The Dark Ages

As I watch John Boehner on the nightly cable news programs ascend dais after dais, I cannot shake the sense that America is simultaneously descending, with each step Boehner takes, into its Dark Age.  I won't pretend I had the philosophical thought or wherewithal at whatever grade school age I was when I first learned about it to question just how Europe, after such a period of prolonged advancement, careened into the Dark Ages, when knowledge, science and general human development was lost (I mean, how does a society forget the Renaissance??).  But now that I am older (imbued possibly with more capacity for philosophical thought than when I was sitting in Ms. Eppich's 3rd grade class at Mercer Elementary), I find myself wondering about that.

America does seem in the midst of a profound societal shift.  I say "seems" because I am aware that the passage of time and progress may always seem this way to those who live through those times.  Yet, with some grounding in history and social-political development, I think these shifts underway are more significant than just the growing pains of natural social evolution, and the midterms may have been a good indicator of that.

Simplistically, I have always believed that democracy, particularly in its incarnation in the U.S., was about a fundamental choice between small government and big government.  Small government is defined by less Government (big “G,” notice.. ) regulation and by fewer Government social programs that amount to a broad social safety net.  Big government is defined by a greater degree of regulation and a strong social safety net.  The platforms of the dominant Republican and Democrat U.S. political parties do not break neatly between these two choices, and I find it difficult to draw a conclusion about what Americans really want from their Government (or in terms of what direction they desire their Government to proceed) based on the midterms.  However, despite my take on the blurred lines that actually divide the Republican from the Democratic ethos, the rhetoric is still there: Republicans traditionally stand for smaller government and less regulation, and the Democrats stand for larger government and more regulation.  That the hooey of this real choice actually existing anymore has dawned on many people, I think, and from that observation I proceed with the rest of my thoughts.

Sickness and Spite
It was Election Day, and I was in Panama City, FL.  I was stopped behind a pick-up truck at a stop light, when I noticed its bumper sticker: "Don't Re-elect ANYBODY."  Like most people with cable tv service, I had spent the past several months watching the cable news channels, listening to predictions on the outcome of the looming election and the possible impact of the Tea Party.  What did it all mean?  Voter sentiment seemed to be polling away from incumbents and towards Tea Party (and Republican) candidates.  Were Americans choosing smaller government?  Was this a repudiation of Obamacare?

That bumper sticker made the most sense to me.  Americans were just fed-up with cynical American politics.  Moreover, as echoed in several articles I have recently read, Americans felt a strong sense to spite the establishment through their vote, and the Democrats currently held the majority in that establishment.  On Obamacare in particular, I thought the following sentiment from an article in the October 14th, 2010 Economist Magazine seemed most plausible:

Perhaps the most convincing reason to think Republicans will not win as much applause as they hope comes from Drew Altman of KFF. A recent poll by his organisation found 49% in favour of the new laws and 40% against. Crucially, of those who were angry about the reforms, 77% said it reflected a broader anger about the shortcomings of the federal government—and only a fifth had specific grievances against Obamacare.

Some Sense of Direction?
I don’t offer many data points here to support this suspicion, but I think that Americans are trending toward a choice between big and small government, and that choice is towards big government.  The rise in the level of benefits and the amount of regulation presumably demanded by Americans strongly supports this suspicion.  On top of that, I offer two other fundamental arguments.

The development of the state and its interaction with a society serves one primary purpose: the conservation and perpetuation of wealth.  The state (i.e. laws) and its maintenance and regulation of a market reduces risk for those who own capital.  It is classic development theory and it is as good as gold.

The second argument comes from the sage prognostication of economists much wiser than myself, specifically Schumpeter and (wait for it; hold your boo’s) Marx (yes, his social commentary was actually rather astute).  Both of these economists picked up on the trend that, as a society ages and more wealth is generated—wealth that those wealthy want conserved—the apparatus of the state seems to develop appendages and digits most suitable for the execution of a flavor of socialism than a more Adam Smith-like / Ayn Rand-ian free market democracy.  Why?  My simplified assessment: as the risks to the conservation of wealth become more numerous and complicated; as a society’s population grows; the mechanisms required to keep the majority copacetic enough to maintain a certain production / consumption dynamic require a bigger state offering more robust social services.  These services fundamentally level standards of living, reducing risk of near-term social unrest.

The Bad News
The bad news is that—although I do think that the role of the state and furthermore of big government makes sense—the “boorishness of the masses” (Marx, I think) should not be overlooked.  Stability is a pendulum: the state might try and reduce its rock, but, as our boy Einstein noted, things get interesting when the pendulum accelerates and gains momentum (i.e. the mass of an electorate).  This might be a good time to give From Dawn to Decadence another earnest try.

And I predict pushback from my invocation of Marx up there.  To that, I’ll just say this: Communism wasn’t Marx’s bright idea.  To understand the folly that was (eventually, finally) Communism, an historical understanding of how some Marxian principals were borrowed (and then altered) by Lenin, Stalin, and then a host of other Communist party bosses is needed.  To clarify: in no way is this any kind of an endorsement of either socialism or Communism!

Rather, I am trying to make a point, and that point is two-fold: Americans should recognize this fundamental choice they need to make, and that the political choices they may choose need to represent more clearly this spectrum between big and small government.  What is so frustrating is that this election has become more an indication of the spite of American people than some referendum on the path voters want the U.S. to proceed.  Frankly, either path is acceptable.  That the dominant U.S. political parties don’t seem to offer a platform of vehicle on which to approach either is just maddening.

For now, I think I will do some reading about the fall of European societies prior to the Dark Ages.  Hopefully, I will not find signs similar signs in the development of our modern society.