Showing posts with label rugged individualism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rugged individualism. Show all posts

Wednesday, July 31, 2013

Study: In U.S., geography is destiny

Yet more evidence that bootstrapping oneself from rags to riches is pretty darn unlikely, and depends a lot on luck and accident of birth:

“Where you grow up matters,” said Nathaniel Hendren, a Harvard economist and one of the study’s authors. “There is tremendous variation across the U.S. in the extent to which kids can rise out of poverty.”

Meanwhile...

Geography mattered much less for well-off children than for middle-class and poor children, according to the results. In an economic echo of Tolstoy’s line about happy families being alike, the chances that affluent children grow up to be affluent are broadly similar across metropolitan areas.

This directly contradicts the conservative belief in the power of rugged individualism to overcome all obstacles.  But we already knew that Ragged Dick was an old fairy tale, didn't we?... 


By David Leonhardt
July 22, 2013 | New York Times

Saturday, September 1, 2012

Brooks: GOP has no soul, nothing to offer the poor

By David Brooks
August 30, 2012 | New York Times

America was built by materialistic and sometimes superficial strivers. It was built by pioneers who voluntarily subjected themselves to stone-age conditions on the frontier fired by dreams of riches. It was built by immigrants who crammed themselves into hellish tenements because they thought it would lead, for their children, to big houses, big cars and big lives.

America has always been defined by this ferocious commercial energy, this zealotry for self-transformation, which leads its citizens to vacation less, work longer, consume more and invent more.

Many Americans, and many foreign observers, are ambivalent about or offended by this driving material ambition. Read "The Great Gatsby." Read D.H. Lawrence on Benjamin Franklin.

But today's Republican Party unabashedly celebrates this ambition and definition of success. Speaker after speaker at the convention in Tampa, Fla., celebrated the striver, who started small, struggled hard, looked within and became wealthy. Speaker after speaker argued that this ideal of success is under assault by Democrats who look down on strivers, who undermine self-reliance with government dependency, who smother ambition under regulations.

Republicans promised to get government out of the way. Reduce the burden of debt. Offer Americans an open field and a fair chance to let their ambition run.

If you believe, as I do, that American institutions are hitting a creaky middle age, then you have a lot of time for this argument. If you believe that there has been a hardening of the national arteries caused by a labyrinthine tax code, an unsustainable Medicare program and a suicidal addiction to deficits, then you appreciate this streamlining agenda, even if you don't buy into the whole Ayn Rand-influenced gospel of wealth.

On the one hand, you see the Republicans taking the initiative, offering rejuvenating reform. On the other hand, you see an exhausted Democratic Party, which says: We don't have an agenda, but we really don't like theirs. Given these options, the choice is pretty clear.

But there is a flaw in the vision the Republicans offered in Tampa. It is contained in its rampant hyperindividualism. Speaker after speaker celebrated the solitary and heroic individual. There was almost no talk of community and compassionate conservatism. There was certainly no conservatism as Edmund Burke understood it, in which individuals are embedded in webs of customs, traditions, habits and governing institutions.

Today's Republicans strongly believe that individuals determine their own fates. In a Pew Research Center poll, for example, 57 percent of Republicans believe people are poor because they don't work hard. Only 28 percent believe people are poor because of circumstances beyond their control. These Republicans believe that if only government gets out of the way, then people's innate qualities will enable them to flourish.

But there's a problem. I see what the G.O.P. is offering the engineering major from Purdue or the business major from Arizona State. The party is offering skilled people the freedom to run their race. I don't see what the party is offering the waitress with two kids, or the warehouse worker whose wages have stagnated for a decade, or the factory worker whose skills are now obsolete.

The fact is our destinies are shaped by social forces much more than the current G.O.P. is willing to admit. The skills that enable people to flourish are not innate but constructed by circumstances.

Government does not always undermine initiative. Some government programs, like the G.I. Bill, inflame ambition. Others depress it. What matters is not whether a program is public or private but its effect on character. Today's Republicans, who see every government program as a step on the road to serfdom, are often blind to that. They celebrate the race to success but don't know how to give everyone access to that race.

The wisest speech departed from the prevailing story line. It was delivered by Condoleezza Rice. It echoed an older, less libertarian conservatism, which harkens back to Washington, Tocqueville and Lincoln. The powerful words in her speech were not "I" and "me" — the heroic individual. They were "we" and "us" — citizens who emerge out of and exist as participants in a great national project.

Rice celebrated material striving but also larger national goals — the long national struggle to extend benefits and mobilize all human potential. She subtly emphasized how our individual destinies are dependent upon the social fabric and upon public institutions like schools, just laws and our mission in the world. She put less emphasis on commerce and more on citizenship.

Today's Republican Party may be able to perform useful tasks with its current hyperindividualistic mentality. But its commercial soul is too narrow. It won't be a worthy governing party until it treads the course Lincoln trod: starting with individual ambition but ascending to a larger vision and creating a national environment that arouses ambition and nurtures success.

Friday, August 17, 2012

Ryan's parish priest: 'He shouldn't wrap himself in Catholic teaching'

So here's what Father Stephen Umhoefer had to say about his hometown boy Paul Ryan:

Umhoefer also laments what he calls an excess of individualism in America that is sometimes abetted by politicians. He prepared for (Center for Media and Democracy) CMD a section of the church catechism, which states that the church "has refused to accept, in the practice of 'capitalism,' individualism and the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor." Umhoefer said that he doesn't mean to accuse Ryan of choosing individualism as a creed over community, but that Ryan's promotion of Ayn Rand to his staff and others is "an alternative universe of which he is a member.... What I call an excessive attitude of individualism is doing a great deal of harm to us as a society because we are forgetting society values," said Umhoefer.

"What I wish for Paul -- he is so smart and so articulate and has made this whole budget, which he can defend on his own view ... of how the economy and politics work. I wish he wouldn't bring in the Catholic church. He doesn't need to if his economic and political argument are strong, and I'm sure he believes that they are."

It's too bad Ayn Rand is dead, because then we could get quotes from her saying how Ryan is a "compromiser" who betrayed the absolute principles of Objectivism. Then we'd see how Ryan is neither Catholic nor Randroid, nor anything else at his core except a hyper-ambitious suck-up to the rich and powerful.


By Jonathan Rosenblum
August 15, 2012 | PR Watch

Friday, February 10, 2012

Essay: Why is the end of the world so American?


Despite my far-left politics, I feel the strange allure of American survivalism. Post-apocalyptic movies like Planet of the Apes, The Omega Man, The Road Warrior, Waterworld, The Postman or The Book of Eli, wasteland lit. like The Road, or even zombie movies (my favorite) like 28 Days Later, Resident Evil: Apocalypse and Dawn of the Dead, not to mention the top-rated AMC television series The Walking Dead, instruct us that those who are hardened and prepared, psychologically and materially, stand a better chance of survival. Part of me -- I'm not sure which part -- warns me to ignore this instruction at my own peril.


There is something primal and basic in survivalism that seems so true due to its harsh black-and-white morality, its whittling down of priorities, and its focus on saving loved ones and treasured ideals. And there is something so manly about it, let's face it. (I don't have a very good feeling how popular all this stuff is with girls, I admit. Survivalism -- and my lack of it -- is not something I'm keen to talk about with most guys, much less the ladies.)

But why in America is survivalism suddenly so popular? And why are we churning out all this pop disaster that makes it feel necessary? (To be sure, the Brits are catching up). More concretely, why do we also have so many real-life American Redobuts, ready and waiting for God knows what and when? As alluded to, it must have something to do with our culture, starting with our fear of nuclear war in the 1950s with our fully stocked bomb shelters all the way up to our fear of flu epidemics, Big Government collapse, and resource shortages from global supply chain shocks. And to be sure, there are those who yearn for the terrible, black day that proves that America's love affair with firearms, so deadly in the short run, is supremely justified in the long run.

But that doesn't explain it all. No, I suspect it partly has to do with a sense of foreboding, a subconscious resignation to an imminent Day of Reckoning for us in the West, and America in particular*, for how good we've had it in a world that is so violent and unequal. And perhaps retribution for our sins. And our sins, depending who you talk to, are myriad and profound.

(* And New York in particular. I often recall the hilarious yet insightful question of a very dear non-American: "Why is Hollywood so obsessed with destroying New York City?" Indeed, why? Is it Los Angeles's way of getting back at its coastal rival? Is it because Wall Street assholes deserve it? Or is it jealousy because they are cleverer, richer and win more pennants? Anyhow, I feel sorry for New York and New Yorkers already, both pre- and post-9/11. Give it a rest, guys. Why not let Boise, Branson, Lubbock or Fargo take one on the chin for America for once, huh, Hollywood?)

On the Right, they say the Reckoning will come when we can't pay our profligate debts, or the digital currency collapses and Big Government turns violent and despotic, or even when we become so self-centered, decadent and idolatrous that an angry God "raptures" the good souls to heaven while leaving the sinful dregs to fight over the smoking remains while being hounded by the armies of the Anti-Christ. And Randroids have been threatening us with retribution for our sins since Atlas Shrugged in 1957.

On the Left, they say the Reckoning will come when we have depleted all the planet's resources, or genetically modified crops suddenly collapse and we forget how to feed ourselves and by extension, the world, or when climate change deprives the U.S. and many other places of the necessary conditions for industrial agriculture.

Both sides still fear the spectre of nuclear war -- from an errant Russian nuke, a burgeoning China, a jihadist's dirty bomb, or a crazy Iranian missile attack. Strangely (?), the end of the Cold War has done little to calm our fear of, and fascination with, the nuclear end times.

Then there is sci-fi pop culture which terrifies us with hordes of flesh-eating zombies, rapacious or blood-drinking aliens, planet-killing meteors, and super-diseases engineered by the government -- ours or another's -- leaked into the general population.


There is a pretty well-accepted psychological theory that argues we humans love horror stories because they help us to imagine and prepare for the worst: we can thus live out the worst case scenarios in our minds, and anticipate how we would deal with them, without actually suffering them. If that is the case, then the growing popularity of apocalyptic tales means that we are giving tremendous thought to such what-if scenarios. Does that mean such scenarios are becoming increasingly more likely?

Another well-accepted psychological theory states that we humans evolved in an environment of ever-present danger; and when danger is absent, we don't quite believe our eyes; so we seek to invent or imagine it, for example, through extreme sports. If so, then one could argue that the growing peacefulness in the West and America in particular is causing a corresponding psychological backlash, a secret yearning for an equal measure of danger to balance the scales. And it doesn't get any more dangerous than the end of the world.


Then there is the explanation that with technological progress we have become so psychologically and physically flabby and self-unreliant that we subconsciously yearn for the ultimate workout, the ultimate test of self to weld six-pack abs and Jim Brown's chest on our manliness. I mean, we don't know how to hunt or grow food anymore. We don't recognize any of the plants around us, even in our backyards. Most of us don't even know first-aid, CPR, or basic wilderness survival skills taught in Boy Scouts. This is not to mention the social epidemic of U.S. obesity, especially among the poor, and Southerners.

I find some evidence for this explanation in the growing popularity of survival shows on TV, which allow us to sit on our couches munching chips while "learning" something about taming -- or rather, bonding with -- those dwindling oases of wild nature. There is more evidence for this theory in the popularity of figures like James Wesley Rawles, best-selling author of Survivors: A Novel of the Coming Collapse and How to Survive the End of the World as We Know It. I mean, what kind of pathetic nerd learns how to survive from a book? It sounds like something I'd do*. (Both books are available on MP3 and Kindle for all you hardcore woodsmen.)

(* I admit I read The Zombie Survival Guide: Complete Protection from the Living Dead by visionary survivalist Max Brooks, but only because there are no real-life zombies to practice on (yet), not even in the woods.)


But I think the vogue of contemporary Western survivalism is best explained by something else: our modern sense of helplessness in the face of unstoppable globalization and the towering power of mechanistic, bureaucratic de-humanizing corporations and governments. The West -- that is, its diplomats and business cabals -- presently rules the world; but as individuals we Westerners, and especially we Americans, seem to matter less and less. And that doesn't feel right. It doesn't sit well with our myth of ourselves as ruggedly self-reliant cowboys riding life's range of possibilities.

And now it's time to return to my more familiar political-moralistic tone. The Tea Parties -- may they fail miserably -- and the Occupy movements -- may God bless them -- are looked down upon by a majority as malcontents trying to impose their fringe worldview on the rest of us, but at least they're trying to change something. Most of us, despite our vague dissatisfaction, have given up. Organizing, protesting, questioning authority, grassroots campaigning to pass a law or Constitutional amendment -- these are looked down upon as naive pursuits at best, and anti-American at worst. Labor unions -- who traditionally gave voice to the voiceless and balanced normal people's concerns with the national-industrial plans of commerce and government -- at least in the private sector, are nearly dead in America.

Compounding our sense of helplessness, the Left-Right consensus that impersonal "free markets" and "the invisible hand" solve most problems better than a group of actual human beings with a singular purpose leaves most of us convinced that nothing we do matters (except in the statistical, mystical aggregate), and even worse, we nowadays believe that interfering with those impersonal forces is tantamount to a political and economic crime, a la apocryphal capitalist "wrecker" spies in the Soviet Union who managed to throw a monkey wrench into otherwise humming factories churning out a better life for the masses.

In the face of perceived unstoppable, impending collapse, some choose to wall themselves off from it, and/or to create something new and pure in its place. You don't have to be a flower child to recognize the similarities between a rural survivalist practicing sustainable agriculture and pursuing renewable energy and water supplies with hippy communes starting in the '60s. These loose networks of survivalists formed by social networks, radio programs, shared books and films, and even their common choice of redoubt (Idaho-Wyoming-Montana) points to a yearning for their own like-minded community, albeit separated by hills, woods and fences. They don't want to be alone alone.

So modern American survivalism cannot be dismissed as silly, fringe, or just good fun. It's serious business. We ignore this phenomenon at our own peril. Moreover, we ignore what they're feeling -- and our inexplicable commiseration with them -- at our own peril.

The antidote to impotent rugged individualism (expressed through survivalism) is organization. Not building another party, NGO, or corporation -- but organizing actual groups of human beings with a singular purpose around common goals and then acting resolutely. Those people in the Tea Parties and Occupy movements who have tasted what such gatherings of like-minded, everyday people feel like know it is intoxicating -- and eye-opening. They want more and more of it. Regardless of their politics, they are acknowledging their individual powerlessness yet exercising their individual will to voluntarily join a powerful collective. Heck, even survivalist communities, conventions and social networks are an ironical cry for "Community!" by neglected, rejected, and self-exiled loners.


Don't get me wrong, I'll keep enjoying my Walking Dead, Max Brooks and Bear Grylls. I even enjoyed Atlas Shrugged... when I was a teenager. But I am not under any illusions as to the power of the rugged individual survivalist. Rather, in him I see my own fears and shortcomings... and the failure of globalization to preserve a sense of community and individual security even for many Americans.