Never Enough

Great article today (Friday 3/29) in the WSJ by Peggy Noonan.  If you've read at all you know that she is one of my favorites.  I don't always agree and she is sometimes too passive, but I think today she hits the nail on the head.  It's all about the divisions in our culture and how we seem to not do anything but hate each other.  Read her article, especially the highlighted paragraph, below and then I'll give my take on this issue and others in our culture.

The Two Americas Have Grown Much Fiercer

The U.S. was divided 46 years ago. But no one saw it as a fight to the death.

 By Peggy Noonan

March 28, 2019 

Sometimes you write about the most obvious thing in the world because it is the most important thing. Reaction to the outcome of Robert Mueller’s investigation shows Americans again how divided we are. If you are more or less of the left, you experienced the probe as a search for truth that would restore the previous world of politics. Instead the traitor got away with it and you feel destabilized, deflated. If you are of the Trumpian right, it was from the beginning an attempted coup, the establishment using everything it had to remove a force it could not defeat at the polls. You are energized, elated.

Now both sides will settle down, with the left as forthcoming in its defeat as the right is forbearing in its victory. I just wanted to show you my fantasy life. The Trump forces will strike with a great pent-up anger, and the left will never let go.

Both sides will be intensely human. And inhuman. Because the past few years the character of our political divisions has changed, and this must be noted again. People are proud of their bitterness now. Old America used to accept our splits as part of the price of being us—numerous, varied, ornery. Current America, with its moderating institutions (churches) going down and its dividing institutions (the internet) rising, sees our polarization not as something to be healed but a reason for being, something to get up for. There’s a finality to it, a war-to-the-death quality.

It is, actually, shocking, and I say this as a person always generally unshocked by American political division, because I came of age in it. When I was a kid we came together as a nation when John F. Kennedy died and manned rockets went up, but after that it was pretty much turmoil—Vietnam, demonstrations, Watergate. You were on one side or the other. The terms left and right started replacing the boring old Democratic and Republican.

I will never forget seeing, on the cover of Time magazine, in October 1972, an essay by Lance Morrow that was ostensibly about the last days of the race between Richard Nixon and George McGovern but really about something bigger. I was in college, and it struck me hard. It was called “The Two Americas,” and was elegantly written and prescient. The candidates were so unlike each other that they seemed to represent different “instincts” about America. “They suggested almost two different countries, two different cultures, two different Americas,” Mr. Morrow wrote. “The McGovern campaign marches to the rhythms of the long, Wagnerian ’60s”—racial upheaval, the war, feminism, the sexual revolution. McGovernites had a more romantic conception of what leadership could be, should be.

In Nixon’s America, on the other hand, there was “the sense of ‘system.’ The free enterprise system, the law and order system, even the ‘family unit’ system.” They were protective of it, grateful to it. And the antonym to their idea of system wasn’t utopia, it was chaos. “They are apprehensive of the disorders that the late ’60s adumbrated to them, the turmoils that they suspect a McGovern accession might bring.” They wanted evolution, not revolution.

While Nixon supporters tended to be more “comfortable,” McGovern backers had their own kind of detachment. Harvard sociologist David Riesman was quoted on part of McGovern’s constituency, professional elites: “They have very little sense of that other day-by-day America.”

Mr. Morrow noted a dynamic still with us, only more so. On both sides, “voters repeat their candidate’s themes and even rhetoric with a precision that is sometimes eerie.” He concluded with the observation that within the two Americas he saw “one common denominator,” the sophistication of the people, their earnest desire, left, right and center, to find and support the best thing for America.

It was written with a respect and warmth toward the American people that is not so common now.

The notion of a country divided reinforced what I thought at the time I’d been seeing. The facts and feel of the divisions change, but division isn’t bad, it’s inevitable and human.

In my lifetime I have seen two things that have helped us reorder ourselves as a nation into some rough if temporary unity. Tragedy, such as 9/11, is one. Sheer political popularity is another. Ronald Reagan had two authentic landslides, the second time, in 1984, winning 49 states. Today’s America doesn’t yield outcomes like that. But there was something we did then that could never happen now.

Writing is never pleasurable, at least for anyone sane, but the most pleasurable and satisfying speeches I worked on with Reagan were those in which you get to bring your love for the other side. A Rose Garden speech praising the excellence of Scoop Jackson or JFK, a speech never given on the excellence of Eleanor Roosevelt. We quoted Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman more than Dwight Eisenhower. The boss had been a Democrat. He’d stumped for Truman in ’48 with Truman. Reagan was not sentimental about our divisions—he knew exactly why he was not a Democrat anymore—but he took every chance he could to reach across the lines and hold on.

But that kind of popularity is probably not possible in this environment. That’s for many reasons, and one is that policy demands have become maximalist. It’s not enough that contraceptives be covered in the government-mandated plan; the nuns must conform. It’s not enough you be sensitive to the effect of your words and language; you must be punished for saying or thinking the wrong thing. It’s not enough that gay marriage is legal; you must be forced to bake the cake. It won’t do that attention be paid to scientific arguments on the environment; America must upend itself with green new deals or be judged not to care about children.

Nothing can be moderate or incremental, everything must be sweeping and definitive. It is all so maximalist, and bullying.

In that environment people start to think that giving an inch is giving a yard. And so they won’t budge.

You don’t even get credit for being extreme in your views but mild in your manner, in the way that people called Barry Goldwater both extreme and mild. Now you must be extreme in your manner or it doesn’t count, you’re not one of us.

It is just such an air of extremeness on the field now, and it reflects a larger sense of societal alienation. We have the fierce teamism of the lonely, who find fellowship in their online fighting group and will say anything for its approval. There are the angry who find relief in politics because they can funnel their rage there, into that external thing, instead of examining closer and more uncomfortable causes. There are the people who cannot consider God and religion and have to put that energy somewhere.

America isn’t making fewer of the lonely, angry and unaffiliated, it’s making more every day.

So I am worried, which is the point of this piece. The war between Trump and not-Trump will continue, will not be resolved, will get meaner. One side will win and one side will lose and the nation will go on, changed.

Is it self-indulgent to note that this grieves me? I suppose it is. But it grieves me.

The phrase that really, really, really resonates with me is "...the policy demands have become maximalist".  We seem to have come to a place in our culture that for everything, and I mean absolutely every issue, you're either for someone or something, or you're against them.  No nuance.  No agreeing that things have changed and we need to recognize that without upending everything.  No incrementalism.  No quarter is given.  The thing is, cultural change is difficult and incremental.  You can't change people's hearts or minds overnight.  We see violence being used as an agent of change, but it is only for dramatic impact and to make a statement.  It never breeds permanent change.

An area that really exemplifies that attitude is in climate change.  We've all heard of the absurd Green New Deal and the exclamation that the world is going to end in 12 years if we don't upend everything we know and destroy our economy based on uncertain science.  But if you ask questions, you're a rube and a bumpkin and a denier and you just need to sit down and shut up.  I offered my thoughts on this craziness a few weeks ago here.

There is also a fair amount of hypocrisy in those who become outraged or mortally distressed by tragic events happening around them.  Violence is always bad and results in heartache and ruined lives.  But I see people "standing in solidarity" for this group or the other that has some tragic event befall them and this selective outrage grates on me.  I mean, there are tens and hundreds of this group or the other being killed every day.  Is it that all violence sympathy is local and people have a genuine feeling for their neighbors?  Or is it the politically correct thing to do?  I'm sure for some it is one and for some it is the other.  But offering "thoughts and prayers" or "standing in solidarity" is to me useless.  If you truly believe in something, do something.  Work for change.  Whatever it is.  I might not agree with it, but take a real stand.

In the realm of weapons, I see people outraged at the weapon and not the person pulling the trigger.  As if getting rid of weapons would get rid of violence.  Now don't get me wrong.  There is evil in the world and bad things happen.  But someone is behind that violence.  We seem to be incapable of figuring out how to take weapons out of the hands of crazy people.  Or we don't have the will to implement policies that would categorize people appropriately as not being someone who should possess a weapon.

You can't believe that abortion is a difficult issue and should be minimized without being labeled someone who hates women.  You can't think that abortions should be legal, safe and rare without people accusing you of wanting women to slink into dark alleys and get abortions with a coat hangar. You can't think that Planned Parenthood has some major and serious problems and has exhibited questionable behavior without being against women's health and wanting them to be subservient to men.  In this area in particular there is no room for reasonable dialog and questioning.  You're on either one side or the other.

One of the biggest maximalist issue today is our Southern border issue.  I written plenty about this but it's getting worse and worse.  It is the ultimate polarizing issue. If you discuss solutions that are anything short of open borders and amnesty, you are heartless.  You are for putting kids in cages.  You don't care about the poor Mothers bringing their kids here for opportunity.  If you talk about drugs flowing into the country, laws being broken, the lie of asking for asylum, or any other traditional and logical issue to solve the problem you are heartless.  

And so it goes.   Discussion of almost any issue we face today to include those above quickly dissolves into black and white.  There is no grey.  No questions are allowed.  And if you don't believe as I believe, you are evil.  Ruin the baker, demonize the Nuns, ground the airplanes, close the pipeline, imprison the politically incorrect!  You are demonized.  You are irrelevant.  I don't know...maybe I'm just getting old.  But it really makes me want to shout, GET OFF MY LAWN!