Sep 28, 2020
In his book Starship Troopers, Robert Heinlein–a Naval Academy graduate and serving naval officer before contracting tuberculosis in Asia–espoused ideas of what it took to be a citizen. In his book’s scenario, persons born in the federation were not citizens… they had to earn it. At 18, natural-born persons became “civilians” and, after a minimum of two years service to the federation of their birth and a test, they could apply for and might be granted “citizenship” which meant they could vote.
For Sci-Fi aficionados, this is an underlying premise of the Starship Troopers franchise that currently consists of a book and six movies. The idea that “citizenship” was a topic in Sci-Fi is not all that uncommon. Writers such as Heinlein, Clarke, and many others postulate qualifications for citizenship. If “citizenship” can be discussed in Sci-Fi, why not in our society at large?
For older men before 1974, there was the draft–a lottery system that chose, from the reluctant pool of young males, future soldiers, sailors, and airmen. It was service to country. The system was set aside after Vietnam, in part, as there were many who believed that being drafted to become cannon fodder in a war based on shaky premises was no longer acceptable. The force became all volunteer, often the otherwise disenfranchised of society.
Service in the U. S. military was also a pathway to citizenship for many non-native born persons. Persons from other countries willing to serve in the U. S. Military were given expedited citizenship as a result. Unfortunately, we now have many examples where persons who have served in U. S. Uniform, fought its wars, relocated to the United States and started families, have been subsequently deported. This policy is just simply wrong. They served a country whose native-born too often shun such service.
There were and are ways other than the draft to serve one’s country. The Peace Corps was such an opportunity as is today’s Americorps, Habitat for Humanity, City Year, and dozens of less formal programs. They require participation in service to community often other than their own.
The nature of the service itself is of importance. Service outside of one’s home and comfort zone offered many important opportunities to experience things other than the those set forth by one’s ancestors and communities. One meets people of other ethnicities, financial strata, religions, education, trades, and experiences typically not available within a bubble of 50 miles from where one was born. The opportunity to see the weave of different people who are also citizens provides an appreciation of commonalities, strengths and weaknesses, realities and hopes, problems and solutions, understanding, and infinity number of other perspectives that define the substance of a worthy nation. The appreciation of the fabric of the nation is a necessary element of citizenry. If they return to their ancestral homes, they take these experiences with them.
But, to be a citizen, birth within the nation is not as important as many other attributes. More is required of a citizen. As I was once taught, for every guaranteed freedom there is a concomitant responsibility. For every expression of an idea there is an obligation to recognize its limitations and to listen to the opposing or contradictory ideas of others. To see things one way does not make them the only way or the correct way. Things that are un-contrasted simply become invisible or unimportant until they are not. To have an appropriate discourse, one must listen more frequently than speaking. This is the domain of citizenry.
In the pursuit of a true citizenry, a number of valid questions arise. What does the nation stand for? What will the nation stand against? What is at its moral center? What are the accepted common values? Is there a natural code of ethics, morality or decency expected of citizens? Does the society integrate the best of all citizens and reject the worst? Do all citizens matter equally and equitably? Are all citizens treated the same before the law? Are all citizens truly equal? These concepts and many others precede the idea of laws which are often necessary to codify the ideas expressed or implied. Those who know the principles, know them by reasoning and acceptance. One might say laws are required for those who are ignorant of the requirements of true citizenship here and now, or have weaker or no morals, ethics or acceptance of common values. If all citizens understood and lived the core ideas, it is likely that the buildings full of laws, regulations, rules, and the like would be unnecessary. Obviously, we’re not there yet.
In the United States, we have many principles we’d like to believe that make us unique. In 1776, some of the ideas expressed in the Declaration of Independence were impressive, a nation ruled by the citizenry being the most profound. Unfortunately, the mores of the dominant culture, the lack of introspection, and resolute application and adherence to the expressed beliefs was off target. The founders who were bright enough to conceive the ideas were incapable of implementing them with fidelity. Those ideas were so special but the lack of rigor or commitment to them haunts us to this day, 244 years later. In this country, true citizenship requires the perspective ignited in 1776 to guide the nation to its fruition, that more perfect union.
We the People, as individual citizens, are relatively powerless. It is the moral compasses of those who would be our leaders that must be greater than We the People. These so-called leaders are the people to whom we render our mite of power. In receiving the mites of many, those elected must be greater. Their expression of the underlying principles must be correct, of the highest priority, and imperturbable. Those elected must have integrity above reproach. And, if they fail, they must be held to a higher standard thus their punishment must also be greater. If this is not true, the rest of the premise is unsustainable.
Besides service to nation and belief and adoption of the nation’s shared ethos, a citizen must also be sworn to its maintenance. Money, as they say, makes the world go ‘round. Taxes are necessary to create the revenues that provide what citizens have a desire and right to expect. As such, rights become a key issue as well as their realization. What are our true rights? The Declaration of Independence does an inspiring job of projecting them, vaguely. The Constitution, the foundation of the nation’s laws, provides an organization but barely does better in conclusively defining them. Thus, our rights remain vague and are too often interpreted for the benefit of those in power at the moment. That interpretations have become aligned with particular ideologies instead of the vision of the Declaration and the Constitution and those who wrote it.
It seems that vocabulary choices that are used to express the achievement of those rights are an issue. Those vocabulary choices are irrelevant. The rights delivered are not. It should not be a flashpoint to discuss the methods of providing the rights expected. If one shares in the dream and the opportunities, one shares in their expense and provision. Also, if one believes in the direction the nation goes, one is obligated to participate in the selection of the leadership that takes us there. What that means, in reverse, is that failure to pay one’s appropriate share of taxes or participate in the selection of leaders means one has lost, at least temporarily, the rights of citizenship, the right to vote, the right to hold office.
Having said all that and, at the risk of weakening any merit this piece may have intellectually, the politics of the present asks, “How are we doing?”
The realization of the principles espoused are in turmoil (equality before the law, out-of-control police enforcement, congressional order and processes, unlawful militias, and many others). A plurality if not a majority of the leadership in legislative halls are dubiously participating in providing the services that have become adopted as rights to all citizens (ideology over common core, preference to the pay-to-play contingent of lobbyists, the simple arrogance of power in lieu of We the Peoples’ legislature, and many others). And then comes the chief executive who does not meet the service to country standard–as prescribed for a person of his age, adoption of the principles largely considered sacred by those who can actually pass a test for citizenship, and has avoids maintenance fees (taxes) appropriate for his financial estate. In modern parlance, it seems that all who do the things a citizen should do are merely “suckers and losers.” If everyone lived by the example currently provided by the Peoples’ House, there would be no nation.
So my true, fellow citizens, “How are we doing?” The next thirty-six days will reveal our worthiness to call ourselves Americans, benefactors of our inspired all be they flawed human founders. It will determine our allegiance to the principles on which our nation is based. It will reveal the content of our collective soul. Are we going to get back on track through a revolution at the ballot box or are we just going to become a confusing footnote in the history of mankind?
