Things Fly Apart the Center Cannot Hold

Our waitresses’ eyes lit up when she learned I’d spent part of my upbringing in Alabama when my father’s last stop in his 20-year military career was at the Air University at Maxwell Air Force Base in Montgomery.

The waitress, as we soon learned, was an Alabama native herself who’d fled to the colder climes (and chillier people) of Massachusetts after becoming pregnant her senior year in high school.

It was obvious from just our brief conversation with this young woman, who was studying at a local community college to become a teacher, that she was homesick for the South and wanted to get back where she “belonged” just as fast as she could.  “Belong” is the right word because, with the possible exception of New England, of all the regions I’ve had the opportunity to sample thanks to our family’s frequent uprooting, the South seemed to have the strongest sense of itself as a single, distinctive community with all of the pluses and minuses such an identity entails.

The legendary “Southern Hospitality” which makes newcomers and natives alike feel so welcome is a real and palpable thing. It’s one of the features of the South and its people I liked best during our 12-year stay "deep in the Heart of Dixie.”

But like any tight-knit community, the South’s welcoming embrace sometimes comes wrapped in a suffocating insularity that reserves its storied generosity for kin folk or those who in other ways fit in.

And it’s this double-edged sword which is at the core of America’s present political crisis.  It’s a crisis which manifests itself as an inability to govern as popular elections no longer seem to matter when matched against the heels the losing side digs deep into the sand when it refuses to be bound by the decisions of a victorious party whose legitimacy the losers reject.

Respect for the outcomes of elections and a grudging acceptance for the legitimacy of the other side are the baseline prerequisites of democracy.  Yet, more than 150 years after the Civil War, groups like the League of the South continue to foment sedition while talking about their region as if it were “enemy occupied territory.”  And even Southerners outside the neo-Confederate fringe often think of themselves as belonging to a separate community, if not an entirely different country.

Listen closely to the way Southerners talk about the Constitution, for instance, and you will not encounter the document that brought 13 separate state communities together to form a single and more perfect union.  Rather, you will hear about a charter that guarantees a constitutional right for people to stay apart. 

The First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of association, in this view, coexists uneasily alongside an equal and opposite right NOT to associate with people who other people find offensive – even if the form this offensiveness takes is discrimination in jobs or access to public accommodations. .

And so it’s no surprise that the election of 1994 was a turning point in American politics as the South’s exclusionary identity-politics first took control of the Republican Party and later Congress itself with the Southern reactionary triumvirate of Newt Gingrich, Tom Delay and Dick Armey at the helm.

It’s easy to exaggerate the extent to which Republicans and Democrats worked together in the past in the spirit of bi-partisan comity.  Sentimental tales of Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill drinking beers together after-hours are exaggerated.  But there is no denying that the present curse of gridlock, obstruction and dysfunction is unprecedented.

And largely to blame for this situation is the fact that that the GOP is now a coalition of wealthy plutocrats and white Christian populists whose only point of agreement is a shared antipathy toward -- not just the federal government -- but an American nation-state itself.  The Republican Party is in rebellion against a country that would ask its constituencies to compromise their economic interests or cultural orthodoxies for the sake of domestic tranquility and the common good -- which they refuse to do.

And what is happening to the United States is part of a much larger worldwide phenomenon ripping nations apart as tribal identities of race and religion and even class continue to reassert themselves at the expense of what Abraham Lincoln called the “mystic cords of memory” that once linked the American community together.

The mild-mannered Washington Post columnist, E.J. Dionne is one of the foremost students of this fundamental breakdown in American governing customs and traditions.  In a recent Post column, the author of Our Divided Political Heart says the world’s democracies face a peculiar and potentially perilous contradiction where the rise in partisanship coincides with the decline in public trust for the traditional parties that once resolved political disagreements, thus undermining faith in public endeavors of any kind, even politics and self-government.

In Europe, he says, “anger is the dominant emotion” as movements on the far right and left gain traction among voters concerned about immigration and other demographic changes that create “social and cultural tremors.”

During Britain’s national election on May 7, Dionne notes that the establishment Conservative and Labour parties hemorrhaged votes to the nativist Independence Party that is critical of both immigration and the European Union.

And in the US, he says, partisan splits have rarely been so deep or acrimony across party lines this severe as “one of the most important trends in American politics over the past several decades has been the rise of negative partisanship in the electorate.”

This occurs, says Dionne, when partisans perceive supporters of the opposing party as being “very different from themselves in terms of their social characteristics and fundamental values.”

Social bonds have become so frayed that Princeton historian Daniel T. Rogers felt compelled to write a book called Age of Fracture in which he said “identities become fluid and elective” and the dominant tendency of our times is toward “disaggregation” instead of “consolidation.”

This is a big problem for self-government, says Dionne, “since aggregating sustainable majorities is the first task of politicians in democratic countries.”

One of the biggest causes of this “disaggregation” might be the emergence of a “winner-take-all” global economy that has produced unprecedented concentrations of wealth in fewer and fewer hands, a severe and ever-growing wage gap between rich and poor and the withering away of the job securities that once defined the American middle-class. 

Forced to defend an economy that no longer works for everyone, the top 1% have used their enormous wealth to hire (or buy) the Republican Party, which is now engaged in a “never surrender” defense of their client’s riches against latent threats such as the Occupy Wall Street protests a few years ago.  

Another cause for concern is the rise of fundamentalism and religious ultra-orthodoxy that Dionne says “has taken much of the West by surprise.”

For most of the 20th century, he says secular and liberal nation-builders fought a two-front war against Western imperialists abroad and religious traditionalists at home.  Once the new states won their independence from Western colonial powers, those supposedly backward true-believers began to fight to re-impose the faiths of their forebears, said Dionne.

At the extreme, this religious pushback took the form of the Islamic State and al-Qaeda. Yet even in its more benign forms, “ultra-orthodoxy is also on the rise in democratic countries with long traditions of religious tolerance,” says Dionne.

This is what is happening in Israel, India and Algeria, says the political philosopher Michael Walzer, who’s charted the history and trajectory of national liberation movements and wonders why the architects of these secular states were unable to marginalize religion to the private sphere but instead produced a backlash, “calling forth often radical forms of religious assertion.”

National liberation, he writes, “is a secularizing, modernizing and developmental creed” that seeks to free countries not only from outside colonization but also from the internal “burdens of old religious understandings.”

But some people are not always eager to be freed from such “burdens,” says Dionne, as attempts to liberate them from the dead hand of history, orthodoxy and the rigid hierarchies that go with them “quickly turns into a cultural war between the liberators and what we can call the traditionalists,” writes Walzer.

Thus, while liberals see themselves as egalitarians and great emancipators who want everyone to be treated the same within a single community, traditionalists see liberals as “elitists” who seek to undermine “their” communities by “imposing” liberty and freedom upon unwilling populations.  And so the reassertion of religious loyalties following political independence “were fueled by the resentment that ordinary people, pursuing their customary ways, felt toward those secularizing and modernizing elites, with their foreign ideas, their patronizing attitudes, and their big projects.”

Look at Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner controversy for example.  Both sides see the other as the aggressor. Liberals say conservatives are imposing old standards to deny Jenner her individual freedom while conservatives say liberal "elites" are trying to aggressively change their culture.

While the ideologies of today’s fundamentalists and ultra-orthodox are rooted in ancient or medieval ideas, says Walzer, “these movements are, in a peculiar way, thoroughly modern.” Their resistance to secularization “soon becomes ideological and therefore also new: fundamentalism and ultra-orthodoxy are both modernist reactions to attempts at modernist transformation.”

President Obama had the right message when he first campaigned on the themes of national healing and reconciliation.  But he may have been uniquely unsuited to be the messenger of this unifying theme since he represented exactly those changes one side is determined to prevent at all costs. 

It remains to be seen which candidate, if any, picks up this issue in 2016, which may be the most important one we face since it affects the future of American self-government.

Views: 95

Comment by Jonathan Wolfman on June 10, 2015 at 5:55pm

uhmhmm 

Comment by vzn on June 10, 2015 at 7:16pm
interesting & seems to indicate cross cutting changes in both political parties right/ left, maybe a new shift somehow. esp like the ref to the 3rd party in britain taking votes from both the right and the left. have long thought a 3rd party is the answer but it seems to have negligible chance of succeeding in the US. also you might want to fit in somehow that millenials are the least religious generation of all. also saw another interesting article in huffpost about "devolution" of power or something talking about cities taking up more political power from a sclerotic/ stalemated federal level.
Comment by JMac1949 Memories on June 10, 2015 at 7:58pm

So I'm thinking that most of us, who are never consulted or interviewed by the media beast, or the poll takers survive as background noise while the headline scream about conflict.  Try this on for size, how about ISIS/ISIL having a legitimate claim to resist the amoral commerce of Western liberalism but their chosen method of misguided violence is ultimately doomed to failure.  Or maybe this, Caitlyn Jenner has finally broken out of the psychological and emotional prison of being Bruce, but at the same time succumbed to the temptation of the media beast platform.  Maybe her choice is not so much the best for herself but better for those who are less famous.  I don't know and I couldn't presume to know, all I can do is hope for the best.  R&L

Comment by koshersalaami on June 10, 2015 at 9:58pm
Really good post.

Nothing really to add.
Comment by Zanelle on June 10, 2015 at 10:03pm

Thank you for writing this.

Comment by Abrawang on June 11, 2015 at 6:54pm

I don't know what will, or can, reduce the level of hyper-partisanship.  The right wing seems demented to me.  Some false things they fervently believe is that there is no global warming and that carbon emissions have nothing to do with it anyway; that tax cuts always pay for themselves; that there is a war on Christianity and that the founding fathers pretty much wanted the U.S. to be a country governed by Christian principles.  Note that this is far from a complete list.  When you lock yourself into so many untenable positions and reckon that those who disagree with you are at best unpatriotic, wherein lies the road to moderation?

Comment by vzn on June 13, 2015 at 7:10am
ps "fled to colder climes & chillier people" sounds weird. intentional irony? ofc seems one would want to flee to warmer climes & warmer ppl.

Comment

You need to be a member of Our Salon to add comments!

Join Our Salon

NEW BLOG POSTS

Pen for Hire ( Bathos, Pathos)

Posted by J.P. Hart on June 19, 2019 at 11:23am 2 Comments

Always Out Front.... Anyway

Posted by Robert B. James on June 19, 2019 at 8:34am 1 Comment

One Flew Under Radar

Posted by J.P. Hart on June 18, 2019 at 3:15pm 0 Comments

Tolerance and Bigots

Posted by alsoknownas on June 18, 2019 at 2:20pm 6 Comments

Where Jaws was Filmed

Posted by J.P. Hart on June 18, 2019 at 11:19am 3 Comments

I’m Not A Buddhist

Posted by Robert B. James on June 18, 2019 at 7:42am 5 Comments

2 Questions for Kosh and Jon

Posted by Ron Powell on June 18, 2019 at 2:30am 9 Comments

© 2019   Created by lorianne.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Service