may take place in his country without his concurrence;nhe does not even know precisely what has happened;. . .nWorse still, the condition of his village, the policing ofnhis roads, and the repair of his church and parsonage donnot concern him; he thinks that all of those things havennothing to do with him at all, but belong to a powerfulnstranger called the government. . . . Furthermore, thisnman who has so completely sacrificed his freedom ofnwill does not like obedience more than the next man.nHe submits, it is true, to the caprice of a clerk, but asnsoon as the force is withdrawn, he will vaunt his triumphnover the law as over a conquered foe. Thus henoscillates the whole time between servility and license.nTocqueville concluded that when a nation loses these traitsnof citizenship (i.e., its public virtues), it perishes.nThere is a hubris in America of late that “God is an American”nwho will watch over us no matter how inefficient and hedonisticnwe become. Democracy has triumphed. But, ournConstitution will not save us if the intangibles go sour. ThenConstitution was the framework—the structure for the checksnand balances—for correction when human faction or follynmoves us to excess. A ruthlessly ambitious person in onenbranch of government would rise up to find himself checkmatednby the other parts of the system. The structure allowednfree men and women to live their lives, create wealth,nand build their country.nLess mentioned, but equally important to the success ofnour nation, is the foundation upon which the Constitutionnwas built. Our Founders assumed the often inarticulated values,ncustoms, mores, and culture of hardworking people whoncared about the future. They assumed these public virtuesnwould continue. Mary Ann Glendon, in her thoughtful booknRights Talk, points out that the Founders of our countryn”counted on families, custom, religion, and convention to preservenand promote the virtues required by our experiment innordered liberty. Jefferson, Adams, and especially Madison,nknew that the Constitution and laws, the institutionalizednchecks on power, the army, and militia could not supply all thenconditions required for the success of the new regime. Theynoften explicitly acknowledged the dependence of the entire enterprisenon the qualities of mind and character with whichnthey believed the American population had been blessed.”nIf you change the underlying social milieu, not even thenbrilliance of the Constitution can save the country. The Constitutionnis a structure for citizens who are dedicated and motivated.nIt will not save a society that does not vote, does notncare, has no sense of posterity, and is addicted to hedonism.nThe Constitution, however brilliant, will not make up for peoplenwho have lost the ability to care about the future of theirnnation. Tocqueville particularly warned that excessive individualismncould destroy all that public virtue had built.nAre we not there? Former Secretary of Commerce, Peter C.nPeterson, says “American individualism used to honor communitynvalues. Now, it seems to be a quest for unlimitednpersonal advantage. As consumers, rather than citizens, wenseem to have become a nation of silent players and special interestsnin which few speak effectively for the common good.”nAmerica talks endlessly about the follies of its leaders, butnwhat about the follies of its citizens? America in many respectsnfaces more of a “citizenship” problem than a leader­nship problem. Ortega y Gassett found that “what makes annation great is not primarily its great men, but the stature of itsninnumerable mediocre ones.” Too many Americans believenthat our nation has a divine destiny, but this is a dangerousnWe are losing those stern virtues that made us angreat nation in the first place and becoming annoverindulged people with hedonistic values thatnare not compatible with long-term greatness.nhubris. As Toynbee warned, all great nations rise and all fallnand the “autopsy of history is that all great nations commit suicide.”nEvery once-great nation in history thought Cod was on itsnside, but to date God has never allowed any great civilization tonexist for very long. Greatness in nations is not a geopoliticalnstatus, but an ephemeral stage. We talk about “American exceptionalism,”nbut we are merely whistling past history’s graveyard,nin which every other once-great civilization lies buried. Inam not sounding taps for America, but instead an alarm bell.nWe are losing those stern virtues that made us a great nation innthe first place and becoming an overindulged people with hedonisticnvalues that are not compatible with long-term greatness.nWe forget Livy’s warning that “luxury is more ruthlessnthan war.” Americans know what they want, but not whatnthey can afford. They have forgotten that rights and privilegesnrequire duties and responsibilities. We are today morenthreatened by a blanket of excess than by an iron curtain.nThe battle flag that Admiral Nelson chose for the Battlenof Trafalgar read, “England expects every man to do his duty.”nThe words really seem an anachronism. We know all about ournrights, but very little about our obligations. We speak of rightsnin a loud voice, and responsibilities in a whisper. We wantnthe fullest kinds of freedom in democracy, but unrestrainednfreedom may undercut democracy. Ambassador Henry Grunwaldnput it this way:nWe have not grasped the cost accounting of freedom.nThe great source of our current bafflement is that wensomehow expect a wildly free society to have the stabilitynof a tradition-guided society. We somehow believenthat we can simultaneously have, to the fullest, variousnkinds of freedoms: freedom from discipline, but alsonfreedom from crime; freedom from community constraints,nbut also freedom from smog; freedom fromneconomic controls, but also freedom from the inevitablenups and downs of a largely unhamperedneconomy.nBoth American conservatives and liberals are embodimentsnof this paradox. Liberals are forever askingnstate intervention in the economy for the sake of socialnjustice, while insisting on hands-off in the private areanof morals. Conservatives take the opposite view. Theyndemand self-determination in politics, but suspect selfdeterminationnin morals. They demand laissez-faire innbusiness, but hate laissez-faire in behavior. In theory,nthere is no contradiction between these positions. FornnnJULY 1992/27n