Timothy Egan’s hysteria in “The National Crackup” sadly characterizes what passes for insight these days at The New York Times.
We’ve never been a “unified” nation politically, ethnically, geographically or otherwise, and the idea that we ought to be one now is absurd. Inside its borders and among its people, America is the most intensely and constructively competitive nation in history. That competitiveness has been the engine of American capitalism. Is it hostile? Of course. But it’s fair. And it’s united by vast, powerful empirical standards that are the hallmark of our place among civilizations. There isn’t a square inch of America that doesn’t use dollars, watts, miles, ounces, etc. Because of that we can transact with each other on the basis of expected fairness and trust. Because of that the simple business of daily living is what keeps the peace from Maine to California. That we can take that social contract for granted even now shows how deeply ingrained that expectation is, and how well we uphold it even when we can’t stand each other. Until that changes--until there’s a Baptist dollar, a Muslim watt, a Republican pound, or a Democratic electric outlet--then America has all the unity it ever had, and all it needs. The contact isn’t “breaking apart”. It’s being knit tighter than ever as we build out the Internet of Things, the Smart Grid, and a nearly sentient national information network that all share the same standards, instantaneously, for ever greater empirical advantages. Trump can’t shatter that. He can’t even slow it down. As the DOW at 23,000 indicates, it doesn’t need him.
Another respondent to Egan’s article says the prescription is “an idealistic, unifying voice with moral authority.” Because “[w}e are falling into tribal identities because we have fallen under the sway of Trump the Divider,”, [w]e need to return to the rules of civic engagement that we should have learned in kindergarten: No name-calling, no insults, no shooting the messenger, no hogging the floor, no demonization. Make logical arguments using facts. Back to basics.”
Sorry, no. We already have the basics. Morality is personal. Sooner or later disagreements about it are inevitable, passionate and insoluble. It requires imposition when someone doesn’t consent. Seeking morality as the solution is pouring gas on the fire.
The only crack up is the same one we’ve always seen, the people who embrace the practicality and power of empiricism versus the ones who fear it. The former will keep making progress. The latter will keep being parasites on progress they don’t understand and can’t make themselves. That’s an opportunity for the former. People who hate and fear progress can’t stop it. They can only be its customers. Good luck with that.
This isn’t just dead wrong. It’s typical of the intellectual parochialism and fatalism at the Gray Lady. They’re compromising their value.