The Pulse: Yes, still the land of opportunity, but ...

This summer, I've been reading past columns I've written for both the Sunday Inquirer and the Daily News. I began as a columnist at the latter in 2001 and for the next 10 years, my work ran every Thursday. In 2007 I began writing separately for the Sunday Inquirer and for four years, I had the unique honor of writing for both newspapers. In 2011, I scaled back to just the Inquirer.

By my count, I wrote a total of 489 columns for the Daily News and this is my 555th column for the Inquirer. In 15 years I've opined on everything from the hunt for Osama bin Laden, to political correctness at the Miss America pageant, to what the color of your Christmas lights says about you. Some stand the test of time - some are a bit embarrassing. And I have a pretty good recollection of most columns I've written - except for one.

Until undertaking this review, I had no memory of writing a "Guest Opinion" for the Daily News 16 years before I became a columnist. But there, in the annals, is an essay that was published on Aug. 9, 1985. I don't remember what motivated me to write. I do know that I was 23 years old and about to start my second year at Penn Law. Ronald Reagan was early into his second term. That week, the top song in the nation was "Shout" by Tears for Fears. The hit movie was Back to the Future. And the big local story that day (written by Bob Warner) was that District Attorney Edward G. Rendell had just opened an inquiry into possible criminal wrongdoing in the assault on the MOVE compound three months prior.

Back on Page 30, my headline was: "America offers opportunity to those who work." The writing, as evidenced in the opening line, was pretty straightforward: "The United States is still the land of opportunity." And the argument I advanced represented my clearheaded thinking at the time.

"What brought a flood of immigrants to this nation at the turn of the century continues to bring them today: the dream of a better life not only for oneself, but also for one's children," I offered.

I then saluted these "bootstrappers" who, I wrote, "should be our role models." And I noted the "economic backbone" supplied by entrepreneurs who "did not fall for the negative doctrines that emanated from a vocal minority in the 1960s," without specifying which negativity I had in mind.

Using a word choice that makes me cringe today, I said:

"Surely, a middle-class man who is well educated and was reared in suburbia is going to have advantages in the job market over an uneducated ghetto dweller who is a member of a minority. There is no reason, however, why the ghetto dwellers' children, or at least their grandchildren, cannot one day compete for the same job."

Yikes. I wrote that.

Beyond a use of semantics that could get you fined today, what does my 54-year-old self think of my 23-year-old perspective? Then I was single, had hair, and a waist that matched my pant length. But things have changed. I've lived more years since writing those words than I had before banging them out on an IBM Selectric.

Here's what hasn't changed: My view that despite the nation's imperfections, we're all better off having been born in the United States than any other country on the planet. My patriotism hasn't wavered even though my awareness of our limitations has grown. Then, I believed that all children, or at least grandchildren, were on an equal playing surface. Today, I'm more jaded. Books like Charles Murray's Coming Apart have impacted my thinking and made me recognize the advantages that come with geography. So too has the research of economists Raj Chetty and Nathaniel Hendren, which underscores the importance of where children are raised on their future well-being.

When I wrote as a guest for the Daily News, I was still tethered to my parents and not fully appreciative of the role their decision to relocate from Pennsylvania coal country to Central Bucks played in my economic well-being. As my mother, the Realtor, might say, "Location, location, location."

I also believed ambition was the only element necessary for success. Luck, to me, was a bonus. I wrote with certainty that the only thing standing in the way of ascension was the lack of a work ethic. Here's how I expressed that:

"The formula for success today remains unchanged. Simply stated, it is hard work and perseverance that get results. Moving up the economic ladder is not easy, but it is easier for one's children, provided the parents have at least attempted to reach the next rung. By settling in America, they have."

Today I don't see desire as an absolute. To be sure, as an adult, I've watched many work hard and become financially successful. But now I'm more aware of those working hard just to remain in place, or worse, falling behind. I suspect that, as I wrote those words back in 1985, the seeds of income inequality were being sewn with technological advances, the start of globalization, the weakening of labor unions, and financial deregulation.

Imperceptive to those factors, I instead drew confidence from watching my parents exceed the socioeconomic achievement of my coal-cracker grandparents and was certain in my ability to continue the climb up the ladder of opportunity. Now, with four children of my own, I worry about their futures, regardless of the education they have been afforded by my wife and me, and their individual abilities.

"These are the times" - to quote Thomas Paine - "that try men's souls." Sometimes I think my beard was grown gray from worry. But make no mistake - the nation is still great. Happy birthday, America!

Michael Smerconish can be heard from 9 a.m. to noon on SiriusXM's POTUS Channel 124 and seen hosting "Smerconish" at 9 a.m. Saturdays on CNN.