They for the most part incredibly intelligent, articulate and well read people who end up more or less saying the same thing as one another. Frank Rich is all well and good, but why in the world would I read a former theater critic's opinions on the world of politics, which basically tell me things I already know?
So I was a bit leery when I came upon this Salon.com article talking about the Obama victory from a historical context. What is so refreshing about this piece by historian Michael Lind is that it outlines how material and technological changes in American history lead to policy changes, which in turn lead to changes in administrations. He is also smart enough to see that people can say and believe one thing while actually doing another: Jefferson actually expanding the power of the federal government (Lousianna Purchase). He also doesn't pretend this is a perfect or even complete theory, but an interesting new perspective on how to view American history.
I would recommend to just read the article, but in a nutshell he posits that the Bush presidency is the tail end of an American era that started with the New Deal, and that we are poised at the brink of a new era, one brought on by the communications boom, but possibly defined by some other form of technology. Again, he's smart enough not to take predictions or reasoning too far.
Also, my favorite line:
I'm talking about the material, real-world manufacturing and utility economy, not the illusory "information economy" beloved of globalization enthusiasts in the 1990s, who pretended that deindustrialization by outsourcing was a higher state of industrialism.He's a materialist, thank god.
No comments:
Post a Comment