June 28, 2012 |
It's been said that the rich are different than you and me. What most
Americans don't know is that they're also quite different from each
other, and that which faction is currently running the show ultimately
makes a vast difference in the kind of country we are.
Right now, a lot of our problems stem directly from the fact that the
wrong sort has finally gotten the upper hand; a particularly brutal and
anti-democratic strain of American aristocrat that the other elites have
mostly managed to keep away from the levers of power since the
Revolution. Worse: this bunch has set a very ugly tone that's corrupted
how people with power and money behave in every corner of our culture.
Here's what happened, and how it happened, and what it means for America
now.
North versus South: Two Definitions of Liberty
Michael Lind first called out the existence of this conflict in his 2006 book,
Made In Texas: George W. Bush and the Southern Takeover of American Politics.
He argued that much of American history has been characterized by a
struggle between two historical factions among the American elite -- and
that the election of George W. Bush was a definitive sign that the
wrong side was winning.
For most of our history, American economics, culture and politics have
been dominated by a New England-based Yankee aristocracy that was rooted
in Puritan communitarian values, educated at the Ivies and marinated in
an ethic of
noblesse oblige (the conviction that those who
possess wealth and power are morally bound to use it for the betterment
of society). While they've done their share of damage to the notion of
democracy in the name of profit (as all financial elites inevitably do),
this group has, for the most part, tempered its predatory instincts
with a code that valued mass education and human rights; held up public
service as both a duty and an honor; and imbued them with the belief
that once you made your nut, you had a moral duty to do something
positive with it for the betterment of mankind. Your own legacy depended
on this.
Among the presidents, this strain gave us both Roosevelts, Woodrow
Wilson, John F. Kennedy, and Poppy Bush -- nerdy, wonky intellectuals
who, for all their faults, at least took the business of good government
seriously. Among financial elites, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet still
both partake strongly of this traditional view of wealth as power to be
used for good. Even if we don't like their specific choices, the core
impulse to improve the world is a good one -- and one that's been
conspicuously absent in other aristocratic cultures.
Which brings us to that other great historical American nobility -- the
plantation aristocracy of the lowland South, which has been notable
throughout its 400-year history for its utter lack of civic interest,
its hostility to the very ideas of democracy and human rights, its love
of hierarchy, its fear of technology and progress, its reliance on
brutality and violence to maintain “order,” and its outright celebration
of inequality as an order divinely ordained by God.
As described by Colin Woodard in
American Nations: The Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America,
the elites of the Deep South are descended mainly from the owners of
sugar, rum and cotton plantations from Barbados -- the younger sons of
the British nobility who'd farmed up the Caribbean islands, and then
came ashore to the southern coasts seeking more land. Woodward described
the culture they created in the crescent stretching from Charleston, SC
around to New Orleans this way:
It was a near-carbon copy of the West Indian slave state these
Barbadians had left behind, a place notorious even then for its
inhumanity....From the outset, Deep Southern culture was based on
radical disparities in wealth and power, with a tiny elite commanding
total obedience and enforcing it with state-sponsored terror. Its
expansionist ambitions would put it on a collision course with its
Yankee rivals, triggering military, social, and political conflicts that
continue to plague the United States to this day.
David Hackett Fischer, whose
Albion's Seed: Four British Folkways In America
informs both Lind's and Woodard's work, described just how deeply
undemocratic the Southern aristocracy was, and still is. He documents
how these elites have always feared and opposed universal literacy,
public schools and libraries, and a free press. (Lind adds that they
have historically been profoundly anti-technology as well, far
preferring solutions that involve finding more serfs and throwing them
at a problem whenever possible. Why buy a bulldozer when 150 convicts on
a chain gang can grade your road instead?) Unlike the Puritan elites,
who wore their wealth modestly and dedicated themselves to the common
good, Southern elites sank their money into ostentatious homes and
clothing and the pursuit of pleasure -- including lavish parties, games
of fortune, predatory sexual conquests, and blood sports involving
ritualized animal abuse spectacles.
But perhaps the most destructive piece of the Southern elites'
worldview is the extremely anti-democratic way it defined the very idea
of liberty. In Yankee Puritan culture, both liberty and authority
resided mostly with the community, and not so much with individuals.
Communities had both the freedom and the duty to govern themselves as
they wished (through town meetings and so on), to invest in their
collective good, and to favor or punish individuals whose behavior
enhanced or threatened the whole (historically, through community
rewards such as elevation to positions of public authority and trust; or
community punishments like shaming, shunning or banishing).
Individuals were expected to balance their personal needs and desires
against the greater good of the collective -- and, occasionally, to make
sacrifices for the betterment of everyone. (This is why the Puritan
wealthy tended to dutifully pay their taxes, tithe in their churches and
donate generously to create hospitals, parks and universities.) In
return, the community had a solemn and inescapable moral duty to care
for its sick, educate its young and provide for its needy -- the kind of
support that maximizes each person's liberty to live in dignity and
achieve his or her potential. A Yankee community that failed to provide
such support brought shame upon itself. To this day, our progressive
politics are deeply informed by this Puritan view of ordered liberty.
In the old South, on the other hand, the degree of liberty you enjoyed
was a direct function of your God-given place in the social hierarchy.
The higher your status, the more authority you had, and the more
"liberty" you could exercise -- which meant, in practical terms, that
you had the right to take more "liberties" with the lives, rights and
property of other people. Like an English lord unfettered from the Magna
Carta, nobody had the authority to tell a Southern gentleman what to do
with resources under his control. In this model, that's what liberty
is.
If you don't have the freedom to rape, beat, torture, kill, enslave, or
exploit your underlings (including your wife and children) with
impunity -- or abuse the land, or enforce rules on others that you will
never have to answer to yourself -- then you can't really call yourself a
free man.
When a Southern conservative talks about "losing his liberty," the loss
of this absolute domination over the people and property under his
control -- and, worse, the loss of status and the resulting risk of
being held accountable for laws that he was once exempt from -- is what
he's really talking about. In this view, freedom is a zero-sum game.
Anything that gives more freedom and rights to lower-status people can't
help but put serious limits on the freedom of the upper classes to use
those people as they please. It cannot be any other way. So they find
Yankee-style rights expansions absolutely intolerable, to the point
where they're willing to fight and die to preserve their divine right to
rule.
Once we understand the two different definitions of "liberty" at work
here, a lot of other things suddenly make much more sense. We can
understand the traditional Southern antipathy to education, progress,
public investment, unionization, equal opportunity, and civil rights.
The fervent belief among these elites that they should completely escape
any legal or social accountability for any harm they cause. Their
obsessive attention to where they fall in the status hierarchies. And,
most of all -- the unremitting and unapologetic brutality with which
they've defended these "liberties" across the length of their history.
When Southerners quote Patrick Henry -- "Give me liberty or give me
death" -- what they're really demanding is the unquestioned,
unrestrained right to turn their fellow citizens into supplicants and
subjects. The Yankee elites have always known this -- and feared what
would happen if that kind of aristocracy took control of the country.
And that tension between these two very different views of what it means
to be "elite" has inflected our history for over 400 years.
The Battle Between the Elites
Since shortly after the Revolution, the Yankee elites have worked hard
to keep the upper hand on America's culture, economy and politics -- and
much of our success as a nation rests on their success at keeping
plantation culture sequestered in the South, and its scions largely away
from the levers of power. If we have to have an elite -- and there's
never been a society as complex as ours that didn't have some kind of
upper class maintaining social order -- we're far better off in the
hands of one that's essentially meritocratic, civic-minded and generally
believes that it will do better when everybody else does better, too.
The Civil War was, at its core, a military battle between these two
elites for the soul of the country. It pitted the more communalist,
democratic and industrialized Northern vision of the American future
against the hierarchical, aristocratic, agrarian Southern one. Though
the Union won the war, the fundamental conflict at its root still hasn't
been resolved to this day. (The current conservative culture war is the
Civil War still being re-fought by other means.) After the war, the
rise of Northern industrialists and the dominance of Northern
universities and media ensured that subsequent generations of the
American power elite continued to subscribe to the Northern worldview --
even when the individual leaders came from other parts of the country.
Ironically, though: it was that old Yankee commitment to national
betterment that ultimately gave the Southern aristocracy its big chance
to break out and go national. According to Lind, it was easy for the
Northeast to hold onto cultural, political and economic power as long as
all the country's major banks, businesses, universities, and industries
were headquartered there. But the New Deal -- and, especially, the
post-war interstate highways, dams, power grids, and other
infrastructure investments that gave rise to the Sun Belt -- fatally
loosened the Yankees' stranglehold on national power. The gleaming new
cities of the South and West shifted the American population centers
westward, unleashing new political and economic forces with real power
to challenge the Yankee consensus. And because a vast number of these
westward migrants came out of the South, the elites that rose along with
these cities tended to hew to the old Southern code, and either tacitly
or openly resist the moral imperatives of the Yankee canon. The soaring
postwar fortunes of cities like Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Phoenix,
Houston, Dallas, and Atlanta fed that ancient Barbadian slaveholder
model of power with plenty of room and resources to launch a fresh and
unexpected 20th-century revival.
According to historian Darren Dochuk, the author of
From Bible Belt to Sunbelt: Plain-Folk Religion, Grassroots Politics, and the Rise of Evangelical Conservatism,
these post-war Southerners and Westerners drew their power from the new
wealth provided by the defense, energy, real estate, and other economic
booms in their regions. They also had a profound evangelical
conviction, brought with them out of the South, that God wanted them to
take America back from the Yankee liberals -- a conviction that
expressed itself simultaneously in both the formation of the vast
post-war evangelical churches (which were major disseminators of
Southern culture around the country); and in their takeover of the GOP,
starting with Barry Goldwater's campaign in 1964 and culminating with
Ronald Reagan's election in 1980.
They countered Yankee hegemony by building their own universities,
grooming their own leaders and creating their own media. By the 1990s,
they were staging the RINO hunts that drove the last Republican
moderates (almost all of them Yankees, by either geography or cultural
background) and the meritocratic order they represented to total
extinction within the GOP. A decade later, the Tea Party became the
voice of the unleashed id of the old Southern order, bringing it forward
into the 21st century with its full measure of selfishness, racism,
superstition, and brutality intact.
Plantation America
From its origins in the fever swamps of the lowland south, the
worldview of the old Southern aristocracy can now be found nationwide.
Buttressed by the arguments of Ayn Rand -- who updated the ancient
slaveholder ethic for the modern age -- it has been exported to every
corner of the culture, infected most of our other elite communities and
killed off all but the very last vestiges of noblesse oblige.
It's not an overstatement to say that we're now living in Plantation
America. As Lind points out: to the horror of his Yankee father, George
W. Bush proceeded to run the country exactly like Woodard's description
of a Barbadian slavelord. And Barack Obama has done almost nothing to
roll this victory back. We're now living in an America where rampant
inequality is accepted, and even celebrated.
Torture and extrajudicial killing have been reinstated, with no due process required.
The wealthy and powerful are free to abuse employees, break laws,
destroy the commons, and crash the economy -- without ever being held to
account.
The rich flaunt their ostentatious wealth without even the pretense of humility, modesty, generosity, or gratitude.
The military -- always a Southern-dominated institution -- sucks down
60% of our federal discretionary spending, and is undergoing a rapid
evangelical takeover as well.
Our police are being given paramilitary training and powers that are
completely out of line with their duty to serve and protect, but much
more in keeping with a mission to subdue and suppress. Even liberal
cities like Seattle are now home to the kind of local justice that used
to be the hallmark of small-town Alabama sheriffs.
Segregation is increasing everywhere. The rights of women and people of
color are under assault. Violence against leaders who agitate for
progressive change is up. Racist organizations are undergoing a
renaissance nationwide.
We are withdrawing government investments in public education,
libraries, infrastructure, health care, and technological innovation --
in many areas, to the point where we are falling behind the standards
that prevail in every other developed country.
Elites who dare to argue for increased investment in the common good,
and believe that we should lay the groundwork for a better future, are
regarded as not just silly and soft-headed, but also inviting underclass
revolt. The Yankees thought that government's job was to better the lot
of the lower classes. The Southern aristocrats know that its real
purpose is to deprive them of all possible means of rising up against
their betters.
The rich are different now because the elites who spent four centuries
sucking the South dry and turning it into an economic and political
backwater have now vanquished the more forward-thinking, democratic
Northern elites. Their attitudes towards freedom, authority, community,
government, and the social contract aren't just confined to the country
clubs of the Gulf Coast; they can now be found on the ground from
Hollywood and Silicon Valley to Wall Street. And because of that quiet
coup, the entire US is now turning into the global equivalent of a Deep
South state.
As long as America runs according to the rules of Southern politics,
economics and culture, we're no longer free citizens exercising our
rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as we've always
understood them. Instead, we're being treated like serfs on Massa's
plantation -- and increasingly, we're being granted our liberties only
at Massa's pleasure. Welcome to Plantation America.
Sara Robinson, MS, APF is a social futurist and the editor of AlterNet's Vision page. Follow her on Twitter, or subscribe to AlterNet's Vision newsletter for weekly updates.
No comments:
Post a Comment