Andrew Bacevich, writing in The American Conservative (the piece is excerpted from his new book), explores how the bottomless American appetite for consumption has hollowed out our nation and made us profoundly vulnerable. It didn't start with George W. Bush. Bacevich, an iconoclastic conservative, points the finger elsewhere. Excerpt:
How Americans dealt with the question of energy, [President Carter] believed, would determine which idea of freedom would prevail. With this in mind, Carter outlined a six-point program designed to end what he called "this intolerable dependence on foreign oil." Although he expressed confidence that the United States could one day regain energy independence, he acknowledged that in the near term "there [was] simply no way to avoid sacrifice." Implicit in Carter's speech was the suggestion that sacrifice just might be a good thing. For the sinner, penance must necessarily precede redemption.As an effort to reorient public policy, Carter's appeal failed completely. Americans showed little enthusiasm for the president's brand of freedom with its connotations of virtuous austerity. Not liking the message, Americans shot the messenger.
Carter's speech did enjoy a long and fruitful life--chiefly as fodder for his political opponents. The most formidable was Ronald Reagan. He portrayed himself as conservative but was, in fact, the modern prophet of profligacy--the politician who gave moral sanction to the empire of consumption. Beguiling his fellow citizens with talk of "morning in America," Reagan added to America's civic religion two crucial beliefs: credit has no limits, and the bills will never come due. [Emphasis mine -- RD] Balance the books, pay as you go, save for a rainy day--Reagan's abrogation of these ancient bits of folk wisdom did as much to recast America's moral constitution as did sex, drugs, and rock and roll.
That's a point to ponder as we all wait for the markets to open on Monday. By the way, ask yourself which of the two presidential candidates is talking sensibly about the economy. Answer: neither one. It's sick-making to watch the nation slide further and further into a canyon of federal debt (watch the "60 Minutes" report below), and these two talking about which one is offering the better tax cut deal.
Remember, folks: in a democracy, we get the government we deserve.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
> "But I detect in Bacevich more than a hint of an anti-consumerist ideology
> masquerading as conservatism."
>
> That is quite the revealing statement. War is peace. Slavery is freedom. And
> consumerism is conservatism.
Forestwalker, you misunderstand my point. I firmly believe with Russell Kirk that conservatism is the negation of ideology. As Kirk defined it, "Ideology is an attempt to govern all life by political slogans; while American conservatives believe that no mere political formulas can make a people content. ... Thus, American conservatism is a cast of mind and character, not a neat body of political abstractions. Ideology is political fanaticism, an endeavor to rule the world by rigorous abstract dogmata."
What I see in Bracevich is political sloganeering and abstract dogma that ignore inconvenient truths, such as the constraints placed on Reagan by the Cold War. Consumerism is not conservatism, but neither is anti-consumerist ideology.
Spending has as much or more to do with the deficits as tax cuts. But how often do you hear opponents of tax cuts complain about spending? I maintain it is impossible for any tax system to raise enough money to support Congress' spending promises.
Agreed. Lots of crocodile tears about the deficits flowing from the Left these days. What about spending you say?
Nothing but crickets, all night long. Except maybe for false and misleading propaganda about how Republicans cruelly "cut" (which in lib-speak means "didn't increase as much as we'd demanded") social services. Only a left-wing ideologue can look at a 10% inflation adjusted increase in real spending and call it a "cut".
Ronald Reagan thought that we could have our cake and eat it, too. And the American public bought it hook, line and sinker. No responsibility, just the freedom to "shop til we drop." I firmly believe we are in the precarious position we're in today because of Ronald Reagan and his "materialism is Americanism" mantra. We're way over bounds in our consumeristic lifestyle, and have almost have reached the point of no return.
Finally someone is telling the truth about what has gone terribly wrong in this country.
"Consumerism is not conservatism, but neither is anti-consumerist ideology." - Mark
Is love of country a "political abstraction?" Is preserving tradition? What about personal responsibility? I think your viewpoint is a bit simplistic. Bacevich is not being fanatical or trying to "rule the world by rigorous abstract dogmata."
Could we say: "Moral relativism is not conservatism, but neither is anti-moral relativism."
Or how about: "Socialism is not conservatism, but neither is anti-socialism." ?
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.