- Louis Hartz discusses the deep-rootedness of democracy
in American society. He praises the Americanism of US citizens
(North Americans), who besides personifying certain extreme
tendencies (individualism, aggressive capitalism, American
doctrinarism, the purest form of capitalist democracy),
managed to complete a successful stable historical process,
in which they fought a civil war without producing an oppressive
regime, and through which they developed an enlightened
moderate liberal ideology, and adopted an enduring constitution.
He adds that North American liberalism existed even in the
colonial period, and thus the War of Independence was not
in the colonists' perception a revolt against accepted conventions,
but rather a pursuit of the values that they had derived
from their native country, England. In their opinion, it
was the British royal government that had veered astray,
and not they. The American democratic system was based on
fundamental beliefs and feelings. Thomas Jefferson who was
supported even by religious leaders of the American Revolutionary
War, such as Jonathan Mayhew from New England, initiated
a process towards secularization, an adoption of natural
law, which paved the way toward individualism. Individualism
is based on a belief in a natural right that is not derived
from God. Thus it differed fundamentally from feudalism,
a system based on a divine right. This natural right existed
both among Canadian Catholics and Latin Americans. The difference
between natural and divine rights is at the root of the
differences between Latin and North America. North Americans
followed the philosophy of Locke, and not Rousseau. Rousseau
and other French philosophers represented the break with
tradition - a rift North Americans could avoid because of
their liberal ideology. The society they built, already
during the colonial period, was elastic, diverse, and inclusive
of everyone from the governor until the poorest of peasants.
The religious diversity and social equality of the Americans
contrasted sharply with the French Canadian nobility and
Spanish Portuguese aristocracy in Latin America. Protestantism,
with its emphasis on the importance of the individual, played
a significant role in forming the character of America.
The individual stands before his God without the intercession
or intervention of a priest. He has direct obligations and
responsibilities to his God. This contrasts with Spanish
Catholics treatment of Creoles and the general political
passivity of French Canadian Catholics. These differences
explain why independence produced no change in North American
traditions, while in Latin America it caused significant
change. Republicanism in Latin America constituted a break
with Latin American tradition, and as such was accompanied
by acts of violence, such as the slaughter of the Malukans
in Mexico. According to Hertz, the strong tradition of liberalism
in the US is reflected in the fact that the Constitutional
Convention that convened in Philadelphia managed to come
to a compromise regarding slavery, an undoubtedly controversial
issue. At the time of the Philadelphia Convention (in 1776),
slaves were not considered part of American society, a state
of affairs that persisted until the American Civil War and
the liberation of the slaves in the South in 1861. The Anglo
American nation was formed by the American Civil War, both
as a result of the terrible shared trauma of a civil war
and the liberation of the slaves and their inclusion within
American society and the redefinition of the American nation.
This process parallels similar developments in Mexico with
the Indians, the liberation of the black slaves in Brazil,
and the peaceful integration of the Indians in Venezuelan
society through the agency of the Church. Apparently, a
national trauma and the integration of lower classes into
the nation are critical steps in the formation of a nation.
This same phenomenon is apparent in the experience of the
ingathering of all the Jewish exiles since the establishment
of the State of Israel, during Israel's War of Independence
and immediately following. All Jews from all the exiles
were accepted as part of the nation that was now returning
to its homeland. The presumption was that all these people
were members of one nation, a conception that guaranteed
from the outset the national consolidation of the Jewish
people into not merely one religion but one nation, despite
differences in culture, language and social class. This
trend can also be linked to the development of European
nationalism and the growth of democracy in this continent.
The connection between democracy and nationalism exists
also in nations that gained independence in Africa and Asia.
The mere cooperation of all the classes and ranks in establishing
a democratic government helped form a single nation. The
unification of the higher and lower classes turns them into
one nation. According to this principle it appears that
Argentina's failure stemmed, at least in part, from the
absence of different sectors and classes that it would be
possible to unite - and thus the lack of a social mission.
The question is whether the similarities in the process
of forming a nation between the US and Latin America should
cause us to view them as one entity in terms of democracy
and equality, according to the English liberal version.
It will become clear that the answer to that question is
negative.
