State of the Union (Part Four)

All progress is precarious, and the solution of one problem brings us face to face with another problem.

--Dr. Martin Luther King.

If the pain of innovation calls for some mitigation of its effects, but the demands of global competition require that we not unduly stifle ­innovation, clearly some balance must be found. The task of striking such equilibrium, however, is made far more difficult by the internal deterioration of our society — which harms both our ability to compete and our capacity for social cohesion.
--Jim Manzi, Keeping America's Edge.

How appropriate to think of what Dr. King said in terms of our current discussion regarding the state of our union. I have to tell you I would have loved to hear his solution to trying to find a balance between innovation and social cohesion. This is the crux of the problem. Can we have both? As we continue to examine Manzi's article, the answer becomes more elusive.

Of the many social and cultural changes that have rocked American society over the past half-century, the most relevant to the state of our political economy today may be the growing bifurcation of America. Increasingly, our country is segregated into high-income groups with a tendency to bourgeois norms, and low-income groups experiencing profound social breakdown.

Bifurcation, indeed, and not just the social breakdown of the lower class. We are a house divided in so many ways. We have a ruling, wealthy elite and everyone else. Our country has become a plutonomy....an oligarchy...in which the majority of the wealth is controlled by a small number of people. For unequivocal proof of this, please refer to this document and this one put out by Citigroup in 2005.

In addition to this, we have political division that has become...well...a gigantic pile of shit. I'll be the first to admit that I have been a contributer to that pile. Vitriol, acrimony, and anger have always been popular in various sporting events. Football and boxing come to mind as two examples of this. Now, these three things drive our political environment. In fact, they make money off of it. Fox News, for example, makes a ton of money from raising the hate, so to speak, and essentially being the political porn version of Jenna Jameson...getting the rocks off of conservatives everywhere...telling them exactly what they want to hear.

As a reaction to this, MSNBC has added liberal commentators over the last few years who, in addition to failing to tell the whole story in an unbiased way, add further to the hate and fear pile by simply reacting to what Rush Limbaugh says on a daily basis and give him a wider audience. I have done this many times myself.

All of this is showcased under the banner of "The Battle for America's Soul."

This breakdown did not happen overnight. Longstanding academic and avant garde attacks on traditional social norms exploded into a political and popular movement identified with the left in the 1960s. In the '70s, American attitudes and behavior began to change on a mass scale. This cultural shift naturally stimulated a response in defense of tradition from the right.

One thing I do agree with in terms of where many on the right stand is a decided lack of spirituality in our country. I wonder what might have happened if Dr. King had lived. Would today's liberals and conservatives be different? I think so. Would there be as much of a divide? I think not. Of course that is why he was killed.

How ironic, then, that each party has decided to tell us what to do with our lives. The Democrats have decided that government should be the entity to control social cohesion which basically means that they get to tell us what to do with our money. The Republicans also think that government should be the entity to control social cohesion. In their case, however, it's in the name of Manzi's "defense of tradition" (gay marriage, abortion etc.) Both parties desire cohesion yet both are failing miserably in achieving due to their incredibly thick ideological blinders.

Post-war America had much more widely shared bourgeois norms, and so was better able to contend with the negative side effects of the welfare state. Today's American underclass, however, is increasingly developing in the absence of such norms — to a large degree as the result of the welfare state itself. Meanwhile, the need for innovation and the pressures of a global economy only continue to reinforce the causes of our social bifurcation.

Imagine if we lived in a country where everyone--and I mean everyone--was actually generous with their money. There would be no need for this debate. In fact, the conservative dream would be realized as there would be no more need for social programs. The liberal dream would also be realized as social inequality would be greatly diminished.

Of course, being generous isn't enough. Accepting and using that money wisely is the other part of the bargain. Many Americans would fail at this and, as Manzi describes, have regressed from social norms. In fact, there's no doubt in my mind that many affluent people have probably given in the past only to be burned by pathetic loser after ignorant asshat. I have seen this personally many, many times.

And, sadly, we seem no closer to an answer on the balance of innovation and social cohesion.