The Four America’s

At the onset of each school day, students in America recite the words “one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” Along with the traditional style of history education which avoids making present-day connections, socialization strategies such as the United States Pledge of Allegiance embeds a false sense of indisputable unity in the nation’s youth. Thus, a rapid introduction to belligerent and swayed journalism and frequent disputes between followers of opposite ideologies appears all the more tantalizing. Thanks to a similar style of early education, I was had always convinced myself that Americans could unite on numerous issues. After all, I was brought into a post-9/11 environment, in which the unforgettable phrase “never forget” was recited by members of every sex, race, and creed. To me, this was a prime example of unity; we, as Americans, set aside petty differences and bonded over a desire to recover from an atrocity orchestrated by those eager to initiate our demise.

Upon entering high school, I quickly realized that not everyone held the same generic opinion. For instance, some individuals spent hours glued to C-Span; these individuals dedicated themselves to gaining the most information on a wide variety of political issues. In turn, they would not hesitate to assert themselves in an argument, often resulting in an embarrassing display of rhetoric. On the other, some kids simply did not care about America’s future political environment. In my former high school, the words “pointless” resonated with a substantial number of students who were certain that elections and arguments would have no significant outcome for society as a whole. These two polar perspectives of politics, according to Psychology Today, may be accredited to the ripe divide in America’s two-party system which has persisted over the past 25 years. Specifically, with over half of Democratic and Republican adults having “very unfavorable feelings toward the opposing party” in 2016, the current state of domestic affairs is clearly marred with antagonistic sentiments. Moreover, a series of studies conducted by developmental psychologists suggests that this polarized political climate may, in fact, alter the amount of attention teenagers dedicate to external issues (Psychology Today). As previously stated, some individuals will view the raging intensity as a call-to-action, while others may distance themselves from something which appears entirely doomed.

 

Interestingly, I believe that these types of perspectives will shape an entirely new generation of philosophes and ideologues capable of completely manipulating America’s current political playing field. For instance, individuals such as Emma Gonzalez and Peter Hogg have capitalized on the prevalence of social media in the lives or teenagers in order to encourage a large portion of young voters to improve their turnout record. This may evolve into a much more mindful version of political thinkers who were witness to decades of poor governance. However, the focus on an emerging wave of activists must be put on the back burner; instead, it is crucial that we understand America’s relatively complex frame of mind. According to George Packer in his renowned article entitled “How America Fractured Into Four Parts,”  a history of divisive behaviors has conveniently segregated America into ideological sects, each bound by a core principle. Keep in mind, the emergence of factions in the United States coincided with the explosion of partisanship. Packer’s theory, in turn, claims that such a vast network of individuals associated with two major parties has prompted internal division (bleeding from within, if you will).

 

“Free America”

Once considered to be the basis for the libertarian philosophy, “Free America” has gradually shifted to become more frequently associated with the Republican party’s platform. At its core, the ideals set forth by John Locke, Friedrich Hayek, and Thomas Jefferson resonate with individuals most hesitant to cooperate with government initiatives. Their philosophy is justified on basis of the market system’s, wherein a small, largely inactive overseer protects property rights and leaves the rest up to voluntary trade interactions between citizens. However, Packer argues that a desire to be free has been extended from economic systems and applied to thought processes and individual well-being. Specifically, the article states that “freedom lovers” search for their own truth and are severely discouraged from conforming to a core set of values. This, they believe, will quickly partner them with either “the governing elite” or the clueless “establishment.” That being said, we can consider those in “Free America” to be largely independent from the stereotypical lawmaker or constituent. Instead, they cherish freedom of action as well as freedom of identity.

 

“Smart America”

The degree-loving, family-building, quickly increasing “top 1 percent,” as they are often referred to. The members of “Smart America” cherish the structure of a meritocracy, in which rewards are positively related to your level of effort and initiative in establishing a viable career trajectory. As Packer puts it, they’ve capitalized on “the world that modernity created.” While in no way nationalistic (primarily because this does not suit their needs), members strongly value credentials and expertise as a gateway to class entry. In other words, diversity is prevalent, and even revered in “Smart America,” so long as each individual strives to achieve the utmost success. A similarity between “Smart” and “Free” America can be found in their association with capitalism. That is, both ideologies consider individual effort should determine reward, without regulated intervention. Nevertheless, those in “Smart America” have developed an active social conscience and are aware of distinctions made between cultures and communities.

 

“Real America” 

Commonly known as the Silent Majority, “Real America” signifies the entire nation’s backbone. Making up the majority of the United States’ working-age-population, members are representative of the less glamorous road-travelled. In recent years, attention has been severely casted upon this chunk of the electorate as a prime target for political candidates. For many decades, the “average workers” was forced to rely upon local government’s agenda and hope for the best. However, the emergence of the Trump presidency revealed how incredible a force “Real America” truly is. By the end of 2016, attention was being frequently placed upon a struggling class of Americans which career politicians seemed to disregard. Keep in mind, there is a direct line of conflict “Real America” and members of the meritocratic “Smart America.”

 

Just America

Seen by some as the nut jobs and by others as the champions of democracy, members of “Just America” are geared towards redeveloping society in order to cater to marginalized classes of people. Figureheads such as Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have emerged as advocates for socially democratic policies heavily associated with the philosophy of “Just America.” For instance, claims that government owes its citizenry certain universal services such as healthcare and education is a by-product of a passionate and civic-minded cohort of Americans. Packer makes the comparison between “Free” and “”Just” America in that both ideologies hold an innate distrust in government. Members of “Just America” oppose the status quo relationship between citizen and government, claiming that it has only spawned further marginalization and injustice.

 

Oosterhoff, Benjamin. “What Does the Political Divide Mean For U.S. Teens?” Psychology Today. Accessed 16 February 2022. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/civically-engaged/201905/what-does-the-political-divide-mean-us-teens

 

Packer, George. “How America Fractured Into Four Parts.” The Atlantic. Accessed 16 February 2022. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/07/george-packer-four-americas/619012/