The Four Americas

THE FOUR AMERICAS

By George Packer

George Packer is notable for writing found in the New Yorker and The Atlantic from which this is taken. He has written two notable books:

The Unwinding - The Inner History of the New America

Assassins’ Gate- America in Iraq

His writing makes liberal use of first person interviews of “regular” people.

His introduction suggests that our history is more than just a collection of facts, but rather the stories shared by the majority of citizens that provide a cohesion for reference, agreement, governance. (The cohesive story of the nation known to me growing up is breaking down). He explores such changes in the USA over time and his essay is to explore the evolving stories that have traction and which speak to our current predicament. Of interest, the Conflict Race Theory principles also speak to stories having power and which need to be told—to the point that they are maybe more important than facts. Learning the art of medicine, one is taught to listen and learn from patients as they tell their stories, even when you know they are not germane to the technical problem as perceived from the doctor’s point of view….

He points out the Republicans and Democrats of the 1930’s were different and told distinct stories as they put their messages out. They both reflected a society that was less free than today, less tolerant and far less diverse with fewer choices BUT with more economic equality, shared prosperity, and more political cooperation. Whether Republican or Democrat, a citizen was more restrained than today and more repressed—-these were undone after 1968.

That keeps coming up, 1968……

The two parties eventually traded places and alliances! Democrats became the home of affluent professionals and Republicans are starting to sound like populist insurgents. He suggests that rather than two stories, there are four main stories—expressing America’s moral identity— exerting changing influence, election by election.

#1) “Free America”—he defines the core orientation of this group as Libertarian, Capitalist, and Traditionalist—-and free as in, “don’t tread on me.” The origins of this story as told now start with the Reagan revolution and include traditionalists (conservative protestants and catholics, southern agrarians, alienated individualists a la William F Buckley), Anti Communists (who thought Eleanor Roosevelt and Arthur Schlesinger Jr were “pale communists,”) and Libertarians whose traditions went back to Jefferson and classic liberalism of the 1700’s. For these groups, Government planning is evil and leads to dictatorship. He points out that the broad cultural changes in America edged out the traditionalist over time. (Rush Limbaugh liked hard rock!) Anti-communists became less relevant after we “won” the cold war. The libertarians persists and have appeal through all society. Ayn Rand has fans in Silicon Valley, businesses, entrepreneurs, and notably, former Speaker Paul Ryan. He links this movement with segregationists as State’s Rights —as a means to work around a planning national government—trumped any sense of sorting racial inequalities. Barry Goldwater held that a private citizen should be free to be prejudiced against a minority ie refuse to sell his house to one, if that was his decision. He attributes the influence of this libertarianism to a push to reduce public investment which when accomplished, did benefit business—in fact (he believes) after Reagan a deal was struck between elected officials and business executives. He identifies Newt Gingrich and his revolution as the effort to change the narrative from limited government to effectively, the destruction of government as it had up to then, been known—government shutdown was coined through his work. Associated with this collaboration of big business and government was the collapse of smaller local economies and the social functions that flowed: mainstreet drugstores and restaurants, the local newspaper, the Rotary clubs……This America always had an insurgent mindset, breaking institutions down. Rather than finding new policies to rebuild declining communities, these Americans mobilized anger and despair along with scapegoats. This “dark energy” was to be controlled by leadership, but he thinks it has become all consuming and definitely out of control.

2) “Smart America” He refers to the top 10%: Salaried professionals in the information technology, computer engineering, scientific research design, management consulting, upper civil service, financial analysis, law, journalism, higher education, and the arts. (Notably missing from his list are doctors…..). These people intermarry and gravitate to nice neighborhoods in large metropolitan areas. They live to pass their advantages on to their children. They are at ease with the modern economy ie with modernity itself. They welcome novelty and diversity. They believe in open borders, ie porous borders for goods, capital, information and that that benefits everyone around the world. It is hard to tell what region of the country they are from. They believe in credentials and expertise—qualifications for entry into their class—“Smart America.” They embrace capitalism and the idea of meritocracy—talent and achievement should be rewarded. There should be remedies for past racism and ways to help the poor get access to opportunities not to mention a safety net economically. Global trade agreements require re-training. They do not want redistributed income though. Individual worth is the currency of smart America and meritocracy is a self fulfilling part of its group. He points out that by kindergarten kids of this group are two years ahead of lower class counterparts. He attributes a certain smugness to this class as in “we are here only because of our talent and others should be more like us if they want to succeed.” This class is associated with Democrats politically. He points out the principles of economics followed by this class lost them the working classes rurally and in the rust belt—avid followers of FDR in the depression. They peaked with Clinton. This group is now insular and does not rub shoulders with fellow citizens. Their children are meritocrats by birth which violates fundamental beliefs about our country— they share it (the country) with high school grads who have economic insecurities and they cannot relate to each other personally much less with what they actually do. Smart America is international in its view and is uneasy with traditional patriotism which seems to them, primitive and confining. Their loyalty is to family. Challenge: if you have goals that are aspirational ie climate change or reverse inequality or racism, you need to tap into patriotism—how do you do that if you don’t have it? How do you confront those who have it and would continue on the road with racism, inequality, and environmental destruction?

3) “Real America”. Sarah Palin: plain speaking, working class down to the names and situations of her children. Suspicious of the different (went after Obama’s origins, liberal views, associations with radicals, and a black professional with intelligence and grace). In its heart, this is a traditional view of common people being the mortar and cement of the nation. He associates this with populism and anti-intellectualism. Intellectuals raise the same concerns as aristocrats ie special status getting them ahead that was undeserved—Real America is religious ie evangelical and fundamentalist—hostile to modern ideas and intellectual authority. Real America sees things as black and white with no shades of grey. It is nationalist—hostile to humanitarianism and international engagement but ready to respond with aggression when necessary. He calls it out as a traditional Christian Nationalism. The thinking is local where you know everyone’s business and help each other in a jam. Few leave. A new face on the street is suspect. This America has taken a huge hit in the last 50 years. He points out it was the sons from Real America that fought the wars of the last several decades, all of which have ended with a “plop.” Meritocrat’s kids did not largely, fight these wars. People lost jobs but elites— bankers got bailed out. The system is rigged for insiders and the trust in a common nation failed. Who can they vote for when it was Obama or Romney? Trump gave them voice: anti intellectual, anti internationalist, speaking plainly to the disenfranchised. Trump aligned with racist without apology more than any president for over a hundred years and the liberals were appalled that half the country would vote for that—but his appeal on the cultural, Real America points was very important as well. This America is fine with a demagogue and gives undying loyalty to Trump.

4) “Just America”. A new generation got the vote—with the economic and social realities for this generation, previous faith in certain ideas are suspect or rejected: All men are created equal—work hard and you can be anything—knowledge is power. Democracy and Capitalism are the best systems; America is a nation of Immigrants. America is leader of the free world. For those under 35, looking at the expression, “Rosa sat so Martin could walk so Barack could run we we could all fly” —-is a joke. The politically active in this grouping saw their parents as hopelessly compromised on issues of justice as they worked away for economic security that remains elusive. They enter the workforce with debt. Their digital lives seem better than their real lives. Bland promises of liberals leave them furious. Videos of unarmed blacks being murdered by police lit a fire. These rebel from “below” —Its focus is the straight line of slavery-segregation-underclass and the shame that represents to our national history and morality. They call it out when the other groups turn their heads. Critical theory reflects the intellectual side of this grouping as in “Critical Theory upends the universal values of the Enlightenment: objectivity, rationality, science, equality, freedom of the individual.” They see these values as tools of subjugation. All relations are social constructs and therefore, political. Language and identity are more important than material conditions. They don’t believe that hierarchies of power can be done away with. The University level thinking along these lines have become instincts for this generation/grouping. This group intellectually, when thinking revolutionarily believe all the classic teaching is white supremacist. What was innocent by default suddenly finds itself on trial, every idea cross-examined and nothing else can get done until the case is heard.. Race is front and center but the thinking extends to all oppressed groups. This group cannot and does not deal with individual agency. (If Black Lives matter—— why defund the police when a majority of inner city blacks value and want BETTER police protection). This group can’t deal with achievement gaps in education. He summarizes that the group has changed the discussion and focus but has not changed the conditions in which citizens live. They mirror Real America in their distrust and disillusionment —they no longer hold to the founding documents or the promise of American democracy. This America is the narrative of advanced degrees, millennials and well educated and it misreads those it claims to support (blacks and latino working classes).

He points out that the contraction of job opportunities for educated classes has occurred in history and is destabilizing. “Just Americans” are linked to Smart America but they repudiate meritocracy. A conflict: as many Just Americans belong to the meritocracy with no desire to give up its advantage……this is anxiety provoking. A written thought can be a form of violence. The loudest public voices in a controversy will prevail. Offending them can cost you. Justice is power. Just America is too confined to catch on—it doesn’t welcome nearly enough people to be relevant in traditional democratic terms. (Occupy Wallstreet!………fade away).

His Summary: these four groupings reflect the inability for America to sustain a large middle class democracy. They all have valid points and respond to real problems. The narratives used in each conflicts and narrows the discussion points and thru this, become more and more extreme.

They all anoint winners and losers.

He thinks each group can refer to America as sick or dying. Sound familiar? This talk occurred in past times and is usually cast in moral terms—perhaps a reflection of our Puritan (Protestant) heritage? But, he suggests, if we are dying, it is from suicide, a form of murder…. He disagrees and sees the values of each is inevitably blending, imperfectly in a future America.

—————————————————

Whew! Views of the world from 60,000 feet are breathtaking but often, when done by grouping and generalizing, miss the forest for the trees. I did find some of his characterizations compelling. Many of his descriptions of “Smart America” hit home, personally. And yet……..he describes a caricature and I can differentiate myself from this group easily even while relating to some of the content. Once more, I grew up in a relatively wealthy white community that did have shared values and sense of “our” story—-until 1968. I retain many of the values and thoughts of that pre revolutionary time despite learning many many things about the nation’s history that conflict with the origin stories, or the events that have unfolded since 1968. I am patriotic but I can’t relate to the “Disney” presentation of American History that so many Patriots espouse.

I recognize the caricatures of all his groupings and found that of “Just America" fascinating because I have as yet not thought of it as a distinct group with the ideas he attaches to it. I have taken to moral absolutists he describes “on the Left” as an American, almost “Maoist” orientation to viewing history and reaching for justice at the expense of a host of practical things. My association of that label is instructive given the destruction Mao visited on his country using those same tools.

A depressing quality to our communication systems and ability to voice opinions, is talking past each other without much actual contact. His characterizations enhance that problem. The notion that regular Americans talking things out in a coffee house can come up with solutions that the government (or business) never could is an experience that maybe you have had. Two thirds of Americans can embrace forms of both abortion or gun control but those solutions never get traction in the political world because of the way we vote…………and the money that is spent by special interests outside of government—— and for now, neither is going away………In addition, when we talk to each other in practical terms, we often work with the information we got from the news—superficial and presented to entertain—it has little depth. Making laws and the decisions that go into laws requires depth, or you pass bad laws

. When you make a law, you are also taking on a responsibility for its outcome that is irrelevant in the coffee house.

My inclusion in the “Smart America” grouping finds me with the views he notes on immigration and porous borders. I would make the point that for nearly a decade of my life, I worked on the ground level with illegal immigrants and saw the good, bad, and ugly. Despite this exposure, I was not left with a sense that we needed a wall on the border. I saw, with a long view (two generations), a positive influence on our culture—- having people who were impoverished and desperate— making their claim from the bottom up in our country. I don’t see it conflicting practically with most people’s day to day lives. These people were not getting a lot of social services. Field workers with appendicitis delayed coming in until they were desperately ill as they did not want to risk deportation.

He paints a grim picture of the “Real Americans”—he calls them Christian Nationalists. I cannot reconcile this negative portrait with the reality that many of these people voted for Obama and were torn over their vote for Trump vs Bernie Saunders. He does not reconcile that to my satisfaction and once more, “Christian Nationalists” sounds like an intentionally polarizing label that likely represents a relatively small number (20%?).

His point about patriotism is right on. My coffee house point would be that I can be proud of my extended and historical family and be loyal to it despite the weird uncle who has been compromised when around adolescents. I can have in the family, a conscientious objector, or a kid with a drug habit, but remain loyal and proud of the family and its legacy. I, with others in the family, will work with and relate to family with the betterment of each other and the family as a hoped for outcome. I may limit contact with some…… My personal view is that it is not necessarily to hold the family up as the best thing when compared to other families—I would not fly the giant family flag on the back of my pick-up truck. But functionally, I would take the good with the bad and work to do better with the practical things we need to be better in mind. How much we “need” each other also directs how close we are……..

After the last election, my thoughts went to an Urban/Rural divide as creating a terrible tension in our society. I think that is too glib; I have an affinity with many of my fellow citizens from “Real America.” I think that the notion that the Government is incapable of performing real positive service for its citizens as the truly dark influence. The belief is pervasive and self-perpetuating. That position is as untenable as saying that Government is the only answer. I just read Stranger in a Strange Land. Robert Heinlein was a libertarian’s libertarian. In that novel, he writes something to the effect that, “Government is like your colon—it stinks and it is disgusting, but you actually need it to function well…….” That is a minimalist’s point of view, but it makes a point of conflict with absolutists who just want to run their own show their way, every time.