The Next American Hippies
I think it is very likely that Barack Obama will be our next president, and I don’t think that’s necessarily a bad thing. I am squarely in the demographic that has connected with the candidate viscerally, and I do have an instinctive sense that it would be nice to have a fellow ethnic in the White House. It’s tough to explain, but having a president who reads and enjoys Philip Roth is, in my view, a pretty inspiring thing. I’m imaging a younger Obama reading Goodbye, Columbus and furrowing his brow or sighing deeply. My gut instinct about him is that he will bring back a patriotism of the left, one centered on America’s role as a country that pushes cultural boundaries, that pioneers forms of constructive dissent. And that’s not a bad thing.
But I also think that many people will be disillusioned by President Obama, particularly if we really are at the beginning of a lasting food-fuel-credit crunch. The left is positively gleeful about the dire straits of the Republican party. My own sense is that the right is very fortunate: we have an opportunity, finally, for a real re-think. The left, in contrast, is creative mainly at the margins. They’ve won the political argument. They haven’t won the substantive argument.
But anyway, the nice thing about the coming disillusionment is that we’ll likely see more dropping out and tuning out, which is to say more nonconformism. The Bush years were an antidote for the political apathy (orthogonality?) true nonconformism requires. During the Obama years, if they do indeed materialize, the opposite will be true. A soothing, dashing public figure will put a lot of us to sleep. A lot of zeal will burn out. And then actually thinking will begin, which will be nice.
“But anyway, the nice thing about the coming disillusionment is that we’ll likely see more dropping out and tuning out, which is to say more nonconformism.”
i’m a little older than you, but to me a lot of the portents of economic malaise and their cultural impact remind me of what went down in the eary 90s. i recall a funny where-are-they-now by time where they followed up on those who were turning away from “me generation” materialism of the 1980s during the early 90s recession toward a more reflective and “holistic” lifestyle. when they came back to these people in 2000 it turned out that many had gotten caught up in the .com craze of the late 90s.
— razib · Jun 4, 07:45 AM · #
I hope, then, that this new patriotism of the left will take some cues from the charmed career of Alex Portnoy. Really!
— Maureen · Jun 4, 01:26 PM · #
I’m hoping Bob Barr and Ron Paul will be effective spoilers and a smart Democrat/Republican politician will make a point of poaching the better, sounder libertarian policies, such as opposition to eminent domain, ethanol subsidies, or ending the war on drugs.
— Mark · Jun 4, 01:37 PM · #
“The left, in contrast, is creative mainly at the margins. They’ve won the political argument. They haven’t won the substantive argument.”
We haven’t? Looking back at the last 8 years of right-wing dominance, 8 years of corruption and rank incompetence, and it’s pretty clear that the left has won the substantive argument, too.
— Jon H · Jun 4, 05:54 PM · #
Based on the recent study that had Republican ideas enjoying even less popularity among poll respondents if they weren’t specifically labeled as Republican, I’d say that your idea that the left hasn’t won the substantive argument is 180 degrees wrong.
— Chet · Jun 4, 06:01 PM · #
Chet,
Ironically you have it 180 degrees wrong. If ideas become less popular if identified as Republican, then clearly people judge on appearance rather than substance. So our author would be right that the left has won the politics but not the policy.
— Bill · Jun 4, 06:09 PM · #
Success in the coming years, if we have it, is going to be defined by our ability to think differently about some of the issues that have been plaguing us, and then act differently and decisively. Whoever is willing to let go of old Truths in order to face new Facts is going to win the argument.
If the only thing the Right can offer in response to dwindling and more expensive oil (for one issue) is the idea of drilling in Alaska and building more nuclear plants, I don’t think they’re going to carry the day. Refusing to embrace new ideas simply because they’re new, or simply because one’s rich friends aren’t invested in those new ideas, is not going be terribly compelling. Conservatives are definitionally mistrustful of the Cult of the New, and rightly so. But when it’s a knee-jerk mistrust that forecloses any possibility of discussion or investigation, it becomes a truly calcified position, which will not be successful at preserving, conserving, or defending what they value in this country.
The left will be in similar danger. If they carry the election and end up saying nothing that they haven’t been saying for 20 or 30 years, regardless of facts on the ground, they’re going to seem just as tired and disconnected from real people’s needs.
— Andrew · Jun 4, 06:18 PM · #
I am turned on by the idea that Obama may have read Philip Roth’s comic masterpiece, “Sabbath’s Theater.” I’d like to have been a fly on the wall while he was reading that novel. :-D
— Ted · Jun 4, 06:18 PM · #
Bill.. Chet is referring to a recent survey where respondents were asked to evaluate policy positions of both democrats and republicans. The result came out that when the republican policy positions were labeled as “Republican”—then they did better (but still lost) to democratic policy positions. If, however, the label of “republican” was taken away from the policy positions—respondents rated the policy positions as even less desireable—even self-proclaimed reupblicans/conservatives favored the unlabeld “democratic” policies more than the unlabeled “republican” ones.
Thus, it the poll made the point that it wasn’t that republican policy substance is loved, but is merely weighed down by a band “brand” of republicanism—it is that people actually thorough disagree with republican substance by large margins and only are willing to give it a bit of support because of their good associations to the party.
That says that the “substantive” argument has been lost by the right—at least so far as the public has been concerned.
— josh · Jun 4, 06:24 PM · #
No, Bill, it is you who is wrong and Chet is right. Read what he wrote again.
Quoting: “Republican ideas enjoying even less popularity among poll respondents if they weren’t specifically labeled as Republican.”
This has been the case for a long time now, not only since the disastrous Presidency of Bush. On almost every single issue—including abortion—a majority of the American public sides with the Democratic party; support for Democratic party principles rises when the policies do not have the Democratic brand attached. Hell, even a majority of Republicans agrees with Obama’s position on diplomacy with Iraq.
Crying “liberal, liberal, liberal” is not good public policy but it has been good politics for the Republican party over the last 40 years. Methinks a major shift is occurring and its the elite conservative press (how many dog-whistle Republican phrases could you count in Jonah Goldberg’s latest screed at the LA Times?) who is missing the boat here. Maybe if they go and meet David Brooks and the local Applebee’s salad bar, they can try to understand why this is the case.
— mrjauk · Jun 4, 06:29 PM · #
@Bill,
Right vs left, lib vs. con, we could argue all day about who is what and which party advances what agenda, but sticking strictly to policy as advanced by Democratic vs Republican administrations, and supported by Democratic vs Republican legislatures, it’s pretty clear Republican thinking over the last 25 years has been entirely wrong. Economics, foreign, social, environmental policy…it’s all bad. This is not a perceptual problem this is policy.
There was a survey done recently, forgive me I don’t have a link to it, that showed that voters overwhelmingly prefer (2 to 1) Democrat approaches to policy…but only when they don’t know it’s Democrat policy. As soon as they attach the Democrat label to it, support goes down. If anyone has an image problem it’s the democrats. And if anyone has a policy problem, it’s the Republicans.
— bakum · Jun 4, 06:30 PM · #
“But I also think that many people will be disillusioned by President Obama, particularly if we really are at the beginning of a lasting food-fuel-credit crunch.”
This is the part that worries me. If Obama is elected and we then see $8 / gallon gas, etc., he’s not really going to be able to do anything about it (nor would anyone else), but he’ll bear the brunt of the resentment, effectively turning him into another Carter and a possible one-termer.
— guyx · Jun 4, 07:12 PM · #
I agree with guyx. Most Americans have absolutely no idea how bad the economy is going to get in the next 10 years, regardless of who is in power. We are now pushing on a string. We have been borrowing our way to prosperity over the last couple of decades and now the FED and other government agencies are pushing on a string. The credit crisis is real—the last time total public indebtedness was this high was (wait for it)…the depression.
The “ownership society” my rear; the only thing Americans “own” more of today is debt. Someone who “buys” a $500,000 piece of clapboard and drywall with zero money down is not a home“owner.” The only thing s/he owns is a depreciating asset and a huge $500G liability.
Repeat this by the tens of millions and we’re staring into an abyss of some serious financial hardship. We’re only in the first inning, since we’re technically not yet in a recession (yeah, right! Did anyone notice the amount of the GDP deflator used last quarter?!) I don’t know whether to believe the government or my own lying eyes.
— mrjauk · Jun 4, 07:37 PM · #
Republican fortunes will only increase for one reason: Democrats will be in power and Democrats will have the responsibility for power and decision.
Since before 9/11, Democrats have been absolved of the responsibility for anything to do with war, terrorism and economy. In large measure, they have substituted pure opposition as a substitute for policymaking.
This will be akin to the period after 1960 after Kennedy won, when the great ferment in Conservative thinking took place. The problem for liberals is that while they may claim that conservative ideas have been rejected, all too many Americans adhere to them. One of the two political parties are animated by them. In the end, liberalism in power asks too much, demands too much obedience, and insists on too much blind faith, to remain a compelling national ideology.
What liberals, in their triumphalist moment don’t understand, is that we are merely on one swing of the pendulum.
— section9 · Jun 5, 02:30 AM · #