‘THE AMERICAN EXPERIENCE’

By Philip M. Lustre Jr.

In the summer of 1975, I had the rare opportunity to represent the University of the East in the week-long annual student leadership conference in Tagaytay City. Sponsored by the U.S. Embassy in the Manila through the U.S. Information Service (USIS), the conference gathered 50 students from various universities and colleges nationwide to discuss the burning issues of international, regional, and national significance.

Because it was the height of martial law, the organizers, led by then U.S. Embassy Cultural Attache James Hoyt, chose a conference theme, which we considered not controversial, but largely insignificant. Since the U.S. was then celebrating the second centennial of its independence from British colonial rule, the theme was “The American Experience.” It was a sharp departure from earlier conferences, where the topics largely revolved on the Philippine experience.

Incidentally, the conference coincided with the fall of Saigon, where the communist-backed Hanoi government finally won over the American and South Vietnamese forces. We were at the conference when a U.S. Embassy functionary told us the final defeat of the Americans in Vietnam.

We discussed everything American to the point of suffocation during the week-long conference held at the posh Tagaytay Vista Lodge. Almost everything about American politics, philosophy, arts and literature, science and technology, among other topics were laid on the table. A string of Filipino and American experts took turns to speak before us. Ateneo University’s Fr. Vitaliano Gorospe, or Fr. George, a Jesuit, was the conference director.

During those days, campus organizations were banned. Except for some state-sponsored organizations and initiatives like “Love Bank,” of which its purpose was highly suspicious, dictator Ferdinand Marcos did not see any reason for student organizations to exist. I was a returning student activist during those days. My teacher in a political science elective subject was probably impressed by my performance in her subject, prompting her to recommend me to represent UE in the conference.

I myself did not see any raison d’etre for attending the conference; I could not relate to the conference theme. But since it offered a new experience, my attitude was more of openness. Who would know that it could satisfy my inquisitive nature?

As far as I remember, and this is after 41 years, the conference was most outstanding in inculcating two basic things in my young mind:

First, the American experience could be summed up in a continuing battle of two conflicting themes: internationalism and isolationism.

At the one end, American internationalist leaders want to spread the gospel of democracy to the entire world. This explains American presence in many parts of the world. The U.S. wants to show its influence to the point of acting as sort of policeman of the world.

On the other end, the isolationist leaders want to keep the U.S. away from the conflicts of many countries. Stop pontificating, attend first to its troubles before the troubles of the other countries, and strengthen its domestic institutions – these are the frequent admonitions of isolationists.

Second, there is no substitute for effective and straightforward communications. This American value system, in fact, centers on this imperative.

Hence, Americans hardly speak in metaphors, similes, or any other form of communications. It’s being precise to the point of being blunt. It’s being bloody frank. It’s their virtue too.

Towards the end of conference, many students spoke bluntly against the conference theme, saying the discussions were largely irrelevant. Who cares about the Americans? During those days, the issue of Marcos dictatorship was already being raised and questioned, as Marcos himself showed tendencies to prolong his stay in power.

The conference ended uneventfully. Conference organizers however made a great pitch. Those students, who wanted to get postgraduate studies in the U.S. could get in touch with the U.E. Embassy through the office of the Cultural Attache. I made new friends in the conference and we went back to our schools to complete our college education.

In hindsight, which is always 20/20, the conference was an outstanding experience because it has given me a sufficient background to understand the U.S., its people, its culture, and its history and traditions. It has become a great use when I later entered the journalism career.

I have chosen to mention my experience in the wake of current political developments. I am sure that American leaders are having a difficult time deciphering the intentions of the current Philippine political leadership because of what the confusing statements issued by the president, who is being labelled a “serial killer” in in world press.

It is not easy for them to hear a president, who says one thing today but only to backtrack by tomorrow. It’s not effective communications for them.

They do not see any significance for a political leader to keep on talking on a daily basis without understanding the repercussions of his words.

They look down on a leader, who keeps on flip-flopping. In their view, he is more of a flip.