The Deep Roots of the Divisions in 2021 America

After the American Century

The year 2020 was one of explosive tensions in the United States. An already polarized society confronted the COVID-19 pandemic, the massive unemployment that came with it, and widespread social protest in response to violence against unarmed Black men and women. It also was an election year, where billions of dollars were spent on advertising, much of it negative. What kind of America has emerged from this turbulence? 

To answer this question, I have written a book divided into three parts. The first three chapters examine different ways in which the United States is divided. I begin by examining the historical experience of the six generations of Americans alive in 2020. Each has faced different childhoods, defining moments, economic conditions, and international tensions. Those who grew up with the Cold War have a different perspective from those born before or  afterwards. People who listened to Frank Sinatra when young are not the same as those who grew up with the Beatles or with rap music.  

After surveying the generations, I turn to the gaps between social classes, which have widened since c. 1974. For 35 years before then (from 1939 until 1974) both the middle class and the working class experienced rising real incomes. This meant that more people owned houses that increased in value, and these homes were filled with an ever wider range of consumer goods.  But after that wages barely managed to keep up with inflation, while housing prices soared.   

The rising inequality was not evenly distributed. Some cities, notably Boston, Seattle, San Francisco, and Washington DC, have boomed, while other cities have struggled, as their industries declined. Detroit, Cleveland, Baltimore, and many other cities lost jobs and population. In regional terms, the Pacific Coast, the South and Southwest grew, while much of the Middle West and the Northeast stagnated or declined. In all of the regions, moreover, rural areas lost population, and drifted toward the right-wing of the Republican Party, while urban areas became more Democratic. By 2016, this meant that Hillary Clinton won almost every urban county, while Donald Trump won in almost every rural county.

At the same time, tensions between races increased, because Black and Brown Americans were not willing to remain second-class citizens. Nor were gays willing to accept being defined as deviants or mentally ill. Through the courts they successfully fought for the right to be married and enjoy all the privileges that come with officially recognized family status, such as pensions and the rights of inheritance. Women likewise fought to gain full equality. All of these struggles upset conservative Americans who wanted to retain the racial and gender roles they knew from their childhood, and which they felt were the natural order of society. Evangelicals in particular resisted new gender roles, equality for racial minorities, and a multicultural society. These religious groups, as well as those who felt the pinch of economic inequality, embraced Donald Trump as their savior. 

The second section looks at the ways Americans traditionally have been united, notably through business, the media, religion, and civil religion. Yet all of these institutions have been weakened or riven with conflict in recent decades, undermining consensus. In the old industrial economy, steel mills, automobile plants, and oil companies remained dominant for most of the twentieth century. But by the 1990s this economy began to give way to an emerging digital economy. From c. 1920 until 2000 the largest corporations supplied oil, built automobiles, made home appliances, etc. But these companies stagnated or declined compared to Microsoft, Facebook, Apple, Google, and biotech firms. The old analogue economy still exists, but the smart money is not invested in oil, steel, gasoline cars, or anything merely physical like coal, sand, cement, or wood. In the new economy, capital is invested in knowledge, as embodied in computer chips, software, data, algorithms, security codes, cyber currency, new drugs, vaccines, patented DNA, formulas, virtual reality and other almost intangible goods. Apple is worth more than General Motors; Amazon is bigger than any oil company. This new digital economy bewilders many older Americans but seems natural to the young. Moreover, this new economy only works for those with education beyond high school. There are fewer jobs on assembly lines and more behind computer screens. As late as the 1970s the semiskilled could earn a good living, but their wages declined after that. 

Religious differences are also pronounced in the United States. On the one side are the highly educated; on the other side are Americans whose ideas seem to be from c. 1875. Polls reveal that a majority of Americans believe in miracles (73%), in the virgin birth of Jesus (57%) and in the existence of the Devil (58%). Less than half believe in the theory of evolution (47%). Indeed, Darwin’s theory seems to have even less support than this number suggests, because only three in ten Americans definitely reject the idea that God created men and women in their present form, as described in the Bible. This belief in “creationism” is often accompanied by the idea that the earth is only 10,000 years old. No less than 69% of Americans say they either believe in creationism or they are “not sure.” These are people ready to vote for a populist like Donald Trump.

The polarization of Americans is just as evident in American civil religion.  Americans long had an honor-roll of sacred texts, battlefields, natural sites, and buildings that represented the nation. Some of these, such as the Statue of Liberty still play this role. But increasingly Americans cannot agree about which statues should stand in public squares or what texts should be honored. 

Likewise, some Americans, many of them in the South, cherish the Confederate flag carried by the rebels in the Civil War. After defeat, that flag of rebellion was seldom flown in public. However, it was revived and became a symbol of resistance to racial integration during the Civil Rights Movement. In South Carolina, the Confederate flag was raised over the state capitol in 1961 to commemorate the centennial of the first battle of the Civil War, which began in Charleston. It remained in use until 2000, when it was ceremoniously moved to a monument for Confederate soldiers. 

The Confederate flag came to symbolize states’ rights, resistance to the Federal government, and White supremacy. It was often sewn on clothing and worn as a badge of honor. It was prominently displayed by right-wing organizations, and it was seen at stock car races until 2020, when it was banned. Those who display the Confederate flag in 2020 are usually Trump supporters, and it was even raised again in South Carolina’s capital. Trump defended flying that flag as a form of free speech, saying that it represents not White supremacy but love for the South. Colin Powell, former Secretary of State under George W. Bush, strongly disagreed, arguing that the Confederate States of America “were not part of us and this is not the time to keep demonstrating who they were and what they were back then.” Powell, who is Black, concluded, “We have one flag and one flag only.” But when a mob attacked the Congress of the United States in January, 2021, many of them carried Confederate flags.

The third section of the book examines the institutional problems of the American political system, the divisive election of 2020, and the state of the nation in 2021. 

For more on the topics discussed in this column, see 

With state's rights come state responsibilities. But Red States live on Federal Welfare and drive up the deficit

After the American Century

It is time for states to be treated equally, and it is time to stop wasteful federal spending. I therefore propose that no state be permitted to receive more than it pays in Federal taxes. If a state has been living on federal welfare in the past, it will have to stand on its own two feet and stop living off others. Individualism and self-reliance are virtues for states as well as individuals.

For example, for the last two decades the State of Alaska has received more than it has paid in. In fact, it has received $1.84 for every dollar it sent to Washington. This is obscene. Alaska has no state income tax, due to all its oil revenue. Indeed, residents of Alaska get a check every year, because the oil revenues are so large that there is always a surplus. Why should people in New York or California cut services in order to pay for Alaska, when it is rolling in money?

Now it happens that, as in this example, the states receiving the most federal funds are also those with strong Tea Party movements and vocal opponents of welfare, Obamacare, and most other forms of federal funding. We should keep faith with these voters and make sure that they get what they are demanding: less from Washington.

Here are  the ten states whose welfare payments are way out of line. The figure after it indicates how much each of them received for every dollar it paid in. States in (the) Red consistently have voted for the Republicans and embraced the rhetoric of a smaller federal presence in their lives. It is time for them to live up to their self-reliant ideals.

New Mexico  $2.03 (a swing state)

Mississippi $2.02

Alaska  $1.84

Louisiana $1.78

West Virginia  $1.76

North Dakota $1.68

Alabama $1.66

South Dakota $1.53

Virginia $1.51  (a swing state)

Kentucky $1.51

I can see why the voters of Mississippi and Louisiana and Alabama are angry at Washington. How dare the Federal Government pump billions of dollars into their states, weakening their self-reliance and turning them into welfare queens?

Meanwhile, other states ought to getting money back. They have been over-paying for decades. Here are the ten states that have been supporting those hypocritical "individualistic" Tea Party types. California and New York have cut their world leading universities and school systems to support welfare in states that say they do not want the money. New Jersey has been losing 39 cents on every dollar it invested in the Federal government.

New Jersey $.61

Nevada   $.65  (swing state)

Connecticut $.69

New Hampshire $.71  (swing state)

Minnesota $.72

Illinois $.75

Delaware $.77

California $.78

New York  $.79

Colorado $.81  (swing state)

What should we conclude? Clearly the Federal deficit has been created largely by Red states, and they not only should be cut off from this kind of welfare, but also they should pay back what they have borrowed, with interest. Why should New York or California, which have been cheated all these years, also pay back on that part of the deficit created by the RED states?

With state's rights come state's responsibilities. Time for the Red States to begin paying for the deficit they have created.

For more information, click here.

What parts of the American state are Socialist?

After the American Century         

One often hears American commentators, especially on the Right, complain about socialism in the same hysterical tone that people once denounced communism.

So let us look at this question of socialism in a common-sense way. There are some well-functioning parts of American society like the public library system and the fire departments that are actually socialistic. In each case a service is provided to everyone in the community, using tax dollars to pay the costs. Garbage removal is another example of something that is often organized by the state and provided to all citizens. The reasons for this are not hard to understand. All benefit if fires are put out and garbage does not rot in the streets. All citizens benefit when libraries provide books and information to everyone.

There are other obvious examples. The public schools are socialistic, providing and requiring education for all citizens. This is good for society as a whole, because educated people are able to contribute more skills and ideas, and highly educated societies tend to be more prosperous than less educated ones, all other things (such as natural resources) being equal. Indeed, a well educated country with few natural resources such as Singapore, is often more prosperous and has a lower crime rate than a poorly educated nation awash in resources, such as Nigeria.

When one begins to think along these lines, it is obvious that the Founding Fathers of the United States wanted all citizens to be literate and numerate, and that they believed an educated citizenry would be better able to choose leaders and to propose good ideas to their legislatures. Benjamin Franklin helped to found a great public library in Philadelphia. Thomas Jefferson's enormous personal library became the basis for the US Library of Congress, which may be used by all citizens. During the nineteenth century cities and towns all over the nation created public libraries that today are bastions of education, freedom of thought, and competitiveness.

The question becomes that of where to draw the line. How many services have such a beneficial effect on society that they really should be provided to citizens out of national self-interest?  Here are some examples that seem to be obviously a good investment:

A national weather service. Why? Citizens will not be caught by surprise by a tornado or ice storm, agriculture will be better conducted, and the country will have more lead time for national disasters.

A national park system. Why? Preserves for all citizens sublime and beautiful landscapes and historically important sites, such as battlefields, Native American ruins, and buildings, such as the homes of former Presidents. Americans invented the idea of having national parks, and preserved such places as Yellowstone, Yosemite, and the Grand Canyon for future generations.

A good road system. In theory, major roads might be privately owned, with tolls imposed for using them. But the US rejected that practice, with most roads open to all with no fee. Interestingly, Adam Smith argued in The Wealth of Nations that infrastructure such as roads were best left in the hands of the state. So even the patron saint of Capitalism accepted a bit of socialism, in this restricted sense.

It is fair to say that most Americans agree that these and some other government institutions are worthwhile, even if, in many respects, they might be understood to be socialistic. It is just that few Americans think of them in this way, because they have been around for a century or more. They are part of a Normal Rockwell vision of America.

The question is not whether the US state, local, and federal governments should supply any services, but rather how many. Health care remains in private hands, for example, even under Obamacare. Private insurance companies and private health providers remain at the heart of it. The government's role is to regulate, not to provide, services. The care-givers remain the same as before Obamacare was passed. This system is by no stretch of the imagination a socialistic one. Rather, the state requires that people be covered, just as it requires drivers to have a car that has been inspected and insured. Neither of these things is socialistic. To see what a socialized medical system looks like, go to Scandinavia, Germany, or France.

The US medical system produces terrific doctors who continue to make important advances in diagnosis, treatment, and cure.  But while the individual care providers are excellent, the system is not. Per person, the US medical system costs almost double what Northern Europeans (Germans, Dutch, Swedes, etc.)  pay for medical care. Yet on average Europeans are living longer - years longer - than Americans. It is simply silly to say that the US has nothing to learn from other countries in this area.

Rather than pretend that "socialism" is foreign to the United States, it would be useful to have a dialogue about where the limits of socialism ought to be. Should university tuition be paid for by the state (perhaps to be paid back later by graduates, once they have a job?)  Norwegians, Danes, and Germans pay no tuition, which helps to level the playing field and gives all talent a chance to develop. The Scandinavians and the Germans may have a better chance than Americans to move up in the world. US economic mobility is not what is used to be, and that is because the nation is less, not more, socialistic than it was when the great land grant colleges like the Universities of Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Iowa, Texas, and the like were set up during the nineteenth century.

Too often American politicians talk about socialism as if it were some terrible foreign disease. It is not. Socialism is as American as Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin. Whether it is a good idea has to be evaluated on a case by case basis. It is a good idea to have a national center for disease control, for example, but it might not be a good idea pay for cosmetic surgery with tax dollars. It is a good socialistic idea to make knowledge widely and freely available on the Internet, for example from the Library of Congress. But it is almost surely not a good idea to give every citizen their own automobile. National Public Radio seems to me a good idea, but here there is room for debate about whether its rather modest costs ought to be paid for through taxes or individual contributions. Case by case, the United States needs to consider how best to remain healthy, educated, and competitive. In some cases, socialism is a good idea. In others, not. Think about that the next time you see the firemen rushing by to put out a blaze.

What Republicans are (not) Saying at their Convention

After the American Century

By their words ye shall know them. What words have the Republicans been using so far in their Convention? Paying no attention for the moment to the arguments, what are the dominant concerns, the focal points, based on the words alone?  Based on the Transcripts from the Federal News Service, the New York Times has compiled a data base, an interactive one, so we can find out what they are talking about, and also what they are ignoring.

Start with what they are avoiding. There has not been a single reference to the Euro, which might come up, given the difficulties of many European economies. But for the Republicans, the rest of the world does not seem to exist. There have been no references at all to Canada, Britain, France, Russia, China, or Europe, though there was a single reference to Germany.  The word "foreign" has turned just three times, as has "Mexico."

What other topics are Republicans avoiding?
Terror 0
bin Laden 0
Homeland security 0
Mass destruction 0
George Bush 0
Richard Nixon 0
Gerald Ford 0
Tea Party 0
Sarah Palin 0 (as in "Sarah Palin was our VP candidate last time.")
Abortion 0
Gay 0
Homosexual 0
Warming 0 (as in global warming)
Solar 0  (as in "solar energy")
Windmill 0
Detroit 0 (as in "Obama bailed out the Detroit auto industry.")
NASA 0 (as in "NASA is in Florida.")
Lobby 0
Special interest 0
Bubble 0   (as in "Real estate bubble.")
Evolution 0 (as in "The theory of . . . ")

Fear  1
9/11  1
Mormon 1 (as in "Romney is a Bishop in the Mormon Church.")
Social security 1 (as in "We need to privatize social security."
weapon/weapons 1  (as in "weapons of Mass Destruction")
Lincoln 1  (as in "Lincoln's generals invaded the South.")

Climate 2   (as in climate change, etc.)
Cuba 2  (as in "There are many Cuban-American voters in Florida.")
Iraq 3  (as in, "George Bush invaded Iraq.")

There are the usual patriotic words.
America 189
American  111
Country 90
Nation 47

Most of the focus has been on the economy. 
Work  142
Business 136
Jobs 130
Success 65
Economy 58
Note however:  
Banker 0
Bank 0
Bonus 0
Bankrupt 1
Foreclosure 2

A cluster of terms concerns family life
Families 81
Children 53
Life 33  (as in "right to life")
Father 12

There is some focus on religion, usually in a vague way
God  62
Faith 12

A cluster of terms deal with the future, hope, and the like:
American Dream  36
Hope 24
Change 28
Opportunity 27
Promise 7

What leaders do Republicans mention, other than Romney, Ryan and Obama?
Reagan 5
Clinton 2  (either Bill or Hillary)
Kennedy 2
Kissinger 0
Gingrich 0  (as in "Gingrich led the opposition."
Eisenhower 0
Roosevelt 0
Goldwater 0

So far, hapless John McCain, the GOP standard bearer in 2008, has not been named even once.