It has been six months since my last post, “American Empire
(?): The Way Forward.” I imposed a
kind of self-banishment from blogging to finalize my PhD dissertation and
complete my viva voce. Upon emerging from
my academic cave a couple of weeks ago, I was greeted by the realization that
little has changed. I now know how
Punxsutawney Phil must feel
every February 2nd when the same old drunk Penn-men get dressed up
to greet him and violate what for this subterranean mammal must be a blissful
slumber including hopeful dreams that something new awaits him on the morning
of next winter’s wake up call.
Similarly, the same knucklehead politicians and pundits seem to be with me after my
academic reclusion, although fewer of the more colorful and stupefying ones
like Perry, Bachmann, Santorum, and Gingrich are with us in their aspiring
form. I must admit that my
masochistic evil twin misses them a great deal.[1] However, notwithstanding the constancy
of our national leadership deficit some things do feel different, which I
interpret (using the much maligned term) as hopeful.
As
I identified in December, the US does appear to be experiencing a decoupling
from the woes of the world, especially that emanate in Europe. While not entirely decoupled, our
markets are certainly benefiting as a relatively safe place to store wealth,
especially for monied folks in the southern Latin clines of the euro who want
to avoid catastrophic losses with a return of the drachma or the peseta. Among other things, they are buying up
big-city US real estate; and it is important to note that US Treasuries,
slammed by S&P last July, are doing quite well, thank you. The reality is that while we have
gained a great deal of weight that should compromise our prospects as the most
attractive (one-night) romantic target at closing time at the local bar, demand
for all things American remains at unprecedented levels. However, there is a greater (hopeful)
decoupling development, which is more local and more personal that appears to
be taking hold: people seem to be ignoring bad news and have begun to find ways
to get on with their lives. In the
absence of national leadership – particularly in Congress – individuals are
leading for themselves. It is as
if they have declared the current crisis moot.
This
condition amounts to another ‘work-around’ to be added to the list of three
others in my last post; this one is, in effect, a psychological work-around
where we each – one-by-one – reclaim our personal sovereignty. People are beginning to turn the noise
off and listen to their own music.
They are making tough choices (in many cases because there is no other
choice) and moving on. They are
forging new pathways and new identities to escape the banality of the current
crisis to produce what for them is transcendence toward a more manageable
future. This development is not
based in apathy, or denial, or anger; it is based in reality and, I believe, is
for the most part a very good thing.
While reclaiming sovereignty can be interpreted as a dangerous trend
toward isolation and disunion, in the current crisis it may be just what our
leaders need to sober up and start serving their constituents again. Can you imagine the tectonic shift that
will occur when our leaders realize that no one cares what they have to
say anymore? Who is elected this November,
or in the coming two or three election cycles, may become irrelevant.
Nearly
two centuries ago Alexis de Tocqueville observed of Americans that they had a
particular sense of sovereignty that began with the individual and eventually
“emerged from the towns and took possession of the government.”[2] Perhaps reclaiming our personal
sovereignty is a first step, however painful, to reclaiming America’s seat at
the table of greatness.
[1] Although I read this morning that Bachmann has had
her staff reserve precious lawn space outside Congress to herald the expected
battering of Obamacare by the Supreme Court, no doubt with her trademark
bimbonic stare. My twin awaits
re-satiation.
[2] Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America (New York: Literary Classics of the United States,
2004), p. 63.
>>people seem to be ignoring bad news and have begun to find ways to get on with their lives.<< What’s your evidence for this? The markets, maybe? But is that reflective of the nation's psyche or just the 1%-ers?
ReplyDelete>>In the absence of national leadership – particularly in Congress – individuals are leading for themselves.<< Two comments:
I don't think Congress is charged with national leadership; it's charged with representation. The President is charged with leadership. Of the country, not of his party. But it's been a long time since we've had a President who's been able to transcend toxic polarization and lead more than the very small majority of voters who elected him.
I continue to believe that we, as a people, are practically un-leadable and almost ungovernable. It's individual sovereignty run amok. Maybe two centuries ago there was opportunity for a sense of national sovereignty to emerge out of urbanization, but I have a hard time seeing the impetus for it in our future.
Mac:
ReplyDeleteGreat questions and comments. Thank you.
Evidence of psychological capitulation is mostly anecdotal at this point, although it is showing up in the way people report on their personal outlook (that is seemingly contradicted by data and events). For example, as argued in the Harvard Business Review Blog under the title "The Sky is Falling but the Ceiling is Fine" by Paul Michelman, "in stark contrast to the macro-level pessimism, executives are remaining optimistic about their own companies’ prospects, with just 15% saying customer demand for their companies’ products and services will decrease, and more than half expecting profits to increase in the next six months." This may be due to local positivity bias, which was summarized best by Andrew Gelman in his analysis of recent Gallup data that showed that "Americans become progressively less positive about economic conditions the farther away from home they look. Forty-nine percent rate economic conditions in their local area as excellent or good, but that drops to 25% when rating the U.S. economy, and to 13% when assessing the world as a whole. In other words, its okay where I am, but not where I am not.
The more obvious case for the recent pursuit of personal sovereignty is, of course, in the political arena. The Tea Party is virtually founded on this principle, and while you suggest (and I agree) this is evidence of an un-leadable and ungovernable populace, another interpretation is that people will solve their own problems when they realize no one else will, especially if they have a relatively positive outlook, however apparently unfounded in reality.
As for your comment on the charge of Congress to be our representatives: what a quaint notion! This Congress sees their role - at least the Republican leadership - as usurping the power of the Executive; to, in effect, preempt his power needed to lead. They make it very clear on a daily basis that they would like to lead the country in a very different direction. While their leadership is largely negative (in the sense they are leading with a declaration of NO!), they certainly see themselves as leaders more than representatives. Obama certainly is due criticism too, but as I look at the presidents I have studied and the Congress they had to deal with, the only other (contemporary) situation that compares for me is Clinton v. the Gingrich House, which took place during the easiest decade to govern probably in the history of America, meaning that the leadership gridlock didn't matter. In fact, I think you and I may have had a conversation lauding the gridlock at the time because it kept government out of our (sovereign) hair. In Obama's case, he took on a disaster at home and abroad. (Clinton's biggest crisis was self-inflicted, aka the Lewinsky affair.)
I will hold on to my optimism for now, by whatever slim margin of hope I can muster.