Civic Awakening?

I have watched with interested skepticism the response of concerned citizens to their congressional representatives this past month at these so-called "town halls." Setting aside the faux "shock-and-awe" that the media tends to concoct or deride whenever something unexpected happens, I endeavored to observe whether the apparent push-back against rampant government intervention was a sustainable awakening or simply another brief moment of indignation destined to slip back into grousing acquiescence. It has been said of Ronald Reagan that he had confidence in the common sense and wisdom of the American people. As a cynic, I confess to generally holding the opposite view. It has been my experience that the only freedom most people care about is their own. I suspect that most people have at least a moderate distrust of government despite its necessity, but that it is less an institutional distrust as opposed to a class distinction. By this I mean that while we recognize that the government exists to ensure an orderly society, we generally have little faith in the political or bureaucratic classes to manage the effort. The best managers in the workplace are those that bring out the best in their employees, providing guidance and setting goals to help the employee excel in his career while avoiding the instinct to micromanage and control the outcome. Fear and dissatisfaction surface every time someone takes the reins who believes they know better than you how to do your job, what you need to manage your life, and has the authoritative power to exercise that control - thus limiting your freedom to grow, make mistakes and learn from them, and essentially make your own decisions.

For the past few weeks, various pundits and commentators have been trying to explain the phenomena of these "angry" town halls. Troy Senik, a former speechwriter, makes the assertion that the awakening is real (emphasis mine):

"If a revolution takes root throughout the country and no one in Washington hears it, does the revolution exist? In our representative system, the answer is yes - and members of both parties ought to start paying attention if they hope to survive the 2010 midterm elections intact. ...

There's a lesson here for both parties. Healthcare isn't failing because of Obama's weaknesses or his opponent's strength. It is failing because the proposal misapprehends the American character. On a moral level, there are sacrifices of both liberty and responsibility that the American people aren't willing to make. And on a practical level, citizens who enjoy a world of instant convenience in everything from their music downloads to their airplane tickets aren't willing to entertain a debate about whether it's better to ration health care on a Soviet model or a Canadian model.

A revolt is afoot in the nation. The media and the political class might not understand the appeal of the Ron Pauls and Glenn Becks of the world. But even many of those who disagree with Paul and Beck on the specifics understand the draw. Something is resurfacing. Americans are increasingly unafraid to say the word "liberty". Politicians who don't share that trait may want to start updating their résumés."

Color me skeptical. I thought America was on the verge of an awakening during the aftermath of 9/11. How quickly that unity felt apart! America is in the throes of a serious bout of attention deficit disorder. While every now and then the focus is there to collectively push back against those who infringe upon our freedoms, it is simply a matter of time before we slip back into cynical complacency and allow the government classes to do whatever they wish. People only get riled up when their personal freedom is endangered, and even that has limits. I truly wish I could believe otherwise. I'm not an activist, and I'm not a rabble-rouser. I don't think we need another "revolution." What we need is civility and clarity to create the conditions in which people may choose to excel (or not excel) in whatever directions they wish to go in life. Should there be boundaries? Of course - society requires boundaries in order to sustain the resources which enable an environment that creates conditions for that society to flourish. Is that even possible? The history of civilization is one of waves, highs and lows, but in our limited perspective, always one of steady incline and eventual progress to new heights. But the laws of decay are generally inevitable. The question of the sustainability of a free society against the micromanaging tendencies of government creates a continuing tension whose outcome has yet to be determined.

Reagan, in his 1986 State of the Union Address, said this:

"Government growing beyond our consent had become a lumbering giant, slamming shut the gates of opportunity, threatening to crush the very roots of our freedom. What brought America back? The American people brought us back -- with quiet courage and common sense; with undying faith that in this nation under God the future will be ours, for the future belongs to the free."

Can the American people bring us back this time? Do they have "quiet courage and common sense" and faith that "the future belongs to the free"? Would that it were so, but I'm not holding my breath.