E pluribus unum
By: Samuel Landenwitsch
Tags: Storytelling, Activism, Obama, Nonprofit, Politics

E pluribus unum is the motto of the United States of America. Check out most of our currency, and you’ll see it printed there. It means “from many, one” or “out of many, one.”

This motto captures the reasons why I love this country and feel pretty fortunate to have been born here. Lately, though, I have been thinking about how Republicans and Democrats, our two major political parties in the USA, understand e pluribus unum differently. For me, these differences explain some of the dynamics of contemporary politics, and they also point to something missing from politics that we all can play a small part of filling in.

On the Republican side, there is a very clear picture of the unum or the “one,” which I think accounts for a lot of the energy, enthusiasm and commitment of Republican voters to President Trump. I would define President Trump’s “one” as being rooted in long-lasting and quite powerful myths and stories about the United States. It’s a “one” formed out of the “many” images of the frontier, of manifest destiny, of the hard-working and uncomplaining farmer, steelworker and coal miner. It’s a community, but one where the greatest respect is reserved for the individual. President Trump’s “one” America values making your own way, lifting yourself up by your bootstraps, taking personal responsibility, and respecting traditions and cultural norms.

Whatever anyone thinks about the truthfulness or moral dimensions of these qualities, we can all probably agree that they run deep and are deeply resonant for many people in the United States. I think the most crucial attribute, though, is that this “one” America that President Trump talks about is widely understood in the same way by his voters and supporters. People in my hometown of Washington, Pennsylvania largely share the same image of this “one” with people in Alabama. All President Trump has to say is “Make America Great Again,” and these folks are all on the same page. President Trump’s “one” is also largely geographically rural, demographically white and male, and competitive and combative in nature. He is not so attuned to some of the “many” who don’t see a place for themselves in this “one,” and understandably this angers these people. But for those who do feel part of this “one,” it’s a powerful message.

President Trump uses this shared “one” to great effect when he conjures up or exaggerates threats to it — “threats” such as the immigrant caravan or people from majority-Muslim countries. If we think about the people and ideas each of us holds dear, and then we are faced with a threat to their purity and existence, it’s not too hard to get to a place where you’re willing to do most anything to protect them. It seems to me that President Trump’s supporters feel this way about their “one,” which for them encompasses the history, traditions, culture and the very existence of the United States. To them, that is something worth fighting for, and President Trump has skillfully portrayed himself as its champion. I believe President Trump was right when he said he could shoot someone in broad daylight on 5th Avenue and suffer no drop in support from his voters — it’s because there is something much bigger at stake for them such that they will tolerate bad behavior if it keeps their champion on the battlefield.

The immigrant “caravan.” Photo: Flickr.

The Democrats approach e pluribus unum in a different way. Democrats are attuned to the pluribus or the “many.” The Democratic coalition includes many diverse interest groups that are all advocating for something important. For example, many environmentalists vote Democratic because they perceive that party as most likely to advance their cause. The same can be said of a lot of other interest and identity groups. As a result, Democrats have a broad platform that seeks to advance the “many” and its many worthy causes.

From my perspective, though, the Democrats are missing a clear definition of the “one” that is supposed to bring together the “many.” Support for Democrats is broad, but it’s not very unified. There are numerous specific policy handles or causes for which there is deep support, but this set of disparate pieces isn’t combined into something more than the sum of the parts. The narrative of the Democratic leadership after the midterms was highly focused on specific policy wins that the leadership hoped to bring forward, but it lacked a thread — a “one” — to tie it all together. As The New York Times put it, “At a celebratory news conference, Ms. Pelosi ticked through the issues she said Democrats intended to pursue: ‘lower health care costs, lower prescription drugs, bigger paychecks, building infrastructure, clean up corruption to make America work for American people’s interest, not for special interest.’” What “one” is the Democratic Party trying to build from those many causes? We each can interpret that for ourselves, but I think the lack of a single “one” makes it hard to build a movement.

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi. Photo: Flickr.

I feel a desire to be part of something bigger than myself. That’s why I am an ardent Steelers fan, and a proud Brooklynite. I think most people have that desire to be part of a “one” while also keeping the traditions and complexities of the “many.” Balancing the “one” and the “many” is a tension in today’s globalized and interconnected world. I think we should forge a “one” that is far broader than President Trump’s, and we should certainly beware any politician who rallies some of the population against others who are arbitrarily excluded from their “one.” But we also need to engage in the conversation of defining what “one” we do want to emerge from the “many.” I believe Democrats make a mistake in focusing entirely on the “many” and never forming a picture of the “one.”

I yearn for the wisdom of President Obama, who I think did the best job of any contemporary politician of embracing the entire motto of e pluribus unum. If you go back and listen to some of President Obama’s best speeches, such as his speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, then you will see how most of them follow a similar pattern. President Obama tells parts of his life story, which identifies and treats with respect different strands of the “many.” But then he always moves to an uplifting, inspiring portrait of the “one” that could emerge from the “many.” He acknowledges the diversity and beauty of the “many” as well as its mistakes and differences, all of which could be redeemed and made even greater if we could come together as “one.” President Obama’s “one” had a place for everyone.

Former Pres. Barack Obama. Photo: Pixabay.

You might be wondering: If President Obama’s approach was properly attuned to invoking a shared “one,” then how did we end up with Trump? I do not have the answer, but I have a few thoughts. President Obama may have come too soon in the sense that his “one” would struggle to get traction if we’re in the wrong framework for understanding the world. The concept of a zero sum game has a powerful hold in conditions of scarcity, by which I mean that if we perceive that access to key things like a good job, income, quality education or housing is scarce, then the imperative becomes fighting to get a share of the limited pie for yourself. In that paradigm, it is hard to believe in a “one” America that includes everybody — there isn’t enough to go around. Especially as government struggled to deliver many of the concrete things President Obama talked about in his campaigns, some people began to lose faith that a “one” that included everyone was practical. In the wake of the Great Recession, when some people felt scarcity was dominant and their own situation grew more precarious, and in light of the accelerating changes in our economy that have ensued from globalization and automation, I can see how some Americans would retreat into a more limited and tribal “one” like the “one” President Trump describes.

The Public Interest Network is doing important work to build a movement that would embrace a new understanding of e pluribus unum. We see a future “one” where we come together to recognize our abundance and celebrate our ability to share it with each other; where we improve our quality of life and not just the quantity of our stuff; and where we all, together, find new meaning for life in a world that looks pretty different from that of our forbearers. I don’t think that “one” is something many people are already thinking about, but I have found in admittedly limited conversation that it’s a “one” that can get heads nodding and hearts pounding. This “one” may not be that different from what President Obama talked about, but if we can get into a new paradigm where we recognize society’s capacity for abundance, then more people might be able to believe in it. We are well-positioned to do this work, because our organization understands the tensions well. We strive to be not just nonpartisan, but transpartisan. We encourage and seek out debates and disagreements so that we can incorporate more points of view into our politics.

This project is not an easy one, but I take inspiration from the words and style of President Obama, who never stopped trying to forge a more inspiring “one”: