The optimism of this piece makes me happy.
Thoughts, anyone?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
The Factors
Posts
The Fans
Blog Archive
-
▼
2008
(123)
-
▼
April
(30)
- A recession recession
- Speaking of battles
- Nationalized Healthcare...
- Jetpack Watch (Part MCXVIII)
- Momma Said Knock You Out...
- It's all about Personal Responsibility
- Meanwhile, at the Battle of "Contributing Factors"
- In Light of Recent Developments...
- Cold Civil War?
- A biased post about biased review of a biased book...
- Re: Journalistic Integrity, Media Bias, Objectivit...
- Against contempt
- We're on the right track
- Slipping between the cracks
- Victor, Victor, he’s our man…
- A Modest Proposal
- Facts and Opinions
- Balance Unlooked For
- Free Tibet?
- An Interesting Anniversary
- Hmmmm...
- Words By Which To Live
- Laugh about it, shout about it...
- Cuba libre
- ...and you must speak JAVA
- If you read it on the Internet, it must be true.
- I Lied About Surveillance and So Did Mike Mukasey
- I would like to start by saying that I haven’t bee...
- Laws of surveillance
- Laws and surveillance redux
-
▼
April
(30)
7 comments:
Well, at the risk of making you sad . . . . It's nice that he's hopeful or optimistic. And we should be. He's right that we can create problems with great ease, but that we are also one of the more capable nations when reacting to these problems. When we think there are problems.
Several of his comments struck me as, um, problematic. This one, however, borders on the ridiculous:
"America remains a meritocracy where no one is above the law."
I don't believe this is currently the case and, in light of Kagan's recent article, I'm not sure it ever was. The law applies to the rank and file, but those in power have shown an ability to lessen the impact of the law on them and in some cases to avoid it altogether. And if we're a meritocracy, I'd like to know how G.W. ever got to be President.
I think hope and optimism are important feelings or conditions. They can help to buoy us in troubled times. But as we used to say at my old job, "Hope is not a strategy."
Here's another thought. Certainly, part of his point was "we can overcome." But another part was "things aren't really that bad when you think about it." The first is clearly an optimistic sentiment. The latter isn't optimism, it's self-delusion.
Now before I get reemed, let me just say that we have a whole bunch to be thankful for in this country. We are very fortunate, and we do have a fabulous blueprint and still wonderous set of resources for seeing that blueprint made real. It is precisely these enourmous gifts that we have been granted that cause me disappointment that we haven't done more with them, even recognizing the amazing things we have legitimately done.
Our system has done as much to mitigate our lesser tendencies as it has to encourage them. It has also encouraged that which is best in us while placing few limits those qualities. That is our greatest strength. It is because of this that I think we can do better. Much better.
Chris, another example of why VDH has such a profound impact on my thinking.
David, I think, especially based on other things I have read from VDH, that he would agree with you on some of your points though he might differ in their application.
I do wonder, however, about your statement about self-delusion simply because I know from personal experience the optimism Hanson is referring to. The current chapter of my own journey through life is one based directly in that hope and optimism, and while it has been hard, it has not disappointed.
Certainly, we have huge issues to deal with as a nation right now, but we have always had such issues, as Kagan pointed out and as Hanson has elsewhere. I believe what Hanson and Kagan both appeal to--and what I appeal to as well--is the deeper quality of the American spirit.
There will always be hordes of followers who never really do more than take advantage of what America has to offer, but as long as there are still leaders like Kagan, Hanson, and even us, there is still hope. That's not self-delusion, that's the heart of what has always made America great.
I cringed when I saw the "meritocracy" line in that article. I knew that would "get" you -- in a bad way. Sorry. I hope it didn't discolor the article for you.
Re: "things aren't really that bad when you think about it."
I think the point, "Over ninety-four percent of Americans with home mortgages meet their monthly obligations. More Americans own homes than ever before," is well-made.
To watch Katie Couric, no one would guess the 94% number. No one. Yes, 6% of Americans living in houses they can't pay for is a bad thing, and 6% of Americans losing their homes is certainly a negative. But a "crisis"? That's an overly-emotionally-charged word for 6%, in my opinion.
Things could be better. Without a course change, they will continue to worsen. But to throw up our hands in despair at the hopelessness of our plight, to assert "the magic is over," or to say that "things aren't really that bad" is self-delusion...that's just underselling our country's situation to the point of being self-delusional one's self.
(did that make sense?)
The real point that I got out of Hanson's article was the equivalent of a halftime speech by a coach to a team that, though far superior, is down by two goals at the first intermission: "You guys are better than this! What the hell are you doing out there? Let's turn this thing around, before it gets away from us!" (or words to that effect)
Chris, I didn't mean to imply that in our current situation, saying "things aren't really that bad" is self-delusional. I only meant to say that that's an approach that is used to gloss over real problems. I was sloppy and unclear about that.
I disagree with your halftime speech analogy. He wasn't saying we're better than this, let's turn things around. I took him to be saying, to use your analogy, "sure the scoreboard says we're behind, but you haven't really played that bad. You're doing fine. Don't listen to all those boos. You're a winner in my book."
That's a great speech for "the little team who couldn't" but it's a crappy speech for us because we should be able to.
I didn't re-read the article; maybe I'm wrong about all that.
I do agree with you, however, about the drama inherent in our news and in our public discourse. We've engaged in it here. It's very seductive and destructive, if I can go all "Jesse" on you. I wish we could leave entertainment to entertainers and get real substance from our news sources. There's time for fun and there's time for fixin'. Lucy, we got some fixin' to do.
Here's what's scary though: for all the drama in the news, we're STILL not really paying attention and working to fix these things. Most of America is conducting business as usual. Those who are paying attention are largely, like me, just ranting about it. Our representatives in Washington are desperately trying to figure out what we want, not so much to give it to us, but so they can convince us they will give it to us. Meanwhile, the Beltway echo chamber keeps saying the same things over and over again which is why the Democrats, as one example, can claim to be changing things and be successfully fulfilling their electoral mandate when most of the people who voted them in believe they've failed utterly to effect ANY real change.
One observation: earlier I agreed with Hanson that we could make a big mess but could react quickly to fix it. That's only relatively true. An axiom of life is that it is always ALWAYS easier to destroy than to create. It never takes as long to destroy a reputation or a city or a system or a program as it does to plan one and build one. And, I think we are actually slower to fix problems than a dictatorship would be. I'm not advocating for that mind you, but even Bush admits it is an easier system of government to use to get things done. None of that nasty consensus-building to slow you down. So, in the end, I'm not sure we really can respond more quickly. Of course, the claim, I think, was that we were more capable.
Let's just recognize that I was rambling and move on. :)
Well, Denny has been saying for decades that the most effective form of gevernment every known to human history is the dictatorship.
Or was I not supposed to tell them that?
Anyway, David, I loved your line, "Our representatives in Washington are desperately trying to figure out what we want, not so much to give it to us, but so they can convince us they will give it to us." I will probably plagiarize that from you at some point in the future.
Can we get a vote from the other Contributing Factors? Halftime speech or sunshine-up-the-dress of "little team that couldn't"?
I don't want you to plagiarize, so I give you permission to use it as if it were your own. I'm sure I'm not the first to make that observation and phrase it that way either.
Post a Comment