I have been musing lately about the American consensus and I’m looking for opinions. Is there such a thing? Has there ever been such a thing? What is it?
In my view the American consensus, such as it is, is not a static something but an emergent phenomenon, forged from the contrasting, often competing, and sometimes contradictory views of the American people. Four major strains of that opinion have been characterized as Jeffersonian, Hamiltonian, Jacksonian, and Wilsonian and I’ve written about them pretty extensively.
I also think that to some degree the notion of an American consensus has been an illusion fostered by isolation, particularly regional isolation. It’s easier for Vermonters to believe that their views are consensus views when the views of Mississippians are safely kept out of sight. That our opinion-creating agencies are strongly New York and LA-centric has also fostered the illusion.
Further, I think that the degree of consensus among us waxes and wanes over time. At the present I think it is extraordinarily weak, perhaps weaker than it’s been for 150 years.
But I am admittedly out of touch and at some level proudly so. What’s really going on? Is there an American consensus? What is it?
I’m genuinely concerned. I think that consensus is a requirement for republican government.
A while back, I read an article about how America is a “state-nation” not a “nation-state”, in that we’ve got a shared national identity only because we’re in the same country, rather than the more usual 20th century pattern of a country being organized around a pre-existing shared national identity based on shared culture. They put it something along the lines of “America is based on the shared myth that a Maine Yankee has more in common with a Texan than with a Nova Scotian.”
I agree with your analysis. I’d add another dimension: time. Consensus seems clear when we’re looking back at earlier times. December 7th, 1941, we had consensus about US foreign policy. But on December 6th we did not. There were still a substantial number of Americans who sympathized with Germany, and a significant number who were unapologetically isolationist.
When we blur focus on history we see a long string of consensus, as though we all thought the Revolution was a good idea, as though we were all singing about the star spangled banner, as though we all really agreed that segregation was wrong.
Distance in time and space is great for consensus — another way of saying that ignorance is bliss.
But I think something really revolutionary and probably good is happening and it’s mostly a younger generation thing. I think they’re creating a parallel world in the digital space where the degree of consensus is impressive. There’s a sort of “soft” libertarianism emerging with kids.
It’s not that they spend their time debating politics or philosophy (they don’t) but something about the very nature of their interconnectedness seems to subtly affect core beliefs, sometimes with startling speed. Witness the suddenness with which the entire country (under the age of 40 or so) decided on gay marriage. Day One they’re calling each other faggots. Day Two they’re wondering how anyone could deny gays equality. I’ve never seen anything that big change that fast without the benefit of Japanese bombs.
The emerging youth consensus is libertarian on social issues. It’s economically parsimonious — the days of “look at my 200 sneakers” is over. It’s very skeptical of government, but maybe even more skeptical of business — especially anything that looks manipulative. It’s strangely kind and considerate. (The stories about cyber-bullying miss the larger picture which is an emerging online decency and respect.)
I wouldn’t argue that it’s reached the point of being an ideology or philosophy, that’s not it. And I can’t cite much in the way of proof, just this sense that “we” are all over here, and “they” are all over there, and “we” look increasingly ridiculous.
There is no national consensus. Nor is there a social contract any more. We see it in matters big and small. Whenever I’m around groups of unemployed professionals these days, I meet lots of people who feel like they’ve been lied to about everything. A very common refrain is, “We did everything right! We did everything we were supposed to do! Why are we getting screwed?” At that point one only has to mention that the banks and the crooks that run them got bailed out to the tune of trillions of dollars, and then watch the heads explode! It’s like some new Scanners sequel. We now know that both parties work primarily for the honchoes of the finance industry, and the rest of us can fuck off and die.
There are reasons these people don’t riot. The most important one is that’s just not what they do. They’re all middle-aged or older. They’re educated – they know rioting isn’t going to get them anywhere. Most of them are WASPs, or at least somewhat WASPy, and WASPs just don’t riot.
But the anger is there, and it’s building – those tea partiers just don’t even grasp how much anger there is in the new underclass. More and more people understand that there is no social contract, and that means no consensus. At some point, something’s going to give….
A very common refrain is, “We did everything right! We did everything we were supposed to do! Why are we getting screwed?†At that point one only has to mention that the banks and the crooks that run them got bailed out to the tune of trillions of dollars, and then watch the heads explode! It’s like some new Scanners sequel.
LOL.
Seriously, I think that is the national consensus – that we all have been buggered beyond belief. The Democrats blame the Republicans and the Republicans blame the Democrats, but really it’s just the bankster-politicians, with their “grassroots” cheering sections, vs the rest of us.
Maxwell, the Tea Partiers (I hate to say it) mostly think the problem with unemployment is that people are lazy freeloaders. More traditional Republicans think that is largely correct, but want to work within the system. A significant part of the electorate are Democrats – and they seem to think all the problems are because of George W. Bush, and that all of these problems can be solved by electing Democrats. Then there are the independents and self-styled moderates who can best be characterized as the Rodney King Party – they don’t understand why everyone can’t just get together and play nice. There are smaller groups of ‘progressives’ (communism-lite), libertarians (anarchism-lite), and other assorted whatnot that don’t really have any pull.
And then there are the scumbag politicians and their masters in the FIRE industries. And these guys benefit from all of the other guys fighting with each other all the time. For example, you might get a Democrat to agree that the banks are screwing everyone, but no way will you convince them that Obama is fucking the electorate for the benefit of the bankers. They just simply will refuse to acknowledge it. And so on for other groups.
No social contract, no consensus, no chance of righting the ship.
The only realistic path to concensus is embracing American exceptionalism, which is not as its been lampooned as not following the rules of other nations or about high self-regard, its about the mystic chords of memory, the shared history, and the enshrinement of a number of key founding documents and important speeches as the foundation of America’s civic religion.
Consensus doesn’t require everyone agreeing on everything, or even most things. It requires everyone agreeing on something.
“A new Rasmussen poll shows that just 17 per cent of Americans believe that the U.S. government has the consent of the governed, an all time low” (source)
There is no consensus on what must be done, and for the most part I don’t think there needs to be. I know you & Michael don’t exactly see eye to eye, but he’s right that for the most part consensus is invented when people look to the past.
But there does need to be a consensus about how we will govern ourselves or be governed. And I think a new consensus about that is possible, however improbable it may seem right now.
And here is just the best story about how the country really works now:
Federal Asset Seizures Rise, Netting Innocent With Guilty
Brilliant stuff!
So say that someone sells someone else a doobie on your property – the government will be able to seize your property, even if you had nothing to do with the crime.
Of course, the government is doing all this for our own good. But note that they’re only returning about a tenth of what they seize back to crime victims.
More fun:
And then there’s the profit motive, but go ahead and read it for yourselves.
The only realistic path to concensus is embracing American exceptionalism, which is not as its been lampooned as not following the rules of other nations or about high self-regard, its about the mystic chords of memory, the shared history, and the enshrinement of a number of key founding documents and important speeches as the foundation of America’s civic religion.
There’s truth in this – but how are you going to pluck that chord when the education system and the mass culture has been eroding that memory for decades now?
But there does need to be a consensus about how we will govern ourselves or be governed. And I think a new consensus about that is possible, however improbable it may seem right now.
That won’t be possible until after the abattoir. It’s just a question now of who goes in it. I think it’s about a 40% chance that it’s all the rest of us, for the benefit of the few at the top. (That’s certainly the current trend.) And about 5% that the elites end up in the cow food. The other 55% is that we all go in together.
To all on the thread. You can pick your favorite boogyman. But go beyond trite stuff like “banksters.”
At the root, its always government power. They enable “banksters” or “Big Corporate” or “Big Labor” blah blah, blah. And why people gripe about this or that entity………and then look to government as the solution just makes me laugh, or cry.
WTFU, people. When you vote for a bigger government, you vote for a bigger bruise on your forehead, more bewilderment, a larger ball and chain on your leg, and a lighter wallet.
@Drew
Horseshit. At the root, it’s always large concentrations of wealth. Show me one instance in all of western history when those with great wealth did not seek to and succeed in manipulating the levers of power to increase their advantage — whatever those levers of power may be under whatever form of government.
You can pick your favorite boogyman. But go beyond trite stuff like “banksters.â€
Ever here of regulatory capture, Dipshit? This is the ultimate example of that, with the financiers capturing the whole damn ball of wax. What did the government do with all that power? It gave the financial institutions somewhere between five and six trillion dollars that we know about. The skim off of that is going to be at least a trillion and a half. Money talks, and they got BY FAR the biggest pile of cash anyone ever got for failing.