Historian, Anthropologist, Politico, Liberal, Conservative….What are we seeing?
Over the last few months, I have been contemplating the changes we are seeing and feeling in the national mood. I have struggled with the idea that I may be misguided in my beliefs as a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. These beliefs were formed through many influences. It started early with my hard-working family of eastern European heritage, being a Lutheran, then a period of great change when I was coming of age (late 60s and early 70s), becoming a father, being an independent-minded entrepreneur and staying married for over 30 years. Could I be losing touch with what’s really happening?
I repeatedly asked myself these questions, “what am I missing”, “what don’t I understand”, “what are people are seeing in our national direction that I can’t”. Could what I believe be so wrong? During any attempt to have meaningful discussion, things quickly became political. I kept asking the same questions, but I could never get a clear answer that made sense to me.
Questions about:
Over the last few months, I have been contemplating the changes we are seeing and feeling in the national mood. I have struggled with the idea that I may be misguided in my beliefs as a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. These beliefs were formed through many influences. It started early with my hard-working family of eastern European heritage, being a Lutheran, then a period of great change when I was coming of age (late 60s and early 70s), becoming a father, being an independent-minded entrepreneur and staying married for over 30 years. Could I be losing touch with what’s really happening?
I repeatedly asked myself these questions, “what am I missing”, “what don’t I understand”, “what are people are seeing in our national direction that I can’t”. Could what I believe be so wrong? During any attempt to have meaningful discussion, things quickly became political. I kept asking the same questions, but I could never get a clear answer that made sense to me.
Questions about:
- Gay marriage versus rights under a civil union license issued by the state?
- The right of a woman to choose means what?
- Why should an unborn have more protection than person?
- Why did President Obama expand the welfare state?
- Why do I have support people not willing to work?
- Does anyone really know what is happening to the Palestinian people in the West Bank?
- Is health insurance really a right? Or is it a privilege?
- Why have we not fixed the immigration policy to open the country up to the smartest people on the planet?
- Why are so many people on food stamps?
These questions and the inability to get a clear, logical answer, led me on a journey of self-questioning but also trying to find other reasons that may not be so apparent. The polarization that we are experiencing causes us to not be able to discuss the very things that are causing this polarization.
Could the polarization be caused by the issues and the respective positions that have been taken due to peoples trying to hold onto to what they think they know, while other forces are impacting this shifting mood?
Unfortunately, when a person is afraid of change, the person works to rationalize the reason for their beliefs and when reason does not work, the position must get more extreme. This pushes any person trying to hold onto what is familiar and comfortable to them, towards the edge-of-reason. The edge-of-reason builds a fundamentalist’s approach to viewing their position, while clouding their ability to see through their extreme position to recognize an opportunity to collaborate. I believe we will continue to see this polarization for the next couple of decades, due to a macro shift in the mood of the people.
This is not a mood shift from conservative to liberal or from democracy to socialism, but a confluence of different evolutionary events in which we are the active participants and a driving force….even if we don’t know it or want to be. There is an undercurrent of change that has already happened and will happen again.
Two of the thought processes are shared in this document.
Unfortunately, when a person is afraid of change, the person works to rationalize the reason for their beliefs and when reason does not work, the position must get more extreme. This pushes any person trying to hold onto what is familiar and comfortable to them, towards the edge-of-reason. The edge-of-reason builds a fundamentalist’s approach to viewing their position, while clouding their ability to see through their extreme position to recognize an opportunity to collaborate. I believe we will continue to see this polarization for the next couple of decades, due to a macro shift in the mood of the people.
This is not a mood shift from conservative to liberal or from democracy to socialism, but a confluence of different evolutionary events in which we are the active participants and a driving force….even if we don’t know it or want to be. There is an undercurrent of change that has already happened and will happen again.
Two of the thought processes are shared in this document.
********************
Historian Arthur Schlesinger attempted to identify these changes in the political landscape. His cyclical theory explores a model that shows continual shifts by the populous on macro level nationally. This shift is between public purpose and private interest. “Each of these cycles includes a phase of dominant public interest, a transition phase, and a phase of prevalent private interest.”
The cycles (1)
Schlesinger defined these to be “self-generating and autonomous”. They begin in the mentality of the masses, rather than creations of influential individuals of a time period. Leaders or politicians are representations of the “mood”, chosen to express the voice of the majority. Shifts in the national mentality are initiated when discontent with present conditions over time drives Americans to pursue a new trend that promises to satisfy the interest of the masses. This discontent, described by Schlesinger as “inextinguishable”, drives the cycles of change in national politics.
Modernity is the psychology behind the disenchantment of the people with their surroundings. As society modernizes, or advances, the external conditions around each individual evolves, therefore stimulating changes in the individual’s attitude. Over a period of time, the attitude towards society and its goals will become negative, and whichever stage (public purpose/private interest), will cease to be ideal. Studies and surveys show that in the 20th century, this critical time period to develop discontent has decreased, implying that people are quickly dissatisfied with the ever-changing society.
Schlesinger defined these to be “self-generating and autonomous”. They begin in the mentality of the masses, rather than creations of influential individuals of a time period. Leaders or politicians are representations of the “mood”, chosen to express the voice of the majority. Shifts in the national mentality are initiated when discontent with present conditions over time drives Americans to pursue a new trend that promises to satisfy the interest of the masses. This discontent, described by Schlesinger as “inextinguishable”, drives the cycles of change in national politics.
Modernity is the psychology behind the disenchantment of the people with their surroundings. As society modernizes, or advances, the external conditions around each individual evolves, therefore stimulating changes in the individual’s attitude. Over a period of time, the attitude towards society and its goals will become negative, and whichever stage (public purpose/private interest), will cease to be ideal. Studies and surveys show that in the 20th century, this critical time period to develop discontent has decreased, implying that people are quickly dissatisfied with the ever-changing society.
Shifts are produced by changes in the mood of the majority. When more and more people shift from one end of the “balance” to the other, the balance itself begins to tilt to the other side. However, the change in mood must be reflected in a diversity of ethnic backgrounds and social classes to take effect. The cycle is not a permanent transition. Periods of stability in each stage of the cycle (public purpose/private interest), Schlesinger presents the concept the “accumulation of change”. He stated that when certain changes near the end of a phase take effect, they become permanent, and are unaffected by later “swings of the pendulum”. Therefore, the proper way to model the cycles of American History is by using a spiral, or single helix.
Private interest
This value systems stresses on a non-interventionist government, especially in its economy. Resulting from the 18th century fears of tyranny and a strong federal power, the free society is where an individual controls his own actions. The government’s only functions are to maintain order and structure. The values of Private Interest bear strong resemblance to Adam Smith’s theories of the laissez-faire economy (free market) and also the invisible hand. Smith proposed that the collective result of individuals with a variety of purposes is an economy that will profit the entire society.
This value systems stresses on a non-interventionist government, especially in its economy. Resulting from the 18th century fears of tyranny and a strong federal power, the free society is where an individual controls his own actions. The government’s only functions are to maintain order and structure. The values of Private Interest bear strong resemblance to Adam Smith’s theories of the laissez-faire economy (free market) and also the invisible hand. Smith proposed that the collective result of individuals with a variety of purposes is an economy that will profit the entire society.
Ideally in a Private Interest system, government must respect the “sanctity of private property”. This means that individuals have the freedom to pursue their own interests, but also bear the responsibility for success or failure. One of the possible disadvantages of such Social Darwinism is that the wealthy rise to the top, leaving the poor to fend for themselves. Another problem that may be present is political corruption. Overall, “survival of the fittest” may lead to “concentration of power”, “evangelicalism”, and “limited citizenship”. In connection to history, periods of Private Interest are often associated with times of economic prosperity.
Public purpose
The values of Public Purpose assess the reality, often the consequences of a certain revolution. In times of complex social relations and economic and political confusion, the need for equality and opportunity arises. Due to certain, recurring causes in history such as division in wealth and social class distinctions, the majority begins to question the meaning of “liberalism”.
The values of Public Purpose assess the reality, often the consequences of a certain revolution. In times of complex social relations and economic and political confusion, the need for equality and opportunity arises. Due to certain, recurring causes in history such as division in wealth and social class distinctions, the majority begins to question the meaning of “liberalism”.
Schlesinger explains that in “modern liberalism”, the government must intervene to ensure the protection of the common good. The concerns with “social responsibility” and “commonwealth” often involve the regulation and control of the government. Compared to the stages of Private Interest, times of Public Purpose are usually ephemeral “bursts of reform”. The idealistic goals of this period are only to ensure that government intervention is possible in times of need.
The ideals of Public Purpose might include a redistribution of wealth and power and the protection of civil rights.
The ideals of Public Purpose might include a redistribution of wealth and power and the protection of civil rights.
Transition
These periods occur as the masses change its “mood”. Results are often increased tension and division. From Public Purpose to Private Interest, the transition involves tensions, violence, and even war, due to the exhaustion from reformation.
In the transition from Private Interest to Public Purpose, the people may suffer economic depression caused by divisions of wealth and power, leading to a renewed cause for social reform.
(1) Courtesy of Wikipedia These periods occur as the masses change its “mood”. Results are often increased tension and division. From Public Purpose to Private Interest, the transition involves tensions, violence, and even war, due to the exhaustion from reformation.
In the transition from Private Interest to Public Purpose, the people may suffer economic depression caused by divisions of wealth and power, leading to a renewed cause for social reform.
I believe we are witnessing these changes. The shift in mood is more about the evolution of mindset due to some spiritual discontentment that can’t really be identified, but simply it is time to do something else. This discontent may have come from a “goulash” of events: the tech bubble bursting, 9/11, perpetual middle-eastern conflict, ENRON, business litigation environment, housing market, banking crisis, global economy….who knows. But I do think our re-elected President is not the leader of the movement, but a reflection of a changing mood. Being in the right place at the right time can indicate luck more than anything else. History may be able to tell us when this discontentment started but I feel certain it was long before 2012.
