THE AMERICAN DREAM

"I want a house!" Those were the last words Andre Sakharov's wife, Yelena Bonner, spoke upon leaving the United States in 1986 to return to the Soviet Union. Her dream was not of homeownership per se, but something greater: to be oneself in one's private dwelling place. "A house," said Bonner, "is a symbol of independence, spiritual and physical." Then aged sixty-three, the Soviet dissident sorrowfully wrote: "I've never had a house . . . [not even] a corner I could call my own." She sadly concluded, "My dream, my own house, is unattainable for my husband and myself, as unattainable as heaven on earth."¹

Yelena Bonner's "dream" of freedom is a very special one for Americans. Our national anthem proclaims the United States to be the "land of the free" and the "home of the brave." Moreover, Americans have poured as much mortar and brick into statues that immortalize the idea of liberty as they have into mausoleums that laud national heroes. The Statue of Liberty, the Liberty Bell, and Independence Hall are but a few examples.

These symbols point to an important truism about the American experiment: its success lies not in its structures of government, but in the preferences of its citizens for shared values. Among the most cherished is freedom. In 1776 Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." An American blue-collar worker in the early 1960s expressed similar sentiments:

My God, I work where I want to work. I spend my money where I want to spend it. I buy what I want to buy. I go where I want to go. I read what I want to read. My kids go to the school that they want to go to, or where I want to send them. We bring them up in the religion we want to bring them up in. What else--what else could you have?²

A 1986 poll found little change in the ideas first articulated by Jefferson: 88 percent believed that "freedom and liberty were two ideas that make America great."³

These values form the core of an ideology that is uniquely American. G.K. Chesterton, after visiting the United States in the 1920s, concluded, "America is the only nation in the world that is founded on a creed."⁴ In fact, Chesterton discovered the American "Rosetta stone": The core of the American Creed is a belief in the malleability of the future by the individual. The phrase "the American dream" captures these sentiments.

The American dream is as old, and as young, as the United States itself. Regarding the presidency of John Quincy Adams, historian James Truslow Adams wrote that Adams believed his country stood for opportunity, "the chance to grow into something bigger and finer, as bigger and finer appealed to him."⁵ More than 150 years later, little has changed. Like the sixth President, Americans continue to hope that their lives and those of their children will be better. Ronald Reagan once put it this way: "What I want to see above all is that this country remains a country where someone can always get rich. That's the thing that we have and that must be preserved."⁶ A steelworker captured the sentiments expressed by Reagan more forcefully: "If my kid wants to work in a factory, I'm gonna kick the hell out of him. I want my kid to be an effete snot. I want him to be able to quote Walt Whitman, to be proud of it. If you can't improve yourself, you improve your posterity. Otherwise life isn't worth nothing."⁷

When asked by the Roper Organization in 1986 what the American dream meant, most Americans spoke in terms of education and property. Eighty-four percent said the American dream symbolized a high school education; 80 percent said freedom of choice was part of the dream; 70 percent said it was owning a home; 77 percent thought it was their children's receiving a college diploma and 68 percent said it was getting a college education for themselves; 64 percent said financial security was part of the dream; 61 percent said it was realized in "doing better than my parents"; 58 percent said it was owning a business; 52 percent said it meant progressing "from worker to company president."⁸

The freedom to excel is an important component of the American dream. But another value is also inherent in the concept: equality of opportunity. Americans have been nearly fanatical in their devotion to this particular value. In the 1940 film, Knute Rockne-All American, starring Ronald Reagan, Knute Rockne's on-screen father claimed that only in America could his Norwegian son start on an "equal basis with all other children."⁹

Faith in aggressive egalitarianism has made the American dream especially appealing to the ordinary citizen. Indeed, it is the common man and woman who figure most prominently in the dream's persistence. They gave birth to it; they sustain it. In his 1782 essay "What is an American?" Jean de Crevecoeur found the answer in the American penchant for hard work:

Here the rewards of his industry follow with equal steps the progress of his labor; his labor is founded on the basis of self-interest; can it want a stronger allurement? Wives and children, who before in vain demanded of him a morsel of bread, now, fat and frolicsome, gladly help their father to clear those fields whence exuberant crops are to arise to feed and to clothe them all; without any part being claimed, either by a despotic prince, a rich abbot, or a mighty lord.¹⁰

More than two hundred years later most Americans still believe the dream rests on their individual efforts. A 1987 National Opinion Research Center poll found 66 percent saying that "hard work" is the most important factor in getting ahead; just 15 percent think "luck" is crucial.¹¹

Americans are also aggressively egalitarian when it comes to making individual choices. A 1981 Decision/Making/Information study asked respondents to choose between a "Mr. Smith" and a "Mr. Jones": "Mr. Smith believes that consenting adults ought to be able to do whatever they want in private." Mr. Jones, on the other hand, says, "There ought to be laws against certain kinds of behavior since many private actions have social consequences." Despite concerns about pornography and lack of moral standards, 66 percent said they agreed "strongly" or "somewhat" with Smith; just 32 percent agreed with Jones.¹² Pollster Daniel Yankelovich says Americans want to act as they choose to conduct themselves according to their own lights.¹³

This predilection for pluralism extends to highly unpopular views and unconventional lifestyles. National Opinion Research Center studies show considerable public tolerance of persons who are against churches and religion, admitted communists, racists, homosexuals, or who are antidemocratic. In each case, solid majorities believe each should be allowed to speak freely and have books that advocate such beliefs on the shelves of the community library.¹⁴

THE AMERICAN CONSENSUS

The values of freedom, liberty, and equality of opportunity are dominant themes in U.S. history. They explain, for example, why so many Americans admire successful entrepreneurs. In the nineteenth century Horatio Alger was a role model for many. By the late twentieth century Chrysler Board Chairman Lee Iacocca had become a folk hero.

Business people are celebrated principally because they embody the American dream. Not surprisingly, Americans are obsessed with property (and property rights), largely because they are the tangible products of a triumphant political creed. James Q. Wilson described the tendency of Southern Californians to display the fruits of their labors: "Each family had a house; there it was for all to see and inspect. With a practiced glance, one could tell how much it cost, how well it was cared for, how good a lawn had been coaxed into uncertain life, and how tastefully plants and shrubs had been set out."¹⁵

The reverence for property is especially strong, even if not everyone has much to show off. In 1972 Democratic presidential candidate George McGovern made what he thought would be a surefire, popular promise to blue-collar rubber factory workers: As President he would seek to increase inheritance taxes so that the rich could bequeath less to their families and more to the government. To McGovern's amazement, he was roundly booed.¹⁶

In 1979, 26.1 million Americans, slightly more than one-tenth of the populace, were impoverished. By 1984 the figure had increased to 33.7 million, almost fifteen percent.¹⁷ The failure of so many to attain the American dream exposes its numerous falsehoods. But Americans do not believe their ideology is at fault; they tend to lay much of the blame for not living up to its promises squarely upon themselves. A quarter of a century ago a mechanic said:

I could have been a lot better off but through my own foolishness, I'm not. What causes poverty? Foolishness. When I came out of the service, my wife had saved a few dollars and I had a few bucks. I wanted to have a good time, I'm throwing money away like water. Believe me, had I used my head right, I could have had a house. I don't feel sorry for myself--what happened, happened, you know. Of course you pay for it.¹⁸

In 1986 an Iowa farmer facing foreclosure expressed a similar view: "My boys all made good. It's their old man who failed."¹⁹

Any attempt to limit the American dream meets with considerable resistance. Opportunity without constraints has been a recurrent pattern in our political thought. A 1940 Fortune poll found 74 percent rejected the idea that there "should be a law limiting the amount of money an individual is allowed to earn in a year."²⁰ Forty-one years later, the consensus held: 79 percent did not think that "there should be a top limit on incomes so that no one can earn more than $100,000 a year." Even those who earned less than $5,000 held that opinion.²¹ A 1984 National Opinion Research Center survey found 71 percent believed that differences in social standing were acceptable because they resulted from "what people made out of the opportunities they had."²²

Beneath such opinions is a faith that approaches fanaticism. Garry Wills wrote in 1978 that in the United States one must adopt the American dream "wholeheartedly, proclaim it, prove one's devotion to it."²³ He may have had in mind the House Committee on Un-American Activities, which was established during the hysteria about worldwide Communist expansionism in 1945. For three decades the committee inquired into the public and private lives of suspected communists. Perhaps the most notable among the committee's many investigations was one led by freshman Congressman Richard Nixon in 1946. Nixon doggedly pursued Alger Hiss' ties to the Communist party, an inquiry that eventually resulted in Hiss' indictment and conviction for perjury. However, the committee's injudicious blacklisting of other Americans formed a stain on the witnesses and the committee itself that could not be removed. In 1975 the Committee on Un-American Activities was abolished on the grounds that it, too, was un-American.

The Committee on Un-American Activities illustrates the country's rigid enforcement of its political orthodoxy. American Historian Daniel Boorstin rhetorically asks, "Who would think of using the word `unItalian' or `unFrench' as we use the word unAmerican?"²⁴ Indeed the phrase, "the American Way of Life," has taken on missionary proportions. In the nineteenth century Herman Melville compared Americans to the Biblical tribes of Israel, calling them "the peculiar chosen people . . . the Israel of our time."²⁵ A century later Ronald Reagan subscribed to a similar creationist view: "Think for a moment how special it is to be an American. Can we doubt that only a Divine Providence placed this land, this island of freedom, here as a refuge for all those people in the world who yearn to breathe free?"²⁶

HAMILTONIAN NATIONALISM

VERSUS JEFFERSONIAN DEMOCRACY

After traveling what was then the breadth of the United States in 1831 and 1832, the Frenchman Alexis de Tocqueville remarked: "All the domestic controversies of the Americans at first appear to a stranger to be incomprehensible or puerile, and he is at a loss whether to pity a people who take such arrant trifles in good earnest or to envy that happiness which enables a community to discuss them."²⁷ Tocqueville's observation stems from the relative ideological homogeneity in the United States--especially when compared to his native France. No wonder Tocqueville found the young nation's political disputes almost quaint, even charming.

But as Tocqueville notes, political scraps were earnestly fought. Most were the result of an insufficient ideological underpinning. The American Founding Fathers realized that freedom and liberty, the two ideas that "make America great," were not enough to build a nation. Writing in The Federalist Papers James Madison observed, "Liberty is to faction what air is to fire."²⁸ He labeled the cacophony of interest groups as the source of all "instability, injustice, and confusion" introduced into public forums, which have been "the mortal diseases under which popular governments have everywhere perished."²⁹

Liberty, in Madison's view, must have a suitable companion value to restrain its inevitable excesses. But which one? Tocqueville paired liberty with several values: morality, law, the common good, and civic responsibility.

Each of liberty's potential mates seeks to restrain it. Even a staunch democrat like Andrew Jackson acknowledged that "individuals must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest."³⁰ Former New York Times columnist James Reston compared liberty without restraint to a "river without banks. . . . It must be limited to be possessed."³¹

But how to limit liberty and still possess it? This is a dilemma that troubled the American Founders, as well as those who adhere to the value of liberty today. Alexander Hamilton wanted liberty to be coupled with authority. Thomas Jefferson preferred that liberty be paired with local civic responsibility. It was on this basis that the enduring struggle between Hamiltonian Nationalism and Jeffersonian Democracy began.

Hamiltonian Nationalism envisions the United States as one "family," with a strong central government--especially an energetic executive--acting on its behalf. In 1791 Hamilton proclaimed:

Ideas of a contrariety of interests between the Northern and Southern regions of the Union, are in the main as unfounded as they are mischievous. . . . Mutual wants constitute one of the strongest links of political connection. . . . Suggestions of an opposite complexion are ever to be deplored, as unfriendly to the steady pursuit of one great common cause, and to the perfect harmony of all parts.³²

Richard Henry Lee, author of the American resolution calling for independence from Great Britain, warned that Hamilton "calculated ultimately to make the states one consolidated government."³³ Jefferson was also wary of Hamilton's motives. Unlike Hamilton, Jefferson had a nearly limitless faith in the ordinary citizen. To a nation largely composed of farmers, he declared, "Those who labor in the earth are the chosen people of God, if ever He had a chosen people, whose breasts He has made the peculiar deposit for substantial and genuine virtue."³⁴ Jefferson's devotion to liberty made him distrust most attempts to restrain it, particularly those of government: "Were we directed from Washington when to sow, and when to reap, we should soon want bread."³⁵ In 1825 Jefferson warned of the expanding power of state government and wrote that the "salvation of the republic" rested on the regeneration and spread of the New England town meeting.³⁶ The best guarantee of liberty in Jefferson's view was the exclusion of the "invisible hand" of government. Americans, he said, would "surmount every difficulty by resolution and contrivance. Remote from all other aid we are obliged to invent and execute; to find means within ourselves and not lean on others."³⁷

Given the peculiar character of his compatriots, it was not surprising that Jefferson won the presidency in 1800. Six decades after the revolt against George III most remained suspicious of central government. Tocqueville described them as having "acquired or retained sufficient education and fortune to satisfy their own wants. They owe nothing to any man, they expect nothing from any man; they acquire the habit of always considering themselves as standing alone, and they are apt to imagine that their whole destiny is in their own hands."³⁸

FRAMING A GOVERNMENT

For nearly two centuries the debate between Hamiltonian Nationalism and Jeffersonian Democracy has dominated U.S. politics. Since the days of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Democrats have consistently aligned themselves with Hamilton, viewing the nation as one family. Republicans have preferred a revamped Jeffersonian democracy. As Reagan put it: "Through lower taxes and smaller government, government has its ways of freeing people's spirits."³⁹ He viewed the country not as a family, but a collection of diverse communities for whom liberty means "the right to be let alone."⁴⁰

American historian Henry Steele Commager believes that since the founding, the character of the American people has not changed greatly nor has the "nature of the principles of conduct, public and private, to which they subscribe."⁴¹ Our values may be constant, but the circumstances in which they are applied are not. The whiff of civil war, the onset of a depression, or the ravages of inflation inevitably cause Americans to take stock of the situation and their expectations of government, and to settle upon a course of action in a manner consistent with the American Creed. Usually a dominant personality has led the way. Abraham Lincoln reasserted Hamilton's vision of a national family so as to save the Union. Three score and ten years later, Franklin Roosevelt chose Hamiltonian nationalism to meet the challenges posed by the Great Depression.

During the 1980s, Ronald Reagan was the dominant personality on the American scene. He not only cast a long shadow over American politics, but gave sustenance to a reinvigorated Jeffersonian democracy by promising to take "government off the backs of the great people of this country" and turning Americans "loose again to do those things that I know you can do so well."⁴²

Usually citizens do not want to choose between Hamiltonian nationalism and Jeffersonian democracy, but prefer the fruits of both. American newspaper columnist Walter Lippmann put it this way: "To be partisan . . . as between Jefferson and Hamilton is like arguing whether men or women are more necessary to the procreation of the race. Neither can live alone. Alone--that is, without the other--each is excessive and soon intolerable."⁴³ Nevertheless, Americans have tried at various intervals to live with one and not the other. The results have been less than satisfactory. Herbert Croly argued that Hamilton "perverted that national idea as much as Jefferson perverted the American democratic idea, and the proper relation of these two fundamental conceptions one to another cannot be completely understood until this double perversion is corrected."⁴⁴

It is the inevitable perversion of Hamiltonian nationalism and Jeffersonian democracy that induces periodic swings from one to the other. As each prevails at one juncture or another, Americans experience a sense of return when the old battles start up again on new but seemingly familiar territory. Hamilton would be astonished to learn that his concept of a national family is being used to promote the interests of the have-nots, especially women and minorities. And Reagan's espousal of Jeffersonian democracy is premised on a welfare state first erected by Roosevelt's New Deal. The circumstances may change, but the arguments always have a familiar ring.

THE SPECIAL ROLE OF THE PRESIDENT

Several years after leaving the White House, Harry Truman described the presidency as "the most peculiar office in the world."⁴⁵ British scholar Harold Laski elaborated on Truman's statement saying that the essence of the American presidency is "that it functions in an American environment, that it has been shaped by the forces of American history, that it must be judged by American criteria of its responses to American needs."⁴⁶

One of the unusual features of the American electorate is its insatiable need to reaffirm the American dream. This stems from the dream's inherent illogic. James Truslow Adams once wrote: "The American dream--the belief in the value of the common man, and the hope of opening every avenue of opportunity to him--was not a logical concept of thought. Like every great thought that has stirred and advanced humanity, it was a religious emotion, a great act of faith, a courageous leap into the unknown."⁴⁷

In many respects the American dream has assumed religious trappings, with the president acting as a high priest. This is due, in part, to the voters' extraordinary expectations: the president is to make the American dream come true for them, just as it has come true for the president himself. Richard Nixon understood this when, as a candidate in 1968, he spoke of his youthful aspirations:

I see [a] child tonight. He hears a train go by. At night he dreams of faraway places where he'd like to go. It seems like an impossible dream. But he is helped on his journey through life. A father who had to go to work before he finished the sixth grade sacrificed everything so his sons could go to college.

A gentle Quaker mother with a passionate concern for peace quietly wept when he went to war but she understood why he had to go.

A great teacher, a remarkable football coach, an inspirational minister encouraged him on his way. A courageous wife and loyal children stood by him in victory and also in defeat.

And in his chosen profession of politics, first there were scores, then hundreds, then thousands, and finally millions who worked for his success.

And tonight he stands before you, nominated for President of the United States of America. You can see why I believe so deeply in the American dream.⁴⁸

Presidents embody the dreams of their fellow citizens in a way that no other public official can. Political scientist Clinton Rossiter, a student of the American presidency, once wrote: "The final greatness of the presidency lies in the truth that it is not just an office of incredible power but a breeding ground of indestructible myth."⁴⁹ Seeking reelection in the midst of a bloody civil war with victory not yet secured, Lincoln was depicted in several "popular life" biographies as an example of what a poor American boy can achieve if he wants "to climb the heights."⁵⁰

Not much has changed. Log cabins have been replaced by middle-class ranch homes. But political hagiographers still stress a president's relatively humble beginnings, or de-emphasize a president's more prosperous origins. Ronald Reagan was fond of reminding audiences of his early days as a lifeguard in Dixon, Illinois, earning fifteen dollars per week.

Presidents cannot simply pay homage to the American dream; they must reaffirm it by actions that enhance individual self-esteem and self-fulfillment. That task casts the president in a second great role: chief warrior in the struggle between Hamiltonian nationalism and Jeffersonian democracy. Traditionally, the presidency has been perceived as the principal mover in the engine of progress. Often that means a candidate for the office has to decide on the faction--Hamiltonian nationalism or Jeffersonian democracy with which he chooses to identify. Hamilton understood this when he wrote: "Every vital question of state will be merged in the question, `Who will be the next President?'"⁵¹

THE 1980S

Ronald Reagan entered the White House in 1981 amidst intense public dissatisfaction with government. Voters no longer believed that the federal government consisted of officials acting on their behalf. Rather, they saw a government dominated by a privileged few who were carelessly throwing away precious federal dollars. Surveys taken by the University of Michigan Center for Social Research tracked the growing disillusionment. In 1958, 18 percent agreed with the statement "The government is run by a few big interests looking out for themselves"; by 1980 77 percent did so. Moreover, the proportion of respondents who thought "quite a few [of the people running the government] don't seem to know what they are doing" stood at 28 percent in 1964, 45 percent in 1970, and 63 percent in 1980.⁵²

The desire of "we, the people" to regain control of the government from the ineptitude of political elites became so powerful that Americans strongly preferred the Jeffersonian concept of community, rather than centralized, government power. In 1936, a Gallup poll found most Americans favored a "concentration of power in the federal government"; by 1987 a majority favored a concentration of power in state government.

A new brand of "consensus politics" was emerging. Eighty-three percent told poll-taker Louis Harris that they agreed with Reagan's inaugural proclamation that the size and influence of the federal government should be curbed.⁵⁵ As time passed, Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan appeared to be "bookend Presidents": one expanded and the other defined the limits of the federal government.⁵⁶ Each tried to make the system work, and in his own way each succeeded. Eventually, a new political agenda--one that consisted of restraining federal responsibilities and returning power to state and local governments, and to the individu-al--took hold. This stemmed from the resentment voters had toward the federal establishment, which had come to be seen as dominated by uncaring, dimwitted bureaucrats. As one American put it: "There's just thousands and thousands of white collar workers [in Washington] who do nothing but shuffle paper and don't do anything that's of any value to anyone. And they get a pay increment, they get incredible benefits, for what? It's just flab, it's just waste."⁵⁷

1936⁵³ 1987⁵⁴

Federal government 56 34

State government 44 63

No opinion -- 3

Text of question: "Which theory of government do you favor: concentration of power in the federal government or concentration of power in the state government?"

The revolt against bigness of every sort resulted in a corresponding longing for community. Pollster Yankelovich reported that his surveys showed the public's "search for community," namely, the desire to compensate for the impersonal and threatening aspects of modern life by seeking identification with others, grew from 32 percent in 1973 to 47 percent at the start of the 1980s.⁵⁸ Since then the revolt against bigness has become entrenched. Reagan pollster Richard Wirthlin found majorities in 1986 were willing to turn some important federal responsibilities over to the private sector: Seventy percent thought private industry, not the federal government, should continue producing electricity; 61 percent said private firms should provide insurance for U.S. companies doing business overseas; 50 percent thought industry should guarantee home loans. Wirthlin also found 67 percent agreed with the statement, "In the '60s and '70s, it was the federal government growing beyond our control that strongly contributed to the collapse of our economy, of confidence in our institutions, and a shaking of the very roots of our freedom."⁵⁹ A year later Wirthlin showed 50 percent believing local governments were most sensitive to their needs; just 26 percent selected state governments; and only 16 percent thought the federal government could be best described that way.⁶⁰ Anyone who occupies the Oval Office is in an echo chamber of a sort--listening and responding to the citizenry. During the 1980s the listening was intense, but the response was different from presidents in the recent past. Instead of proposing new federal programs, Reagan sought to inspire local communities to tackle the tough problems. Addressing the nation on the dangers of drug abuse he urged: "If your friend or neighbor or a family member has a drug or alcohol problem, don't turn the other way. Go to his help or to hers. Get others involved with you--clubs, service groups, and community organizations--and provide support and strength."⁶¹

This politics of localism means continuing to use the "bully pulpit" of the presidency to persuade a Congress and a people, but it not as a forum to espouse big new government programs designed to address the needs of a national "family". Rather, presidents would cajole individuals and neighborhoods into acting on important national problems.

CONCLUSION

More than most presidents, Ronald Reagan understood that voters respond to symbols and phrases that evoke commonly held values. He followed this rule of politics so assiduously that, in effect, he became a regent entrusted by the voters with making American values a greater reality in their lives.

This has created confusion about his historical legacy. ABC News correspondent Ted Koppel said, "[We] will have to wait until the footlights dim and the houselights go up again, before determining whether the play was any good at all."⁶² The observation points to a significant difference between Reagan and his predecessors. Heretofore it has been presidential actions that have usually shaped history's final judgments. Descriptors are often simply a line or two in the history books. For George Washington, "He was the Father of the Country." For Abraham Lincoln, "He saved the Union and freed the slaves." For Franklin Roosevelt, "He launched the New Deal and fought World War II." Only John F. Kennedy's brief tenure is summarized by single word, "Camelot," which expressed not actual accomplishments but a mood.⁶³

Like Kennedy, Reagan's description will probably differ from the rest. His former communications director, Patrick Buchanan, suggests it will be "Restored America's spirit and economy, built the great space shield and drove out the Communists."⁶⁴ But Buchanan's lengthy and optimistic sentence focuses on deeds, not atmospherics; in reality the legacy lies not so much in his actions as president, but in the "sense of return" he gave the American people in their values.

American voters are often of two minds. They are idealists who can respond positively to a return to values. They are also resolute pragmatists who wait, often not patiently, to see if a president's policies will work. In 1980 voters wanted their ideals reaffirmed and the lesson is simple: If a president can persuade the voters that his policies adhere to those cherished values and that, if adopted, these values will become an even greater reality for most Americans, then that president can move the country.

The Catholic University of America

Washington, D.C.

1. Yelena Bonner, "A Quirky Farewell to America," Newsweek, 2 June, 1986, p. 45.

2. Robert Lane, Political Ideology: Why the Common Man Believes What He Does (New York: Free Press, 1962), p. 24.

3. "Foreign Roots on Native Soil," U.S. News and World Report, 7 July, 1986, p. 31.

4. Gilbert K. Chesterton, What I Saw in America (New York: Dodd, Mead, 1922), p. 8.

5. The term `American dream' was coined by James Truslow Adams during the Great Depression in The Epic of America (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1935), p. 174.

6. Ronald Reagan, news conference, Washington, D.C. 28 June, 1983.

7. Quoted in Terry W. Hartle, "Dream Jobs?" Public Opinion (September/October, 1986), p. 11.

8. Roper Organization for the Wall Street Journal, mid-October 1986, reported in The Polling Report, 23 February 1987, p. 1. Text of question: I'm going to read you some possible descriptions or definitions of The American Dream, and for each one I'd like you to tell me if that's very much what you understand The American Dream to mean, or sort of what it means, or not what it means." The percentages cited in the text are those who answered "very much." Multiple responses were allowed.

9. Knute Rockne-All American, Warner Brothers motion picture, 1940.

10. Michel-Guillaume-Jean de Crevecoeur, "Letters from an American Farmer," 1782 in Living Ideas in America, ed. Henry Steele Commager (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1951), p. 21.

11. National Opinion Research Center, University of Chicago, General Social Surveys, 1972-1987. Text of the 1987 question: "Some people say that people get ahead by their own hard work; others say that lucky breaks or help from other people are more important. Which do you think is most important?" Sixty-six percent responded "hard work"; 18 percent, "hard work, luck equally important"; 15 percent "luck most important."

12. "Decision/Making/Information," survey for the Free Congress Foundation, 4-5 November 1981.

13. "American Values: Change and Stability: A Conversation with Daniel Yankelovich," Public Opinion (December/January 1984), p. 6.

14. Sixty-five percent believe that "someone who is against churches and religion should be allowed to speak in the community"; "an admitted Communist," 56 percent; "someone who believes blacks are inferior," 58 percent; "an admitted homosexual," 64 percent; "someone who advocates doing away with elections and letting the military run the country," 54 per cent. Likewise, those who do not favor removing a book from the public library with the views of "someone who is against churches and religion" is 60 percent; "an admitted Communist," 57 percent; "someone who believes blacks are genetically inferior," 61 percent; "an admitted homosexual," 56 percent; "someone who advocates doing away with elections and letting the military run the country," 56 percent. Source: National Opinion Research Center, combined "General Social Surveys," 1972-1987.

15. James Q. Wilson, "A Guide to Reagan Country: The Political Culture of Southern California," Commentary (May, 1967), p. 40.

16. Cited in Lance Morrow, "Freedom First," Time, 16 June, 1986, p. 29.

17. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States 1986, 106th edition (Washington, D.C., 1985), p. 458.

18. Quoted in Lane, Political Ideology, p. 69.

19. Andrew H. Malcolm, "What Five Families Did After Losing the Farm," New York Times, 4 February, 1987, p. A-1.

20. Cited in Everett Carl Ladd, The American Polity (New York: W.W. Norton, 1987), p. 67.

21. Survey of Civic Service, 5-18 March, 1981.

22. National Opinion Research Center, University of Chicago, General Social Surveys, 1972-1984. Text of the 1984 question: "Differences in social standing between people are acceptable because they basically reflect what people made out of the opportunities they had." Sixteen percent responded, "strongly agree"; 55 percent, "somewhat agree"; 20 percent, "somewhat disagree"; 5 percent "strongly disagree."

23. Garry Wills, Inventing America (New York: Vintage Books, 1978), p. xxii.

24. Daniel J. Boorstin, The Genius of American Politics (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953), p. 14.

25. Quoted in Thomas E. Cronin, The State of the Presidency (Boston: Little Brown, 1980), p. 161.

26. Remarks by the President and First Lady in a National Television Address on Drug Abuse and Prevention, Washington, D.C., 14 September, 1986.

27. Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, ed. Richard D. Heffner (New York: New American Library, 1956), p. 90.

28. James Madison, "Federalist Number Ten," in Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison, The Federalist, ed. Edward Mead Earle (New York: Modern Library, 1937), p. 55.

29. Ibid., pp. 53-54.

30. Quoted in Arthus M. Schlesinger, A Thousand Days (New York: Greenwich House, 1983), pp. 105-106.

31. James Reston, "Liberty and Authority," New York Times, 29 June, 1986, p. E-23.

32. Selected Writings and Speeches of Alexander Hamilton, ed. Morton J. Frisch (Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute, 1985), p. 316.

33. Quoted in Edward Meade Earle's introduction to Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison, The Federalist, p. xiii. Historian Claude Bowers agreed that Hamilton's goal was to "cripple" the states. See Claude Bowers, Jefferson and Hamilton: The Struggle for Democracy in America (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin, 1925), p. 31.

34. Quoted in Ted Morgan, FDR: A Biography (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1985), p. 38.

35. Quoted in Richard Reeves, The Reagan Detour (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1985), p. 19.

36. Quoted in Robert F. Kennedy, To Seek a Newer World (New York: Doubleday, 1967), p. 56.

37. Morgan, FDR, p. 365.

38. Tocqueville, Democracy in America, p. 194.

39. Ronald Reagan, State of the Union Address, Washington, D.C., 27 January, 1987.

40. The quotation comes from Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis' dissenting opinion in the case Olmstead v. United States (1928).

41. Henry Steele Commager, Living Ideas in America (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1951), p. xviii.

42. Reagan-Carter debate, Cleveland, 29 October, 1980.

43. Quoted in Reston, "Liberty and Authority,"

44. Croly, The Promise of American Life, p. 29.

45. Quoted in Emmet John Hughes, The Living Presidency (New York: Coward, McCann & Geoghegan, 1973), p. 32.

46. Ibid., p. 23.

47. Adams, The Epic of America, p. 198.

48. Richard Nixon, Acceptance Speech, 1968.

49. Clinton Rossiter, The American Presidency (New York: New American Library, 1960), p. 103.

50. Cited in Carl Sandburg, Abraham Lincoln, Volume Three: The War Years (New York: Dell, 1954), p. 661.

51. Quoted in Hughes, The Living Presidency, p. 40.

52. University of Michigan, Center for Social Research, selected surveys, 1958, 1964, 1970, 1980, and 1982.

53. George Gallup, Survey, 1936.

54. Decision/Making/Information, survey for the Republican National Committee, 21-23 April, 1987.

55. Louis Harris and Associates, survey, 22-25 January, 1981.

56. The term "bookend Presidents" is Charles O. Jones'. See Weinraub, "The Reagan Legacy," p. 14.

57. Ibid., p. 25.

58. Yankelovich, New Rules, p. 251.

59. Decision/Making/Information, survey for the Republican National Committee, 11-12 January 1986.

60. Decision/Making/Information, survey for the Republican National Committee, 23 April 1987. Text of the question: "Recently, there has been much discussion about the functions performed at the three levels of government--federal, state and local. I am going to read you some phrases, both positive and negative, sometimes used to describe government. For each one that I read, please tell me whether you feel that phrase best describes the federal, state or local government. . .as most sensitive to my needs."

61. Remarks by the President and the First Lady in a National Television Address on Drug Abuse Prevention, Washington, D.C., 14 September 1986.

62. "The Jennings-Koppel Report: Memo to the Future," ABC News broadcast, 23 April, 1987.

63. For an analysis of this point see Lewis J. Paper, The Promise and the Performance: The Leadership of John F. Kennedy (New York: Crown Publishers, 1975).

64. Patrick J. Buchanan, "A Conservative Makes a Final Plea," Newsweek, 30 March, 1987, p. 26.