Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Three approaches to Independence Day

Young girl holding a sparkler and wearing an American flag shirt
Rebecca Nelson/Getty Images

Anderson edited "Leveraging: A Political, Economic and Societal Framework," has taught at five universities and ran for the Democratic nomination for a Maryland congressional seat in 2016.

July Fourth is not like Christmas or Rosh Hashanah, holidays that create a unified sense of celebration among celebrants. On Christmas, Christians throughout the world celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ. On Rosh Hashanah, Jews throughout the world celebrate the Jewish New Year.

Yet on the Fourth of July, apart from the family gatherings, barbecues and drinking, we take different approaches. Some Americans celebrate the declaration of America's independence from Great Britain and especially the value of freedom. And some Americans reject the holiday, because they believe it highlights the self-contradiction of the United States, which created a nation in which some would be free and some would be enslaved. And other Americans are conflicted between these two points of view.


The people who go to the National Mall or the local park to watch fireworks and listen to musicians, many of whom sing songs about America's greatness, are in the first camp. They celebrate July Fourth as the birth of a great nation dedicated to the ideal of freedom. There are always many men and women from the military at such celebrations, including many disabled veterans.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

In the second camp are some Black Americans as well as others who have suffered discrimination and domination. This camp protests the pure celebration of a nation whose founding was built on the backs of Africans who were ripped out of their homes and their descendants, people who were enslaved to pick cotton, raise and slaughter farm animals, take care of white children, endure poor living conditions, and be subjected to beatings and hangings.

The third camp is the cohort of conflicted Americans: They are grateful for the heroism, the vision and the determination of our founding fathers and founding mothers, yet they are mindful of the brutality, the economic and political injustices, and the disgrace of the institution of slavery that was integral to the economy in the Southern states and built into the U.S. Constitution via the three-fifths rule.

The third camp of conflicted Americans is the most reasonable. Members of the other two fail to understand that our history is a mosaic of greatness and disgrace intertwined into our soul.

Politicians and candidates for office can help us to address this situation. Great presidents, it is often said, must be great educators. Through their speeches, actions and now social media, presidents — as Teddy Roosevelt pointed out — have a bully pulpit. July Fourth during a presidential election year is an opportunity for all candidates, from the major parties to third-party nominees to independents, to tell their story about Independence Day and what it means for America today.

The conflicted perspective is not the perspective of the American who says, "It is true that Jefferson and Washington had slaves, but they were essentially heroes and in their own time slavery was a commonplace." This common perspective gives our founders a pass. The descendants of slaves deserve more than that.

While we cannot give the founding fathers a pass, we should not exclude them from America's Hall of Fame of Heroes.

There is a middle ground. What the founding fathers did was manifestly unjust and shameful. At the same time, we must insist that their efforts to free the 13 colonies from brutal, unjust British rule and create a democratic nation that divided power in a unique way were heroic, brilliant, and of lasting value. What we have is a conflict between injustice on one issue and justice on another issue, a clear wrong and a clear right.

Nearly 250 years later political leaders must feel the pain, feel the injustice and be open to listening to those African Americans who believe that they still suffer from this original injustice. There must be a space for debate about race and racism today that is not biased in any direction.

Although it would be best if our schools taught students about the three camps, this is unlikely because each state, each locality, controls its own education. Therefore, it is up to federal politicians, especially the president, to educate our children and our adults as best they can.

In the days leading up to July Fourth, here is your chance, candidates.

Let's see what you've got.

Read More

Older woman speaking with another woman

Listen for values and emotions, not just points you can rebut with facts.

kupicoo/Getty Images

Vaccines and values: When you’re having a tough conversation about medicine, don’t just pile on evidence − listen to someone’s ‘moral foundations’

It’s that special time of year when family and friends come together to celebrate the holidays, share meals, spread cheer – and, too often, pass along their germs.

Because vaccines can save lives and prevent serious illness, health professionals have long recommended vaccinations for influenza, COVID-19 and respiratory syncytial virus, or RSV. Yet despite these apparent benefits, many people decline.

Keep ReadingShow less
civic education notebook

We need to increase emphasis on schools as a more effective location for teaching interpersonal civil discourse.

Zhanna Hapanovich/Getty Images

4 S’s showcase how dialogue fits and where other approaches work best

In my previous article, I explained the “4 R’s” that should cause people to reconsider the extremely strong emphasis on civil discourse in efforts to reduce political divides in the United States. I also promised suggestions for how to use dialogue most effectively, in specific circumstances, and when non-dialogue approaches may be best.

A brief overview of the 4 R’s to reconsider such a heavy focus on dialogue reminds us that it is difficult to get many people to attend events (recruitment), civil discourse is not inherently effective (reliability), even a successful 1:1 interaction may not generalize to the entire out-party (representativeness) and getting people to repeatedly use skills learned is challenging (repetition).

Keep ReadingShow less
Caucasian business people talking on bench outdoors

Civil discourse can be effective, but its effectiveness is limited.

Jetta Productions Inc./Getty Images

The 4 R’s reduce dialogue workshop effectiveness – but don’t despair

In some circles, reducing political divides and civil discourse are almost synonymous. I’ve had conversations where I mention that I work on reducing these divides, only to have the other person launch into some story or opinion about civil discourse.

By “civil discourse,” I mean an interpersonal focus on communication, which can include activities like dialogue or certain types of debates.

Keep ReadingShow less
city skyline

Reading, Pennsylvania, can be a model for a path forward.

arlutz73/Getty Images

The election couldn’t solve our crisis of belief. Here’s what can.

The stark divisions surrounding the recent presidential election are still with us, and will be for some time. The reason is clear: We have a crisis of belief in this country that goes much deeper than any single election.

So many people, especially young people, have lost faith in America. We have lost belief in our leaders, institutions and systems. Even in one another. Recent years have seen us roiled by debates over racial injustice, fatigued by wars, troubled by growing inequities and disparities, and worried about the very health of our democracy. We are awash in manufactured polarization, hatred and bigotry, mistrust, and a lack of hope.

Keep ReadingShow less