Saving America: Part II

I've been reading American Covenant: A History of Civil Religion from the Puritans to the Present by Philip Gorski. He articulates two ideals, radical secularism and religious nationalism, both of which he believes are misguided.

In his conclusion, Gorski gives a vision for drawing our polarizing country together:

1. Banish big money from the political process. The marketplace of ideas cannot work properly if some people are allowed to buy giant bullhorns to shout down everyone else. The Preamble describes the virtues of freedom and equality, which I now view as competing ideas. Too much of one drowns the other. Likewise, allowing for the freedom of businesses to donate unlimited amounts to campaigns makes political influence unequal.
2. Make civic holidays into holidays again. This space for civic reflection and celebration has been gradually eroded for the sake of commerce...removed in the name of freedom itself. In other words, all non-essential businesses will be closed. Remembering our fallen, celebrating the Declaration, and giving thanks for our blessings would be good for civic spirit.
3. Make character education a part of civic education. The U.K. has introduced a program of character education in its public schools, based on research done by the Jubilee Center at the University of Birmhingham. It's purpose is to instill basic civic virtues such as honesty, courage, and generosity. This would help greatly with public discourse.
4. Establish a universal system of national service. Many countries require citizens to perform a national service. Ours should include men and women, military and civil service. If more families had children in the military, it would temper our trigger-happy instinct toward war. One of Nassim Taleb's examples of "skin in the game" included politicians not being able to vote on war efforts unless they had a direct family member in active duty. This would be a good start. It would give young Americans first-hand experience with our nation's diversity and instill an ethic of service in our youth.

Venn Diagram

What ideas here do liberals and conservatives agree on? I think 2 will work. Conservatives value tradition, sacredness, and respect. Liberals would get behind the anti-consumerism. Plus, those who are forced to work on holidays tend to be the working poor. This would be a good opportunity to stand on their side and against "oppressive" capitalism.

I think 4 would work too, as long as people can choose between military or civic service. Conservatives love the military and liberals love community service/social justice. Only libertarians would disagree with forcing individuals into this, but they're used to being the minority. 

I really like 3, but it's already super hard to get any changes done to the public school system. What would be displaced by this new program? It would be hard to get both sides to agree on what constitutes "character." Is it social justice? Self-reliance? Personal restraint?

1 just raises more questions. Do we make super PACs illegal? That would be a good start but I don't know how many non-rich conservatives would support it. Do we publicly fund campaigns? I can't see conservatives getting behind more taxes and government.

Gorski says John McCormick has a third option: wealthy citizens would be relieved of all tax burdens but in exchange would give up their rights to vote, to stand for office, or to contribute funds to political campaigns. I like the idea and how it fits in with "no taxation without representation" but I worry about the huge impact it will have on tax revenues.

How to Save America: Individualism or Centripetal Forces

I don't make a lot of bold claims, but there is one #hottake that I think about more and more. I believe that, within my lifetime, American democracy as we know it will come to an end.

I don't think our government will dissolve and I don't see civil war in our future either. I'm thinking of something closer to secession. Or, as David French wrote, a divorce.

There are too many forces pulling us apart and too few binding us to one another. I can only think of two solutions for keeping this country together.

I. Massive decentralization of our national government and returning of more power to the states (i.e. federalism). If you believe in a public option for healthcare, your state can tax its citizens and start one up. But you're not going to force people in other states to have their own if they vote against it.

If you think bakers shouldn't have to make cakes for gay weddings, you pass legislation protecting that right. If you want all employers to cover their employees birth control, go for it. Just keep it at the state level.

or

II. A return to a nation-wide belief in an American civil religion.

The problem with multiculturalism is that, while it keeps individual groups together, it does nothing to bind these cultures into the larger tapestry of American life. An American civil religion means we would all have to buy into certain values that our country represents, even as we retain our unique and specific cultural identities.

This option would be less likely to happen than the first option, a libertarian's dream, but here are some additional thoughts on it anyway:

• I used the word "return" but it would only work if we took what we had and modernized it, rather than expecting people to revert back to something from the past. Nostalgia feels nice but culture always moves forward. 
• This new American civil religion would have to incorporate ideas from the right and the left. We would have to decide on what we agree upon and what we agree to disagree upon. Right now, our Venn Diagram does not overlap at all. 
• We would derive this new civil religion from Enlightenment values as well as our Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Declaration of Independence. It would have to somehow acknowledge our stained history w/r/t slavery and Native American genocide, rather than brushing these things under the carpet. More importantly, it would have to incorporate modern concepts like multiculturalism, privilege, and intersectionality.
• Once agreed upon, this civic religion would be taught in all schools, public and private. It would be required for all immigrants to agree to before becoming U.S. citizens.
• If necessary, it could spawn a new national anthem. Football players kneeling during the national anthem would have had far less support 50 years ago because the song meant so much to so many. That is no longer the case, which means we need a new set of values to get behind, something we all believe in. Something we would collectively get upset about if one of our citizens disrespected. We should celebrate and honor the ideals that make the country great while acknowledging our sins and pledging not to repeat them. Imagine social justice warriors and MAGA supporters being fervently enraged over someone disrespecting the same American ideal. What would that even look like?

Aberration or Precursor?

In 20 years, will we look back on the Trump presidency as an aberration or a precursor?

I want the answer to be "aberration" but I worry that I'm wrong.

"Precursor" is very vague, which makes it more likely. It doesn't necessarily mean Trumpism will win. It might mean the country swings harder in the opposite direction.

"Aberration" means we go back to electing candidates from the political establishment and never again consider unqualified demagogues. I wish I believed this.

I think the 2020 Democratic candidate is more likely to be a Kamala Harris/Elizabeth Warren type (not demagogues; but not the most experienced either), or even Oprah, than a Tim Kaine. And I think the reason is the Internet.

It used to be that cabinet-level experience was a ticket to the white house. That is the only reason Hillary Clinton took the Secretary of State position. If she believed staying a senator offered better presidential prospects she never would have taken the job.

However, in the Information Age, I believe that type of experience is a detriment. It probably makes you more qualified, but less electable. It makes your record public and allows your choices to be picked apart by the opposition.

Obama was a relative outsider and Trump had no experience. Rather than a flaw, this acted as a shield. It meant there were more opportunities for their opponents to get picked apart.

Clinton's time as Secretary of State and the scandal/not scandal involving her email server and Benghazi did nothing but hurt her. She probably would have been better off staying in the Senate.

That is why I think the trend of Washington outsiders will continue. I think Trump is a precursor that will lead to more candidates with less experience who pick apart the hypocrisy of established candidates and take advantage of voters.