I am now in Wroclaw, Poland, having just arrived from Paris – at home abroad, to borrow from one of my favorite New York Times columnist of the past, Anthony Lewis. I find following American politics and culture from afar particularly illuminating. I enjoy being in the middle of things at home, sometimes in the middle of politics, and then moving out for a while and looking back. Special insights result. With regular teaching and lecturing in Europe, I have been doing this for over thirty years. Being away has offered special critical insights, even as it has sometimes obscured important political and cultural details.
This was most dramatically the case when I lived in Communist Poland in 1973-4, when I was doing my research on independent politics in culture there, while the Watergate scandal raged in the U.S. I got my news from old issues of The New Yorker (given to me by a junior officer at the American Embassy in Warsaw) and from the Voice of America. Access to western news was severely restricted. The New Yorker supply was a prize, which I passed on to my Polish friends. Voice of America came in with some irregularity thanks to jamming by the Polish authorities. Yet, even when it got through, it was not reliable. Part of the Watergate revelations was that VOA was heavily censored back then. Long articles by Elizabeth Drew provided my basic information and perspective. I read accurate updates, a bit delayed. Because of distance and time I didn’t really appreciate how severe the constitutional crisis of that time was.
But on the other hand, by living in a truly undemocratic society, I came to appreciate the way democratic norms and values persisted in American life even in a crisis. There was Nixon, but there was also the Watergate hearings and the eventual forced resignation of the President. The way “high crimes and misdemeanors,” democratic ideals, propaganda, skepticism and cynicism interacted and defined the American experience helped this then young New Leftist to learn about political complexity and its importance.
This lesson was the starting point for my much later study of American political culture, The Cynical Society. I carry its perspective as I view the American political scene now, as revealed in recent posts on Chief Justice Roberts, Mitt Romney and his party and in a review post concerning the politics of emotions, political developments in Middle East and in Peru and the crazy politics of the U.S. that for a moment took Donald Trump seriously. These and much more of my observations of the American political scene are informed by the sensibility of thinking about home while abroad.
I am planning to publish a series of at home abroad posts, written while I am on the road and looking back at American political and cultural developments. A report about the relationship between Rupert Murdock and his Media Empire and Mitt Romney his campaign stimulated me to do this. The report was formulated around the theme of election prospects. How Murdoch’s reticence about Romney may affect the chances of the Republican ticket. The main idea: anyone but Romney has replaced anyone but Obama, but without much enthusiasm.
But reading the report in Europe reveals something else: the fundamental fissure of the right with short but also highly significant long-term impact, demonstrating a crisis on the right that will mirror the crisis on the left of the recent past. Politics based on an ethics of ultimate ends will destroy the politics based upon the ethics of responsibility in the language of Max Weber. In everyday language, the politics based on tea party sensibility will isolate and undermine conservative politics and the effectiveness of conservative social movements, even though they have been highly effective in frustrating the progress of the first term of the Obama administration.
For Murdoch and company, including the editor of The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page, Paul Gigot. Romney is not sufficiently and clearly resolute in his political positions. He moves from right to far right as the immediate political winds blow. He confuses business management with political principle and leadership. For the general public this presents the question of who Romney really is. Is he the right wing ideologue who denounces Obamacare, would be tougher on China, more supportive of the extreme right in Israel, defends traditional marriage, works against “the gay agenda,” would build high fences to keep illegals out and urge self deportation for those who are here, or is he the pragmatic conservative who developed “Romneycare,” seeks expansion of American exports, be understanding of the complexities of immigration policy, follow compassionate conservative policies, foreign and domestic. “Who is the real Romney?” is the question for the electorate, especially for the independent undecided (a group that bewilders me). But for resolute conservatives the question has already been answered even as Romney desperately seeks their approval and support. He is not one of them.
FDR pushed the center left. He succeeded in this because of the crisis of the Great Depression and because the answers he proposed for the crisis made sense to the public and seemed to improve their lives. Ronald Reagan moved the center right. His rugged individualism performance and expression of anti-government rhetoric made sense to the American public (to my dismay) and appeared to improve the lives of the middle class. These successes had to do with the leadership qualities of FDR and Reagan, but as well, were a consequence of the simple fact that their opposition made no sense. They didn’t provide cogent alternatives.
Romney and conservative Republicans more generally were for Obamacare until they were against it. They were against the corrupting effects of big money in politics, for conservation and environmental standards, for science, for understanding of modern economics, all, until they were against them. They challenge common sense.
A shift in political culture is evident on the horizon. Obama’s task has been to move the center left, as I have argued here and in my book, Reinventing Political Culture. During his first term he has met concerted resistance. But as Murdoch expresses his dismay with Romney, the resistance is weakening. The prospects for Obama’s re-election are good, as are the prospects of a successful second term. Deep trends are more apparent when one looks back at home when one is abroad. This is how it looks to me as I begin teaching my course in Wroclaw on “The New “New Social Movements.” More to soon follow.
Leave a Reply