Bring on the cultural reformation

Whatever the merits of Bacevich's argument-- and while the link between the sexual revolution and the Iraq War is very tenuous, he certainly has some interesting things to say-- asking whether we're "in danger of losing the Republic" is a silly question. To be more precise, it's either overwrought and paranoid, or else manipulative. That is, it means either:

(1) that the author thinks a collapse of democracy is imminent, and that we could really be living under some kind of a fascist or authoritarian regime soon.

(2) what the author means by "the Republic" is some special sense of the word, consisting in far more than the protection of constitutional freedoms and the regular holding of democratic elections whose outcomes are binding, consisting, also, in some moral vision or virtue which is valued by the author and some like-minded people, but which most of the American public does not buy into.

We had a far more aggressive foreign policy in the WWII era-- far more men under arms, far more of the budget going to the military, etc.-- than we do now, and we didn't "lose the Republic." We all know that we're in no danger of losing the Republic now. So, if the purpose of Bacevich's essay is to raise that question, we can answer the question "no" and move on.>

Nathan's point doesn't diverge all that much from the article, Rod, or so I see it: he just doesn't point to the right aspects.

For me, the underlying "culprit" is capitalism. Everything else stems from that, because gratification is expensive, and because of the cynical Golden Rule: he who has the gold makes the rules.

We are not struggling with the loss of restraint. We are struggling to find new metaphors and attitudes to replace the fact that our culture was made up of arbitrary restraints based on who has the financial power. We are and always have been a monetary aristocracy. The labels you put on the values, especially the religious ones, really are irrelevant. In the US, the majority is Christian and that is their mode of expression. In India, they are Hindu. In the Middle East, they are Moslem. But they are all monetary aristocrats, and their power is completely arbitrary in its expression.

I would go on to argue that what makes the US better is that we impose controls on the arbitrariness of power. When those controls are lax, we notice the symptoms more (Credit Mobilier, Enron, leveraged buyouts in the KKR era) and we complain during the transition towards stronger controls. But we come out the other side, and we go along not conscious of how much better we have it, and the cycle of laxity begins anew.

Sorry to have waxed philosophic on you there, Rod. For all that I applaud Bacevich's principles, his conclusions are off, badly off in some respects. Our republic is not in danger of collapse so much as it is in danger if we are not capable of pushing it back up the incline side of the cycle. The trench is defined in large part by our multi-trillion dollar debt, and while this is never a one-track subject, we could do much worse than to focus our energy on reducing that debt, because we will then find ourselves with more room and energy to deal with the rest of it... and we may just solve a part of that list of ills that seem so important to so many people.>

This reminds of an article I read a couple years ago (sorry, I don't remember the author), arguing that during the postwar period, American society has, in essence, been engaged in a great experiment in philosophy, to test the proposition that the accumulation material goods and the (relatively) unfettered pursuit of pleasure, can make people happy. On balance, the answer appears to be, "No".>

David, you are too polite. I'd call it a resounding no. :)

Ann, I may be a bad one to offer a response because I and my extended family don't celebrate Christmas beyond a very limited exchange of gifts (or at all, on my wife's Jewish side), but I do have a suggestion: make it a year-round discussion instead of waiting for this season to come along. Make the discussion about crass commercialism in general, and your family might be better able to see it during the Christmas season if they've already acknowledged it the rest of the year.>

The debt cycle is personally imposed oppression. It has dangerous reprecussions for individuals and the entire economy. The good news is that it's easy to get off it. Just pay yourself first by saving a set proportion of your income long-term. Pay cash for most things or pay off your credit card every month.

There is no reason our capitalistic society to need debt-based spending. We could just as easily be a frugal, savings-driven economy. If we provide our own capital, we won't be dependant on the rest of the world for it. Then, even government debt wouldn't really be much of a problem.

It seems to me that most over-consumption that I see has to do with trying to impress other people. Depending on your crowd it might be a big house, a big car, a big kitchen or an exotic vacation. IMHO, none of these things are worth the debt.

My wife and I save about 30% of our gross income. There are many things we live without. We take inexpensive vacations. We don't have cell phones or laptops. We have one dated TV for our family of four and we'll keep it until it dies. We have one family camera. No Ipods. We purchase our clothes at discount stores and still use many hand-me-down furnishings. Our house is over 80 years old and requires many upgrades and we are doing them on a very slow basis as we can afford to using cash and without touching our long-term savings. We have never received financial help from our families and have no possibility of any meaningful inheritance.

And, we are contributing to solving government debt by not billing the government for the education of our children. We pay for that ourselves including summer school, sports camps, musical training, and art education. That amounts to a $15000 payment to the state, local and federal governments.

I say liberate yourselves and go debt-free. Otherwise, I've got no sympathy for you.>

Happy Catholic,

That's delightful!

Your plan is wonderful for those people in middle income brackets, and your advice is sound. What advice would you have for a family living at subsistence wage or lower?>

GOTV,

I was actually raised in a family that was always below the poverty level. That is one of the things that hooked me on the need for savings.

I'd still say, cut the frills, don't go to movies, don't eat out (even fast food), get and stay married, get an education or training in a skill that is better paying, use mass transit and live without a car for awhile. And if that isn't enough, take a second or even a third job.

I've done all of these things and it didn't kill me.>

Erica R Shier, thanks for that superb post.

It gives rise to an objection to Bacevich's line of argument.

Bacevich writes of a "postwar cultural project focused on dismantling constraints, especially on matters touching however remotely on sexuality and self-gratification." Now, just as you, Erica, had in the past labeled yourself a Republican and hence closed your mind an dhardened your heart to facts about environmental damage, it seems to me that Bacevich, by attributing trends that he doesn't like to some sinister "project," is labeling an awful lot of facts, ideas, and people as outside of his movement.

I suspect, for example, that he would put Franklin Evans in the "aginst us" box, based on Evans' cheerful non-Christianity and general liberal outlook. But as you can see from the comments in this thread, Franklin Evans is on Bacevich's side in many of the specific cultural matters that trouble Bacevich.

It just seems to me that it's counterproductively provocative and off-putting to lump all things with which one disagrees into some sort of monolithic project.

For that reason, while I encourage Rod Dreher to find a community of people who share his outlook for his daily life, I find it unproductive to link every aspect of one's worldview together when it comes to political discussions. And as someone who doesn't share all of Rod's views, I do-- perhaps unwarrentedly, perhaps owing only to my hypersensitivity-- feel labaled an outsider from time to time around here. Democracy, American politics, is not a jihad; no one gets 100% of what they want.>

HC said, in answer to my Q: My point about saving the government money on my kids education is that since we send them to private schools, we don't use the approximately 15K that the government would spend. Thus, our contribution to lower government spending.

Ah, got it. Thanks!

HB>

Thanks for the link. I hope you continue to discuss this important topic, Rod. Now I'm going to read the essay.>

"...the sexual liberation demanded by the Left..."

It seems to me that the sexual revoltion was a true social (not political) revolution, and swept all before it. I don't think "the Left" had much to do with it beyond perhaps clapping from the bleachers. How many unmarried twenty-somethings are not sexually active today?

I suppose the worry over losing our republican virtue in a swamp of sexual license and grotesque materialism echoes Roman writers in a pleasing way, but I can't see that there are any culture-wide remedies for us any more than there were for them. Perils of Prosperity Dept I guess.

Foreigners have been telling Americans they're gross and uncultured and disgusting for quite a while. It's ironic to see conservatives chiming in!>

despite the problems I have with Islam... I can't be enthusiastic about American cultural hegemony.

I'll admit I'm more enthusiastic about ours than theirs...>

Kind of odd comment from SkipChurch above. Conservatives have been complaining about America's cultural degradation for decades, usually getting laughed at by liberals for being fuddy-duddies.>

Better Hollywood than Peshawar, to be sure, but still, those of us here who lament how corrosive the nihilistic American popular culture is should consider how it must look to Muslim men and women overseas, who quite rightly see us as a threat to the things they hold dearest.

Actually, the ME does have other choices, and they generally choose them. They have a little of their own popular entertainment (which apparently includes the occasional showing of "Protocols of the Elders of Zion"), and they're big consumers of Bollywood movies. Although Bollywood is becoming more sexualized, I've been made to understand that they still don't even include kissing. Instead there's lots of family dramas where the kids try to run off and have "love" (as opposed to arranged) marriages, but not much gettin nasty.

Bollywood movies are also generally very shallow, but with lots of good dance numbers! But there's a decent number of good to great stuff too. They've had a major film industry for only a little less long than we have, and I've heard they're far more popular in the ME than American movies.

As an aside, while lots of Bollywood movies, um, don't translate well (read "seem completely ridiculous"), there's some pretty interesting stuff. Unfortunately there's not much in the way of "art" movies. One exception is "The Terrorist" (which came out before 9/11) about a Tamil Tiger woman who while on a suicide bomb mission discovers she's pregnant. This, of course, gives her second thoughts. Highly recomended.

This became quite a tangent, but I sometimes think we Americans overestimate our cultural influence. Actually, touching on what Franklin's been saying, its far more our rapacious corporate (and attendent government) influence that that messes the ME and other cultures up.>

Taken as follows, it truly is a modern feudalism: in order to maintain and increase their power (wealth), the aristocrats encourage behaviors (spending rather than saving, and particularly deficit spending) that only server their primary goals.

Franklin, I always looked at residential property taxes as modern feudalism myself.>

This essay was about the affect that the sexual revolution has had on foreign policy. It doesn't really matter if you think the sexual revolution was good, bad, or in between, Bacevich's point is that democracy doesn't always look as idealistic across the seas because of the perception that the Middle East has of American culture.

Bacevich says, Regardless, the foreign-policy implications of the sexual revolution loom large. The ideals that President Bush eagerly hopes to propagate throughout the Islamic world-those contained in Jefferson s Declaration and in the Bill of Rights-today come packaged with the vulgar exhibitionism of Madonna and the debased sensibility of Robert Mapplethorpe.

People in the Middle East don't know your neighbors and my neighbors. They see what they see on tv, the internet, and in magazines, and they believe that to be America. It's part of America, but doesn't reflect America as a whole.>

We must seem horribly hypocritical to the ME, as we proclaim "Christianity" while madonna sticks a crucifix up herself. We are an odd culture, and we ar at odds with ourselves. We believe in God, but we believe in unbridled freedom; this contradiction is the heart of the problem. Americans really don't submit to God, but only pay Him lip service. As much as I hate radical Islam, if I'm being honest I'd have to say that the regular Joe Muslim probably lives a life closer to Christian protocol than we Christians do ourselves.>

Fran,

In discussions such as this one, I think it's important that distinctions be made among the various groups that make up the "we" and the "us" you refer to in describing American society and how it must look to people in the Middle East and elsewhere in the world. I doubt there are very many Americans who actually do espouse *both* the values embodied by Jesus Christ *and* the values embodied by Madonna. Personally, as someone from the Deep South, one thing I take constant comfort from is the fact that whatever else might be blamed on us horrible, horrible "rednecks" here in "Jesusland," Madonna masturbating with a crucifix just isn't one of them.>

You do not have to engage in leftie sexual debauchery. Or ignore its consequences.

You do not have to become a Muslim-Jihadist yet (in America).

The death and destruction by jihad of religious militant, and licentious morality of the lefties, and the political power sought by the neo-cons, can be rejected, as long as one avoids the lifestyles that practice such beliefs.

There is no draft as of today, in the USA.

As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

That would be Jesus Christ.

The Gospels all the way through to the end of Revelation, not neglecting the entire Old Testament along the way.

It's all about "choices."

Peace!>

Franklin,
It's not a matter of being worried about what they think of us. But if part of our foreign policy is to convince people that liberty and religious freedom is better, then we need not be surprised when they look at us and say, "Yea, right. Thanks, but not thanks. We'll keep our theocracy, thank you very much."

I'm all for religious freedom and liberty. Music entertainers have the freedom to sell themselves to the public by taking off their clothes and being vulgar. I have the right to call them prostitutes.

The problem is that they want to sell themselves and expect Americans to not judge. I'm sorry. Prostitution is wrong.

I don't know what would be the best solution. I'm not crazy about legislating cultural values because I do believe it liberty and freedom of expression. I think that if more people stop participating as suggested by Crunchy's, while at the same time, aren't afraid to speak out against the vulgarities in American culture, it will change.>

The problem with our media's sexuality is that it's so ugly, unnatural, and used as a marketing device. And I'm sorry, but we ARE judged by our crappy media offerings. What else do they have to go on? They see us as hypocritical, licentious, godless, and imperialistic.
You see, even though we are able to express our disagreement with media...it's still just talk.
The problem gets back to the fact that freedom doesn't mean license, or at least it shouldn't. I was just thinking about the casual acceptance of the Britney crotch shots that are all over the net. I didn't go looking for these photos, but I can't say that I was at all surprised by them.
We were much better off with Audrey Hepburn.>

Bad HB, naughty HB. Almost made me give my monitor a coffee bath. ;)

Mel, please consider: that same internet that proliferates Britney crotch shots (which, as I've heard, are fakes that come with trojans (pun intended) and viruses) is also the only source of truth for many of those who are indoctrinated to "see us as hypocritical, licentious, godless, and imperialistic." I suggest to you that those who want to believe the lies are not going to change their minds no matter what we do, and those who are open to the truth have already found it.

Let them judge us. We judge them, and I doubt that we can be expected to do any better than they do, seeing as how that same media you decry is our source of information about them.

People will believe a lie because they want to believe it, or because they are afraid it might be true. That is the true obstacle over which we must succeed if we are to be seen as we really are.>

Well, Giittv, I think you are looking in all the wrong places. :)

First, a clarification: I did not mean to imply any positive culture change, though I could argue that we have seen some positive changes.

Second, one cannot judge a cultural change by any overt measurement. I make my statement (and go out on a limb) based on my observation of my immediate fellows, those I see every day, and the subtle indicators in commentary and entertainment.

So,

What exactly did 9/11 change about our culture?

I can't answer that, because it's the wrong question. You can't use "exactly" because there is no static point of comparison.

Anyway, some of my anecdotal evidence:

The EMT friend who volunteered to participate in the clean up in Manhattan, and came back two weeks later about 20 years older, and in some very good ways.

The intro bit for Saturday Night Live for their first broadcast after 9/11. You have to see it yourself*, my trying to describe would just not be adequate, but I'll summarize: New York Mayor Rudolph Guiliani pays tribute to the lives lost on September 11th by acknowledging the members of the New York Fire and Police Department as heroes. Paul Simon sings "The Boxer."

I'm sure I'm not explaining adequately. I think, though, that if you examine our society from a less focused angle, you may see what I see. My intention is to point out that the president, our foreign policy, the media and such are neither accurate not adequate measurements of culture. They can point the way, but IMO it is a mistake to end with them.>

Re: Cultural shift

Right after 9/11, people seemed to be more shocked and puzzled than angry and vengeful. Yes, we talked about the horror and loss, but we also asked each other why this might have happened. We wondered what made these people so angry that they would do such a thing. We started looking at our actions in the Middle East -- not to see what we were doing "wrong," necessarily, but just to educate ourselves about what we were doing. Because before then most of us didn't pay much attention.

I think if we'd been able to continue with that self-examination we might have been able to come to a better national consensus about how we felt about it and what to do about it. And please, I'm not suggesting that we would have seen ourselves as "at fault" or as "deserving it," but just that we might have looked objectively at how we could be perceived in the Middle East.

Instead, our President stood up and told us that "our enemies" did this because "they hate freedom," and so we veered away from trying to understand and towards greater fear of "our enemies," and an ugly (to me) nationalism. The test of patriotism became whether or not you agreed with the war in Iraq.

Maybe that's the cultural shift -- people whose politics you (general) disagree with have become "un-American." Either they're allying themselves with "our enemies" and are "as bad as the terrorists," or they're fascist racists who want to trash the Constitution and sell their grandmothers for oil money. It's hard to be in the middle and to get people to discuss things objectively.

HB>

Thank you to those who gave suggetions about discussing Christmas/consummerism with extended family.
Frankilin Evans - You are so right; I should be keeping this discussion open all year long. I just wish I had the courage.
Ericka - Buying a goat for a needy family is exactly the kind of thing I was thinking of for my family. They are not "there" yet but I hope someday we can do something similar.
Sarah - The gifts you buy for your family when traveling sound thoughtful and lovely. I especially like the idea of tea or other consumables.
Anything that goes away instead of having to be stored, cleaned, sorted, etc. is good. Even if it is true that our economy can last forever with this spend, spend,spend model ,I don't think we as individuals and families can bear up under our load of STUFF.>

OK, GIITV, I'm shocked to say that I completely agree wtih your posting!! Will miracles never cease?!? Maybe we have more in common than we realize !! :)>

Franklin, bubby, I don't doubt for a moment that there are people whose outlooks have changed since 9/11. Nor do I doubt that those peopel have th ewill and impetus to effect positive change in the world around them.

As a culture, however, it ain't happening. Though there is definitely somethign to be said for small pockets of individuals and communities building their own idea of "culture," Culture is largely dictated via church, school, and media and is received though "passive participation" in these arenas. Whether that's a function of biological or culturally-induced laziness isn't a question I can answer, but looking at the world around me, people for the most part wait for culture to be taught to them.

I don't see too many people teaching contraty to "go to work" and "keep shopping," and those that do are looked at as nutters.

I am hopeful that it won't take catstrophe to clear the kultursmog.

That and "tree fitty" will get me a latte at Starbucks.>

Franklin, Ann, Erica, Rod, and anyone else interested...

Have any of you read Daniel Quinn's Ishmael or My Ishmael? The dialogue seems interminable and repetative at times, but the two books bring up fascintating questions about what Culture (capital 'C') is, how it's spread, and what its purpose is.

Ishamel's main question is "Why do we as a Culture enact a story that puts us in conflict with the rest of the world?"

My Ishamel's main question is "How is Culture disseminated in our world, and does it acheive it's desired results?" It offers some keen insights into education that, while not shocking, certainly call into question what we perceive about the effectiveness of schooling as a means of passing on our cultural genes.

I think these two books are germane to this discussion of consumerism and cultureal reformation - have any of you read them?>

The discussion here is really wonderful. But its not about the sex that mr. dreher is so worried about. That doesn't worry most of us.

It's the consumerism, and hollywood which is its media face.

The way that sex is used to sell is offensive, but so is the way that violences is used to sell, or keeping up with the jones' .... It's the selling which is ugly, and our societies' pavlovian response to it.

Sexual license may be what offends conservative muslims, but it is not causes most of us to feel sick in our heart. And I think we share that sick feeling, for ourselves and for our kids.

There's something we can work on. Together.>