LIBERTY, DEMOCRACY, COMMUNITY, AND THE AMERICAN DREAM
Robert C. Binning
B.A., California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
THESIS
Submitted in partial satisfaction of
the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
in
GOVERNMENT
at
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, SACRAMENTO
SPRING
2010
LIBERTY, DEMOCRACY, COMMUNITY, AND THE AMERICAN DREAM
A Thesis
by
Robert C. Binning
Approved by:
__________________________________, Committee Chair
R. Jeffrey Lustig, Ph.D.
__________________________________, Second Reader
Monicka Patterson-Tutschka, Ph.D.
____________________________
Date
ii
Student: Robert C. Binning
I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University format
manual, and that this thesis is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to be awarded for
the thesis.
__________________________, Graduate Coordinator ___________________
James Cox, Ph.D.
Date
Department of Government
iii
Abstract
of
LIBERTY, DEMOCRACY, COMMUNITY, AND THE AMERICAN DREAM
by
Robert C. Binning
American politics is ultimately driven by American culture and the values that it seeks to
promote. These values are largely defined by American history and different goals for the futuregoals that are often defined by the American Dream. This essay seeks to analyze the foundations
of the American Dream, and to analyze the claim that through perseverance, virtue, and a little
luck, every American has the opportunity to improve their socioeconomic position in society. I
present a new historical narrative that explains that with the bureaucratization of labor and
decreasing opportunities for social mobility, Americans have turned inward, and become almost
exclusively focused on their private interests. As a result, the modern, middle class conception of
the American Dream emphasizes private, individual liberties, and is largely apolitical. I conclude
that the American Dream is only likely to be significantly redefined if Americans reclaim their
collective power through the formation of groups and the creation of community interests.
_______________________, Committee Chair
R. Jeffrey Lustig, Ph.D.
_______________________
Date
iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
To Mom, Dad, Nana, and to all of my amazing friendsIf it weren’t for your love and support I never would have made it this far.
To all of you, I am eternally grateful.
Dr. Monicka Patterson-Tutschka, Dr. R. Jeffrey Lustig, and Dr. Matthew MooreThank you for helping me to discover the joys of Political Theory,
and helping me to nourish that passion.
Without the enthusiasm of excellent professors, the CSU is truly doomed.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Acknowledgments.................……………………………………………………..…...v
Chapter
1.
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................1
Principles Found in the American Dream. ........................................................ 3
2.
THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE AMERICAN DREAM, DEMOCRACY,
AND LIBERTY IN AMERICA ...........................................................................10
The Puritan Formation .....................................................................................10
The Codification of the American Dream .......................................................14
3.
CONFLICTING INTERPRETATIONS OF THE AMERICAN DREAM
DURING THE ANTEBELLUM PERIOD...................................................…....19
Frederick Douglass and Rights Based Conceptions of the American Dream..22
George Fitzhugh and Standardizing the Quality of American Life .................24
The Impact of the Antebellum Period on the American Dream ......................28
4.
HORATIO ALGER’S AMERICAN DREAM, THE RISE OF
PROCEDURAL JUSTICE, AND ITS CULTURAL IMPLICATIONS ..............32
Land: the Great Equalizer ................................................................................35
Gatsby and the American Dream .....................................................................37
Horatio Alger’s Conception of the American Dream in Modern America .....41
C. Wright Mills and White-Collar Laborers ....................................................44
5.
THE REDEFINING OF ALGER’S CONCEPTION OF THE AMERICAN
DREAM AND MODERN AMERICANS............................................................48
vi
Divergent Interests and the Lack of Community among Americans ...............51
Prospects for the Formation of Community.....................................................56
Bibliography ................................................................................................................66
vii
1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
Over the course of American history, the “American Dream” has represented a
better future for most Americans. Herbert Croly described the American Dream as “the
Promise of America,” and noted:
They [Americans] still believe that somehow and sometime something better will
happen to good Americans than has happened to men in any other country; and
this belief, vague, innocent, and uninformed though it may be, is the expression of
an essential constituent in our national ideal… They mean, of course, in general,
that the future will have something better in store for them individually and
collectively than has the past or the present. (1965, p. 3)
Although the term failed to become popular until the late eighteenth century, the
American Dream, even when not identified under that term, has always been present in
American culture, and represented the promise that the future would bring the
opportunities, benefits, and successes that individuals desired. This optimistic model of
the future has motivated Americans for centuries to fight for their political rights and
economic goals, under the constant presupposition that their hard work would enable
them to experience the future that they chose for themselves. However, the specific goals
and promises that the country should pursue have been widely debated, and with changes
in public opinion, the political implications of the American Dream have changed as
well.
For the most part, conceptions of the American Dream have rested on
assumptions about the application of various democratic principles to both the economic
2
and political spheres. (Aberrations to this claim have most frequently occurred in times
of war when the country has been united under the banner of security or other military
pursuits; however, these represent mere digressions from the typical values found within
the American Dream.) From the beginning of the colonization of the United States, its
inhabitants sought religious freedom and to escape from debts that they hoped to leave
behind in Europe and other parts of the world. As American institutions grew, and the
country developed, the Declaration of Independence and later the Constitution codified
the American Dream. Although these documents described the American Dream in
vague terms, it allowed future generations to interpret these basic terms, and to form their
own conceptions of the American Dream. Because the American Dream changed over
time, it was vital that these documents allowed for changes in American culture to change
the goals that American policy pursued. Justice Kennedy explained that decisions made
by the American government reflected the social norms and arrangements of American
society. He wrote:
Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth
Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its
manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume
to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later
generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only
to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke
its principles in their own search for greater freedom. (Lawrence v. Texas, 2003)
American public policy is the result of not only precedents and laws, but it is the direct
result of American culture. Each generation of Americans created a new vision for a
better future, and consequently redefined the American Dream. The way that they
3
interpreted the different principles of democracy determined what goals the government
and society would pursue, and what potential goals would be ignored.
Principles Found in the American Dream
The unifying element in American society has been citizens’ expectations about
the promise of the future. Americans have two different ways, however, of conceiving of
that future. One part of the society has adopted an individualistic emphasis on liberty and
a procedural conception of justice. It emphasizes negative freedom, which Isaiah Berlin
described as, “liberty from; absence of interference beyond the shifting, but always
recognizable, frontier” (1969, p. 127). Negative liberty must be limited at some point to
protect the liberty of other individuals, although when negative liberty must be limited to
protect others is determined by society. The individualistic emphasis on negative liberty
had also led to the adoption of a procedural conception of justice. Michael Sandel,
describing this conception of justice, wrote:
A just society seeks not to promote any particular ends, but enables its citizens to
pursue their own ends, consistent with a similar liberty for all; it therefore must
govern by principles that do not presuppose any particular conception of the good.
(1984, p. 82)
Procedural justice does not presuppose any vision of normatively superior ends, but seeks
to establish a system that treats all individuals with equal rights in both their economic
and political interactions.
4
A procedural conception of justice is most compatible with the development of a
pure free market economic system. Free market capitalism requires that individuals be
given equal liberty (or opportunity) to pursue their economic goals. Theoretically, it
assumes that individuals act from similar starting points, allowing the hardest working,
most intelligent, and luckiest individuals to be most successful, while individuals that
lack exceptional work ethic, intellect, or luck, receive the economic gains that their
abilities or fortunes dictate. Additionally, this emphasizes limited government
involvement in the free market, and promotes greater economic rights for individuals.
Economic success is justified by each individual’s choices as autonomous and moral
actors, in light of either possessing or lacking natural abilities.
Alternatively, some Americans look to the future for the fulfillment of a
substantive conception of justice separate besides simply the individual right to choose
emphasized by a procedural conception of justice. To the extent this is a democratic
conception, it might also seek reductions in structural inequalities, promote substantive
freedoms, try to fulfill the common good and promote a more communitarian ideal. Mere
equal liberty to pursue economic gains fails to account for the structural disadvantages
and inequalities that are inherent in the free market system. The education, family, and
economic starting points of individuals can have a significant impact on the outcomes of
economic interactions. The substantive conception of justice demands that these
structural inequalities are mitigated so that individuals have an actual equal opportunity
to compete. Economic advantages further translate into political advantages for
5
individuals. Thus, unless economic inequalities are mitigated, at minimum in changes to
the starting points of individuals and at most extreme the equalization of economic
outcomes, economic inequalities may translate into unequal access to political power.
A substantive conception of justice would enable individuals to pursue the ends
that they truly desire. It is not enough to empower individuals with formal rights, but
individuals must also understand the ends that their choices promote. This creates
substantive freedoms for individuals to pursue the ends that they ultimately desire. The
simplest example of substantive freedom comes from education. Without education,
individuals experience the liberty to make many choices, but without the knowledge of
the implications of their actions and the expansion of their capabilities, individuals are
largely incapable of making the choices that they would with greater knowledge or
ability. This substantive conception of justice seeks to expand the liberties of individuals
in some areas, but requires placing some additional limits on the negative liberties of
individuals.
A substantive conception of justice may also pursue a common good. An entire
population may not unanimously understand or condone a single conception of the
common good, yet it may still serve as an important element in the pursuit of individual
and collective ends. For example, a society must collectively choose to provide
education to individuals under the assumption that it will enable individuals to experience
greater individual freedom, and to use democratic practices to promote their true interests
6
(especially important in the ability of citizens to overcome propaganda and the elite
dominance). An effective democracy requires that its citizens are capable of
understanding the political issues that affect them, and can effectively participate in the
democratic process. Additionally, individuals must understand that collective action is
necessary in some situations to fulfill the common good (i.e. national defense, public
education, and environmental regulations), that may infringe on the negative liberties of
individuals. Although individuals may not understand how to solve these problems, they
must allow their government to address these collective action problems, and hold the
government accountable when it fails to address these problems. Conceptions of the
common good enable individuals to form a cohesive body politic that can promote the
collective interests of the state and its citizens effectively.
In order for any conception of the common good to become politically significant,
a large portion of the population must become united behind that conception, creating a
sense of community among those individuals. A feeling of community among
individuals enables them to overcome collective action problems and to make public
policy directed at the elimination of structural disadvantages. Without a sense of
community, it is unlikely that individuals will willingly sacrifice individual liberties for
the common good, or seek to eliminate structural disadvantages that do not personally
affect themselves.
7
Increasing cultural diversity in the state contributes to the adoption of a
procedural conception of justice within our society. As diversity increases, the sense of
community among individuals is lost, encouraging individuals to identify the government
less as an expression of their own will, and more as an agent that threatens their selfinterests. Diversity causes individuals to lose faith in the abilities of their fellow citizens
to promote a version of the common good that they may find amenable. They
increasingly expect others to use the government to further goals they do not support. As
a result, individuals seek to protect themselves through the establishment of a procedural
conception of justice that forbids any intrusions on their liberty beyond what is necessary.
A procedural conception of justice creates obstacles to policies that might promote
substantive freedoms and the common good, both of which require limits on some forms
of liberty.
The competitive spirit encouraged by a procedural conception of justice led to
individualism, and the formation of an American Dream that made the creation of a
community among the people difficult. This version of the American Dream claimed that
economic success was available to all individuals that were willing to work hard enough.
Individuals were taught that structural inequalities did not actually influence one’s ability
to achieve economic success, and consequently promoted free market capitalism. As a
result, Americans ignored the role of government in the reduction of structural
inequalities, and the development of substantive freedoms and common goods that were
unaccounted for in the free market model. Additionally, individuals believed that there
8
was no reason for the government to protect others, as their failures represented their own
shortcomings. This conception of the American Dream placed individuals in competition
with their fellow Americans, eliminating most tendencies towards community that may
have otherwise emerged.
Explaining the unique historical position of America, John Locke noted, “in the
beginning all the world was America” (1948, p. 26). The geographic isolation of the
American colonies offered the founders an opportunity to start-over. Fernando Martinez
noted, “Above all, they [settlers] could validate a new political vision, setting the bases
for the modern American constitutionalism” (2002, p. 23). Previous societies had
historical expectations for government; whereas in America (especially earliest on),
individuals had the freedom to determine what the role of the individual and what the role
of government should be. Other modern democracies developed out of past traditions,
and were largely based upon the fusion of those traditions with abstract democratic
principles like equality and liberty. Without these common and established traditions,
Americans were unified by their understanding and application of democratic principles,
and their expectation of the fulfillment of their dreams.
This essay will explain how American culture has brought about different
conceptions of the American Dream and social justice. It will focus on some of the most
important periods that offer insight into some of the most dramatic shifts in American
culture. Additionally, this essay will show how the emergence of Horatio Alger’s
9
conception of the American Dream popularized notions of economic liberty, and led to
the widespread adoption of a procedural conception of justice throughout the country.
Following the rise of corporations and administrative bureaucracies Americans became
increasingly disassociated from each other, as they became more focused on the private
liberties (most often expressed through leisure activities) within their own, private lives.
This marked a retreat from more public involvement within unions, political parties, and
other social groups. The American Dream became defined in terms of how each
individual’s life could become better, and became less focused on communal goals. As a
result, the collective power of Americans was largely lost as the American Dream was
redefined as merely a personal goal for the future. I conclude with an examination of
current American opinion that suggests that a sense of community may return to
American culture, but is threatened by the nation’s diversity and continuing emphasis on
individual liberty.
10
Chapter 2
THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE AMERICAN DREAM, DEMOCRACY, AND
LIBERTY IN AMERICA
The Puritan Formation
The Puritan formation of the American Dream was found in religion. They came
to America searching for the freedom necessary to practice their religion in the manner
that they believed was best. John Winthrop explained to his congregation:
The end is to improve our lives to do more service to the Lord, the comfort and
increase of the body of Christ whereof we are members, that ourselves and
posterity may be the better preserved from the common corruptions of this evil
world, to serve the Lord and work out our Salvation under the power and purity of
His holy ordinances. (1956, p. 82)
Restrictions on religious practices and the existing corruption in other parts of the world
prevented the Puritans from freely practicing their religion. As a result, they sought
absolute freedom to practice their religion in the New World. However, religious
freedom was only a means to their greater goal: they sought to create a model of worship
that could be emulated by the rest of the world. Winthrop continued:
For we must consider that we shall be as a city upon a hill, the eyes of all people
are upon us. So that if we shall deal falsely with our God in this work we have
undertaken, and so cause him to withdraw his present help from us, we shall be
made a story and a by-word through the world: we shall open the mouths of
enemies to speak evil of the ways of God, and all professors for God's sake; we
shall shame the faces of many of God's worthy servants, and cause their prayers to
be turned into curses upon us, till we be consumed out of the good land whither
we are a going. (1956, p. 83)
11
For Winthrop and other Puritans, the American Dream not only required the opportunity
to freely practice their own religion, but also served as a means to improve religious
practices throughout the world. It was not enough merely for the colonists to better
themselves, but they sought to improve the world as a whole. He believed that their
colony could thus serve the common good by serving as an example of proper worship
throughout the world. The American Dream for Puritans represented a revolution in
religion that would, in the future, bring more people closer to God.
The Puritan tradition also contributed to the evolution of American democracy.
Although governance was often strict, they exhibited some of the earliest examples of
free and fair elections and the incorporation of democratic principles within government
policies in America. Additionally, the Puritan’s pursuit of religious freedom (even if
only for themselves) foreshadowed one aspect of liberty that later became an integral part
of the American tradition. Colonists were united by religion that created strong
communal ties that enabled the settlements to pursue their interpretations of the common
good. Professor Jim Cullen concluded, “some of the most important reforms in
American life, from the end of slavery to the creation of the nation’s great universities,
derived from conceptions of community and morality central to the Puritan worldview”
(2003, p. 34). The Puritan tradition was based on a substantive conception of justice, and
sent cultural reverberations throughout American history that continue to be felt today.
Although Puritan settlements were small, and thus more manageable than later American
12
societies were, they provide insight into the origins of democratic principles, liberty, and
community in America.
The Protestant Ethic encouraged individuals to remain true to their original
covenants and to act in accordance with the norms established by their religion. The
Puritans believed that God was the ultimate power, and that He existed unquestionably
above them. It was their charge to obey Him without hesitation. In a similar manner,
Puritan political leaders acted with supreme authority derived from God. Perry Miller
noted, “The government is brought into being by the act of the people, but the institution
itself is from God. The governors are elected by the people, but elected into an office
that has its warrant from heaven” (1956, p. 90). Puritan leaders like John Cotton and
John Winthrop argued that it was the duty of rulers to act as trustees of the people and to
guide them in the manner that they, the leaders¸ believed was in the peoples’ best
interests. For example, Cotton wrote, “for children and servants, or any others you are to
deal with: give them the liberty and authority you would have them use, and beyond that
stretch not the tether; it will not tend to their good nor yours” (1956, p. 87). This
paternalistic attitude resulted from the belief that Puritan leaders understood the will of
God more accurately than their constituents understood it, and as a result, knew what was
best for them.
However, the leaders also believed that governance required the consent of their
community. In his Hartford Election Sermon, Thomas Hooker reminded his community,
13
“the foundation of authority is laid, firstly, in the free consent of the people,”
emphasizing the role that the people needed to play in their own government (1956, p.
89). John Winthrop also recognized that the success of communities not only rested in
the providence of God, but also in the unity of the people. In A Model of Christian
Charity, he noted:
That every man might have need of other, and hence they might be all knit more
nearly together in the bond of brotherly affection… For the work we have in
hand, is by mutual consent, through special overruling providence and a more
than an ordinary approbation of the churches of Christ, to seek out a place of
cohabitation and consortship, under a due form of government both civil and
ecclesiastical. (1956, pp. 79-82)
The success of the colonies required both certain religious practices and the effective
administration of the civil state. New England was a harsh environment that required
colonists to work together and to form an effective civil government that could
appropriately structure the community to withstand the practical problems of their
settlements. Due to the extreme difficulties created by the choice to settle in colonial
America, the unity of the colony was vital to both survival and successful completion of
their goal to become a “City upon a Hill” for the rest of the world to emulate. The
creation of community among individuals enabled the Puritans to overcome the severe
hardships that they experienced.
The Puritans did not believe in all, or even most, of the democratic principles that
the founding fathers later espoused. Instead, the foundations of American democracy
only rest with them. Perry Miller argued that the bond found in Puritan communities was
14
not between men, but between rulers and the people (1956, p. 84); however, the power of
the people was preserved through the democratic accountability of rulers to their people,
and the covenanting of individuals with each other. He concluded:
In the Puritan formulation, it held that a body politic could be constituted only out
of the consent of the governed, yet also out of an agreement not to terms of the
people’s own divising but only to the pre-stated terms of God’s eternal law of
justice and subordination. (1956, p. 78)
The relationship between rulers and the community was sometimes framed in
paternalistic terms as an extension of the ultimate authority of God. However, unlike the
rule of God, leaders were accountable to the community through elections (in most
colonies). The founding fathers built upon this history, creating a system of governance
that drew on the democratic elements of Puritanism.
The Codification of the American Dream
Building upon the Puritan foundation, the founding documents of the United
States continued the traditions of democracy, liberty, and community. The language of
the Virginia Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence explained the formation
of government as a bond among free men. Adopted just a month before the Declaration
of Independence, the Virginia Bill of Rights stated, “That all power is vested in, and
consequently derived from, the people; that magistrates are their trustees and servants,
and at all times amenable to them.” Because the power of the government remained
15
within the people, government remained accountable to the interests of the citizens. This
is further reflected in the Declaration of Independence that noted, “[governments] derive
their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Without that consent, governments
were illegitimate. Arendt noted that bonds formed through mutual consent presupposed
equality, a foundation of American democracy found throughout different conceptions of
the American Dream (2006, pp. 161-2). The language repeated in these documents
emphasized the importance of individual liberty and equality within a democratic society.
The Constitution of the United States and the Declaration of Independence
highlighted the potential conflict between liberty, equality, and governmental
involvement, within American democracy. The Declaration of Independence posited,
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are
endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these, are life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” highlighting the importance of individual liberty
within American culture. However, it further noted that government should “organize its
powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their [the people’s] safety
and happiness” [emphasis added]. This call for government involvement was echoed in
the Preamble of the Constitution:
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union,
establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense,
promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and
our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of
America.
16
These documents sought to ensure that individual liberties were protected, but also
encouraged the government to act in accordance with the general welfare (possibly in
reference to the common good). Although these documents are often viewed as the basis
for American democracy and governance, they promoted values and interests that often
conflicted. Additionally, the concepts of equality, liberty and the role of government
were vaguely expressed and remain open to interpretation. The vagueness of these terms
allows modern scholars and citizens to interpret these ideas and to decide how they
should be applied to the governing of our state.
The use of the phrase, “pursuit of happiness” is particularly important within the
context of debates between interests rooted in individual liberty, and interests rooted in
other democratic principles. Hannah Arendt explained that with this term Thomas
Jefferson meant public happiness. Public happiness “consisted in the citizen’s right of
access to the public realm, in his share of public power… as distinct from the generally
recognized rights of subjects to be protected by the government in the pursuit of private
happiness” (Arendt, 2006, p. 118). Public happiness, according to Arendt, was a vital
component to America as it gave individuals the opportunity to influence their
government, and provided the clearest distinction between American governance and
systems of monarchy that tyrannized over the public, even when restrained by law.
Without access to the political sphere, Jefferson believed that individuals were in essence
ruled by a tyranny, even when their individual rights were protected (Arendt, 2006, p.
121). Although individual involvement in government expanded throughout American
17
history, it was coupled with policies that emphasized private liberties. The vagueness of
the Declaration’s terms allowed each subsequent generation to interpret the phrase as it
pleased (Arendt, 2006, p. 119). Thus, although political liberty has become equal among
almost all Americans, the concept of a public sphere that provides for substantive
freedoms and the pursuit of the common good remained limited. Most Americans
interpreted the meaning of the “pursuit of happiness” to merely reflect private goals and
individual liberties, while they ignored the more expansive public realm that it also
entailed.
The vagueness of these terms is, in some ways, beneficial to American
governance. If scholars could successfully infer the exact meanings of these terms from
the founders, it would make policies less dynamic and adaptive to change. Although this
would make appeals to these documents more clear, it would also make revisions to the
Constitution more frequent. Part of the reason that Thomas Jefferson argued for frequent
revolutions within society, including the rewriting of constitutions, was so that forms of
government and its laws would reflect the changed culture of each period. The
vagueness of these documents enables revisions to occur within the public consciousness,
without altering the explicit claims of our founding documents. As a result,
Constitutional claims about liberty and democracy can be viewed in the present context
of the debate, not through the lens of a different culture.
18
This process of reinterpretation is particularly important in the United States due
to our tendency to look forward. As explained earlier, the American Dream entails
significantly optimistic assumptions about the state of affairs in the future. Americans
are not linked together by an extensive historical tradition, but by a vision of the future as
Croly noted. This promise of a better future obtained through the pursuit of opportunity,
security, equality, and liberty, defines the very essence of the American Dream.
Although the role of government was fundamentally defined during the formal founding
of the state, modern interpretations of the founding documents re-define the current
obligations for government and redefine the American Dream.
19
Chapter 3
CONFLICTING INTERPRETATIONS OF THE AMERICAN DREAM DURING THE
ANTEBELLUM PERIOD
In the years following America’s founding, important divisions within American
culture developed, largely as the result of slavery. Within these diverging cultures,
different conceptions of liberty and democracy emerged throughout the nation. The Civil
War, and the philosophies that emerged from it, changed American culture forever. Prior
to the Civil War, the role of equality, both in terms of access to economic opportunities
and the liberties granted to individuals, was severely limited by slavery. From this
divide, different conceptions of the American Dream emerged. The Civil War is
particularly important because the social and economic questions behind it threatened to
dissolve union (and did so in half of the country). Although the conclusion of the Civil
War failed to bring about a renaissance of community across the nation, it created
communities in both the North and the South that pursued their own formulations of
individual liberty and democratic principles within the public and private spheres. The
policies that resulted from the Civil War mark important changes in American history in
which particular ideas of democracy and liberty became fundamentally ingrained in the
practice of American politics. The literature produced in the antebellum period provided
important examples of divergent conceptions of the American Dream and radical
examples of how it can be understood.
20
Frederick Douglass and other abolitionists radically opposed the institution of
slavery using a rights-based critique. They argued that all men had a fundamental and
equal right to economic opportunity, security, and liberty. Equality in this conception
primarily reflected the need for equal political and economic liberty among individuals- a
conception that they believed was supported by the Declaration of Independence. In
opposition to these claims, George Fitzhugh argued that the quality of life among wage
laborers and slaves should be equalized. The movement did not seek to end slavery, but
instead to ensure that all citizens were guaranteed the same “advantages” as slaves.
Fundamentally, Fitzhugh’s claims relied on a critique of capitalism and questionable
assumptions about the lifestyle of most slaves. Interestingly, this conception emphasized
equality of social outcomes, and largely ignored the importance of individual liberty.
Together these theories offer different insights into the future that Americans hoped to
bring about. Douglass and some abolitionists believed that the American Dream was
dependent upon the equalization of political and economic liberties among most
individuals. Alternatively, Fitzhugh argued that the American Dream represented the
fulfillment of the basic material comforts of individuals, irrespective of economic and
political liberties.
Although the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution serve as the basis
for American governance, only the Constitution tacitly approved of slavery, making it a
legal right. It did not ignore the question of slavery, but codified it into law. Article 1,
Section 2, Clause 3, and Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1, explicitly noted that “other
21
persons” would count as three-fifths of a person and that the importation of slaves would
not be barred until at the earliest 1808. These clauses were the result of great
compromises between those opposed to slavery and Southerners that viewed it as a
necessary and/or moral right. However, even during the writing of the Constitution, there
was growing sentiment opposed to slavery. In 1786, John Jay noted:
It is much to be wished that slavery may be abolished. The honour of the States,
as well as justice and humanity, in my opinion, loudly call upon them to
emancipate these unhappy people. To contend for our own liberty, and to deny
that blessing to others, involves an inconsistency not to be excused. (quoted in
Mount, 2009)
Jay explicitly argued that all individuals deserved equal liberty. But despite protests from
prominent public figures, slavery remained an untouchable topic for Southern politicians
and plantation owners. Most Northern reformers were content to ignore the issue,
effectively avoiding the political battle that was destined to come to the forefront of early
American politics. Herbert Croly noted, “They shirked the problem whenever they could
and for as long as they could… The truth is, of course, that both of the dominant parties
were merely representing the prevailing attitude towards slavery of American public
opinion” (1965, p. 73). However, the conflict over slavery was destined to emerge as a
pressing political problem that highlighted the cultural conflicts that were emerging
within antebellum America.
22
As the slavery question became increasingly prevalent in popular American
thought during the early-to-mid-nineteenth century, the direct and principled conflict
among the opposing sides became crystallized. Croly observed:
Our country was committed by every consideration of national honor and moral
integrity to make its institutions thoroughly democratic, and it could not continue
to permit the aggressive legal existence of human servitude without degenerating
into a glaring example of political and moral hypocrisy. (1965, p. 73)
The democratic ideals of economic and political liberty- with no mention of racial
requirements- opposed the continued existence of an institution that was fundamentally
oppressive; however, the conflict of these ideals with the language of the Constitution
made compromise difficult. Highlighting this conflict, Croly further noted, “Loyalty to
the Constitution meant disloyalty to democracy, and an active interest in the triumph of
democracy seemed to bring with it the condemnation of the Constitution” (1965, p. 75).
As politicians, novelists, and writers began to embrace the moral and legal questions of
slavery, public political discourse could no longer avoid addressing the problem of
slavery. From both sides emerged powerful arguments that highlighted the divide
between different conceptions of the American Dream at that time.
Frederick Douglass and Rights Based Conceptions of the American Dream
Among the abolitionists, Frederick Douglass was one of the most important
voices against slavery. A former slave, Douglass was capable of both making poignant,
23
heart-felt arguments based on his own experiences, and making philosophically
persuasive arguments against slavery that had widespread appeal. Douglass
acknowledged the difficulty in expunging slavery from the Constitution, but argued that
its immorality was spreading and destroying the fundamental democratic principles of the
Constitution and Declaration of Independence. He argued:
It [slavery] has become interwoven with all American institutions, and has
anchored itself in the very soil of the American Constitution. It has thrown its
paralysing [sic] arm over freedom of speech, and the liberty of the press; and has
created for itself morals and manners favorable to its own continuance. (1950a, p.
114)
Like others opposed to slavery, Douglass believed that the continuance of slavery had
far-reaching effects on liberty and equality within American democracy, and that if
slavery continued, those values were in danger of disappearing. He claimed that the
American people were compelled by duty and safety to help dissolve slavery, and that a
man’s inherit right to liberty was violated by slavery (1950b, pp. 116-7). These
sentiments were echoed by Abraham Lincoln who argued, “There is no reason in the
world why the negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration
of Independence- the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” (2004, pp. 42-3).
Despite the acceptance of slavery found in the Constitution, Douglass attacked slavery
for its infringement on the equal entitlement of each man to individual liberty, which he
believed was fundamental to American democracy. The American Dream, as Douglass
and his supporters understood it, required that each individual had equal political and
24
economic liberty, which they believed was fundamental to the American democratic
tradition.
George Fitzhugh and Standardizing the Quality of American Life
George Fitzhugh argued that liberty was an inessential element of the American
Dream, and that the role of government was to provide all individuals with a minimum
standard of living (1960, p. 72). Rather than providing African Americans equal liberty,
he instead sought to provide wage laborers with the same lifestyle “advantages” as slaves.
In doing so, he sought to remove almost all elements of liberty from the lives of the entire
lower class. This would have provided the most disadvantaged elements of society with
a minimum quality of living, improving their lives. In his interpretation, democracy
merely required that all individuals received the necessities for life, but not that they
experienced any political or economic liberty. Additionally, he assumed that the lower
class was incapable of effectively exercising economic liberty, and that their best
prospects for a good life were to have their needs directly provided for them by others.
As a result, Fitzhugh redefined the American Dream strictly in terms of the quality of life
available to all individuals, and downplayed the need for political or economic liberty in
order for individuals to experience a fulfilling life.
25
In Cannibals All! Or Slaves Without Masters, Fitzhugh criticized the capitalist
system for unfairly distributing goods, and claimed that the lives of slaves were in fact
better than the lives of wage laborers. He argued that the private care that slave owners
provided their slaves was superior to the care business owners provided their laborers
through their wages. As a result, wage laborers would lead more fulfilling lives if they
were given the same benefits that slaves received from their masters. He felt that
capitalism “was far more cruel than the black slave trade, because it exacted more of its
slaves, and neither protected nor governed them” (1960, p. 15). Fitzhugh asserted that
masters protected and governed their slaves, while capitalists did not take similar steps to
protect and govern their wage-laborers.
Additionally, he argued that slaves had more individual liberty than wagelaborers. Wage laborers had to provide for all of their families needs with only their
meager earnings. While at work, they were under the control of capitalists, and after
leaving work, they had to care for the needs of their family. In contrast, slaves remained
free in both body and mind after their workday had ended. The master provided “food,
raiment, house, fuel, and everything else necessary to the physical well-being of himself
and his family” (1960, p. 16). This provided them with liberty after finishing their work
that wage-laborers never experienced. This was the only type of liberty that Fitzhugh
believed the lower class could effectively use. Overall, Fitzhugh claimed that
establishing a minimum quality of life that was equally available to all men was the
26
primary end of government, as it maximized the liberty that the working class was
capable of exercising, while ensuring that their basic needs were met.
In making this argument, Fitzhugh redefined democracy. He found the social
arrangement created by capitalism unjust because it enabled capitalists to treat wagelaborers worse than slaves. Fitzhugh concluded:
Democracy and liberty are antagonistic; for liberty permits and encourages the
weak to oppress the strong, whilst democracy proposes, so far as possible, to
equalize advantages, by fairly dividing the burdens of life and rigidly enforcing
the performance of every social duty by every member of society, according to his
capacity and ability. (1960, p. 82)
Unlike Douglass, Fitzhugh believed that political arrangements should be judged by the
equality (or in his terminology, democracy) that they created among the working class.
In his opinion, liberty and equality were inherently in conflict with one another in
capitalist systems.
His theory rested on the assumption that slaves were incapable of competing in
the capitalist system. Unlike capitalists, slave owners had an incentive to take care of
their workers. Slaves were treated as property, leading Fitzhugh to argue, “should they
not be obliged to take care of man, their property, as they do their horses and their
hounds, their cattle and their sheep” (1960, p. 20). If slave-owners failed to take proper
care of their slaves, the slaves would be less productive and consequently less valuable.
He argued, “the law of self interest secures kind and humane treatment to Southern
slaves. All the legislative ingenuity in the world will never enact so efficient a law in
27
behalf of free laborers” (1960, p. 79). Thus, Fitzhugh claimed that the enslavement of
blacks protected them, while it ensured that they received equal treatment and the
necessities for life. Wage laborers were easier to replace because capitalists had no direct
tie (such as direct ownership) to their workers. Fitzhugh also believed that there was
social pressure to treat weak or dependent individuals correctly. As a result, he expected
that slave owners did properly feed, house, dress, and manage their slaves. He even
argued that slaves received better educations than wage-laborers. Whereas wage-laborers
primarily interacted among themselves, slaves commonly interacted with their masters,
who they consequently learned from (1960, p. 29). Fitzhugh’s theory rested entirely on
the premises that the lives of slaves were better than that of the wage-laborers, and that
wage-laborers were incapable of effectively using most forms of liberty.
The fundamental conflict between the theories of Douglass and Fitzhugh existed
beyond the direct question of slavery. Douglass, demanded that each individual had
access to economic opportunities and equal political liberty. For Douglass, the better
future promised by the American Dream required that individuals had access to political
and economic liberties, enabling them to lead the lives that they desired. Alternatively,
Fitzhugh denied the need for economic and political liberties for individuals to lead a
fulfilling life. Instead, he argued that individuals only required an equal quality of life be
made available to them. Although the factual premises of his defense of slavery were
wrong, his conception of American democracy openly challenged the natural rights based
claims posited by Douglass. Fitzhugh’s conception of the American Dream required that
28
there was an equal quality of life available to all Americans, and ignored the need for
opportunities within the economic and political spheres to exist for Americans to lead a
good life.
The Impact of the Antebellum Period on the American Dream
The various Southern interpretations of the American Dream were largely rejected
by the Northern public. Although slave owners and Southern politicians found these
arguments for the continuation and expansion of slavery convincing, relatively little of
the Northern public was persuaded. Instead, according to Croly:
[The Northerners] insisted upon a conception of the Constitution… more
comprehensive and dignified than that of existing legal rights; and in so doing the
Northerners undoubtedly had behind them, not merely the sound political idea,
but also a fair share of the living American tradition. (1965, pp. 82-3)
For them, the concept of American democracy stood for more than the law as described
by the Constitution and law books. They developed a greater meaning behind American
democracy that was more attuned with their popular conceptions of economic
opportunity, security, equality, and liberty, during the period. To preserve slavery meant
threatening the ideals that many Americans increasingly associated with democracy and
America itself. Although most Americans questioned absolute racial equality, most
recognized the threat that the continuance of slavery posed to the democratic ideals of
liberty and equality.
29
Abraham Lincoln understood that slavery constituted a direct threat to the
developing American moral culture that the American Dream had come to presuppose.
Following his inauguration, Lincoln explained in a speech at Independence Hall:
I have often inquired of myself, what great principle or idea it was that kept this
confederacy so long together. It was not the mere matter of the separation of the
colonies from the mother land; but something in that Declaration giving liberty,
not alone to the people of this country, but hope to the world for all future time. It
was that which gave promise that in due time the weights should be lifted from
the shoulders of all men, and that all should have an equal chance. This is the
sentiment embodied in that Declaration of Independence [emphasis added].
(1989, p. 213)
Lincoln further expanded upon the idea of a developing conception of the Declaration of
Independence and American democracy in his Gettysburg Address. Within the address,
he implied that the Declaration of Independence promised to create a society that would
establish democracy and liberty among men, and that it was the responsibility of future
generations to further those goals. Croly emphasized the importance of Lincoln and
explained:
Thus for the first time it was clearly proclaimed by a responsible politician that
American nationality was a living principle rather than a legal bond; and
Lincoln’s service to his country in making the Western Democracy understand
that living Americans were responsible for their national integrity can scarcely be
over-valued. (1965, p. 88)
Lincoln understood that American democracy was built upon more than simply a
legalistic framework that explicitly declared how government worked and how it and the
individual must interact. Instead, it was an agreement among the people to develop a
public discourse regarding important issues concerning equality and liberty, and to apply
30
that discourse to the governing of the state, improving the future of America in the
process. James Fitzpatrick further noted:
The Declaration, he [Lincoln] argued, was a pledge to work for a country in
which all men would be treated as equals before the law; it established a national
ideal, an aspiration. It outlined the kind of society that the Founding Fathers
hoped would one day be established in the new country. The Constitution on the
other hand was a working instrument with which to organize the American
society as it existed in the late eighteenth century. (1977, pp. 118-9)
Under Lincoln’s interpretation, the Constitution and the legal code acted merely as the
means towards establishing the ends defined in the Declaration. Lincoln was among the
first to identify the promise of a better future for America and the underlying democratic
principles established in America’s founding documents as the basis for the American
Dream.
The question of slavery highlighted the dynamic and evolving character of the
American Dream. Douglass (and Lincoln to some extent) argued that the American
Dream and the foundation of American democracy were defined by the preservation and
equalization of political and economic liberty among individuals. This theoretically
provided each individual an equal opportunity to influence their government and to
become economically self-sufficient. Alternatively, Fitzhugh argued that the better future
that the American Dream symbolized required that a satisfactory quality of life was made
available to all Americans. Rather than merely providing equal opportunities for
influence and success, Fitzhugh argued that the benefits of economic outcomes needed to
be, to some extent, equalized, and that those incapable of effectively participating in
31
politics were excluded from it. Democracy and the American Dream, in his view, only
required that individuals received the private benefits necessary for a satisfactory life,
while he ignored the possible benefits of participation in the public sphere. Following the
antebellum period, the equality of outcomes that Fitzhugh demanded was subjugated to a
conception of the American Dream similar to Douglass’ that emphasized the importance
of individual political and economic liberty.
32
Chapter 4
HORATIO ALGER’S AMERICAN DREAM, THE RISE OF PROCEDURAL
JUSTICE, AND ITS CULTURAL IMPLICATIONS
Opportunities for economic success have always been an integral part of the
American experience. In his most famous work, Democracy in America, Alexis de
Tocqueville observed:
In America everyone finds opportunities unknown anywhere else for making or
increasing his fortune. A breathless cupidity perpetually distracts the mind of
man from the pleasures of the imagination and the labors of the intellect and urges
it on to nothing but the pursuit of wealth. (2000, pp. 454-5)
Economic opportunity and optimistic expectations for those opportunities have been a
part of the American Dream since even before our founding. Tocqueville observed that
the pure pursuit of wealth could lead one to neglect other important goals. With the rise
of Horatio Alger’s conception of the American Dream, American policy became largely
focused on promoting economic opportunity through free market capitalism and the
application of procedural justice.
The pursuit of economic success has been present in the culture of our young
country since even before its explicit founding. Its roots are found in the Protestant work
ethic that coupled success with virtue and hard work. This notion that the success or
failure of an individual was directly related to his or her own hard work and virtue is
inherited from our Puritan founders, and evolved into a modern justification for wealth
and failure. As a result, American culture frequently judged the success or failure of an
33
individual based solely on their financial success. A new conception of the America
Dream emerged at the end of the nineteenth century that emphasized economic liberty,
and ignored the unequal opportunities for success that structural disadvantages created.
One explanation for this shift towards a new economic American Dream was that
America became increasingly populated by poor European immigrants who sought
economic success more than the democratic principles that the founders believed
America rested upon. Arendt noted:
The trouble was that the struggle to abolish poverty, under the impact of a
continual mass immigration from Europe, fell more and more under the sway of
the poor themselves, and hence came under the guidance of the ideals born out of
poverty, as distinguished from those principles which had inspired the foundation
of freedom. For abundance and endless consumption are the ideals of the poor:
they are the mirage in the desert of misery. (2006, p. 130)
For the growing population of poor Americans a better economic future was the most
important goal and the means to an overall better future. Technological advances in the
short-term enabled many of the poor to increase their economic status, and had “the
effect of confirming for the dreamers that they really had come to live in the best of all
possible worlds” (Arendt, 2006, p. 131). However, this shift from the pursuit of
substantive democratic ideals to purely economic goals led to policies that largely
ignored the importance of political participation and the fulfillment of a common good.
The creation of free markets and the development of policies promoting negative
liberties did not lead to the better future that many Americans expected the policies to
34
create. Instead, free markets created the opportunity for exploitation and led to greater
inequalities of goods and capital. From this unequal distribution, the advantaged class
further established political controls to help protect the social arrangement. Jeffrey
Lustig observed:
We can see that by the last quarter of the nineteenth century America faced an
inarticulate policy choice about which business practices would be deemed
legitimate and which harmful, which placed outside the scope of public authority
and which placed within it. (1982, p. 55)
Americans, under the guidance of the political and economic elites, chose to put their
faith in the liberalization of free trade, and the myths that it promulgated. They were told
that wealth and industry would fairly emerge through free trade, and that all Americans
would benefit from economic liberty. However, these policies led to reduced
opportunities for social mobility and led to greater divides between the quality of life
experienced by the rich and the poor to develop. This new version of the American
Dream emphasized economic liberty, free trade, and led to the adoption of a procedural
conception of justice. Although the assumptions behind this conception of the American
Dream were once true, structural inequalities increased in the twentieth century, leading
to decreased social mobility and increasing gaps in the standards of living among the
different economic classes.
Land: the Great Equalizer
35
Westward expansion and an abundance of available land primed Americans to
believe that success was determined by hard work. The Homestead Act of 1862 enabled
individuals to move westward and to claim up to 160 acres of land. Citing the work of
Henry George, Lustig noted:
The original promise of American life was not of great wealth nor even equality
of condition. It was the promise of “opportunity” to work, to decide how to apply
one’s own wit to nature, and to make one’s contribution to society without being
beholden to superiors. (1982, p. 61)
The great excess of land allowed individuals that were dissatisfied with their position in
society, or the culture that was developing around them, to move west and to create new
lives for themselves. Fundamental to this frontier conception of the American Dream
was the independence that it provided them, in addition to the economic success that it
often brought with it. Most of these individuals were simply subsistence farmers that
existed largely outside of the national economy, yet they were free from government and
social restraints. This ideal emphasized the equal opportunities for all individuals to be
independent and to live a comfortable, albeit difficult, life. Individuals had little excuse
not be successful when land was freely available, and only required the input of their hard
labor, and a little luck, to be self-sufficient. Westward expansion relied upon what was
seemingly an unlimited commons that provided every individual with the opportunity to
be economically successful.
From the beginning, the United States was largely made up of small independent
farmers. Even at the beginning of industrialization, as middle class businessmen
36
emerged, the possibilities of upward mobility into that privileged class was available to
the most talented and the most determined workers (Mills, 1951, pp. 3-6). C. Wright
Mills noted, "Between mercantilism and subsistence farming in the beginning, and
monopoly and high finance at the end, the society of the small entrepreneur flourished
and became the seedbed of middleclass ideal and aspiration and myth" (1951, p. 6).
These men largely owned their own property, which also gave them their industry, giving
them freedom and independence. The large entrepreneur middle class had significant
political capital, as they formed a unified bloc with converging interests in both
preserving their economic power, and promoting their community’s interests.
However, as the availability of arable land decreased and westward expansion
reached the west coast, the opportunity for individuals to obtain some sort of sustainable
economic success became much more difficult. Without the opportunity to merely claim
land, prospective farmers were forced to buy their land from others, requiring a monetary
investment that was beyond the means of many. Instead, the best and often only option
for many individuals was to take advantage of the opportunities created by
industrialization and to find employment in factories. Often, these positions provided
unsafe and harsh work environments, coupled with long hours for little pay. Unlike
farming opportunities, these individuals had little autonomy and were subject to the
demands of their employers. Additionally, due to the growing competition for
employment in industrial centers and the low skill requirements of much of the work,
individuals entering into the manufacturing sphere could rarely move beyond their initial
37
socioeconomic class. However, despite the loss of the western commons, Americans
continued to believe that every individual had an equal opportunity to be successful, and
that failure to do so was the result of either poor luck, laziness, or a flawed moral
character. Despite the loss of the western commons, the belief that each individual had
an equal opportunity to find economic success remained a key assumption of the
American Dream.
Gatsby and the American Dream
F. Scott Fitzgerald’s exploration of the American Dream in The Great Gatsby
helps to explain the disillusionment with industrialization and wealth that had already
begun to permeate American culture in the 1920’s. Although the search for material
wealth continued to dominate the minds of Americans, Fitzgerald and many of his
contemporaries recognized both the inherent desperation and impossibility of the
American Dream, as the lost generation understood it.
In many ways, Jay Gatsby represented the embodiment of the American Dream.
He grew up in the mid-west with relatively unsuccessful parents, and through
determination and hard work, created a fortune for himself. Edwin Fussel noted that
Gatsby wrote his resolutions in a similar fashion to Benjamin Franklin, although Gatsby
documented his in the back of a copy of Hopalong Cassidy (1952, p. 296). These
38
resolutions included not wasting time, maintaining proper hygiene, reading, and saving.
Spurred by this evidence of early resolve, Gatsby’s father noted, “Jimmy [Gatsby] was
bound to get ahead. He always had some resolves like this or something” (Fitzgerald,
1986, p. 175). However, throughout the novel, Fitzgerald made multiple references to the
possible mob and bootlegging roots of Gatsby’s fortune, and it is unclear for the reader
how he actually made his fortune. Thus, Fitzgerald rewrote Alger’s parable and
questioned what moral and personal sacrifices individuals needed to make in order to
achieve the wealth that Alger implied was possible to every hard working and virtuous
American.
Readers can understand Gatsby as a character with more ambition than other,
more overtly materialistic characters, like Tom and Daisy; however, Gatsby’s Dream is
ultimately centered upon possessions- both material and figurative- like other less
developed characters in the novel. Fitzgerald wrote that before Gatsby acquired his
wealth:
Each night he added to the pattern of his fancies until drowsiness closed down
upon some vivid scene with an oblivious embrace. For a while these reveries
provided an outlet for his imagination; they were a satisfactory hint of the
unreality of reality, a promise that the rock of the world was founded on a fairy’s
wing. (1986, p. 100)
Fitzgerald implied that during the 1920’s Americans believed that ultimately their desire
for wealth would lead them to their fortunes. Fitzgerald recognized the growing
infatuation with wealth that was embodied in the American Dream, and through Gatsby
39
questioned the satisfaction that it ultimately led to. Tom and Daisy, the paradigm
Fitzgerald used to represent an entire class of Americans, were stuck in a mostly loveless
marriage that both were afraid to leave, and were ultimately dissatisfied with their lives.
John Callahan observed, “Daisy saw Gatsby’s possessions for the Horatio Alger emblems
that they were and responded only to the passion, will, and tenderness that laid behind
them- the struggle over Daisy (and, parabolically America) was fought on the field of
property” (1996, p. 382). The pursuit of greater wealth and the enjoyment of that wealth
served as the motivation for Daisy and many of the other characters in Gatsby, yet they
tended to spend most of their time unhappily criticizing others, resulting in lives that left
them largely unfulfilled.
Callahan further noted, “sooner or later human feelings were negotiated in
relation to property or some other form of material reality subject to ownership” (1996, p.
382). Thus, the language of success and happiness became only reflections of wealth and
property holdings, even for Gatsby. In Gatsby’s final confrontation with Tom over who
Daisy would be in a relationship with, they argued about Daisy with little regard for her
own opinion. Instead, they commodified their relationships with her, and debated the
ownership of her, without even the regard for her own input. Ultimately, she represented
a piece of property to both men, the possession of which equated to success. Fussel
explained, “Possession of an image like Daisy was all that Gatsby could finally conceive
as “success;” and Gatsby is meant to be a very representative American in the intensity of
his yearning for success, as well as the symbols which he equated with it” (1952, p. 296).
40
Although Gatsby seemed for much of the book to have transcended the American
tendency to equate happiness with economic success, his eventual treatment of Daisy
revealed that he simply redefined the property that he was in search of. For Gatsby, in
many ways the embodiment of the American Dream, the acquisition of property was
never finished, and all human relationships defined in terms of property. For Fitzgerald,
the American Dream constituted not only a myth that deceived Americans, but in Alger’s
conception of it, it also commodified human relations, and reduced them to mere contests
over possession.
For Gatsby the American Dream was strictly private. Despite the power and
influence that Gatsby’s wealth could have conceivably brought him, all of his goals were
limited to his own economic success and bringing Daisy back into his life. Fitzgerald
largely ignored the importance of democratic principles like equality or liberty in the
lives of individuals, except for the individual capacity to escape cultural norms. The
affairs of Tom, Daisy, and Myrtle, were conducted out in the open, and subject to few
social repercussions. Tom was so bold as to introduce Nick, the cousin of his wife, to his
mistress. Additionally, the public sphere was corrupted by economic elites. For
example, while speeding with Nick in the car, Gatsby was approached by a police offer,
whom he promptly showed a card given to him by the commissioner, and was let go.
Fitzgerald depicted the public sphere as subservient to private economic power, which
seemed to be the ultimate power within society. Economic wealth provided his
41
characters with the individual liberty to act however they wished within the private
sphere, and gave them privileges in the public sphere that were unavailable to others.
Horatio Alger’s Conception of the American Dream in Modern America
The American Dream as many view it today was largely popularized by Horatio
Alger, a Harvard graduate and author from the late nineteenth century, who sold between
100 million and 400 million books worldwide (estimates from literary historians vary
greatly) (Moddocks, 1973). Alger wrote stories about young men that through hard work
and determination were able to move beyond their lower class roots. Millions of young,
impoverished children read these dime novels at the end of the nineteenth century,
popularizing the myth of upward mobility, and popularizing the elite’s explanation for
the poverty and failure of millions: lack of determination. His conception of the
American Dream stated that upward mobility, wealth, and happiness were the products of
hard work and perseverance, or in the words of Celeste MacLeod, “everyone who tried
hard enough could rise and become rich” (1980, p. 3).
Many of the most successful individuals truly believed that material success is
easy to achieve, and often failed to understand the structural advantages and luck that
most that enjoy it experienced. Rather than simply providing individuals with hope for
upward mobility, individuals also used Alger’s conception of the American Dream to
42
blame less successful individuals for their place in society. Charles Reich explained that
these people believe:
Material success is the road to happiness… Competition is the law of nature and
man; life is a harsh pursuit of individual self-interest… the American Dream is
still possible, and that success is determined by character, morality, hard work,
and self-denial. It does not accept the fact that organizations predominate over
individuals in American life, or that social problems are due to something other
than bad character, or that the possibility of individual success, based on ability
and enterprise, is largely out of date. (1970, p. 25)
Proponents of this conception of the American Dream applied a flawed theoretical
explanation for what occurs in the real world. This distortion of the Protestant work ethic
enabled them to justify the success and failure of individuals based on their moral
character and their work ethic. The successful were deemed right and just, while those
who struggled or failed were weak and lacked proper virtue. Macleod observed, “belief
in the Dream has a special advantage for those who embrace its tenets: It serves as a
screen that shuts out the real world, at least temporarily” (1980, pp. 3-4). This became
problematic when individuals were persuaded by this version of the American Dream to
place their faith in free markets, despite the structural inequalities that existed and
fundamentally shaped the outcomes of free market exchanges.
Although Alger’s conception of the American Dream was popular for much of the
twentieth century, as opportunities for social mobility into the old middle class
diminished and corporate bureaucracy developed, individuals became less focused on
economic success and became less defined by their jobs. As a result, individuals sought
43
other means of satisfaction in their lives, and began to redefine the American Dream in
the process. C. Wright Mills noted that as work became increasingly less enjoyable for
individuals, they chose to pursue leisure activities in their free time in order to escape
from work. He explained:
The old middle-class work ethic- the gospel of work- has been replaced in the
society of employees by a leisure ethic, and this replacement has involved a sharp,
almost absolute split between work and leisure. Now work itself is judged in
terms of leisure values… Their leisure diverts them from the restless grind of
their work by the absorbing grind of passive enjoyment of glamour and thrills. To
modern man leisure is the way to spend money, work is the way to make it.
(1951, pp. 236-8)
For white-collar workers, work became a means for creating personal leisure time, while
leisure provided a mindless escape from the monotony of the workplace. Although wage
laborers attempted to reach the socioeconomic levels of white-collar workers, the position
offered little additional satisfaction to individuals, except for increased wages. Mills
argued that due to their unsatisfactory work conditions, most white-collar workers chose
to pursue leisure activities in their free time, and ignored greater intellectual or creative
pursuits (1951, p. 235). These changing priorities led to another redefining of the
American Dream for those who became dissatisfied with corporate culture and looked
outside of the workplace for satisfaction. Their conception of the American Dream
embraced individual private liberties, leading this group of individuals to largely ignore
their role in public discourse and become passively tolerant of structural inequalities.
Believers in this Dream were uninterested in changing the political or economic status
quo, and instead sought merely to protect their private rights and regrettably diminished
44
economic opportunities. The believers of this revision of Alger’s conception of the
American Dream sought to increase their independence at home, as an escape from the
positions they filled at work. Mills noted, “Leisure time thus comes to mean an unserious
freedom from the authoritarian seriousness of the job” (1951, p. 236). This new
conception of the American Dream shared the focus on independence that some previous
conceptions of Americans Dreams had emphasized, but those who embraced this new
conception had accepted the restraints that workplaces now placed on them.
Independence, the goal of these dreamers, had only become possible in the private
sphere.
C. Wright Mills and White-Collar Laborers
With the development of corporate bureaucracy, much of the middle class became
white-collar workers and lost their economic independence, according to Mills. He
argued that the existence of the white-collar class actually replicated the experiences of
the production class of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, where their lives were
dominated by impersonal labor that failed to provide them either independence or
satisfaction. This role in society replaced prior embodiments of the middle class that
consisted of farmers, artisans, and entrepreneurs that had significant independence in
their labor and were directly linked to their products through that labor. This created
more psychologically fulfilling lifestyles for those middle class individuals. Mills noted:
45
Now rationality seems to have taken on a new form, to have its seat not in
individual men, but in social institutions which by their bureaucratic planning and
mathematical foresight usurp both freedom and rationality from the little
individual men caught in them. (1951, p. xvii)
When individual autonomy was restricted in the workplace, individuals began to search
for other means to express themselves and find satisfaction outside of work, often leading
them away from conceptions of happiness that were found in the workplace, and towards
private, often leisurely ends.
Mills wrote, "democratic property, which the owner himself works, has given way
to class property… class property means that, in order to live, man must submit to the
authority which property lends its owner" (1951, p. 14). Furthermore, the separation of
property and work for white-collar workers fundamentally altered the life plans and
psychology of its members (Mills, 1951, p. 14). Large firms emerged over time in most
industries, leading to greater gaps in profits between firms, and the elimination of most
small competitors. New entrepreneurs were rarely successful, especially in the longterm, driving them back to large firms. Large firms spread corporate cultures that
encouraged uniformity, leaving employees little independence to form their own
identities and made them extensions of the corporate model (Mills, 1951, pp. 30-33).
Individuals working under these conditions received adequate wages, but were less likely
to be satisfied with their work than previous middle class workers who had greater
autonomy. Without independence, employees could not enjoy a feeling of
accomplishment, as their success was more dependent on corporate orders than it was on
46
their own ingenuity, hard work, or independence. This led to the commoditization (and
thus the unhappiness) of the individual in the workplace.
Although social mobility was an important assumption of the conception of the
American Dream that led to free market economic policies and eventually corporate
bureaucracy, opportunities for social mobility became increasingly rare. As structural
inequalities grew, Alger’s conception of the American Dream increasingly became a tool
used for propaganda, and for most Americans, less of a realistic vision for a better future.
Mills posited:
Thus the principle of the self-made man, and the justification of his superior
position by the competitive fire through which he has come, require and in turn
support the ideology of free competition. In the abstract political ranges,
everyone can believe in competition; in the concrete economic case, few small
entrepreneurs can afford to do so. (1951, p. 36)
Naturally, even those whose success was made possible through open competition
favored limiting their competition once they gained a satisfactory share of the market.
This made it increasingly difficult for new entrepreneurs to enter into markets and
compete, and made entrance into the upper echelons of society almost impossible. Large
corporations continued to espouse free market theory in order to legitimize their success
(Mills, 1951, pp. 39-40). As the American worker began to abandon these free market
principles and to accept decreasing social mobility, they replaced Alger’s conception of
the American Dream with a new vision. This new conception of the American Dream
was created as those who had become disillusioned with the old Dream, and turned
47
inwards, seeking happiness in the private sphere. Not only did this lead to the wide scale
abandonment of the public sphere (i.e. political participation), but also led many
Americans to become complacent with the economic status quo. The new American
Dream was not one of a better future for the country or even necessarily for mainstream
Americans; instead, believers in this new Dream asked, “What is a better future for me?”
48
Chapter 5
THE REDEFINING OF ALGER’S CONCEPTION OF THE AMERICAN DREAM
AND MODERN AMERICANS
There are essentially three groups of individuals in modern America: those who
are living what they understand as the American Dream (in Alger’s conception of it);
those who still believe in that American Dream; and those that understand that Alger’s
conception of the American Dream is a false reality and have redefined it. Affluent
Americans are most likely to believe in Alger’s conception of the American Dream. John
Zogby found that forty-five percent of individuals making over seventy-five-thousand
dollars per year equated material success with the American Dream, and claimed that it
was attainable for themselves and most middle-class Americans, the highest among any
group (2008, p. 125). Considering that these individuals are most likely to receive
beneficial structural advantages such as a college educations, beneficial personal
connections, and safety nets to protect them against failure, it is not surprising that they
do not understand the impact of structural inequalities on the economic opportunities
available to most Americans.
The second group of Americans consists of non-affluent individuals who are
striving for the economic success they believe the American Dream has promised them.
These individuals often face a number of structural disadvantages to achieving success,
such as poor family structures, subpar educations, lack of resources, or lack of
opportunities. Despite these disadvantages, most believe in Alger’s conception of the
49
American Dream. One explanation may be that through the disproportionate influence of
elites on the media, they can promulgate Alger’s conception of the American Dream
throughout society, even spreading it to individuals that face significant structural
inequalities. Additionally, with the loss of the autonomous working class culture that
unified the working class under similar values and goals, there are few alternatives to
Alger’s conception of the American Dream promoted by economic elites. As a result, the
working class continues to believe the myths of the American Dream fed to them by
those elites, trusting that their hard work will pay off, and that social mobility is still
possible.
Even in 1980, Macleod noted, “The United States is dividing into two societiesthe affluent and the non-affluent. The gap between the two- in terms of income,
education, standard of living, life-style, and outlook- is widening, and so is their distrust
of each other’s values” (1980, p. 142). Macleod’s observation foreshadowed the
divergence of society into separate groups that may define success differently, and the
development of new versions of the American Dream.
Zogby found that the meaning of the American Dream has changed in recent
years. Although thirty-six percent of total respondents identified themselves as
Traditional Materialists (those who subscribe to Alger’s version of the American Dream),
an equal number of respondents (within the margin of error) described themselves as
Secular Spiritualists. When asked, “Which of the following statements best represents
50
your goals in life?” Secular Spiritualists answered, “I believe you can achieve the
American Dream through spiritual fulfillment rather than material success” (2008, p.
121). Zogby stressed that this response did not exclusively appeal to religious
individuals, but instead represented individuals that defined the American Dream in
nonmaterial terms. His polls revealed that this group he defined as Secular Spiritualists
were growing, leading him to conclude:
People are… worn out with getting and spending; in some cases, they are broken
by it. They want an America that looks to the spirit as well as to the pocketbook,
and they want to move beyond the specifically religious nostrums to get there…
That those of us in our late middle years are looking outward away from the daily
struggle and beyond any dreams we might once have had for our own well-being;
that even the youngest among us can see that money can’t buy you love; and that
the old promise of materialism is falling on deaf ears everywhere. There’s a huge
gap between having things and having the happiness that Secular Spiritualism
seeks to provide. (2008, p. 132-40)
Although the term ‘Secular Spiritualist’ lacked any clear description of what this different
conception of the American Dream exactly entailed, individuals identified under that
term believed that the American Dream did not require the material success that Alger’s
conception of the Dream assumed. Instead, this emerging group of Americans to
nonmaterial symbols of success, including their families, marriages, the quality of their
work, religion, and leisure time.
Although they may have believed in some of the assumptions within Alger’s
conception of the Dream, they did not identify those material gains with necessarily a
better future. Their conception of a better future- their version of the American Dream-
51
required other forms of success, however they chose to define it. This new Dream is
inherently private, and although it may require social interactions (such as with one’s
family), the role of political or commercial institutions is largely irrelevant to this inner
happiness. As a result, these new Dreamers are unlikely to be politically involved, or to
challenge the economic arrangements that are already in place- provided they do not
threaten their private, nonmaterial pursuits. The new individualistic American Dream is
primarily private, and developed from the disillusionment with work described by Mills.
Ultimately, this conception of the Dream leads to the application of procedural justice to
the governance of the state, as individuals seek to protect themselves from a government
and society that they feel no longer represents them.
Divergent Interests and the Lack of Community among Americans
The era of upward mobility is over for most Americans. Although mobility from
the lower to middle class may still exist, movement into the upper echelon is no longer
possible with simple hard work and ingenuity. The middle class faces a ceiling of
upward mobility and a glass floor that could break at any moment. The white-collar
middle class is disjointed and lacks the economic and political capital it needs to reassert
its collective power. Unless white-collar workers recognize themselves as a cohesive
political group and forge a communal identity, they cannot begin to breakdown the
economic and social obstructions that limit their social mobility. Either the middle class
52
must abandon its faith in Alger’s conception of the American Dream, or it must attempt
to use politics to redefine the structure of society to once again create social mobility.
However, this latter option appears unlikely, as there is low political efficacy and little
sense of collective interests among middle and lower class workers.
Among middle and lower class Americans, few shared interests have become
salient. Michael Sandel noted that by the mid-to-late twentieth century:
Except for extraordinary moments, such as war, the nation proved too vast a scale
across which to cultivate the shared self-understanding necessary to community in
the formative or constitutive sense. And so the gradual shift, in our practices and
institutions, from a public philosophy of common purposes to one of fair
procedures, from a politics of good to a politics of right, from the national
republic to the procedural republic . (1984, p. 93)
By scale, we can assume that Sandel was referring to two important changes in the
national character. First, with the westward expansion, the United States became so large
that it became difficult for individuals to identify with other members of the nation that
were thousands of miles away. However, this geographic expansion merely
foreshadowed a greater cultural divide that occurred within the state. Before Americans
became geographically and culturally divided from each other, it was easier for
individuals to identify themselves as members of a larger body, united by shared interests
and experiences. These communities enabled individuals to think beyond their selfinterests and to recognize larger, more substantive ends. By the twentieth century, the
United States became saturated with diverse opinions and cultures that threatened any
conception of a unique national character. Rather than individuals feeling connected to
53
their fellow citizens, and thus willing to provide greater equality and to promote a shared
conception of a public good, the diversity of cultures within the country led many
different divergent strands of political opinion to emerge, each with different policy goals
and assumptions about the role of government. As the state increased in geographic size,
became more diverse, social mobility decreased, and unity within industries and
socioeconomic classes shrunk, individuals shifted their focus to their private lives and
largely began to ignore the public sphere.
The result, as Sandel and this essay argue, was a return to governance focused
most on promoting private and economic liberties and the procedural conception of
justice that came with it. Rather than furthering a cohesive public will, citizens grew
more interested in protecting their own rights out of fear that the government and the
diversity that it represented would threaten their private interests. Private interests
became separate from any conceptions of the greater public good. As a result,
individuals sought to pacify government power by, according the Sandel, strengthening
judicial and bureaucratic powers, while weakening the legislative branch (1984, p. 94).
Increasingly, divergent private interests led to government policies that emphasized
private and economic liberties and a procedural conception of justice- the result of
diminishing communal consciousness among believers in Alger’s conception of the
American Dream.
54
Additionally, the lack of middle class consciousness described by Mills was an
important factor in the establishment of the procedural republic. Middle and working
class individuals rarely understood themselves as a cohesive political class that was
united by economic and social interests. Rather than perceiving themselves as a
socioeconomic class, they defined their identities in private terms or along limited
occupational lines. Alger’s version of the American Dream taught Americans that they
were destined for the upper class, and thus that any attack on upper class interests for the
benefit of other classes was, ultimately, not in the self-interest of any hard working,
optimistic American. Alternatively, much of the upper class was united by their
economic interests, and moved beyond their occupational divides, becoming class
conscious. The unification of the upper class allowed them to promote policies that
served their own interests, while other classes remained divided and merely sought to
establish rules to protect themselves. As a result, upper class interests were often framed
under a guise of liberty, and were successfully implemented into policies, whereas middle
and working class interests were ignored, as they were unable to recognize their own
potential communal interests and power.
For Mills, the American Dream espoused by Horatio Alger was patently false.
Although a middle class life became possible for many, it was not the life of luxury and
happiness that was promised, as it often required a work life that was unfulfilling. Mills
suggested that white-collar workers would recognize themselves as a politically relevant
class, and band together to restructure the work place, likely recreating a more traditional
55
middle class system of small enterprises. However, despite the growing evidence that
social mobility was diminishing, believers in Alger’s conception of the Dream sought to
defend their private and economic liberties, and redefined Alger’s Dream as purely
apolitical. The new Dream was for each individual to be left alone to their own private
pursuits within their homes, to disengage from the public sphere, and to spend their free
time enjoying the leisure activities that brought them the most pleasure.
In today’s modern global economy, creating greater social mobility through the
restructuring of the economic system by politically active groups of united, middle class
individuals has become even more difficult. It is unlikely that any single group of
individuals, even one as large as the middle class white-collar workers, could demand the
restructuring of our economic model without becoming class conscious. The economic
American Dream of Horatio Alger is simply not possible anymore for Americans.
Instead, political activism may lead to some significant changes, although likely not to a
return to agrarian and small independently owned business cultures that Mills envisioned.
The greatest hope for a return to governance based on a substantive conception of justice
likely requires that the American people rediscover their underlying communal interests
that continue to unite them (even if they fail to recognize them now).
As economic policy increasingly emphasized free market principles, conceptions
of equality beyond mere equality of rights were reduced. The resulting national
conception of justice became strictly procedural. Public policy largely ignored the
56
equality of outcomes, and even the equality of starting points for individuals during this
period. However, the rise of corporate culture and the reduction of class mobility may
have begun to create a community that has begun to embrace policies outside of the free
market framework that capitalism has created.
Prospects for the Formation of Community
As the American Dream increasingly emphasizes private liberties, the ability for
the public to achieve “public happiness” is threatened. In order for democratic outcomes
to reflect the best interests of the public at-large, the people need to play an active role in
the democratic process. This requires that they are educated and have political
knowledge. Although most Americans are rarely involved in the political process beyond
voting, education and political knowledge enables the people to hold their government
accountable. Croly noted:
Men are uplifted by education much more surely than they are by any tinkering
with laws and institutions, because the work of education leavens the actual social
substance. It helps to give the individual himself those qualities without which no
institutions, however excellent, are of any use, and with which even bad
institutions and laws can be made vehicles of grace. (1965, p. 400)
The political education of the people is vital to promoting socially beneficial democratic
outcomes and enables the people to determine what types of policies their government
will pursue.
57
Education alone does not ensure that substantive freedoms or the common good
are pursued. Instead, with political knowledge, the people merely have the opportunity to
put their conception of the American Dream into the political world and to try to shape
American policies. Alger’s conception of the American Dream led the people to seek
procedural justice within the law that emphasized individual liberties. Only with the
emergence of a different vision for a better future, does the pursuit of substantive
freedoms and the common good become possible. This is particularly troubling in that
the destruction of the community created by Alger’s conception of the American Dream
and procedural justice distorts democracy over time. If the American people no longer
consider themselves to be a cohesive political body, participation in democracy, and even
the importance of government involvement, become marginalized. Selective incentive
programs or even patronage agreements meant to encourage political participation would
likely only increase the appearance of greater public involvement, while the people
would remain largely only motivated by their own private interests. The key to the future
achievement of communal benefits is the formation of collective power by uniting
individuals. Only if they identify themselves as part of a greater collective, and feel
responsible for the achievement of goals beyond their private interests, can expansive
changes within the system take place. Community may be essential to effective
democratic involvement by the people, and as the American people become increasingly
detached from each other, the likelihood of effective democratic involvement also
decreases. the reemergence of communities among the American people and the
58
widespread reintegration of the people into the democratic process may be integral to the
creation of a new American Dream.
In order to staff the growing white-collar needs of American businesses,
education levels have consistently increased. Both in theory and in practice, we observe
that as a capitalist economy becomes more complex and has greater needs for skilled
administrative workers, education, specifically college education, becomes increasingly
important. This is especially true in the United States where the actual manufacturing of
most products is rare. Instead, the manufacturing and building of American ideas
constitutes the economies of other countries throughout the world. As a result, the United
States economy is built upon formulating and staffing the highest administrative and
bureaucratic functions of the world’s leading businesses. The United States’ economy is
increasingly dependent upon the work of college educated, white-collar workers.
Although these workers may no longer adopt the same conception of the American
Dream that previous generations of laborers did, they must largely pursue these careers in
order to attain the lifestyles that they desire. A survey of the growing education levels of
Americans over-time shows the number of individuals with at least four years of college
experience has rapidly grown in the last seventy years (US Census Bureau, 2009). Overtime, this creates large, educated groups of individuals, many of which may no longer
support the free market culture that dominated the past. This growing class of educated
individuals could be more likely to move beyond economic needs that are no longer met
59
by their unsatisfying work environments, and instead pursue greater freedom in their
personal lives to find happiness.
Increasing levels of education in the United States has led to a sense of
entitlement among workers that creates discontent when these perceived entitlements are
not met. American culture teaches its children that the attainment of a college education
will ensure that they will find a fulfilling job that will economically and socially reward
them for their education. However, Americans are increasingly realizing after they
graduate, that this is not always the case. Individuals graduate from college, often even
with graduate degrees, and cannot find work. They have spent years in school being
conditioned to believe that their education will guarantee them a job and the lifestyles
that they are conditioned to desire. However, when these jobs are not available and they
begin to suspect that the conception of the American Dream that they have been taught
may actually be a myth, it breeds discontent.
Additionally, young college graduates are not the only victims of their own
delusions. Older, more experienced (and therefore more expensive) professionals lose
their positions to new graduates that are willing to do the work cheaper. This class of
older, disillusioned individuals harbors even greater discontent, as they often have not
only aspirations, but also real-world requirements for a certain standard of living. With
mortgage payments, families, and children’s college educations at stake, these
disillusioned professionals do not have the option to move back into their parent’s home
60
or to take-on roommates to help offset the problems created by the economic system.
Not only do these individuals have little chance to achieve their goals, but are likely to be
pushed out of their current lifestyle by these economic hardships. Together these
educated classes may develop discontent for the status quo, making them particularly
likely to embrace policies that move away from the free market assumptions that have
betrayed them. Although they may not recognize the systematic side effects of capitalism
that have harmed them, they are more likely to seek other frameworks with which to
analyze governance. Additionally, this disillusionment can serve as a sparking point for
the formation of a communal identity that can unite these individuals.
Joseph Schumpeter notes, “Discontent breeds resentment. And it often
rationalizes itself into that social criticism which as we have seen before is in any case the
intellectual spectator’s typical attitude toward men, classes, and institutions especially in
a rationalist and utilitarian civilization” (1950, p. 153). Because current social
arrangements fail to meet their expectations, these individuals in particular are apt to
question material conceptions of success, and to call for changes that can address some of
their discontent. They are quickly realizing that the social mobility assumed by Alger’s
version of the American Dream no longer exists. Unlike poorer classes, these educated
groups tend to be both politically motivated, and have access to the media and political
power. This generation of educated and dissatisfied workers is the pivotal class of
individuals that can (and are most likely) to revise the American Dream through a new
vision of how to improve the future.
61
Moreover, criticism of Alger’s conception of the American Dream also comes
from the prominent class of intellectuals that build their careers largely on social
criticism. Academics, the media, and even entertainers gain the largest followings and
enjoy the most popularity when their work is connected to the important issues of the
day. Intellectuals have a significant impact on cultural norms and the understanding of
society. Schumpeter finds, “Intellectuals… staff political bureaus, write party pamphlets
and speeches, act as secretaries and advisers, make the individual politician’s newspaper
reputation… In doing these things they to some extent impress their mentality on almost
everything that is being done” (1950, p. 154). This class of individuals has the ability to
shape the way that the American people interpret the role and performance of their
government, making their contribution to American culture greater than possibly any
other class within society.
Although many Americans question the efficiency of the government, most
recognize the need for the government to help some individuals. A Pew Research Center
report finds that since 1987, Americans have remained consistently skeptical of the
government’s ability to operate efficiently (about 60% of respondents believed that
“when something is run by the government, it is usually inefficient and wasteful”) (2009,
p. 29). However, the public is increasingly open to government intervention that helps to
protect individuals from systematic disadvantages and hardships. Another report from
the Pew Research Center finds positive trends supporting the claim that the “government
should care for those who can’t care for themselves” (up from 57% in 1994 to 69% in
62
2007), and that the “government should help the needy even if it means greater debt” (up
from 41% in 1994 to 54% in 2007) (2007, p. 1). These may be indicators that there is a
growing sense of community among Americans, and that this may eventually translate to
greater public support for policies that sacrifice some individual liberties to promote the
common good (the most obvious sacrifice coming in the form of higher taxes to
redistribute wealth to the poor in the form of public assistance programs).
This survey data represents a growing trend in American culture: although
individuals remain skeptical of government efficiency, they sometimes recognize the
need for government intervention when it creates higher levels of equality or provides
individuals with necessities for life. Americans also typically expect the government to
protect them from market failures and high information costs that would otherwise reduce
their quality of life (i.e. health and safety regulations).
Studies also show that civil liberties are becoming more important to the
American people. Since 2001,1 Americans are becoming less willing to sacrifice civil
liberties in order to help curb terrorism (The Pew Research Center For The People & The
Press, 2009, p. 94). The same Pew Research Center report finds that similar downward
trends show that there is also eroding support for warrantless wiretaps and limitations on
freedom of speech (2009, p. 95). Interestingly, these trends have not been coupled with
1
Data before this time would be largely suspect due to the significant impact of 9/11 on the American
psyche.
63
resurgence in widespread conservative ideology, despite the traditional links between
civil liberties and conservatism. The Pew Research Center found that social
conservatism, especially among younger generations, is steeply declining (2009, p. 47).
This decline in social conservatism is also linked to less restrictive social policies,
specifically related to marriage and family life. Despite the more restrictive outcomes of
some state initiatives (for example Proposition 8 in California), the greater national trend
over-time has been towards more equal social policies across the board (providing equal
rights to all individuals). This data is consistent with a vision of the future that would
protect the private liberties of the individual, consistent with the refinement of Alger’s
conception of the American Dream that developed during the 1950’s and described by
Mills.
This essay does not seek to suggest that liberty or democracy are the ends that
government should promote absolutely. Instead, it only seeks to show that the values
liberty and democracy have often conflicted with each other in both the economic and
political spheres. In the economic realm, liberty and democracy conflict over the extent
that the government should intervene in the market to reduce structural inequalities that
the free market will not self-correct. In the political sphere, given equal political liberty
to all citizens (i.e. free speech, equal voting rights, etc.), liberty and democracy primarily
conflict over the balancing of private liberties and the role of government. As a sense of
community grows among Americans, they may be more willing to sanction government
involvement that promotes substantive freedoms and a common good, while often
64
infringing on negative liberties. (Most often the negative liberties sacrificed come
through taxation, which takes away from an individual’s ability to spend that money
however they wish.) Although substantive freedoms and the common good may be
viewed in an abstract sense as goods determined by the public, they are not absolute
goods. Instead, they merely reflect the formation of limited consensus among citizens in
a pluralist state, and must be viewed as such.
Although the work of Mills and Schumpeter suggest that individuals are less
interested in the absolute protection of the free market system than they have been in the
past, individuals have largely turned away from the political sphere, and have
concentrated on their individual, private interests. This is largely due to the lack of any
significant communal bonds among individuals, and the increasing diversity found within
American culture. Although Alger’s conception of the American Dream originated from
free markets and social mobility, the continuation of an apolitical version of that Dream
may depend upon the increasing diversity of American cultures and interests. Further,
although community may be necessary for democracy to promote a communal
conception of the common good (as opposed to merely a rights-based conception of the
common good), it remains unclear what version of the American Dream is capable of
uniting the American people, and bringing about a new substantive conception of justice.
In conclusion, I wish to caution that the mere emergence of resistance to the
social impacts of capitalism is not enough to show that the development of a new
65
community among the American people will lead to a new conception of the American
Dream. Writing in 1909, Croly observed:
The automatic fulfillment of the American national Promise is to abandoned, if at
all, precisely because the traditional American confidence in individual freedom
has resulted in a morally and socially undesirable distribution of wealth… The
existing concentration of wealth and financial power in the hands of a few
irresponsible men is the inevitable outcome of the chaotic individualism of our
political and economic organization, while at the same time it is inimical to
democracy, because it tends to erect political abuses and social inequalities into
the system. (1965, pp. 22-3)
Over one-hundred-years ago, Croly identified many of the same inherent problems of
free market capitalism that we identified over the past century, but this failed to facilitate
significant changes in governmental social or economic policies. Although some
important policies have emerged that reflect a return to the principle of equality (the civil
rights movement for example), a revised, apolitical conception of Alger’s version of the
American Dream remains prevalent in American society. As a result, American policies
continue to emphasize the private liberties of individuals, and ignore many of the
substantive freedoms and collective goods that are only possible through the formation of
collectives among American citizens. However, as long as the apolitical version of
Alger’s American Dream remains popular, these collectives, and their subsequent
benefits remain unlikely.
66
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Arendt, H. (1965). On Revolution. New York: The Viking Press.
Arendt, H. (2006). On Revolution. New York: Penguin Books.
Berlin, I. (1969). Two Concepts of Liberty. In Four Essays on Liberty (pp. 118-72).
Oxford University Press.
Callahan, J. F. (1996). F. Scott Fitzgerald's Evolving American Dream: The "Pursuit of
Happiness" in Gatsby, Tender is the Night, and The Last Tycoon. Twentieth Century
Literature , 42 (3), 374-395.
Cotton, J. (1956). Limitation of Government. In P. Miller, The American Puritans: Their
Prose and Poetry (pp. 85-88). New York: Columbia University Press.
Croly, H. (1965). The Promise of American Life. (A. M. Schlesinger, Ed.) Cambridge:
The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Cullen, J. (2003). The American Dream: A Short History of an Idea that Shaped a
Nation. New York: Oxford University Press.
Douglass, F. (1950a). Lecture on Slavery, No. 1. In P. S. Foner, & P. S. Foner (Ed.), The
Life and Writings of Frederick Douglass (pp. 132-139). New York: International
Publishers.
Douglass, F. (1950b). Lecture on Slavery, No. 2. In P. S. Foner (Ed.), The Life and
Writings of Frederick Douglass (pp. 139-149). New York: International Publishers.
Fitzgerald, F. S. (1986). The Great Gatsby. New York: Scribners.
Fitzhugh, G. (1960). Cannibals All! or Slaves Without Masters. (C. V. Woodward, Ed.)
Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Fitzpatrick, J. K. (1977). Builders of the American Dream. Harrison: SH Press.
Fussel, E. S. (1952). Fitzgerald's Brave New World. ELH , 19 (4), 291-306.
Hooker, T. (1956). Hartford Election Sermon. In P. Miller, The American Puritans: Their
Prose and Poetry (pp. 88-89). New York: Columbia University Press.
Lawrence v. Texas , 02—102 (The Supreme Court June 26, 2003).
67
Lincoln, A. (1989). Speech at Independence Hall, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. In D. E.
Fehrenbacher (Ed.), Abraham Lincoln: Speeches and Writings 1859-1865 (pp. 213-4).
New York: The Library of America.
Lincoln, A., & Douglass, S. A. (2004). First Joint Debate, Ottawa, August 21, 1858. In
The Lincoln-Douglas Debates (pp. 26-65). Mineola: Dover Publications, Inc.
Locke, J. (1948). The Second Treatise of Civil Government and a Letter Concerning
Toleration. (J. Gough, Ed.) Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Lustig, R. J. (1982). Corporate Liberalism: The Origins of Modern American Political
Theory, 1890-1920. Berkeley: University of California Press.
MacLeod, C. (1980). Horatio Alger, Farewell: The End of the American Dream. New
York: Seaview Books.
Martinez, F. R. (2002). The Religious Character of the American Constitution:
Puritanism and Constitutionalism in the United States. University of Kansas Journal of
Law and Public Policy , 459-492.
Miller, P. (1956). The American Puritans: Their Prose and Poetry. New York: Columbia
University Press.
Mills, C. W. (1951). White Collar. Scranton: Oxford University Press, Inc.
Moddocks, M. (1973, Feb 12). Books: Up from Penury. Retrieved Jan 8, 2010, from
Time.com: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,903859,00.html
Mount, S. (2009, Nov 16). Constitutional Topic: Slavery. Retrieved Jan 5, 2010, from
USConstitution.net: http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_slav.html
Pew Research Center. (2002, Sept 5). One Year Later: New Yorkers More Troubled,
Washingtonians More On Edge. Retrieved March 28, 2010, from http://peoplepress.org/report/?pageid=633
Reich, C. A. (1970). The Greening of America. New York: Random House.
Rossiter, C. (1956). The First American Revolution. New York.
Sandel, M. J. (1984). The Procedural Republic and the Unencumbered Self. Political
Theory , 12 (1), 91-96.
68
Schumpeter, J. A. (1950). Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. New York: Harper and
Row, Publishers, Inc.
The Pew Research Center For The People & The Press. (2007). Trends in Political
Values and Core Attitudes: 1987-2007. Political Landscape More Favorable to
Democrats.
The Pew Research Center For The People & The Press. (2009). Trends in Political
Values and Core Attitudes: 1987-2009. Independents Take Center Stage in Obama Era.
Tocqueville, A. d. (2000). Democracy in America. (J. Mayer, Ed., & G. Lawrence,
Trans.) New York: Perennial.
US Census Bureau. (2009, April). Years of School Completed by People 25 Years and
Over, by Age and Sex: Selected Years 1940 to 2008. Retrieved February 3, 2010, from
Census.gov: http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/education/cps2008/tabA-1.xls
Winthrop, J. (1956). A Model of Christian Charity. In P. Miller, The American Puritans:
Their Prose and Poetry (pp. 79-84). New York: University of Columbia Press.
Zogby, J. (2009, Jan 29). The American Dream Is Still Strong. Retrieved Jan 9, 2010,
from Forbes.com: http://www.forbes.com/2009/01/28/american-dream-polling-opinionscolumnists_0129_john_zogby.html
Zogby, J. (2008). The Way We'll Be: The Zogby Report on the Transformation of the
American Dream. New York: Random House.