Trends and Ideas, Part I

It's been a while, I know. But hey, that only means I've had some time to percolate, right? Read some new things, keep looking for a job, etc. I've pounded away about half of Forester's Hornblower series, and I'm halfway through Casanova's memoirs, Fraser's biography of Frederick the Great, Herman's To Rule the Waves, and I'm rereading substantial chunks of Wilbur's Brief History of Everything and Greene's The Elegant Universe. I know, I know, I'm all over the map right now. I'm working on it. So that's the section about me. The next bit is going to be long and complicated. You've been warned.

I've been thinking about trends and ideas lately. Alot. And several apparently disparate elements are coalescing into a Monet-like canvas that needs to be clearly drawn out and clarified. Hey, it's my blog, if you don't like having to read my half-thoughts, you can get your own.

I'm interested in tracing the connection between theory, practice, and new evolution. To illustrate what I mean by this, let's consider several examples that most people are at least vaguely familiar with.

Using socialist thought as our example, we start with the original idea. This would generally be Karl Marx and the Communist Manifesto (1848). The Manifesto outlined the ideal and basic structures of the utopia, and it also sparked further philosophy and theory. The practical application of the ideas came into real force with Lenin's successful revolution in Russia (1917), almost 70 years later. While some die-hards will argue that Lenin's application of Marxist thought was interrupted by his death and abandoned by Stalin, the example of the USSR is the closest thing we have seen to the realization of Marx's dream in this world. Political Theory -> Political Practice.

Taking a polar opposite example we can examine the resurgence of free market economics at the end of the 20th Century. It began, arguably, with von Mises and Socialism (1922), and was continued forcefully by Hayek (The Road to Serfdom, 1944) and Friedman (Capitalism and Freedom, 1962). These ideas were practically applied by the Reagan administration in the early 1980's, again after they had been in development for 60 years. Political Theory -> Political Practice.

I use these two examples to show that the theory came demonstrably before the political application (which in both cases fell short of the ideal). Duh. With this established, I want to flesh out the connection to modern politics. This is where it gets tricky.

If the politics of today are a result of the ideas of yesterday, where are we? The 20th Century is frequently portrayed, generally correctly, as the Great Struggle between individualism (via free markets) and collectivism. Individualism won. We call it Russia, not the USSR. Everything is made in the People's Republic of China. Hell, even Deng Xiao Ping, the communist guerilla who ended up leading China, told his people that "to get rich is glorious"!

So if that battle has "ended", what's next?

While collectivism still rears its head in various forms, it is mostly confined to university lecture halls and environmentalist rhetoric. To be sure, the vestiges of the Great Struggle are still with us today. Europe, in particular has been having a hard time moving towards more market based economies, generally evidencing a deep distrust of personal choice when it comes to economics. But even in America we see calls for nationwide health care, a classic example of collectivism. And even a Republican president with a Republican congress passed the prescription drug plan, dramatically enlarging a program whose origins lie with Lyndon Johnson's Great Society collectivism. But these remnants should not be confused with a struggle. China has free markets, as does almost all of Asia. India has stopped its decade's long flirtation with socialism and is now becoming one of the poster boys for globalization. Bill Clinton and Tony Blair were elected as proponents of market economics and the "Third Way" (aka moderate capitalism from the Labour Party), ie, as moderates who were far to the center of their respective party's general platform.

So, where does this victory leave us? And what is its effect on modern politics? I believe that the current disorganization in the Democratic party is a direct result of the fall of the Soviet Union. Not because Democrats are communists or something ridiculous like that, but because the Democratic Party, from Roosevelt, through Johnson, all the way up to Al Gore's "People vs the Powerful" message in 2000, has represented collectivism in America. No one seriously argues that we need tougher unions when we're hemorrhaging manufacturing jobs to China and India. No one seriously argues that the bipartisan Welfare Reform Act of 1996 wasn't a dramatic success. Al Gore, the vice president of a guy with a 70% approval rating, despite years of every kind of attack the Republican's could mount (pardon the pun) against him, managed to lose to the inexperienced son of a disliked former president by adopting his collectivist message. John Kerry, who took up a similar theme, couldn't defeat a president who had a 35% approval rating mere months after the election.

In short, the ideas that represented much of the party platform have been tried and have failed. The ideas of the party are old. Their message is tired. And Republicans have been able to coast by on the remnants of Reagan's legacy, increasingly indulging themselves at the trough without making significant forward steps, ever since then. If the Democrats pull off any kind of victory in the upcoming elections it will be the result of general (and deserved) disatisfaction with Republican coruption, rather than a clear message from the Democrats. A vote against Republican's, or a low Republican turnout, rather than excitement about the Democratic message, is the only thing that will carry them to victory this November.

So, if the Democratic party is having difficulty because its core ideas (democratic collectivism) have been demonstrably refuted, the question arises? What's next? And the answer is: another essay, of course. The next essay (an essay is a collection of jumbled thoughts, right? Right?) will examine this trend on a larger scale. I want to look at scientific developments, their effects on philosophy and religion, and the corresponding shift down to politics. I think a third essay will examine the effects of modern scientific development and current "establishment" philosophy (mainly existentialism and atheistic evolutionary thinking), hopefully with some conclusions coming about current trends in philosophy and therefore, politics.