Another thought-provoking post, Bill. This is what Richard Brookhiser tweeted out the day of the January 6th Insurrection when someone asked him if the nation would be able to bounce back: "We have been through worse: the Capitol was burned in 1814, the nation split apart in 1861, almost 3000 Americans were murdered on 9/11. We can get through this--but liberty is not a perpetual motion machine; it takes work in every generation, from every generation." I think the same principle applies: we've been through worse before, but that doesn't mean that we can take liberty for granted. We still have to fight for it.
I do think that talk of civil war and such, widespread in the swamps of both left and right, is *both* destructive and unrealistic. It is destructive because acting as though civil war is a possibility or an option will persuade some subset of the people that they need to prepare for one, and that never goes well. It is unrealistic, because the sectional divisions in our country are not regional as they were in the 19th century, they are urban vs. rural. Is Austin going to war against Lake Travis? Is Manhattan going to take up arms against the Southern Tier? Is some landlocked state going to try secession? Even West Virginia, Trump +39 in the last election, wouldn't do that.
Now, all of that said, I think most of the country believes that the federal government has become particularly dysfunctional, both politically and even within the agencies (see, e.g., bureaucratic rather than political failures in pandemic policy). One obvious solution would be to devolve a lot of power and money to the states, and let them do what they want within expansive boundaries, not as a matter of states' "rights" but to increase choice in American life. Acknowledge "the Big Sort" and embrace it. The problem is that there are a huge number of people - mostly on the left today but not entirely - who believe that national consistency is important in most matters that might even slightly implicate "rights," and since almost everything implicates rights when the personal is political and disparate impact can be calculated, they want *federal* rather than *federalist* resolution. National laws require that our government operate effectively at precisely the level -- in the Congress, or by executive order -- where it is actually at its least functional. Sigh.
I think you've hit the critical point. In 1787, what happened in South Carolina meant nothing to most people in Massachusetts, and vice versa. It wasn't at all outlandish to think of states as countries separate from one another. These days people moved around a great deal more, and they tend to think their rights do or should travel with them. The Supreme Court has generally agreed during the last century. When it changes its mind, as on abortion, lots of expectations are overturned, and people get upset.
Good questions. We should make it for the celebration , but with a diminished democracy. I also see a less engaged civic citizenry. Teach you students well.
Another thought-provoking post, Bill. This is what Richard Brookhiser tweeted out the day of the January 6th Insurrection when someone asked him if the nation would be able to bounce back: "We have been through worse: the Capitol was burned in 1814, the nation split apart in 1861, almost 3000 Americans were murdered on 9/11. We can get through this--but liberty is not a perpetual motion machine; it takes work in every generation, from every generation." I think the same principle applies: we've been through worse before, but that doesn't mean that we can take liberty for granted. We still have to fight for it.
I think you've summarized the basic lesson of history, Jake. You can't take anything for granted.
I do think that talk of civil war and such, widespread in the swamps of both left and right, is *both* destructive and unrealistic. It is destructive because acting as though civil war is a possibility or an option will persuade some subset of the people that they need to prepare for one, and that never goes well. It is unrealistic, because the sectional divisions in our country are not regional as they were in the 19th century, they are urban vs. rural. Is Austin going to war against Lake Travis? Is Manhattan going to take up arms against the Southern Tier? Is some landlocked state going to try secession? Even West Virginia, Trump +39 in the last election, wouldn't do that.
Now, all of that said, I think most of the country believes that the federal government has become particularly dysfunctional, both politically and even within the agencies (see, e.g., bureaucratic rather than political failures in pandemic policy). One obvious solution would be to devolve a lot of power and money to the states, and let them do what they want within expansive boundaries, not as a matter of states' "rights" but to increase choice in American life. Acknowledge "the Big Sort" and embrace it. The problem is that there are a huge number of people - mostly on the left today but not entirely - who believe that national consistency is important in most matters that might even slightly implicate "rights," and since almost everything implicates rights when the personal is political and disparate impact can be calculated, they want *federal* rather than *federalist* resolution. National laws require that our government operate effectively at precisely the level -- in the Congress, or by executive order -- where it is actually at its least functional. Sigh.
I think you've hit the critical point. In 1787, what happened in South Carolina meant nothing to most people in Massachusetts, and vice versa. It wasn't at all outlandish to think of states as countries separate from one another. These days people moved around a great deal more, and they tend to think their rights do or should travel with them. The Supreme Court has generally agreed during the last century. When it changes its mind, as on abortion, lots of expectations are overturned, and people get upset.
They should be hopeful because they have the power to do something (or nothing) to address the political problems that the country faces.
Good questions. We should make it for the celebration , but with a diminished democracy. I also see a less engaged civic citizenry. Teach you students well.