Home » People & Culture » A Lost Decade

A Lost Decade

At the end of a decade, it is popular to look back to the many things that have changed.   There are loved ones who have passed on, events that have thrilled or terrified us, and new inventions that made life a bit different.  Yet for all of these turning points there is one thing that has not changed that probably should have in the last decade.  Our political world is, more or less, about what it was ten years ago.  That may not seem remarkable – but it is far more interesting than any of the great changes that swept over the same barren, dry landscape.

Like many amateur politicians, I have a central theory – but mine is a bit different.  I believe that the scope of US history has produced a series of key debates that rose to the center of public consciousness to the point where political identity could be put on a one-dimensional line that defines a generation or two at either end.  These debates have changed from support for the Bank of the United States to the need for high tariffs, to demands for an end to slavery then support for strong currencies and later an expansionist foreign policy on the world’s stage.

Our current debate was founded at the time of the New Deal.  It essentially boils down to the kind of institutions that people believe are critical to maintain our way of life – on the left, unions and government and other social groups, and on the right corporations and churches and more private arrangements.  People who call themselves “liberal” or “progressive” seek solutions in their set of institutions, and those who are “conservatives” favor their own set.

What is unique about this arrangement is that this time neither side won.  Andrew Jackson ended the debate on the Bank of the United States by killing it, and slavery was prohibited after a terrible Civil War.  Hard currency, or W J Bryant’s “Cross of Gold” went away with the founding of the Federal Reserve and the eventual abandonment of both metal standards.  Tariffs went away more gradually, but are now antique.  Our role on the world stage is, to Teddy Roosevelt’s pride, unquestioned by anyone.

In the last decade, there have been signs that both the “left” or the “right” has the upper hand in our current debate.  Certainly, the role of our Federal Government has expanded constantly for the last 50 years or more, yet the language we use is increasingly cynical and prone to backwards references to “socialism”.  Church membership is down, but the role of Christian identity in politics is a stronger force than it has been in a long time.  Union membership is also down, but non-profits are a larger share of the economy than ever.  In this last decade we went from one election where the patriotism of candidates on the “left” was nearly universally questioned to the next election where the “left” swept into a position of power not seen in generations.

Through all the swings we’ve seen between the two opposites, has anything actually changed?  The role of the Federal government only expanded under the “right”, and the election of the “left” has seen our role in a key foreign war expand as a sweeping health care overall became terribly watered down, despite large majorities.

This decade of violent swings produced, in the end, little in the way of “progress”.

It’s not remarkable enough that the old debate is at a standstill.  It should, reasonably, have passed out of existence – but it has not.  The new debate that we see forming around us is not about which institutions we favor, since it’s obvious that all of these have their time and place.  The technologies and new ideas that we’re likely to read about in more conventional summaries of this past decade tell us that people can spontaneously assemble to accomplish great things.  Is it possible that all the institutions that we have been fighting over have limitations?

Certainly, some people believe that we are in a new era where progress comes one heart at a time, starting with one idea shared through space and by many hands making the load light.  Others find comfort through something more permanent.  Yet this distinction hardly ever makes our debates, our news, or any other form of our politics.

What’s been remarkable about the politics of this last decade has been that, for all the smoke and noise, very little has changed.  It’s not as though there hasn’t been any reason to change – and, if anything, the pressure on institutions of all kinds is only increasing.  But to our politics, it’s as if this decade never actually happened.

I think that’s about to change.  But I said that ten years ago, too.

9 thoughts on “A Lost Decade

  1. Same as it ever was. There’s not a dime’s worth of difference between the two parties, when you come right down to it. They talk a good game, but when it came time to vote hundreds of billions of dollars for their buddies they were all on board.

  2. Politics hasn’t made any sense at all for a long time. People talk about whatever they want to, irregardless of what matters in the world.

  3. Unfortunately, as depressing as it seems that the last decade has been “lost” I have to agree. I’d rather look forward and think, okay in 2010-2020 what needs to change? How can we accomplish what we need to do?

  4. How did you feel in 2005? There is such a thing as non utopian liberalism and that is not necessarily a bad thing. There were four or more almost inexorable juggernauts from the prior decade that came to an end in this decade. Terrorism, income inequality, political inequality, the monstrously huge U.S. military infrastructure has chinks in its armor but somethings of progress and signifigance are happening. I am not sure scorched earth politics work effectively in gaining hearts or minds except in generating fear. I still believe in institutions. And I will hold on to some illusions real or unreal just as others do theirs. Will I see the Senate change in my lifetime? Probably not but people are questioning it now openly. The change in the news, media have had upsides and downsides. Will Andy Rooney live forever? Long live velvet revolutions.

  5. I’m afraid I don’t understand. How did I feel in 2005? About the same as today – that neither the left nor the right had anything relevant to say about the important choices facing Americans. I had some faith that the generational change that embodied the Obama campaign might produce something more relevant, but so far it hasn’t. So it’s all very much the same, despite the obvious fact that the world has changed rather dramatically.

  6. I disagree on several levels.

    First – it’s best when politics is “lost”; the less impact it has on people, negative or negative, the better.

    Second – there is at least a chance for the Right to turn into something I’ve been wanting to see for a long time; a popular, activist movement rather than an ambient sensibility. And while that wasn’t the dominant motif of the past decade, it is certainly a product of its last four years.

    Third – on at least one front, this decade saw significant change; while rhetoric and rhetorical games have been a key part of politics since Athens, rhetorical warfare – framing, “Rules for Radicals”, et al – have grown to become the biggest share of the political discussion ever. It’s like rhetoric has actually become the danger “money” was supposed to have been.

    There’ll most likely be a blog post on this sometime before the new decade is too far along.

  7. Pingback: Democrats on the Sideline | Barataria – The work of Erik Hare

Like this Post? Hate it? Tell us!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s