Like Wendell Berry, Clay Jenkinson, Lee Drutman, Beau Breslin, and others say, I think our problems are foundational. There are systemic and structural issues that, until we address them, will defeat or blunt our ability to fulfill our shared Constitutional responsibility to form a more perfect Union. An expanded version of why I think t…
Like Wendell Berry, Clay Jenkinson, Lee Drutman, Beau Breslin, and others say, I think our problems are foundational. There are systemic and structural issues that, until we address them, will defeat or blunt our ability to fulfill our shared Constitutional responsibility to form a more perfect Union. An expanded version of why I think that can be found here (https://tinyurl.com/2ee3b5sp), for anyone interested, but since JVL asked for responses to this post, I wanted to provide some feedback.
I get your point JVL – for whatever reason – American optimism; our obsession with progress and growth; our hubris; our complacency; our lack of imagination (despite all the warnings the Founders and others have provided us); our reliance on norms and unwritten rules to undergird so much of what was necessary for the effective functioning of our government in accordance with what we thought were shared principles; our willingness to consume and fall for fearmongering and alarmist messages of division that make whichever “side” we are on look like heroes, etc. – we are not a nation that chooses to bask in reflective consideration. So, unfortunately, I think if you are right, JVL, if Trumpism fizzles out, then it will only be replaced by some other narrative about an “others” or “others,” some dragon that we the righteous must slay, a message that will be amplified and echoed by all sorts of political, media, and social media voices anxious for us to cede money and power to them.
The question is whether we can ever get past having a threat to unify around, and whether that next threat will be something external or a new set of alignments that cause us to see one another as threats. I would prefer neither, I would love to live in a nation where we were just unified without the need for a threat, as focusing on threats instead of aspirations is corrosive.
I will say there are a few exceptions. While I wouldn’t call it a moment of national reflection, in the wake of the Civil War, there was an attempt, in Reconstruction, to honor the inflection point of the Civil War and make the United States own up to the promise of its Founding. When push came to shove, though, we retrenched, and much of what we have seen since then, including Trumpism, are reactions to the 14th Amendment, either in trying to fulfill it, as with the Civil Rights movement, or trying to undercut it, as with the Supreme Court’s 14th Amendment Section 3 (A14S3) decision.#
Another exception is following World War II. I will disagree with you to a point, JVL, in that I could argue the relative significance of the First World War vs. the Second from either side, but the only reason I can do that effectively is that I see them all as a piece – that the fin de siècle of a European dominated world arc that had its origins in the collapse of the Roman Empire and started to hit its stride in the Renaissance (and was thus centuries old) was not going to be resolved in a mere four-year struggle that began with 19th-century tactics and weapons, but had to play out over decades as the competing power centers and ideologies that would replace that regime were given the time to reassess, innovate, lock, load, and fire for the real contest over what would replace that world order. I realize there is nothing original about that view, as it is pretty common, I’m just pointing it out because I think it is helpful to see them in the larger context.
Having been a naval officer in the final years of the Cold War and throughout much of the GWOT, I saw the development of the National Security State in the wake of World War II, for all its many flaws, as a well-thought-out change because it included the development of a world order meant to inculcate the best and most aspirational aspects of our system on a global level while continuing and expanding on the strong alliances and military strengths honed in the forge of World War II, primarily in an attempt to forestall another Pearl Harbor (especially a nuclear Pearl Harbor) by both attempting to reduce the economic and political motivations that lead nations to consider war, while also demonstrating a military force, and the willingness to use it, that would deter others from war, especially war on us. Despite all the failings of that – and there have been many, terrible failings – I believe, as I think Sarah Longwell does, that the world order we built is a net positive for the world, and is worth preserving and perpetuating.
I think that especially when I consider what the alternative may have been or still could be should we cede ground in this world and betray our allies and our commitments. “The Man in the High Castle,” while fictional, is an effective reminder of what a world based on fascist, communist, imperialist, or other systems would have wrought in the world.
To further make that case, I recommend the book “Factfulness,” by Anna Rosling Rönnlund, Hans Rosling, and Ola Rosling, but I think the origins of the story about how much the world has improved since the beginning of the American Century must also include the Marshall Plan and reconstruction of Europe, as well as the development of Japan and South Korea into strong, prosperous, democratic nations as feathers in our cap.
Not to take anything away from the people of Europe, South Korea, or Japan, and not to say there were not awful moments along the way, and also not to say that our actions were not entirely altruistic (as we may have chosen to act differently in the world if we had not felt so threatened by the Soviet Union and international communism), but there is much goodness in our model, and to see it adapted throughout much of the world, but especially in the places that were crushed (and except South Korea, largely crushed by us) during World War II is one of the great stories in World History. Unlike Rome with Carthage, we did not sow the fields of defeated nations with salt, we showed those nations a better way and turned thoroughly defeated enemies into some of our strongest and most reliable allies – and not just strong in terms of their support for us – but vibrant, politically, economically, and militarily strong allies.
I agree with you – I think we squandered the peace dividend, believing we and our system had won and that we were at “The End of History” described by Francis Fukuyama because when you are the dominant economic, military, political, and cultural force the world has ever seen, why wouldn’t you think that. It is easy to see now, though, how those disenfranchised from the success, globally and domestically would turn back to a time when the world was, to them, a better place, and how the “The Roots of Muslim Rage,” as described by Bernard Lewis in his 1990 Atlantic article, could be applied to the populist and reactionary movements we have seen throughout the world and which now constitute a significant portion of our Republic’s electorate.
While I realize the election of Vice President Harris would not have resulted in a national conversation about the need for amendments and changes to the Constitution needed to break us out of what Lee Drutman calls this “Two-Party Doom Loop,” but I was hopeful it would at least provide the breathing room in which that conversation was at least possible. I guess there is a chance, as JVL, Sarah, and others have discussed, that this Trump administration will be so bad that when people see it enough will come to their senses and we will turn a page. I am less sanguine, as it is clear that a significant number of my fellow citizens are somewhere along a scale of “I believe everything I am told by Trump and his aligned media outlets” and “I don’t care about the truth of what he says, as long as the Democrats are beaten.” The Trump (or, more likely, Vance) administration will have no compunction about lying, and when things go bad, they will have little compunction about expanding their circle of scapegoats (and taking action against them) to explain their failings.
I’m optimistic, that our cause is right and just, and that counts for a lot, but I believe that eventually, truth will win, that the internal contradictions of the mess the Republicans have created for themselves will find some limit, and that the infighting that will occur to either replace Trump while he is still in office or to succeed him will turn many of their faithful off or will fracture the movement. I’m optimistic but also concerned, as I think many of us are, so I will leave it at that.
# I agree with you, JVL, the language and intent of section 3 of the 14th amendment could not be clearer. Few were tried for being Confederates, so the provision was not written with some criminal definition of insurrection in mind – and the provision has a remedy – Congress can overturn a state’s decision – so a national body can weigh in on a question concerning qualification for a national election – but the Election clause and the 10th Amendment tell me a State is fully within its rights to use A14S3 to disqualify a candidate for office.
*These comments reflect my personal views and do not represent the views of the United States Navy or the United States Government.
Like Wendell Berry, Clay Jenkinson, Lee Drutman, Beau Breslin, and others say, I think our problems are foundational. There are systemic and structural issues that, until we address them, will defeat or blunt our ability to fulfill our shared Constitutional responsibility to form a more perfect Union. An expanded version of why I think that can be found here (https://tinyurl.com/2ee3b5sp), for anyone interested, but since JVL asked for responses to this post, I wanted to provide some feedback.
I get your point JVL – for whatever reason – American optimism; our obsession with progress and growth; our hubris; our complacency; our lack of imagination (despite all the warnings the Founders and others have provided us); our reliance on norms and unwritten rules to undergird so much of what was necessary for the effective functioning of our government in accordance with what we thought were shared principles; our willingness to consume and fall for fearmongering and alarmist messages of division that make whichever “side” we are on look like heroes, etc. – we are not a nation that chooses to bask in reflective consideration. So, unfortunately, I think if you are right, JVL, if Trumpism fizzles out, then it will only be replaced by some other narrative about an “others” or “others,” some dragon that we the righteous must slay, a message that will be amplified and echoed by all sorts of political, media, and social media voices anxious for us to cede money and power to them.
The question is whether we can ever get past having a threat to unify around, and whether that next threat will be something external or a new set of alignments that cause us to see one another as threats. I would prefer neither, I would love to live in a nation where we were just unified without the need for a threat, as focusing on threats instead of aspirations is corrosive.
I will say there are a few exceptions. While I wouldn’t call it a moment of national reflection, in the wake of the Civil War, there was an attempt, in Reconstruction, to honor the inflection point of the Civil War and make the United States own up to the promise of its Founding. When push came to shove, though, we retrenched, and much of what we have seen since then, including Trumpism, are reactions to the 14th Amendment, either in trying to fulfill it, as with the Civil Rights movement, or trying to undercut it, as with the Supreme Court’s 14th Amendment Section 3 (A14S3) decision.#
Another exception is following World War II. I will disagree with you to a point, JVL, in that I could argue the relative significance of the First World War vs. the Second from either side, but the only reason I can do that effectively is that I see them all as a piece – that the fin de siècle of a European dominated world arc that had its origins in the collapse of the Roman Empire and started to hit its stride in the Renaissance (and was thus centuries old) was not going to be resolved in a mere four-year struggle that began with 19th-century tactics and weapons, but had to play out over decades as the competing power centers and ideologies that would replace that regime were given the time to reassess, innovate, lock, load, and fire for the real contest over what would replace that world order. I realize there is nothing original about that view, as it is pretty common, I’m just pointing it out because I think it is helpful to see them in the larger context.
Having been a naval officer in the final years of the Cold War and throughout much of the GWOT, I saw the development of the National Security State in the wake of World War II, for all its many flaws, as a well-thought-out change because it included the development of a world order meant to inculcate the best and most aspirational aspects of our system on a global level while continuing and expanding on the strong alliances and military strengths honed in the forge of World War II, primarily in an attempt to forestall another Pearl Harbor (especially a nuclear Pearl Harbor) by both attempting to reduce the economic and political motivations that lead nations to consider war, while also demonstrating a military force, and the willingness to use it, that would deter others from war, especially war on us. Despite all the failings of that – and there have been many, terrible failings – I believe, as I think Sarah Longwell does, that the world order we built is a net positive for the world, and is worth preserving and perpetuating.
I think that especially when I consider what the alternative may have been or still could be should we cede ground in this world and betray our allies and our commitments. “The Man in the High Castle,” while fictional, is an effective reminder of what a world based on fascist, communist, imperialist, or other systems would have wrought in the world.
To further make that case, I recommend the book “Factfulness,” by Anna Rosling Rönnlund, Hans Rosling, and Ola Rosling, but I think the origins of the story about how much the world has improved since the beginning of the American Century must also include the Marshall Plan and reconstruction of Europe, as well as the development of Japan and South Korea into strong, prosperous, democratic nations as feathers in our cap.
Not to take anything away from the people of Europe, South Korea, or Japan, and not to say there were not awful moments along the way, and also not to say that our actions were not entirely altruistic (as we may have chosen to act differently in the world if we had not felt so threatened by the Soviet Union and international communism), but there is much goodness in our model, and to see it adapted throughout much of the world, but especially in the places that were crushed (and except South Korea, largely crushed by us) during World War II is one of the great stories in World History. Unlike Rome with Carthage, we did not sow the fields of defeated nations with salt, we showed those nations a better way and turned thoroughly defeated enemies into some of our strongest and most reliable allies – and not just strong in terms of their support for us – but vibrant, politically, economically, and militarily strong allies.
I agree with you – I think we squandered the peace dividend, believing we and our system had won and that we were at “The End of History” described by Francis Fukuyama because when you are the dominant economic, military, political, and cultural force the world has ever seen, why wouldn’t you think that. It is easy to see now, though, how those disenfranchised from the success, globally and domestically would turn back to a time when the world was, to them, a better place, and how the “The Roots of Muslim Rage,” as described by Bernard Lewis in his 1990 Atlantic article, could be applied to the populist and reactionary movements we have seen throughout the world and which now constitute a significant portion of our Republic’s electorate.
While I realize the election of Vice President Harris would not have resulted in a national conversation about the need for amendments and changes to the Constitution needed to break us out of what Lee Drutman calls this “Two-Party Doom Loop,” but I was hopeful it would at least provide the breathing room in which that conversation was at least possible. I guess there is a chance, as JVL, Sarah, and others have discussed, that this Trump administration will be so bad that when people see it enough will come to their senses and we will turn a page. I am less sanguine, as it is clear that a significant number of my fellow citizens are somewhere along a scale of “I believe everything I am told by Trump and his aligned media outlets” and “I don’t care about the truth of what he says, as long as the Democrats are beaten.” The Trump (or, more likely, Vance) administration will have no compunction about lying, and when things go bad, they will have little compunction about expanding their circle of scapegoats (and taking action against them) to explain their failings.
I’m optimistic, that our cause is right and just, and that counts for a lot, but I believe that eventually, truth will win, that the internal contradictions of the mess the Republicans have created for themselves will find some limit, and that the infighting that will occur to either replace Trump while he is still in office or to succeed him will turn many of their faithful off or will fracture the movement. I’m optimistic but also concerned, as I think many of us are, so I will leave it at that.
# I agree with you, JVL, the language and intent of section 3 of the 14th amendment could not be clearer. Few were tried for being Confederates, so the provision was not written with some criminal definition of insurrection in mind – and the provision has a remedy – Congress can overturn a state’s decision – so a national body can weigh in on a question concerning qualification for a national election – but the Election clause and the 10th Amendment tell me a State is fully within its rights to use A14S3 to disqualify a candidate for office.
*These comments reflect my personal views and do not represent the views of the United States Navy or the United States Government.