I’d be interested in hearing your reactions, other than ad hominem reactions, to David Frum’s Atlantic piece in which he finds considerable resonance between two seemingly different books, Mark Lilla’s The Once and Future Liberal and Henry Olsen’s The Working Class Republican:
What Lilla and Henry Olsen, the author of The Working Class Republican, both see and recoil from is the weakening of the appeal of American nationhood—and the strengthening of subgroups: identity groups on the left; plutocratic possessing classes on the right. Instead of the broad messages of Roosevelt and Reagan, they hear the narrow claims of victim-group grievance and purist ideology.
The article does have one good turn of phrase:
Politics must be affirmative. Opposition—whether to “big government†or “white supremacyâ€â€”is a mood, not a program.
In my opinion both political parties have entered culs de sac from which there are no obvious exits and which lead inevitably to violence and misery.
“In my opinion both political parties have entered culs de sac from which there are no obvious exits and which lead inevitably to violence and misery.”
That’s an excellent and, IMO, accurate description.
To some extent I think these problems are recurrent. America’s political system is very divided and uniquely so, with dual-sovereignty federalism, strong separation of powers among three independent branches and a bicameral federal legislature. Together these all necessitate broad agreement to make change.
I think political parties were a logical response to the needs of such strong consensus because it creates the organization to operate and coordinate politics at different levels.
Identity politics, which is at least as old as Jacksonian democracy, is also a response to the needs of broad consensus. Being the party of the Irish, or the party of the Protestant, or the immigrant or the working class is a useful shorthand to earn the vote of someone who has to choose who will represent him (or her). From the Founders view this is not the way to formulate the best policy for the country, but it can be a pretty rational approach for the voter who doesn’t get actual policy choices on the ballot. It can also be a pretty poisonous drug that sows divisions.
I disagree on your culs de sac notion.
1. Consider that China, India, and some number of African states (or a federation of African states) are likely to reach for world dominance this century, with uncertain degrees of success.
2. Consider that various eugenic and genetic engineering tools will make it possible to produce children of an ever more sturdy, healthy, and intelligent nature — in effect. a natural ruling class.
3. Maybe we’ll get global warming as the liberals predict, or a return of the ice ages as conservatives think likely. Or maybe we’ll suffer from some variety of pollution or ecological disturbance of some other sort, too widespread to be controlled by actions of any one nation. Maybe we’ll have the pleasure of more hurricanes.
4. Space colonization is a possibility. Exploitation of the ocean depths has hardly begun. Maybe Americans can opt out, but it’s hard to see how they can persuade other nations to do so.
5, Automation and technological unemployment may become major issues. Providing incomes — and health care! — for a substantial number of able bodied but permanently idle “workers” might be controversial.
These strike me as future political “issues”, or as topics which might give rise to such issues. It doesn’t strike me that either Republicans or Democrats are prepared to deal with such issues. The odds are our current political parties will need to evolve considerably this century, that communication with citizens is going to have improve, and that mechanisms for steering citizen behavior must be devised.
Which sounds pretty durned totalitarian, doesn’t it? Other hand, right now we get an uncontrolled hurricane wiping out a major city, we get forecasts of another large hurricane striking another state, and people worrying about this tune into Rush Limbaugh, and hear that this talk of hurricanes and bad weather is just liberal nonsense, aimed at the far left’s takeover of the country. That’s government in the 21st Century, so far. Think it’ll work up to 2099 or so?
@mike shupp
The Earth is in a warming trend, but it does experience cooling periods. This is due to the ending of the last ice age, and technically, the Earth is still in an ice age. It will end when all the glaciers have receded to their pre-ice age size, but it is unlikely that everything will be reset to the pre-ice age state. This warming will continue until the next ice age begins, or it could plateau for an interim period.
Much like sacrificing virgins to ensure a less harsh winter, catching cow farts will do nothing to affect the warming phase of the ice age cycle. Attempting to change the Earth’s orbital characteristics by getting all the Chinese to jump at the same time will not stop the warming.
The only solution is divine intervention, but that assumes that the divine being wants change.
Hurricanes run in cycles. The prediction by top climate scientist Al Gore failed because the cycle was entering a lull period. I believe that there is an 11 year cycle, but there are also longer cycles.
If humans want to control the local climate, they should stop using so much concrete, asphalt, and steel. These are heatsinks, and the heat they release at night alters the daily warming and cooling cycle.