The American story [is] a story of flawed and fallible people, united across generations by grand and enduring ideals. The grandest of these ideals is an unfolding American promise that everyone belongs, that everyone deserves a chance, that no insignificant person was ever born. (1)

At present America is fighting various battles – some on the outside, some inside the country. For one, American militaries are operating in Afghanistan and Iraq, in Somalia, Georgia and Lebanon; further troops are stationed in Turkey, Kenya and South Korea. For the other, the United States quarrel with a presidential election, the credit crunch, gas prices, and decisions on abortion, gun laws and same-sex marriages. And this is only an unrepresentative, small selection of current conflicts. Over the past years, the exhaustive criticism of American foreign politics seem to have overshadowed the (inter)national awareness of the country’s inner turmoil. Today, the great nation’s most noticed crisis evolves around collapsing stock markets and repossessed homes. However, America is undermined by a different, often ignored aspect: the glorious unification of its people under a stringent dogma of great inculcating but little practical use.

Citizens of the United States define themselves by ideological principles rather than by certificates of national birth or race or country borders. Such creed roots in America’s history of immigration, the variety of cultures, languages and religions hosted within the country that includes a wide range of climates and geographies, and also in the enormous size of the land and the large number of its population. America’s core constituents of national identity are unlimited possibility, opportunity and equality which fathered the American Dream: the belief in the freedom of all citizens and residents to achieve, and ‘that […] life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone’ . But does this dream translate into reality?

In a time, when a hopeful presidential candidate is of dark skin colour and his opponents’ running mate is of the female sex, one might assume that there are indeed unlimited possibilities. However, official statistics draw a different picture: on average, American women earn almost 30% less than their male counterparts, despite obtaining higher levels of academic education . Out of 100 US senators, 16 are females and only one is of black skin colour. For 100,000 white male Americans, 773 are sentenced prisoners; amongst the black population the number is almost six times as high . National wealth statistics show that 25% of American blacks live below the poverty level compared to 10.5% of whites3. The States of Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama rank amongst those with the largest black population in America; they also have the lowest employment rates, the lowest income levels and the least amount of education. Coincidence or are the unlimited possibilities limited after all? In the face of the enormous cultural, geographical and historical diversity of the United States, can there possibly be equal opportunities for all American people?

America plausibly argues to be a meritocracy whereby society rewards and appoints those who demonstrate talent and competence. Young defined individual merit as ‘IQ plus effort’ – admittedly a possibly rather narrow definition – and later, Herrnstein and Murray caused a public outcry of moral indignation with ‘The Bell Curve’ that proved the very one necessity of IQ live the American Dream. Rewarding one’s ability and input seems fairer than appraising wealth, family connections or class privileges. John Locke believed that justice comes as a natural law but in a country where 46 million people have no access to health care, justice appears more like another ideological creed than a naturally given entity. It is not fairness that gave rise to the development of a meritocratic society but Darwin’s basic law of the survival of the fittest.

And what are indicators of fitness in modern American society? As before, they remain intelligence and effort. If you are smart and hard working, you are capable of obtaining educational qualifications which in turn enable advanced professional careers and profitable incomes. Moreover, intelligence is positively associated with other desirable outcomes, such as health , longevity and stable marital relations . Like in the Parable of the Talents , those who have abilities and who are willing to invest in and apply them will succeed.

Although everyone is ‘equal in dignity and rights’ , human beings tend to differ – and so do Americans. Different sexes, different colours, different socio-economic status, different religions, different sexual preferences and different abilities. In fact, Americans’ diversity is one of the nation’s greatest attributes but also, it inevitably creates difficulties to justly accommodate everybody. Some individual differences – such as social class origin or religion – may be more readily dealt with by for example redistributions of wealth and high levels of tolerance. For others, particularly biologically determined factors like sex, matters are more complicated. Scientists, politicians and journalists carefully tiptoe on the fine line between reporting facts and avoiding accusations sexism, or indeed racism. But in a world where Lawrence Summers was free to openly (re)state scientific results , biological differences would be accepted as natural entities and thus, could be accommodated in governmental decisions and policy development.

A meritocratic society selectively rewards some lucky bright sparks for their intellect and effort but for ‘whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him’13. So what if there were natural boundaries to individual merit that could not simply be overcome? For the sake of argument, if women were on average less intelligent than white men, would it be wise to continuously proclaim equal opportunities for everyone despite the obvious contradiction? What if intelligence is indeed largely inherited genetically – and current scientific research suggests estimates of up to 80% , could unlimited possibilities ever be a reality?

According to George W. Bush1, Americans are ‘flawed and fallible’ people united by the ideal that everyone belongs and deserves a chance. Meritocracy – and with it the American Dream – fall short to allow for the realisation of this ‘unfolding American promise’. Contemporary social inequalities and injustices, which are rooted in individual differences, have become readily accepted as a natural consequence of some lawful justice indoctrinated by ideology. Instead of accepting individual differences in sex, race and ability as given entities that rigorously determine one’s potential, it seems as if supporting an ambitious creed of equal opportunities has taken priority over addressing actual social realities. In such environments, people of lower individual merit will find themselves in the dark and even believe they would be there righteously. Conversely, the ones with higher merits stand in the light will with the same rationale for their social standing and advancement. The belief that rewards for ability and effort result in fair conditions and a just world will only contribute to maintain the status quo of social inequalities.

Famously, Martin Luther King said ‘I have a dream’  and until today, what it means to be American is essentially dreaming. However, faith alone does not create realities, and it may be time to break from an unsustainable ideal and to bury the American Dream. America must give up on the creed of unlimited possibility, opportunity and equality: people are limited in their possibilities, they do not have the same opportunities and they are not equal. A nation so diverse, compassionate and caring should not shy away to face this reality but ban ideologies that try to press individuals in a stifling suit. Once the United States exchanged their cowardice of political correctness for bravery to face the incompatibility of ideal and reality, America will wake up and take the step from ‘believing in change’ to actually changing. 

References
1 Inaugural address, President George W. Bush, 20th of January 2001
2 Truslow, J. A. (1931). The Epic of America. New York: Blue Ribbon Books.
3 US Census Buerau (2006). http://www.census.gov/; retrieved October, 2008.
4 Bureau of Justice (2007).  http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/prisons.htm, retrieved October, 2008.
5 Young, M. (1958). The rise of the meritocracy. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.
6 Herrnstein, R., & Murray, C. (1994). The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life. New York: Free Press.
7 Rawls, J. (1999). A Theory of Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
8 U.S. Census Bureau (2008). Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2007.
9 Darwin, C. (1859). On the origin of species by means of natural selection. London: John Murray.
10 Gottfredson, L. (2004). Intelligence: Is it the epidemiologists’ elusive “fundamental cause” of social class inequalities in health? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 174-199.
11 Batty, G. D., Deary, I. J., & Gottfredson, L. (2007). Premorbid (early life) IQ and later mortality risk: systematic Review. Annals of Epidemiology, 17, 278-288.
12 Taylor, M. D., Hart, C. L., Davey Smith, G., Whalley, L. J., Hole, D. J., Wilson, V., & Deary I. J. (2005). Childhood IQ and marriage by midlife: the Scottish Mental Survey 1932 and the Midspan studies. Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 1621-1630.
13 Matthew 25, 14 -19; New Testament.
14 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948).
15 Larry, V., & Hedges,  A. N. (1995). Sex differences in mental test scores, variability, and numbers of high-scoring individuals. Science, 269, 41-45.
16 Gottfredson, L. (2005). What if the hereditarian hypothesis is true? Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11, 311-319.
17 28th of August 1963, Lincoln Memorial, Washington D.C.