If you compare Americans' attitudes from the 1970s and '80s with attitudes today, you can see how much the worldview of these professionals has already permeated the electorate. In March 1981, two months into the Reagan administration, a Los Angeles Times poll found that 54 percent of Americans thought there was "too much regulation of business and industry" and only 18 percent thought there was "too little." By October 2008, 27 percent thought there was "too much" and 45 percent thought there was "too little." In a Pew poll released in March 2007, 83 percent backed "stricter laws and regulations to protect the environment," and 66 percent supported "government guaranteeing health insurance for all citizens, even if it means raising taxes."
Attitudes on social issues have also changed dramatically. The Pew poll from March 2007 found that the percentage of Americans who believe that school boards should have the right to fire gay teachers fell from 51 percent in 1987 to 28 percent. Those who want to make it "more difficult" for women to obtain abortions dropped from 47 to 35 percent. Those who think that "it's all right for blacks and whites to date each other" rose from 48 to 83 percent. The poll also found that 62 percent of the general population--and 83 percent of college graduates-- disagreed with the notion that "science is going too far and hurting society."
I think what we're seeing here is the convergence of two cycles, plus one long-term trend.
The first cycle is the economic-policy cycle. In general, there is an appropriate middle-ground level of government intervention in the economy - a Goldilocks mix of regulation, taxes, spending, etc. But because of political momentum - people who push certain policy packages tend to push them to extremes - we tend to oscillate around the optimum. Back in the late 70s, our economy was too regulated, so we brought in Reagan, but Gingrich and Bush (and maybe Clinton) took deregulation too far, so the pendulum has swung back.
The second cycle is a longer one - the cycle of immigration and assimilation. When waves of newcomers firs arrive, Americans tend to fear that their "native" culture is being overwhelmed. But as the generations advance and the children of the immigrants learn perfect English, natives and immigrants intermarry, work together, and move into the same neighborhoods. And the conservative backlash fades away. When Gomez and Gonzalez become typical Joe Sixpack names, there's one less reason to scurry to Tom Tancredo for protection (note: Tancredo, our top anti-immigration crusader, is a third-generation Italian-American...how times change).And finally, there's the long-term trend, which is the internet. It used to be that only people in big cities saw gays, foreigners, and religious minorities on a daily basis. But now, every suburban kid has seen gay websites, foreign-language websites, Jewish or Mormon websites. Suburbs aren't cosmopolitan yet, but the internet has taken away some of the fear of the alien.
So what do social liberalism (i.e. accepting people different than you) have to do with economic "progressivism" (i.e. using the government to regulate the economy for the general "welfare")? Well, once racial and religious and other tribal identities become less important, nationalism take over - and nationalists trust their government to act in the interest of the entire nation, not just one tribe or another. America's melting pot of assimilation is the reason we don't fall into the kind of fractured tribal distrust that cripples African countries and forced Europe to divide itself into a million micro-nations. Each time we turn a new bunch of FOBs (that's "Fresh Off the Boat"s) into Joe Sixpacks, we regain confidence in our ability to act as a nation.
Well, that's what I hope is going on, anyway.
0 comments:
Post a Comment