Greetings from a blue state. Just a few points:
Evan Sayet’s view that the Democrats believe that we
deserved 9-11 is pure hogwash, as everyone with any common sense should
recognize.
Also, I wouldn’t make too much of the fact that racist
whites in the South were Democrats. Everyone knows that there was a branch of
the Democrats (nicknamed “Dixiecrats”)
who had little in common with any other part of the Democratic party. They were
Democrats because the Democratic party in the 1850s and 1860s were pro-slavery.
So the party remained strong in the South while a more liberal version of the
party evolved elsewhere. For the same reason, blacks voted Republican for the
longest time. But there is such a thing in American history as “critical
realignment,” in which our parties have evolved and fundamentally changed over
time. The Republican party today is not the party of Lincoln. The Republican party in the 1930s
was not the party of Lincoln,
just as the Democratic party of FDR, JFK and LBJ was not the same as the
Democrats in the mid-19th century. So let’s please drop this
argument. The apparent irony isn’t really there. And for the past few decades,
conservative formerly Democratic white southerners have gone massively over to
the Republicans (where they belonged) and blacks had long before that crossed
to the Democrats.
As far as taxation being unfair, I’m sorry, but a more
progressive tax rate would be a fairer way to go. Get rid of the loopholes,
make the system fairer, and so the very hard-working middle classes can get a
fair shake, rather than corporations or the megarich who don’t, by definition,
deserve to pay less than their due. Sayet’s depiction that we’re taking from
the deserving rich and giving to the undeserving rest is unbelievably
simplistic, taken right out of the Ayn Rand handbook.
I hate simplistic left-wing thought that demonizes
some people and countries and lionizes others with no intellectual integrity or
nuance. But I dislike it even more (or
at least just the same) when I hear the same from the right.
The interview with Bill Bishop, on the other hand, was very
interesting. I think he is absolutely right, and may even buy his book. Peer
pressure apparently does play a great role in so much of what we do, but
especially in social attitudes and political thinking, for two reasons: 1. people
don’t want to be ridiculed and socially isolated. 2. While people may have
their honest views on politics, they are generally not experts, so beyond a few
catch phrases and canned explanations, they cannot with confidence defend their
gut feelings in any great depth. So, for both reasons, it’s far easier to join
the side that won’t challenge you and go along with the flow, or simply to shut
up.
One other thing: I’m not sure that we junked the Articles of
Confederation in favor of a new, more centralized constitution truly uniting
the 13 colonies because the Founding Fathers felt the need for a better exchange
of ideas. I vaguely remember learning that it was just easier having one
currency, without tariffs and customs at so many borders. Also, I remember
learning that the differences of opinions that existed (big-state versus
small-state preferences on representation in Congress, slave-versus-non-slave, industrial north-vs-agricultural south)
were not mutually enriching ideas that everyone enjoyed sharing; they were competing interests that nearly
sunk our new government before it got started. There were no exchanges of viewpoints, only
compromises, in the vague hope that we could return to those issues later, if
at all.
