American Strength

   The real source of national strength in America is not in demagogues but in the will to resist them.
   Many may urge that they be ignored, and eventually their popularity will fade and they will go away. It may be true that some demagogues do eventually lose their appeal and faith in their cause diminishes.
   But meanwhile, the greater danger is not in the individual preacher of hate, racism and bigotry. Rather, the danger lies with the mass of those who believe his rantings and his call for strength and unity in beating down a perceived enemy, who may be foreign but more often is alleged to be within, hiding among the larger population, who must be exposed and eliminated.
   The real danger is indeed within and among us. But it is not from the foreign few who escape to America seeking safety and a better life. Instead, the danger comes from the rabid rantings of the self-appointed leader, the demagogue who warns of societal infections that don't exist.
   It is unrealistic to claim that there are no problems in American society, or to insist that all the blame can be put to any single group, be they members of a minority associated with race, religion or ethnicity, or anything else.
   Migration to America is not in itself the problem, because we are all migrants or descended from migrants. Even those who were already here when Europeans first arrived in the 15th Century are descended from tribes that crossed from Siberia to Alaska and then spread to the rest of North, Central and South America many hundreds of years before.
   Yet those Americans whose families have been here for only three generations somehow believe that this gives them a right to shut the Golden Door of opportunity to newcomers who may not look like them or share the same beliefs.
   That's not what America is.
   Every generation of Americans must grapple with the same bigotry and fear of The Others that infects the body politic.
   Before and after the Civil War it was bias against newcomers from Ireland. Then that bias was expanded to include prejudice against Africans whose forebears were brought here forcibly as slaves but were freed during the Civil War. Soon that fear of The Other spread further, marking Jews, Italians and East Europeans as somehow carrying a social virus that would destroy their "real America."
   All along, the native tribes were feared and belittled as Others, and therefore dangerous.
  Asians, too, were relegated to a low status, fit only for service jobs to support the dominant culture. This bigotry against Asians found a low point when Japanese-Americans were forced into internment camps in the 1940s as World War II broke out.
   
   Through all this, however, the true spirit of America did not die. It was battered, sickened and weakened, but it came back stronger than ever so that in 1960 an Irish Catholic moved into the White House as President, and by 2008, an African-American was elected President.
   In addition, the Supreme Court changed over time from being exclusively white Protestant men to a bench of several other backgrounds, not one of whom matches that previous standard.
   Meanwhile, the complexion of Congress also changed, no longer being largely that of white, Christian men of European descent, but now including women and men of many ethnic and spiritual backgrounds.
   
   This year, American voters will elect a new President, and as with nearly everything in life, there is a choice.
   One candidate is a man who embraces bigotry and nativism and wants to erect great barriers to keep out those he deems undesirable, basing his selectivity rules on race, ethnicity and religion -- all of which are forbidden by the United States Constitution.
   Or voters may prefer a woman who has spent decades opposing bias and discrimination in America, followed by years of experience in government and foreign policy. If elected, she would be the first woman to serve as President, even as it took nearly 100 years from the time American women gained the right to vote.
   The man has a proven history of cheating customers, clients and contractors, while spreading lies and insults about any who oppose or disagree with him.
   The woman candidate has faced down charges of felonies and falsehoods, none of which have been proven.
   The question for voters, then, is which to choose, experience or insult? A history of competence, or a history of fraud?
   Which would form the better basis for a system of government?