- Hypocrisy, as Francois de la Rochefoucauld said, is the tribute vice pays to virtue. And the pretense of virtue is often better than no virtue at all, even if it means one must work harder to unearth the vice. There is hypocrisy in the outcry over the polarization and violence afflicting U.S. society, as if violence in America is something new, and as if the current levels are comparable to those during previous chapters of American history. The U.S. is polarized, true – but not nearly so much as it has been at other, more dire moments in its history. The country’s current divisions are not primarily about race, religion, gender or any other hot-button cultural issue. These rifts have always been present in the U.S., and the country will never be rid of its original sins. (There’s also a case to be made that they have never been less present than they are today.) Pretending a single man is responsible for these demons is not only intellectually lazy, it is simply incorrect.
The deeper malaise in U.S. society stems from class divisions. Economic policies have exacerbated wealth inequalities and, in turn, created political disillusionment that has transformed traditional U.S. political parties beyond recognition into forces incapable of governing for the good of the nation and content to govern for the affirmation of the mob. The United States endured similar periods of polarization and social crisis during Reconstruction and before the Great Depression and became stronger for them. The main difference now is that the country has never dealt with such a large problem while also carrying such high levels of debt and so much international responsibility.
Bit late to the party but I really like this article, especially its sobering and historic look on what is so often framed as hysteria. Wanted to quote the same part here. Do you believe economic changes that are necessary for a less myopic political system are bound to happen?
LOL you're asking the guy whose motto is "If you have to live in a gilded age, best be a goldsmith". In a former life I designed audiovisual systems and acoustics for large public works projects. That entire fuckin' industry is dead, dawg, because nobody can afford to build anything for the public anymore. Hollywood is taking a shit because they're having to figure out how to compete against guys in Mongolia doing the Cinnamon Challenge on Youtube so it'll go, too. Me? I'm learning how to set pave gemstones and being stoked that Remi Maillat follows me on Instagram for some reason. No, Veen. I don't think the necessary changes will happen. I think we're thoroughly fucked.
I wasn't expecting a resounding 'yes'. I thought the author might be inclined to think that way, based on the last part: Great Britain was an undisputed global superpower in the last quarter of the 18th century and almost squandered its position through a series of expensive missteps. Though the U.S. eschews the trappings of empire, its global power over its rivals is no less significant than Britain’s was a couple hundred years ago. What’s more, its missteps share striking similarities with those of the British at the end of the 18th century. The most likely scenario is that, like the British Empire before it, the United States muddles through and comes out more powerful than before for a long stretch until it enters a secular decline – all the while believing it is truly exceptional, right up to the very end. But on second read I'm not sure if he expects the US to get better (short-term more powerful than before?) or not (long term decline). Personally I tend to eschew fatalism, as it's never very productive. I still believe there are ways out (e.g. Piketty's progressive tax), but I don't think they are anywhere within reach in the current political climate.In the meantime, if history is any indication, the political polarization in the U.S. will get worse before it gets any better, and until the country has addressed its underlying economic problems, demagogues and political parties on all sides will continue to look for the issues that most inflame the passions to distract from the system’s failings.
Jared Dillian has been advocating his clients prepare for socialism because pendulum swings are a way of life and things are pretty rightward at the moment. Claire Wolfe said "America is at that awkward stage where it's too late to work within the system and too early to shoot the bastards" in 1996. I think there are three aspects that argue for American exceptionalism: 1) No historical basis for ethnic strife. Yeah it sucks to be black in the US but blacks are 12% of the population and in nearly all of the country are fully integrated into society. Europe has no blacks. America has been settled by wave after wave of migrants while Europe consistently fights them as invaders and denies them citizenship. I grew up in the heart of 400-year-old ethnic enmity (which is tough to do in a 240-year-old country) and it was basically two groups of poor people giving each other traffic tickets with increased regularity. Ain't nobody got no scores to settle over Cyprus. 2) No dynasties. Wealth in the US tends to be cyclical with few families retaining it for three generations. "Vanderbilt" is still a name but Gloria Vanderbilt makes jeans for old ladies, she doesn't overthrow the government of Panama to make transoceanic shipping cheaper. 3) A generally nomadic population. "Roots" in the US means raising your kids in the house your parents left you. American families will routinely criss-cross thousands of miles for employment, education and other opportunities. These three things bust up most of the tendencies towards localism. They prevent a permanent rentier class from taking hold. But they don't prevent it completely. There's going to be a backlash. I expect it to be ungainly. And I expect it to be a ways off because things are going to get worse before they get better.
What I would really love to see is a journalistic/academic pursuit on the extent of elites' conscious undermining of the lower class. Are they holding weekly meetings on how to exploit the working class via actively shaping media coverage of current events in an effort to amplify divisions along racial, party, or religious (etc.) lines? No, probably not. But is there some established feedback loop regarding media that tends towards doing exactly that, and elites are at least somewhat aware of it? Probably so. I'd love to disentangle ever-more-partisan reporting from truth, and this article was a good step in the right direction. Thanks, 'bl00.
Well sheeeeeyot, boi. But I also wanna see content critical of democrats, although I suspect you'll contend that wealthy elites swing heavily GOP. Not saying I discount that, I imagine the datas support it. Also, I miss phloridaman
It doesn't work like that, though. The "Republicans are for rich people" "Democrats are for poor people" schism dates back to the demise of the Bourbon Democrats. Wilson shifted the Democrats left; Harding shifted the Republicans hard-right. By the time FDR came around the Right was so reactionary that army vets were marching on Washington and Wall Street was contemplating throwing him over for Hitler. This is one of the reasons goobster and I keep harping about the Southern Strategy - the South belonged solidly to the Democrats because they were poor and the Democrats didn't say shit about segregation. Then LBJ said shit about segregation and poor white trash that had no reason whatsoever to vote Republican did so with great enthusiasm so long as they had someone more downtrodden than themselves to make themselves feel better. LBJ Wealthy elites don't swing "heavily" GOP. Any wealthy elite that doesn't toe the GOP party line is a greater or lesser Soros and has been for a hundred years."If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."
