ADVERTISEMENT

Aardvark's suggested reading “American politics: the promise of disharmony” should spark good discourse here

Tenacious E

HB Legend
Dec 4, 2001
46,973
79,649
113
Buried in the 1984 thread. Wanted to give attribution to Aardvark. A good summary of the book is here:


This except is the heart of it:

More specifically, Huntington has identified 14 characteristics of these periods. Nine describe the general mood:
  • “Discontent was widespread; authority, hierarchy, specialization, and expertise were widely questioned or rejected.”
  • “Political ideas were taken seriously and played an important role in the controversies of the time.”
  • “Traditional American values of liberty, individualism, equality, popular control of government, and the openness of government were stressed in public discussion.”
  • “Moral indignation over the IvI gap was widespread.”
  • “Politics was characterized by agitation, excitement, commotion, even upheaval — far beyond the usual routine of interest-group conflict.”
  • “Hostility toward power (the antipower ethic) was intense, with the central issue of politics often being defined as ‘liberty versus power.’”
  • “The exposure or muckraking of the IvI gap was a central feature of politics.”
  • “Movements flourished devoted to specific reforms or ‘causes’ (women, minorities, criminal justice, temperance, peace).”
  • “New media forms appeared, significantly increasing the influence of the media in politics.”
The remaining five describe the political changes these periods bring.
  • “Political participation expanded, often assuming new forms and often expressed through hitherto unusual channels.”
  • “The principal political cleavages of the period tended to cut across economic class lines, with some combination of middle- and working-class groups promoting change.”
  • “Major reforms were attempted in political institutions in order to limit power and reshape institutions in terms of American ideals (some of which were successful and some of which were lasting).”
  • “A basic realignment occurred in the relations between social forces and political institutions, often including but not limited to the political party system.”
  • “The prevailing ethos promoting reform in the name of traditional ideals was, in a sense, both forward-looking and backward-looking, progressive and conservative.”
To me, it provides a very interesting perspective, with the twist that as the reviewer notes, this time the charge is not being led by the "political left". So the pendulum is swinging back to the "political right" if not already being there. What is hard to make sense of for me is that distrust of billionaires/establishment/institutions feeding prior cycles is being subsumed by trusting billionaires to make the right decisions for all of America. So Trump has tapped into the lower/middle class desires, while he himself and who he wants in his cabinet, at least to me, do not make sense in furthering the interests of the lower/middle class. So is this cycle built on a house of cards with Trump leading lambs to the slaughter? Or is something else afoot? Thoughts?
 
Thx for the stick tap TE. (Gotta see if you have to look that one up :)) As I noted in my first post on this book, it's really an amazing but relativelyl forgotten piece of political science and political history that can help one understand both (i) how our current, seemingly abnormal, times fit into the big picture (and may even have an undercurrent of normalcy to them), and (ii) why the Aardvark Outlook(tm) is almost always long term.

TE has nailed one of the more interesting aspects of mulling over how our current milieu fits within Huntington's construct. Unlike past periods of creedal passion, this one seems to be driven by the right, although I'm hedging my bets regarding whether the "ultimate" outcome of Trump 2.0 (or the reaction thereto) ends up leaning more toward political liberalism.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tenacious E
Actually TE, as I think about it, it is ABSOLUTELY Huntington's point that the driver of a period of creedal passion can wear either a left or right hat.

One of the things that SPH spends a lot of time on at the outset (which the review actually doesn't capture quite as well) is that Americans are not united by race, religion, nationality or the things that commonly are at the core of "nations". Instead, the only thing that really makes a person an American is a set of shared core values that are inherently in tension with one another (eg, liberty v equality, limited government v. energetic government, etc.) and which create the dynamism of the "ideals v institutions" gap he describes. We all embrace the same core values, but we fight like hell over what the proper mix and balance among them is, because, well, our passion for them is the only thing that defines us. Thus, there is no reason to believe that creedal passion periods 'must' be driven by one side or the other, even if the ultimate outcomes of them tend in a particular direction.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tenacious E
Actually TE, as I think about it, it is ABSOLUTELY Huntington's point that the driver of a period of creedal passion can wear either a left or right hat.

One of the things that SPH spends a lot of time on at the outset (which the review actually doesn't capture quite as well) is that Americans are not united by race, religion, nationality or the things that commonly are at the core of "nations". Instead, the only thing that really makes a person an American is a set of shared core values that are inherently in tension with one another (eg, liberty v equality, limited government v. energetic government, etc.) and which create the dynamism of the "ideals v institutions" gap he describes. We all embrace the same core values, but we fight like hell over what the proper mix and balance among them is, because, well, our passion for them is the only thing that defines us. Thus, there is no reason to believe that creedal passion periods 'must' be driven by one side or the other, even if the ultimate outcomes of them tend in a particular direction.
Lots of crickets in this thread so far. We're trying!
 
I'd participate but I haven't read the book. Unlike most HORTers I like to at least be somewhat informed. Sorry. It sounds interesting though and I added it to my list.
The book review is lengthy and insightful. The concepts in it are worth thinking and talking about, imho. Basically, every 60 to 70 years there is massive realignment in America. Last period was the 1960s. The author presents 14 hallmarks of such a period. It appears we are in one right now.
 
You know, a few years from now, whether the current period upheld or undercut Huntington's thesis could make a hell of a peer reviewed journal article or thesis for some aspiring young grad student.
 
The book review is lengthy and insightful. The concepts in it are worth thinking and talking about, imho. Basically, every 60 to 70 years there is massive realignment in America. Last period was the 1960s. The author presents 14 hallmarks of such a period. It appears we are in one right now.
I would add that from a Public Choice Theory perspective the elimination of pork greatly reduced any sort of regional or even statewide alignment.

I followed the last set of House races in Colorado closely. There wasn’t a candidate in the field that focused on what they would do for Colorado. The closest anyone came was in the hotly contested 8th District, and even there it was only tied to immigration.

It’s also almost totally eliminated Congressional leadership’s ability to keep their members in line.
 
I would add that from a Public Choice Theory perspective the elimination of pork greatly reduced any sort of regional or even statewide alignment.

I followed the last set of House races in Colorado closely. There wasn’t a candidate in the field that focused on what they would do for Colorado. The closest anyone came was in the hotly contested 8th District, and even there it was only tied to immigration.

It’s also almost totally eliminated Congressional leadership’s ability to keep their members in line.
One of my biggest long term concerns (aside from how it fits with sph) is that our legislature/legislators is/are becoming increasingly parliamentary and less representative. Still thinking through whether the absence of a "representation" mentality is potentially fatal in the long term.
 
although I'm hedging my bets regarding whether the "ultimate" outcome of Trump 2.0 (or the reaction thereto) ends up leaning more toward political liberalism.

The efforts to dismantle the censorship networks the federal government was establishing is a boon to political liberalism in the classical sense.
 
I followed the last set of House races in Colorado closely. There wasn’t a candidate in the field that focused on what they would do for Colorado. The closest anyone came was in the hotly contested 8th District, and even there it was only tied to immigration.

It’s also almost totally eliminated Congressional leadership’s ability to keep their members in line.

I wonder if returning the Senate to its role (representing the State legislatures) would ‘fix’ this in any sense.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT