Wednesday, August 09, 2006
Thoroughly Modern Joe
The commentators are saying that Lamont symbolizes the new 21st Century way of doing politics, while Lieberman runs the old way.
The truth is opposite, and here's how:
From 1920 to 1990, America followed the Soviet path in many ways. We concentrated on heavy industry, heavy churches, heavy unions. You were expected to stick with your wife, your church, your union, your company, for life. If these grand and glorious institutions displeased you, too bad.
Specifically in politics, a candidate was supposed to pick a party for life. If he lost the primary or the caucus, that was the end; he was out of politics for this term at least. He could try again through the same party next time around, but that was the only choice.
Since 1970, but more strongly since 1990, these loyalties have gone away. The modern tendency is entrepreneurial. Wife goes crazy? Better off without her. Local schools are hopelessly commie? You can find a private school. Church denomination goes gay? Find a splinter denomination or invent your own. Corporation goes belly-up? Start your own company or free-lance. (Of course all of these steps were possible before, but they were literally unthinkable for most people, and accompanied by social stigma.)
Joe has taken the new path, with a thoroughly modern casualness. He tried running through the party; when it didn't work, he instantly switched to running outside the party. Just like trying Coors, finding it distasteful and switching to Budweiser.
So Ned is the one who has stuck with the old Soviet-style 'big unit', while Joe is the entrepreneur. ¶ 6:31 AM
The truth is opposite, and here's how:
From 1920 to 1990, America followed the Soviet path in many ways. We concentrated on heavy industry, heavy churches, heavy unions. You were expected to stick with your wife, your church, your union, your company, for life. If these grand and glorious institutions displeased you, too bad.
Specifically in politics, a candidate was supposed to pick a party for life. If he lost the primary or the caucus, that was the end; he was out of politics for this term at least. He could try again through the same party next time around, but that was the only choice.
Since 1970, but more strongly since 1990, these loyalties have gone away. The modern tendency is entrepreneurial. Wife goes crazy? Better off without her. Local schools are hopelessly commie? You can find a private school. Church denomination goes gay? Find a splinter denomination or invent your own. Corporation goes belly-up? Start your own company or free-lance. (Of course all of these steps were possible before, but they were literally unthinkable for most people, and accompanied by social stigma.)
Joe has taken the new path, with a thoroughly modern casualness. He tried running through the party; when it didn't work, he instantly switched to running outside the party. Just like trying Coors, finding it distasteful and switching to Budweiser.
So Ned is the one who has stuck with the old Soviet-style 'big unit', while Joe is the entrepreneur. ¶ 6:31 AM
