On of my abiding interests, about which I have written many times, has to do with the interaction between our relatively conservative biology (Homeostasis) and an increasing pace of change caused by our rapidly evolving technology. The human psyche responds to sudden and extreme change with (a reactive) regression. This human tendency, to fear change and regress in the face of change, is being reflected in our political arena. While the emphasis of the coverage of the race has been overwhelmingly on Change, in fact, that is a bit of a mis-characterization. Both Mike Huckabee and Barak Obama are seen as the most authentic politicians running for their party's nomination, and both present themselves and are presented by the media coverage as about "changing" the climate in Washington and bringing a new approach to our multiplying problems. In fact, however, neither of them represent anything approaching substantive change.
Barak Obama is a fairly conventional, mainstream Democratic liberal, albeit without the rage, while Mike Huckabee appears to be a fairly conventional Republican populist, also without the rage and with a more overt religious patina than the present occupant of the White House. Both appear to be offering the Federal government as the ultimate protector against the vicissitudes of modern life and the dispenser of largess to favored constituencies; neither, at least yet, offers much of a paradigm shift. (I do not count Huckabee's "fair tax" since any proposal attacked by liberals and conservatives alike is unlikely to be enacted by a Democratic Congress for a Republican President.)
My sense is that Obama and Huckabee are running for Parent in Chief of an anxious and regressed nation.
Yesterday on FNS, Brit Hume pointed out the contrast between the high percentage of Americans who tell pollsters that they are personally doing well and the equally large majority who report that America is on the wrong track. Making sense of this apparent paradox is difficult, but allow me to make the attempt.
Last week, Mrs. SW sent along one of those ubiquitous e-mails that circulate around the Internet detailing unusual facts and surprising perspectives. The particular e-mail documented some of the facts of life that formed the zeitgeist of 1907, one hundred years ago. Here are some of the salient highlights:
The average life expectancy in the U.S. Was 47 years old.
Only 14 percent of the homes in the U.S. Had a bathtub.
Only 8 percent of the homes had a telephone.
A three-minute call from Denver to New York City
Cost eleven dollars.
There were only 8,000 cars in the U.S., and only 144 miles of paved roads.
The maximum speed limit in most cities was 10 mph.
The tallest structure in the world was the Eiffel Tower !
The average wage in the U.S. was 22 cents per hour. The average U.S. worker made between $200 and $400 per year .
A competent accountant could expect to earn $2000 per year,
A dentist made $2,500 per year,
A veterinarian $1,500 per year,
And a mechanical engineer about $5,000 per year.
More than 95 percent of all births in the U.S. Took place at HOME.Ninety percent of all U.S. Doctors had NO COLLEGE EDUCATION. Instead, they attended so-called medical schools, many of which were condemned in the press AND the government as "substandard."
Canada passed a law that prohibited poor people from Entering into their country for any reason.
Five leading causes of death in the U.S. were:
1. Pneumonia and influenza
2. Tuberculosis
3. Diarrhea
4. Heart disease
5. StrokeThe population of Las Vegas , Nevada , was only 30!!!!
Crossword puzzles, canned beer, and ice tea hadn't been invented yet.
Only 6 percent of all Americans had graduated from high school.
There were about 230 reported Murders in the ENTIRE U.S.A. !
Since the e-mail did not include links to the original I do not know if all the facts are accurate, but I have little reason to doubt them. What is clear form the description is that life in 1907, for all of its remarkable differences from the lives of people who were born in 1807, was actually very predictable. Change, even at the rapid pace experienced by people living in 1907, took place slowly. There were momentous discontinuities, but war had always been part of the human condition and war was predictable, even as technology was changing war to make it a more and increasing its lethality. experienced endeavor. To paraphrase a poorly represented quote from our last Secretary of Defense, in 1907 there were very, very few unknown unknowns.
In 2007, the number of unknown unknowns is growing by the day. Few of us can predict either our job or our income 5 years from now. The five leading causes of death in the US in 2003 were:
1. Heart Disease
2. Cancer
3. Strokes
4. Chronic Lung Disease
5. Accidents
I suspect that somewhere between 25 and 100 years from now, life expectancy will be somewhere between 120-1000 and this list will be populated by five causes never even heard of today.
It is the lack of predictability of the environment that causes anxiety. Democrats feed on anxiety, over health-care and distant evil-doers threatening our lives, security, and freedoms. For many Democrats, these evil-doers are other Americans, large corporations, greedy Pharmaceutical companies, George Bush and his ilk. Republicans feed on anxiety, as well, over health-care and distant evil-doers threatening our lives, security, and freedoms. For many Republicans, these evil-doers are other Americans, including environmental extremists and left-wing America bashers among the elites. Democrats fear foreign actors, such as workers in China threatening our jobs; Republicans fear foreign actors, such as al Qaeda threatening our lives.
It is very likely that both sets of threats are both under-estimated and overblown. Change is coming whether we like it or not and the idea that our next President can protect us against such change or pretend it isn't warping the fabric of our existence, is wishful thinking at its worst. Ultimately, the societies that adapt most easily to change will thrive; those that rely on fighting against change, be it to preserve an impossible to finance welfare state, an illusory idyllic 1950s America, or to maintain a 12th century way of life, are doomed to marginalization.
In the short run, we will be best served by a President who can appreciate reality, find ways to maneuver a real energy bill through Congress which encourages our brightest minds to find solutions to our oil dependency, help Americans face certain unpleasant realities (Health Care: universal, affordable, high quality, choose two of the three; Medicare and Medicaid, bankrupting us while damaging our health-care system; Social Security, impossible to fincance as is ), and remove bureaucratic impediments to technological change. In the long run, we might not even all be dead.
Recent Comments