2. A way to a nation’s unconscious:

Linguistically it is not correct to contrast Legality with Morality. The antithesis of legal is illegal and immoral is the antithesis of moral. What is legal is also moral and morality is a major element in legalities. However, sometimes- in certain conditions- they become the antithesis of each other, and unlink. We can bring up a child to fear breaking the law but without the moral basis of his legally correct behaviour. However, making them the antithesis of each other reveals something special in a link between the two concepts. This is clear in the Kavanaugh Affair: he could have been without any moral blemish that required the tense investigation the USA lived, and democrats should have put the emphasis not on the silly sexual event but on producing Kavanaugh's doubtful and debatable legal opinions the over the years. Morality and legality were subject to serious, though subtle re-linkage between ethics and power in kavanaugh's case case. The point I am making is to always consider (not ignore) the link or separateness of morality and legality in every similar case. In psychology of individuals we look for the link between the Ego (legality) and the superego (morality). Yet, when we come to evaluating a social event we do not have the luxury of that simplicity: Religion might suggest a social function of superego but it could also be the main mover of the ‘social’ id, as it is the case in the various religious organizations over the years and in Islam now. We can say that morality and legality are always linked, but sometimes in harmony and sometimes in disharmony. Not only that, whenever one of the duo takes a central position in an affair the other emerges spontaneously to give the link a complete shape.

The nature of the link between legality and morality is good to understanding the contemporary American existential crises that is clearly coming to a ‘crescendo’, lately. The crescendo is the need to revue the political system of the two-party model and the election system which annuls the basic democratic model of one person one vote, because they provide the vagueness that blinds a nation of its slow sliding to dis integration. It is also a Crescendo, because (for an outsider and none American) in the last six presidential elections, the choices were puzzling. From the most naïve to the most cunning, from the most systematic to the most erratic, and from the most respectable to the most disgraceful.  In other countries that does not have a democratic system of election, these are signs of looming illegal change of government. In the USA it is not reasonable to anticipate such thing.

Origins of the Contemporary Crescendo:

It is interesting to review some historical events that were instrumental in shaping the ‘national charter’ of different nations. But, in addition to being  distracting we have only the USA that its history is in the making and not already done (Only Islam could be studied this way because its early history is well documented and in writings too).

          The USA started as a country without a nation, and slowly, but painfully, a nation started to form of the flood of immigrants that ‘escaped’ to the new country. The process of building the new country that will bond a nation of immigrants created a conflicted with the natives of the country. For over two centuries the hapless natives were marginalized by force. It was a period of sacrificing morality (civil and religious) in favour of creating legitimacy and legality for the immigrants appropriation the country and claiming ownership of what was legitimately own by the natives (nations too). During that period, traditional morality had a back seat and legality was the issue on both sides of the equation. But something expected happened: the gap between morality and the illegal acts committed by the new nation produced some quasi morality: a system of values that looked like a moral system. It was a morality that reflected in its details what was historically going on; a country in formation struggling between organized social interdependencies versus individuality and self reliance. This was reflected on the formation of first two political parties in the USA. They were formed almost in the same year and were both dealing with that divider: free sense of personal, regional and ethical values, or group values that identifies the core of the American person (federation or confederation).

This issue is very complex and still confuses Americans. Are America a nation of ethical and law-abiding persons therefor share and defend a recognizable specific system of values (those are the legally inclined people and make themselves the defintion of America and those are mostly the democrats), or the people who adopt the system of values derived from their history makes them correct and ethical (those who make their values define them as Americans and are mostly the republicans). This dilemma comes from a historical fact: Americans had a very faint knowledge of the "others" till the the end of WWII ended. Thus, they think that their values are specifically American, when the Magna Carta and the ideologies of the French revolution are the origins and the details of the so called American Values. Non Americans get confused for the opposite that confuses Americans. American talk about their country as a great nation because of its values, When non Americans talk about their values as something that say something of the people and not about a country. 
I believe if we go to the details of the effect of the early building of the USA country and the formation of the American nation we will confirm with convincing proofs that the confusion about morality and legality in contemporary USA is a continuation and residue of the conflicts of the early conflicts of those two conditions. Even the two dominating political parties are characterizations of the polarity of morality and legality but with a great deal of confusion in regard to the modern meanings of the terminologies the politicians are throwing at each other. But how could a nation and a country that challenged the world and created the presidential system of government, and has a large number number of creative minds, was able to accommodate in its social fabric all sort of immigrants, how could that nation be so helpless in changing itself. 

The question is:

How could the core of the American society be fixated on the values of the pioneers, the conflict between individuality and social responsibility, confusing morality with values, and most of all maintain a blind faith in the wisdom of the forefathers?



This is where psychoanalysis could be of some help.

This is where psychoanalysis could be of some help.its social fabric all sort of immigrants, how could that nation be so helpless in changing itself. How could the core of the American society fixated on the values of the pioneers, the conflict between individuality and social responsibility, confusing morality with values, and most of all maintain a blind faith in the wisdom of the forefathers?

This is where psychoanalysis could be of some help.

This is where psychoanalysis could be of some help.m