Instinctively, we looked to the Democratic Party, the only home we and our parents and their parents before them had ever known or seriously considered. But what we saw there—and in the newspapers we used to read, and in the schools whose admission letters once made us so proud—was terrifying. However we tried to explain what was happening on “the left,” it was hard to convince ourselves that it was right, or that it was something we still truly believed in.
Those are the words of Liel Leibovitz, writing in Tablet. Dramatic but astute.
I have my own arc, which has some things in common. First off, I've noticed over the past several years that new rules have been drawn up regarding who is allowed to say what. In some circles no one seems to talk about free speech unless it's dismissively. So my changing perspectives on that were gradual and mostly secret.
Then there are lockdowns, which are a total catastrophe. A catastrophe in which no one was prepared to address any tradeoffs, or even admit there were any. So that led to a quicker change for me.
Of course collapses and severe changes could make all this talk of ideology and allegiance moot. No one really knows and cares who was on the left and right in Fifth Century Rome, just before the sacking.
2 comments:
Leibovitz makes astute observations about how the ground has shifted under the feet of many of us who previously felt safe under the umbrella of liberalism and what used to be the Democratic Party's stance. That's no longer the case and, even though the shock has really hit in these past couple of years the actual changes began years ago, at least as long ago as the Clinton years, but I imagine a case could be made for earlier dates, ie Nixon dropping the gold standard.
The thing is we didn't really notice when the differences didn't much affect our personal day to day lives; welfare reform that punished families, harsh jail terms for small offences (esp. for black men), the repeal of Glass Steagal, just to name a few. Then came 9/11, the Patriot Act and the GWOT never mind the rise of the web, social media, and the mainstream media desperate to retain their influence. Although there's a lot to consider, including the broad issues regarding the rise of extreme political correctness, the other big one involves the huge sums related to military expenditures. When the USSR failed other enemies were needed to fill a major gap.
The shifts were incremental and for the most part we coped when faced with those we couldn't either incorporate or bypass. Then came 'The Turn' - good title.
The other article we enjoyed reading in the past day or two was in Unherd called The agony of the anti-lockdown centrists written by Daniel Hadas. You may have read it since it pertains to the subjects we've talked about - the disease, science, and all the things we must avoid discussing depending upon who's at the table.
Then there's the possibility you mentioned that could make all of this moot. I don't know if you've seen the ads made to encourage young people to join the military but here's a five minute video of the Chinese, Russian, and US versions.
btw: Is that a donkey as your title?
The dropping of the gold standard happened when I was too young to take it in. I guess you could say that I also wasn't really invested in US politics. But I'm sure it did have a cascading effect on economics and the matter of who owns what in this country. The rise of Clinton, looking back, did precipitate a greater alliance with the elite class. Although I tend to believe it was already in the works, he certainly did surf the wave.
The fall of the USSR created a temporary vacuum. If you're missing your enemy you can always find another. Or create one, which intentionally or not I think is what happened after the end of Cold War Classic. The scary thing about the War on Terror was--and remains--that it provided a precedent for simply ignoring the underpinnings of the legal process. Overnight the Constitution became just a suggestion. And the aftereffects are still spreading out.
Real changes, especially when they happen incrementally, can easily be taken for cosmetic ones. Sometimes changes are superficial, but often not. The confusion might be why more people don't object to overreach.
I did read that article by Daniel Hadas. It has some highlights, but I don't really agree with it overall. Thomas Kuhn's book took as its subject the ways that scientific ideas can change over a short period of time, yes. But while politics may play a part in this process, the change from one dominant paradigm to another does start with a legitimate question of fact. The "scientific" paradigm changes Hadas is talking about are just politics and big money from start to finish.
Yeah, the Chinese and Russian recruitment ads are quite a bit different in tone. Imposing. Whether the difference is the cause of larger shifts in society or just follows them is a question I can't answer.
Post a Comment