Here’s some provocative passages from a 1961 book by John Kouwenhoven, a Walt Whitman scholar and an “American Studies” pioneer who theorized a good deal on architecture and handicrafts, with the wonderful title The Beer Can by the Highway: Essays on What’s American about America. I got to Kouwenhoven through that most-sane of Emerson’s and Whitman’s disciples, the acclaimed novelist and essayist Ralph Ellison. Kouwenhoven seems pretty good not great so far—but he’s certainly off the beaten path of most democratic-faith Whitmanian/Emersonian types. Here’s a few bits from the title essay, which yes, says we shouldn’t despair about the litter we often see on our highways, as it’s a reflection of abundance. Subtle point he’s making there, destined to be misunderstood by most folks, especially those of environmentalist sensibilities. But anyhow, the quotations:

What I am trying to suggest is that we may not be able to get rid of the mess without also getting rid of the abundance.
…some Americans are beginning to feel that it is cruelly wasteful, if not socially dangerous, to educate everybody (as the principle of democracy requires us to do) without determining in advance whether there will be jobs available in which they can use their education. …General Eisenhower…warned against educating more men and women than can earn a living in the field in which they have been educated, lest they “turn upon” the society which aroused expectations that could not be fulfilled.
…But it is not only democracy’s commitment to education which alarms such people. They are troubled too by the way it “encourages people to determine their own goals” and to set their own courses towards them… What is the sense of letting people set goals for themselves which the limitations of a disfrontiered civilization will make it impossible for them to reach? The social waste resulting from this sort of thing…
From this point of view status now appears to be something which society must assure, in order to relieve the tensions of security. …Hence also the increasing emphasis in labor-union contracts—and college contracts with the faculty—upon seniority, tenure, and pensions.
…From this point of view the beer can by the highway glows with a sinister light indeed, since it is a symbol both of mobility and of a far from reverent attitude towards the decorum of a status-oriented society.
…I would argue, on the contrary, that a commitment to democracy—and a certain indifference to waste and untidiness—are prerequisite to abundance.
…By a “commitment to democracy” I mean a commitment to the idea that there are no fixed or determinable limits to the capacities of any individual human being, and that all are entitled, by inalienable right, to equal opportunities to develop their potentialities. Democracy in this sense is an ideal, not a political system, and certainly not an actual state of affairs.
…people who are inventive, ingenious, and other respects mobile are more likely than those who relish or depend upon security of status to recognize potential abundance when they see it.
…Emerson is not in high esteem in these days of “togetherness” and “the organization man.”
…I think that is from men and women who share Emerson’s open-ended conception of man’s potentialities—which is the root and seed of democracy—that we will get that open-ended conception of abundance, that refusal to accept limits to potential wealth or virtue or kindness or talent or love, which will enable us to keep all doors open to our own self-fulfillment while helping others to open doors for themselves.

Well, I reject his way of defining democracy. I’d prefer to try to define “democratic-republic” anyhow. And all this limitless potentiality talk…well, you could see what I said in the book on Chantal Delsol, Lucid Mind, Intrepid Spirit about the dangers of indeterminacy.

But what do you think?