Don't get me wrong. I've already made my choice and cast my ballot. But I haven't decided if America's future will be able to live up to its promise. Have you?
So much to think about (as I’m reading this 2 days after the election) - and what I am struck by is how the “experts” got the mood of the country so wrong. As the dust settles, I think many of us were absolutely blindsided by the outcome. It’s going to take a while for reality to set in, and in the meantime, I’m going to focus on the meaningful relationships in my life - and what’s really important on a soul level. Thank you for reminding me of that, Andrew.
That sounds like a good recipe for sanity. Last night, Jimmy Kimmel asked how many people in the audience were no longer on speaking terms with family members because of the election, and several folks raised their hands. He said the number was smaller than he expected but that any number is too large. I agree with that. Glad you do too. Thanks so much for reading and sharing your thoughtful response. Much appreciated!
As always Andrew, I appreciate the insightful perspective and the timely nature of this terrific piece. I especially enjoyed all the AdT quotes and the pictures from Robert Frank's book, new to me. Stunning pictures in his book and taken early in my lifetime.
The US has clearly stated aspirations in our founding docs (Declaration of Independence, Constitution, Federalist Papers etc.) and I always think that US society missed the boat by not teaching K-12 history and governance classes consistently from the point of view of how events, proposed laws, election promises align etc with those aspirations. If we were all taught from the jump with that aspirational structure consistently, maybe we would all have the same truth and ruler to measure our choices against? It seems Alexis de Tocqueville seemed to report on observed social behavior without consistently calling out how that compared to the stated aspirations in our founding. Were there not enough formalized aspirations at the start to allow us a consistent standard? Seems to me there were plenty, no?.
Thanks for writing so well and with such great insight. It always gets me doing some rethinking and rereading.
Biz, you really got to the heart of today's ailment with your response today. Failing to provide civic education to all of the young on a consistent basis has landed us in the current predicament. Historically, the purpose of education was to make sure future generations understood their role with respect to their inheritance. I don't understand why we dropped the ball on that one. But it has created a vacuum of knowledge and turned those without the foundation you so wisely mention into sitting ducks for any slick-tongued liar who comes along. Shaking my head, my friend. Shaking my head.
Thanks so much for reading, for your encouraging support, and for sharing these important insights. Much appreciated!
I think an unfortunate, but powerful, unifying force is a common enemy. During the first half of my life, the official national enemy was Russia. After the Cold War thawed a bit, there was no singular national focus, no totemic demon. All the national fear, all the spitting hatred, the us-againt-them unity didn't quite know where to go, and so it turned inward. It's now us-against-us that "unifies" us. Perhaps the greatest tragedy of Trump's term in office was not seizing Covid as a common enemy - what a horrific example of missed opportunity.
You make quite a powerful point. Interestingly, de Tocqueville also had Russia in mind when he wrote about the early days of our own country.
"There are at the present time two great nations in the world, which started from different points, but seem to tend towards the same end. I allude to the Russians and the Americans. Both of them have grown up unnoticed; and whilst the attention of mankind was directed elsewhere, they have suddenly placed themselves in the front rank among the nations...The American struggles against the obstacles which nature opposes to him; the adversaries of the Russian are men...The principal instrument of the former is freedom; of the latter, servitude."
His observation seems almost prescient in light of the succeeding years. But even de Tocqueville didn't pick up on what you've said about "turning inward." He was more interested in our optimism and can-do spirit. I want to think about your point a little more in light of what I learned while researching last week's Lee Atwater post. Before the wall collapsed, Reagan's political operatives were already using abstract dog whistles as part of the "New Southern Strategy." Isn't it curious, though, that Russia is once again our adversary even though the wall came tumbling down decades ago.
Thanks so much for reading and weighing in. I really appreciate your thoughts.
We’re living in the era of grievance. Trump has simply capitalized on that and amplified it. This is a time of unprecedented change. A new world order is emerging internationally. Late stage capitalism is causing seismic shifts. Personal freedoms are under attack. Higher education is no longer as valued as it once was. We have a fascist running for the highest office in the land.
The only way forward is for the majority of us to move forward. To find common ground and fight for our rights,
Let’s hope Kamala wins decisively. She may not be perfect but who is?
You've raised some powerful points here, Michael. I'm particularly interested in the emergence of the new world order you mentioned. What that looks like depends in large part on what happens in this year's presidential race. I've been keeping up with news from Europe and Japan as well as here in the US. There's a lot of testy repositioning taking place. But how it all plays out after this year's votes are counted is anyone's guess.
I agree that no candidate is perfect. But for those seeking to preserve the world order established after WW2, she certainly seems the clear choice. Thanks so much for reading and sharing your insights. It's always good to hear from you.
"During couples therapy, relationships that are on the rocks sometimes find a path to healing by remembering the early stages of their romance—when they looked out the window and saw the same vista, the same future. But that can’t happen when one partner is stuck in the prefrontal cortex and the other is in the limbic system’s fight-or-flight mode.
Those two parts of the human brain cannot speak to each other. Neither can a nation divided in the same way."
I think this gets to the crux of the matter--and why the person who sported a red hat was as successful as he was--just as the person fueling the unrest in Germany in the '30s was. (I can't bring myself to speak either of their names this morning)--their "marketing brilliance" was the ability to make an already fear-driven and disenfranchised populace even more terrified, resentful and angry--thus putting that limbic system in such disarray that rational thought wasn't given a chance.
While I'm cautiously optimistic about today--as you point out in your essay--what concerns me is what happens next. While I don't practice anymore, the old Catholic in me is apt to go on a candle lighting spree. 💙
There's something to be said for lighting a candle, Diana, whether we do it as religious ritual or not. I remember going to the Blessed Mother's altar with my grandmother after mass, where she lit candles for her mother, her children, and for own special intentions. My mom did the same thing. Before they started locking churches, we could just walk in during the week, light a candle, and say a prayer. When I light a votive in my home today, I feel it links me to that earlier time and to an enduring spirituality.
I'm so glad you picked up on how fear-mongering triggers the limbic system. It's a visceral thing. And once the connection is established, it's really hard to break through. It would be nice if the media didn't amplify negative messages. And if we didn't have to live through news cycles that begin reporting on the next election as soon as the current one has ended. But I guess they have to make money too, huh?
Thanks as always for reading and sharing your thoughtful insights. Much appreciated!
Not sure I agree here, when you say, "For example, half the country believes the January 6th attack on the Capitol was an insurrection, but the other half regards it as peaceful protest." It's not half the country -- it is a significant minority that believes it was a peaceful protest, and their lie about 1/06 does threaten the fabric of the nation; and this threat is fueled by right wing propaganda and international propaganda efforts (and that would be Russia for the most part), and we're eventually going to have to figure out how to dispose of this canard.
Hi Salvatore. Thanks for reading and sharing your insights. It is true that I painted with a broad brush in the example you've mentioned. The exact number is undoubtedly not half. However, the January 6th attack on the Capitol strikes me as automatically disqualifying. And yet, the race is neck and neck. As I see it, anyone refusing to acknowledge that egregious nature of that incident has implicitly joined those who see the attack as negligible, if not precisely peaceful, per se. So yes, I did use broad strokes here to make that point. And I'm glad you picked up on it. Thanks again for reading and weighing in.
So much to think about (as I’m reading this 2 days after the election) - and what I am struck by is how the “experts” got the mood of the country so wrong. As the dust settles, I think many of us were absolutely blindsided by the outcome. It’s going to take a while for reality to set in, and in the meantime, I’m going to focus on the meaningful relationships in my life - and what’s really important on a soul level. Thank you for reminding me of that, Andrew.
That sounds like a good recipe for sanity. Last night, Jimmy Kimmel asked how many people in the audience were no longer on speaking terms with family members because of the election, and several folks raised their hands. He said the number was smaller than he expected but that any number is too large. I agree with that. Glad you do too. Thanks so much for reading and sharing your thoughtful response. Much appreciated!
As always Andrew, I appreciate the insightful perspective and the timely nature of this terrific piece. I especially enjoyed all the AdT quotes and the pictures from Robert Frank's book, new to me. Stunning pictures in his book and taken early in my lifetime.
The US has clearly stated aspirations in our founding docs (Declaration of Independence, Constitution, Federalist Papers etc.) and I always think that US society missed the boat by not teaching K-12 history and governance classes consistently from the point of view of how events, proposed laws, election promises align etc with those aspirations. If we were all taught from the jump with that aspirational structure consistently, maybe we would all have the same truth and ruler to measure our choices against? It seems Alexis de Tocqueville seemed to report on observed social behavior without consistently calling out how that compared to the stated aspirations in our founding. Were there not enough formalized aspirations at the start to allow us a consistent standard? Seems to me there were plenty, no?.
Thanks for writing so well and with such great insight. It always gets me doing some rethinking and rereading.
Biz
Biz, you really got to the heart of today's ailment with your response today. Failing to provide civic education to all of the young on a consistent basis has landed us in the current predicament. Historically, the purpose of education was to make sure future generations understood their role with respect to their inheritance. I don't understand why we dropped the ball on that one. But it has created a vacuum of knowledge and turned those without the foundation you so wisely mention into sitting ducks for any slick-tongued liar who comes along. Shaking my head, my friend. Shaking my head.
Thanks so much for reading, for your encouraging support, and for sharing these important insights. Much appreciated!
I think an unfortunate, but powerful, unifying force is a common enemy. During the first half of my life, the official national enemy was Russia. After the Cold War thawed a bit, there was no singular national focus, no totemic demon. All the national fear, all the spitting hatred, the us-againt-them unity didn't quite know where to go, and so it turned inward. It's now us-against-us that "unifies" us. Perhaps the greatest tragedy of Trump's term in office was not seizing Covid as a common enemy - what a horrific example of missed opportunity.
You make quite a powerful point. Interestingly, de Tocqueville also had Russia in mind when he wrote about the early days of our own country.
"There are at the present time two great nations in the world, which started from different points, but seem to tend towards the same end. I allude to the Russians and the Americans. Both of them have grown up unnoticed; and whilst the attention of mankind was directed elsewhere, they have suddenly placed themselves in the front rank among the nations...The American struggles against the obstacles which nature opposes to him; the adversaries of the Russian are men...The principal instrument of the former is freedom; of the latter, servitude."
His observation seems almost prescient in light of the succeeding years. But even de Tocqueville didn't pick up on what you've said about "turning inward." He was more interested in our optimism and can-do spirit. I want to think about your point a little more in light of what I learned while researching last week's Lee Atwater post. Before the wall collapsed, Reagan's political operatives were already using abstract dog whistles as part of the "New Southern Strategy." Isn't it curious, though, that Russia is once again our adversary even though the wall came tumbling down decades ago.
Thanks so much for reading and weighing in. I really appreciate your thoughts.
We’re living in the era of grievance. Trump has simply capitalized on that and amplified it. This is a time of unprecedented change. A new world order is emerging internationally. Late stage capitalism is causing seismic shifts. Personal freedoms are under attack. Higher education is no longer as valued as it once was. We have a fascist running for the highest office in the land.
The only way forward is for the majority of us to move forward. To find common ground and fight for our rights,
Let’s hope Kamala wins decisively. She may not be perfect but who is?
You've raised some powerful points here, Michael. I'm particularly interested in the emergence of the new world order you mentioned. What that looks like depends in large part on what happens in this year's presidential race. I've been keeping up with news from Europe and Japan as well as here in the US. There's a lot of testy repositioning taking place. But how it all plays out after this year's votes are counted is anyone's guess.
I agree that no candidate is perfect. But for those seeking to preserve the world order established after WW2, she certainly seems the clear choice. Thanks so much for reading and sharing your insights. It's always good to hear from you.
Andrew--I particularly loved this passage:
"During couples therapy, relationships that are on the rocks sometimes find a path to healing by remembering the early stages of their romance—when they looked out the window and saw the same vista, the same future. But that can’t happen when one partner is stuck in the prefrontal cortex and the other is in the limbic system’s fight-or-flight mode.
Those two parts of the human brain cannot speak to each other. Neither can a nation divided in the same way."
I think this gets to the crux of the matter--and why the person who sported a red hat was as successful as he was--just as the person fueling the unrest in Germany in the '30s was. (I can't bring myself to speak either of their names this morning)--their "marketing brilliance" was the ability to make an already fear-driven and disenfranchised populace even more terrified, resentful and angry--thus putting that limbic system in such disarray that rational thought wasn't given a chance.
While I'm cautiously optimistic about today--as you point out in your essay--what concerns me is what happens next. While I don't practice anymore, the old Catholic in me is apt to go on a candle lighting spree. 💙
There's something to be said for lighting a candle, Diana, whether we do it as religious ritual or not. I remember going to the Blessed Mother's altar with my grandmother after mass, where she lit candles for her mother, her children, and for own special intentions. My mom did the same thing. Before they started locking churches, we could just walk in during the week, light a candle, and say a prayer. When I light a votive in my home today, I feel it links me to that earlier time and to an enduring spirituality.
I'm so glad you picked up on how fear-mongering triggers the limbic system. It's a visceral thing. And once the connection is established, it's really hard to break through. It would be nice if the media didn't amplify negative messages. And if we didn't have to live through news cycles that begin reporting on the next election as soon as the current one has ended. But I guess they have to make money too, huh?
Thanks as always for reading and sharing your thoughtful insights. Much appreciated!
Not sure I agree here, when you say, "For example, half the country believes the January 6th attack on the Capitol was an insurrection, but the other half regards it as peaceful protest." It's not half the country -- it is a significant minority that believes it was a peaceful protest, and their lie about 1/06 does threaten the fabric of the nation; and this threat is fueled by right wing propaganda and international propaganda efforts (and that would be Russia for the most part), and we're eventually going to have to figure out how to dispose of this canard.
Hi Salvatore. Thanks for reading and sharing your insights. It is true that I painted with a broad brush in the example you've mentioned. The exact number is undoubtedly not half. However, the January 6th attack on the Capitol strikes me as automatically disqualifying. And yet, the race is neck and neck. As I see it, anyone refusing to acknowledge that egregious nature of that incident has implicitly joined those who see the attack as negligible, if not precisely peaceful, per se. So yes, I did use broad strokes here to make that point. And I'm glad you picked up on it. Thanks again for reading and weighing in.