust can only be restored gradually, with experience in active working relationships.
With restored trustworthiness, a range of procedural tools become available for small group decision-making and the organizing of projects. Effective approaches for supporting and sustaining working relationships exist, even in the presence of diverse opinions and perspectives. I will first address the problem of trust in the coming chapters, and then proceed to suggest a range of useful tactics, methods and techniques for use in small groups.
Building and sustaining trust will always be the first priority and challenge. Working with people, especially in complex circumstances, is rarely easy. But, with a willingness to learn new skills and to engage with an interested and inquisitive attitude it can be done. Our society actually has ample experience with making this work. We need to have the will to make it work.
If the concerned reader questions the practical viability of this assertion, but has a genuine interest in knowing how it can be realized, please read on.
My proposition that Americans build genuinely functional communities in place—with our current neighbors—is not, and cannot be based on the invention of community as a new institution. Nor can it depend simply on individual good-will. We must learn how to do this. As a coherent and time-tested institution, community has existed since the dawn of civilization. It is no less a function of human development than our mind and body. To imagine that it can now be contrived by means of human inventiveness is not reasonable.
It will be necessary to reject both imposed collectivism and a degraded social disorder, acknowledging instead the need for personal identity and civil coherence which, as outlined above, have determined the character of communities for millennia.
We cannot abdicate responsibility simply because our neighbors are disagreeable or uncooperative. Creating community depends on ourselves and no one else. It does not depend on agreement concerning anything but the immediacy of practical problems and felt-needs. When we prepare ourselves appropriately, alter our attitude, and approach others respectfully, compassionately, people will begin gradually to respond constructively.
It is also necessary that we gain a realistic understanding of the particular challenges that genuine community presents today. Reconstructing this essential anchor for human well-being cannot happen overnight. It will be a continuing process and a learning experience, and it will only succeed when we open ourselves to new ways of thinking and being.
Being challenged to alter accustomed ways of thinking is always uncomfortable. But we are less likely to experience a new awareness as threatening when it comes with the experience of addressing local needs with our neighbors. The effort to consolidate and strengthen local communities creates an opportunity to engage in activities that inform our perspective in practical, non-threatening ways. And, it need not impose on our most fundamental values.
We would do well to recognize that values are gained from the aggregated assumptions we have learned from early in life. Values are intimate aspects of personal identity which plant themselves deep in our consciousness. They are, however, meaningless in isolation, unchallenged by interaction with others. It is in the practice of living and working with people that values are strengthened and translated into action.
Will Rogers once said: “People’s minds are changed through observation and not through argument.” Benjamin Franklin, who had a way of getting straight to the point, put it this way: “Tell me and I forget. Teach me and I remember. Involve me and I learn.”
Do we value freedom enough to allow ourselves and others to grow without being opinionated or judgmental? Are we willing to assist others in learning, understanding, rethinking assumptions? As human beings we learn by doing, but this is only possible if we want it. Is the goal of true community worthy of our caring, our concern, our willingness to open ourselves to interested engagement?
New perspectives will always be personal. Learning may surprise us, but our thinking will always be under our own control. No one can tell us we need to change. Responsibility, trustworthiness, dependability can only be learned and lived directly in personal relationships—with real people and real problems.
Making a commitment to stay positive requires considerable resolve. But, holding to a constructive vision, staying focused on purpose, and building trustworthy relationships will make a very big difference. The negativity we see around us may appear powerful and it may be destructive, but it can only survive over time in the absence of constructive action. Negativity only has the energy we give it. As limited as our self-confidence may be, when we set ourselves on a practical path, offering encouragement to others with courage and determination, we become the light that defeats darkness.
The strength of the American people that comes with diversity of experience and perspective can be of no benefit without a readiness to rise above our differences. Building a vibrant and free-spirited society depends on trustworthiness and a loyal unity. Such is the essence of our heritage, our humanity, and the source of the nation’s greatness.
Americans have avoided personal responsibility for the foundations of civilized life for a long time. We will continue to do so at our peril.
[i] Robert Nisbet, Moral Values and Community, in Tradition and Revolt, pp. 136-137.
[ii] Ibid.
[iii] Robert Nisbet, The Quest for Community, op. cit., pp. 211-212.
[iv] Ibid., p. 214.
[v] Erich Fromm, Man for Himself, An Inquiry into the Psychology of Ethics (1947), pp. 229-230.
[vi] Lyman Stone, Bread and Circuses, The Replacement of American Community Life, American Enterprise Institute, April 2021.
[vii] See Chapter 7, pp. x-x; and Richard Weaver, Ideas Have Consequences, op. cit.
[viii] See Chapter 7, pp. 5-6; and Reinhold Niebuhr, The Nature and Destiny of Man, op. cit., vol. 1, p. 66-67.
[ix] See Chapter 6, pp. x-x.
[x] See Chapters 2 and 6, pp. x-x.
[xi] See Chapter 3, Finding Our Strength.
[xii] Stephen Covey, The Seven Habits
Liberty and the American Idea 