David Brooks’s most recent New York Times column is a bit rambling but let me summarize it for you:
- Our system was set up as a liberal democracy.
- Majoritarianism erodes liberal democracy.
- Humanity’s normal state is one of violence, authoritarianism, and oligarchy.
- The decline or relative decline of the U. S. is returning humanity to its normal state.
- The “Gramscian long march” through our institutions is undermining us.
I’m not sure that Mr. Brooks himself recognizes that’s what he’s saying. Here’s his conclusion:
The real problem is in the seedbeds of democracy, the institutions that are supposed to mold a citizenry and make us qualified to practice democracy. To restore those seedbeds, we first have to relearn the wisdom of the founders: We are not as virtuous as we think we are. Americans are no better than anyone else. Democracy is not natural; it is an artificial accomplishment that takes enormous work.
Then we need to fortify the institutions that are supposed to teach the democratic skills: how to weigh evidence and commit to truth; how to correct for your own partisan blinders and learn to doubt your own opinions; how to respect people you disagree with; how to avoid catastrophism, conspiracy and apocalyptic thinking; how to avoid supporting demagogues; how to craft complex compromises.
Democrats are not born, they are made. If the 21st century is to get brighter as it goes along, we have to get a lot better at making them. We don’t only have to worry about the people tearing down democracy. We have to worry about who is building it up.
Do you see what I mean? What are “the institutions that are supposed to mold a citizenry, etc.”? I don’t think that we as a country at this point let alone he and I agree on that. I would list those institutions as (in descending order of importance):
- the absolute nuclear family
- churches and religious organizations
- fraternal organizations
- schools
- the press
- state and local governments
- the federal government
Is it actually possible to “restore” the absolute nuclear family without discounting or at least offending the activists of “homosexuality and transgenderism”, something that earlier in the column he associates with autocracy. For schools and the press to play the role he envisions wouldn’t they need to be dedicated to building up liberal democracy rather than tearing it down? The questions are almost endless.
Does he imagine alternative institutions rising in the place of those I’ve listed? It took the better part of a millennium or, in some cases, millennia to build the institutions I’ve listed. You can’t just go online and get FedEx to deliver new ones.
“Is it actually possible to “restore†the absolute nuclear family without discounting or at least offending the activists of “homosexuality and transgenderism—
That is a tiny percentage of the population. The divorce rate is the issue. Not sure that a stable gay marriage is any worse or better than a stable hetero marriage. Regardless, the high divorce rate and the large number of single parents is where the focus should be. The fact that gay people exist doesnt make people get divorced.
We have never before, I think, had such strong media forces that are able to easily and cheaply work to tear things apart. We are way beyond spinning now. Outright lies are accepted as fact due to these media. There is no way to counteract this that I can see.
Still, I think most of this is overblown. In day to day life things arent actually all that much different.
Steve
Gallup’s latest poll found 7.1% of adults identifying as LGBT and 20% of Gen Z adults. Not so tiny a percentage anymore.
No argument about the divorce rate. I’ve been married to the same woman for 40 years (I married late). My siblings have all had the same spouses even longer. It’s an attitude.
Did you look at the survey? Is it more believable that Gen Z went from 10% to 20% in 4 years (2017-2021) or is there some effect not captured in the survey? Or caused by the survey?
Steve
According to the report the difference is that a lot more Gen Z women are now identifying as bisexual.
Over the course of 4 years? About 1/3 of those women are LGBTQ? Think it more likely that they identify with them than as them.
Steve
I think it more likely that they’re experimenting and based on that deciding they are bisexual.
” Regardless, the high divorce rate and the large number of single parents is where the focus should be.”
Absolutely.
Next week on “Are You Actually Gay?” Ladies, its actually OK to covet your neighbor’s wife…………..
OT- Nice Ivermectin study. What is different is that they admitted everyone. That way they made sure everyone got their ivermectin and accurately tracked outcomes. Large enough to be meaningful and has controls. Another in a series of controlled, large studies showing no effect.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2789362
Steve
BTW –
I put media, because of its power, reach and ability to mold opinion, higher on Dave’s list. Here’s two rational synopses/observations on l’affair Russia and HRC. Compare and contrast to media coverage.
https://jonathanturley.org/2022/02/15/media-vapors-how-special-counsel-john-durham-has-triggered-a-media-meltdown/
https://citizenfreepress.com/breaking/what-did-hillary-know-and-when-did-she-know-it/
A question (through I actually agree with the post).
While the absolute nuclear has been the societal ideal for about a millennia in Western Europe (and its descendent cultures) — were rates of single-parenthood, mixed families, broken families significantly less in the pre-modern medicine era (pre-1850) then in the current day.
Today, broken families is by “choice”; but historically, the average life expectancy was between 30 and 40. That implies a significantly number of children would have been raised with a single-parent, or a remarried parent, or with relatives…. which we would call today a broken home.
Maybe I have something wrong with the data?
I may have phased it incorrectly. Widowed families aren’t a broken home. But I suspect it would have many of the same challenges.
Well, a couple of observations. First, the absolute nuclear family is actually pretty rare outside the British Isles, Britain’s colonies, and the Netherlands. This map of Europe illustrates the distribution:
So, for example, in my ancestral Switzerland a version of the stem family dominated (which my great-grandfather attempted to continue in the United States).
Returning to my family history in my family there has only been one divorce in recorded history (my maternal great-grandparents, the Schneiders). There have been a number of deaths of parents, however. My father’s mother’s father’s father (Wagner) died early as did my mother’s father’s father(Blanchard), my mother’s mother’s father’s father (Schneider), and my mother’s mother’s mother’s mother (Flanagan). Most surviving spouses remarried but that history did contribute strongly to my mother’s family’s poverty.
There is a story from the Flanagan side that when her half-siblings heard my great-grandmother referred to as their “stepsister” they angrily retorted that she was their sister.; That doesn’t sound like a broken family.
I think I would say “normative” rather than “ideal”.