Newt Gingrich talked about the problem of significant discussion during his March 21, 2007 speech at the Independent Woman’s Forum. He said our political system is incapable of serious conversation. We have no habit in America of serious dialog or serious citizenship. I agree this has been a problem in America for a long time.

Gingrich complained about a liberal philosophy that now controls government and our school system as one cause of problems with government. I part company with him there. Although, many liberal ideas have been disastrous for society, so have many conservative ideas. No fair thinker can dispute that political leaders with a conservative ideas led the nation into this current domestic and international crisis.

However, too many people support or attack an idea or position only because they see it as conservative or liberal. Some people believe they sufficiently rebut other people’s point in a discussion just by labeling them a liberal or a conservative. They believe they make a profound observation with this charge, but all they do is block the possibility of a productive discussion. People should judge the worth of an idea or argument based on its logicalness and whether it provides productive solutions to problems. It should not matter if originated from a liberal or conservative political philosophy. They should attack the worth of an idea or conclusion and not the person who produced it.

Looking at all issues from a liberal or conservative perspective is not the only bar to productive discussions. Another obstacle is ethnocentric or ethnic based thinking that prevents serious discussions. Usually, the parties discuss social issues centered on their racial or ethnic group’s interests. This loyalty to an ethnic community would not be as destructive if the people with it at least recognized a common American cultural interest. Instead, they often treat the idea of a common American culture as offensive to their ethnicity. This tendency to identify with ethnicity will increase and so will the problems it causes for society if current attitudes continue.

Some brief history will help explain it. American leaders installed racism in American society for the economic advantage it provided for some members of the white majority. It lasted through three phases. First, they enslaved people based on skin color and stole their labor. Next, they racially segregated people of color away from full economic opportunity. Then, after the courts outlawed overt government supported racial segregation, society continued the same policy of racial exclusion by encouraging a social policy of ethnic cultural diversity.

American society destroys the idea of one American cultural identity when it characterizes itself as a collection of its ethnic-group parts. This forces residents to claim membership in a racial or ethnic group for an identity in America, because this idea of American ethnic diversity excludes a common American cultural identity. Therefore, people who embrace ideas of America as a culturally diverse society have motive to promote their ethnic group’s economic and political interests. They will resist any social act or idea that decreases the prominence of their ethnic group’s cultural identity. Language and music are the most identifiable group traits ethnocentric members protect most.

This idea of identifying America as a collection of ethnic parts rather that as one cultural and government entity is not new. The thirteen states joined in a loose federation after the Revolutionary War. They invested power in the states and not the central government. This motivated each state government to protect its interests first and the interests of other states and the federation next. This created intrigue and bickering among the economically powerful and less powerful states. Residents identified with their state as the protector of their interests, because there was no common American identity or a strong central government to establish a common identity.

Those early political leaders soon realized the mistake of trying to govern a nation or federation based on cooperation between states with competing interests. Even the richer more powerful states realized this destructive competition weaken them and that they fared better in a constitutional government with shared power, than alone against national powers like Britain, France and Spain. They scrapped the federation for a constitutional republic where the states had complementary interests and where a national cultural identity could develop.

Now, national leaders must learn from the past and recognize the inherent self-destructive tendencies of a social system based on competing ethnic interests. Only naive people believe it will be cooperating interests. They need to have serious discussions about the problems cultural diversity creates for America. Ironically, they probably cannot have those serious discussions as long as belief in the movement remains strong.

Kenneth Brooks is a freelance writer and speaker. Contact him at P.O. Box 882, Vallejo, CA 94590. E-mail to: opinion@ethicalego.com.