What does "American" mean?

“That’s not American.”

The words hit me a few days ago when someone said them to me in a discussion about government-based health care.

I don’t want to go into that argument.

I do want to back up and talk about the premise, and about the term, “American.” Because those words, “That’s not American,” have been bouncing around in my head enough that I’ve begun to think about what exactly is meant by the word “American.”

It’s tough to pin down. It’s a word that has been appropriated by everybody.  I grabbed the phone book off my desk and found 250 business listings that began with the word “American.”

American Air Filter, American Brake Center, American General Tarps, American Mobile Glass, American National Insurance, American Plastic Engravers, American Plumbers, American Founders Bank, American Martial Arts, American Pride Painting, American Realty, American Sleep Medicine, American Refrigeration, American Roofing & Metal.

Ask a foreigner to define “American” and you’re likely to get a description of current U.S. culture, attitudes and politics.

In this country, most people’s definition of “American” probably has one common trait — whatever that person believes, that’s “American” for him or her.

Maybe it’s an old history major’s habit, but lately when I run across issues in the news or political questions, I find myself looking back. It doesn’t always provide answers. But it does always provide insight.

So over the coming weeks, I’m going to explore myself what “American” actually means for me. It’s not a political discussion — though it’s hard to separate politics from the concept. I welcome anyone to post their own definition of “American” in the comments section here. Try to keep it in the neighborhood of 200 words, and let’s try to keep the discussion philosophical rather than political, at least to start.

What does “American” mean to you? This nation, it seems to me, has looked at itself differently at various stages in its history. From our founding stage, this nation became marked by westward expansion. Coming out of the Civil War, it wasn’t until after World War II that America began to be identified with its power. In 1932, the U.S. had but the 16th largest Army in the world. It had a single mechanized regiment, stationed at Fort Knox, led by cavalry horsemen. So here we have an example. At the founding of this nation, the idea of becoming involved in foreign wars would surely not have been considered “American.” Yet now, it is very much part of American makeup, even pride in some quarters.

These days, I hear a lot of talk about America being the “best” at this or that. But for much of our history, I don’t know that we have made those claims. I am investigating.

Looking at those phone book entries, I decided that just as useful as defining what “American” is, may be determining what it is not. Which brings us back to the original statement that sparked my question in the first place.

In the end, this is about investigating. For me, it means going back to the beginning, and for this blog, it means an occasional rumination on what I have found, or heard. Hopefully, it will culminate in something useful.

Does “American” have more to do with the spirit that formed the nation, the sentiments expressed in our Constitution and other founding documents, or does it evolve as the nation grows and times change? The value in this, I think, is to challenge our own beliefs, to not accept as “American” just that which bills itself as American, or that which is sold to us draped in the flag or packed into the grooves worn by party affiliation.

I suppose, if you’re looking for an example of a workable definition, this one from the esteemed historian Joseph Ellis is a fine one. He describes the American story as “the triumph of representative government bottomed on the principal of popular sovereignty, a market economy fueled by the energies of unfettered citizens, a secular state unaffiliated with any official religion, and the rule of law that presumed the equality of all citizens.”

James Madison did an important thing before the Constitutional Convention was convened in 1787. He made the decision that the Articles of Confederation, which bound the colonies together loosely, would need to be scrapped, and a new structure, a new constitution, be built from the ground up.

So as I go into this, I’m going to do my best to go the route of Madison, and build not on what I already have heard and believed, but build from the ground up.

More to come . . .

What does “American” mean?

“That’s not American.”

The words hit me a few days ago when someone said them to me in a discussion about government-based health care.

I don’t want to go into that argument.

I do want to back up and talk about the premise, and about the term, “American.” Because those words, “That’s not American,” have been bouncing around in my head enough that I’ve begun to think about what exactly is meant by the word “American.”

It’s tough to pin down. It’s a word that has been appropriated by everybody.  I grabbed the phone book off my desk and found 250 business listings that began with the word “American.”

American Air Filter, American Brake Center, American General Tarps, American Mobile Glass, American National Insurance, American Plastic Engravers, American Plumbers, American Founders Bank, American Martial Arts, American Pride Painting, American Realty, American Sleep Medicine, American Refrigeration, American Roofing & Metal.

Ask a foreigner to define “American” and you’re likely to get a description of current U.S. culture, attitudes and politics.

In this country, most people’s definition of “American” probably has one common trait — whatever that person believes, that’s “American” for him or her.

Maybe it’s an old history major’s habit, but lately when I run across issues in the news or political questions, I find myself looking back. It doesn’t always provide answers. But it does always provide insight.

So over the coming weeks, I’m going to explore myself what “American” actually means for me. It’s not a political discussion — though it’s hard to separate politics from the concept. I welcome anyone to post their own definition of “American” in the comments section here. Try to keep it in the neighborhood of 200 words, and let’s try to keep the discussion philosophical rather than political, at least to start.

What does “American” mean to you? This nation, it seems to me, has looked at itself differently at various stages in its history. From our founding stage, this nation became marked by westward expansion. Coming out of the Civil War, it wasn’t until after World War II that America began to be identified with its power. In 1932, the U.S. had but the 16th largest Army in the world. It had a single mechanized regiment, stationed at Fort Knox, led by cavalry horsemen. So here we have an example. At the founding of this nation, the idea of becoming involved in foreign wars would surely not have been considered “American.” Yet now, it is very much part of American makeup, even pride in some quarters.

These days, I hear a lot of talk about America being the “best” at this or that. But for much of our history, I don’t know that we have made those claims. I am investigating.

Looking at those phone book entries, I decided that just as useful as defining what “American” is, may be determining what it is not. Which brings us back to the original statement that sparked my question in the first place.

In the end, this is about investigating. For me, it means going back to the beginning, and for this blog, it means an occasional rumination on what I have found, or heard. Hopefully, it will culminate in something useful.

Does “American” have more to do with the spirit that formed the nation, the sentiments expressed in our Constitution and other founding documents, or does it evolve as the nation grows and times change? The value in this, I think, is to challenge our own beliefs, to not accept as “American” just that which bills itself as American, or that which is sold to us draped in the flag or packed into the grooves worn by party affiliation.

I suppose, if you’re looking for an example of a workable definition, this one from the esteemed historian Joseph Ellis is a fine one. He describes the American story as “the triumph of representative government bottomed on the principal of popular sovereignty, a market economy fueled by the energies of unfettered citizens, a secular state unaffiliated with any official religion, and the rule of law that presumed the equality of all citizens.”

James Madison did an important thing before the Constitutional Convention was convened in 1787. He made the decision that the Articles of Confederation, which bound the colonies together loosely, would need to be scrapped, and a new structure, a new constitution, be built from the ground up.

So as I go into this, I’m going to do my best to go the route of Madison, and build not on what I already have heard and believed, but build from the ground up.

More to come . . .

All Stars, hardball, and Cordish

The Ballpark Village property's biggest claim to fame so far was this "Cubs Suck" message an industrious fan walked into it last winter.

The following wasn’t written for the newspaper, and ventures outside the realm of sports, into a personal reaction to a news story from Louisville this week.

On Tuesday, the eyes of the sports world will turn to St. Louis for the annual Major League Baseball All-Star game.

St. Louis, meanwhile, will hope not too many out-of-town eyes turn to the vacant lot next door to sparkling new Busch Stadium.

That’s where a $550 million “Ballpark Village” is supposed to be drawing people to shops and entertainment options galore. Instead, it’s a parking lot. And a softball field. And that’s an improvement. Until last summer, it was an eyesore, with debris from the demolition of the old stadium junking up the joint. One alderman called it their “Baghdad on Broadway.”

For St. Louis, which desperately wanted the project completed in time for the All-Star game, to not even have it begun is a matter of great frustration.

And what does this have to do with anyone in Louisville? This: The property is being jointly developed, if you want to call it that, by the Cardinals and The Cordish Group, who entered an agreement almost four years ago.

Be warned. This is where we step off the sports bus for a moment. Unless you consider corporate hardball a sport.

Cordish is the same outfit that took a $950,000 “forgivable” loan from the city of Louisville to rework the storefront of the old Lucky Strike Bowling lanes into a sports bar at its Fourth Street Live property. But when The Courier-Journal asked the city to demonstrate how Cordish had spent that public money, it didn’t answer for three months.

Finally, when the newspaper said it was going to press with a story reporting that the city couldn’t account for how the money was spent, it produced a letter, dated July 10, from Cordish, saying the company had spent the money in accordance with the loan agreement, but that specifics of how the money was spent were “proprietary.”

(The foot-dragging, by the way, is nothing new where Cordish is involved. When The St. Louis Post-Dispatch requested public documents of negotiations between Cordish and Centene Corp., an insurance company that was looking at building a headquarters in Ballpark Village, the request was put in on Jan. 9 of this year, and not fulfilled until March 26, hours before Centene announced it was backing out of the deal.)

Of more concern, however, is the notion that Cordish can take the public’s money, then thumb its nose when the public wants to see how it is spent.

With the All-Star game taking place next door to a Cordish sandlot on Tuesday, it might be worth considering the company’s game plan.

The group aggressively pursues huge fees and tax breaks from cities, and has delivered some impressive downtown developments. It also is big on hitting cities up for more tax breaks than originally offered, and when business goes badly, on blaming cities for shortcomings at its developments and even berating them.

There was a scathing email from company president David Cordish to Kansas City officials, some sentences in all caps, demanding more of a police presence and scolding the city for not having lured a pro sports team to the Sprint Center, adjacent to its $850 million Power & Light District in Kansas City. (Louisville should probably brace for the same lecture once this city’s downtown arena is up and running.)

The Kansas City development is nice, but it is, in the words of a feature story in the Portland Oregonian newspaper earlier this year, “hemorrhaging taxpayer money,” while noting that, “Cordish has sued Jackson County to lower its property tax assessment in the district and has developed a local reputation for hardball negotiating and tin-eared community relations.”

There was another lawsuit being pressed by Cordish over a dilapidated mall in Niagara Falls, N.Y.  The mayor there, Paul Dyster, actually made a tough stance with Cordish part of his campaign. Both sides have since backed off of lawsuits in an effort to work things out.

Always, it seems, Cordish lays the blame on someone else. And now there’s this insult in Louisville.

But while Cordish has been defended by Louisville Mayor Jerry Abramson, reaction elsewhere has been harsh.

The Post-Dispatch reported that St. Louis Mayor Francis Slay balked when Cordish asked the city to guarantee to make up the difference if Ballpark Village’s revenue’s fell short of projections.

“If Cordish is looking for a no-risk, high-reward scenario, I don’t think that is possible and certainly not going to happen on the backs of the taxpayers,” Slay’s chief of staff told the paper in March of 2008. “. . . We’ve made it very clear to Cordish that there is no more public subsidy available. The ball is in their court.”

St. Louis alderman Fred Wessels told the paper at that time, “Cordish was sold to the city by the Cardinals as a developer with great retail relationships, firm financial footing and the ability to get large-scale developments like this one done. In my opinion, Cordish has not performed. As difficult as it might be at this time, I think the Cardinals and the city should look at another developer.”

Of course, it seems that there’s always more public subsidy available. The latest in St. Louis — Ballpark Village is still awaiting approval from Missouri state government, which must approve $188 million in public financing before bonds can be sold.

In Kansas City, mayor Mark Funkhouser called the Cordish development “a good product,” but told The Oregonian, “It’s never going to make money. I can’t imagine how it could make money.”

And the latest here in Louisville? The conjunction is too tempting to pass up. In the same week that Cordish told Louisvillians that their $950,000 in public money was none of their business, the city’s annual Lebowski Fest began.

I can only say this. If Cordish is allowed to continue in the arrogant fashion it displayed this week here and in the past elsewhere, this group and anyone who chooses to align with it will, surely, be entering a world of pain.