Fundamental Transformation: The Past In Our Future

Metropolis (1927)

In earlier posts OTR described how some of our cultural observers believe historians deep in the future will view the histories of England and the United States more as one evolutionary experience. Granted, there are some strong distinctions between the two systems of government, but the cultural similarities outweigh them in this writer's opinion. If we examine both nations in the last century, the slow creep of socialism is most evident. One of our British friends recently told how much the Obama "purchase" of General Motors reminded him of the nationalization of the British auto industry in the 1970s and the coal industry three decades earlier. Though there may be some positives, both industries in Britain have never exceeded expectations envisioned by their state planners. As far as General Motors is concerned, the jury is still out along with tens of billions of tax payer dollars. 

The recent presidential election ensures Americans that our fundamental transformation toward more state control of production will do more than creep. The pundits are having a field day discussing the short-term while Jonah Goldberg has presented his readers with a more meaningful assessment in a recent National Review Online column:

The words government" and "state" are often used interchangeably, but they are really different thing. According to the Founders' vision, the people are sovereign and the government belongs to us. Under the European nation of the state, the people are creatures of the state, significant only as parts of the whole.

This European version of the state can be nice, One can live comfortably under it. Many decent and smart people sincerely believe this is the intellectually and morally superior was to organize society. And, to be fair, it's not a binary thing. The line between the European and American models is blurry. France is not Huxleyan dystopia, and America is not and has never been an anarchist's utopia, nor do conservatives want it to be one.

The distinction between the two worldviews is easily a disagreement over first assumptions about which institutions should take the lead in our lives. It is an argument about what the habits of the American heart should be. Should we live in a country where the first recourse is to appeal to the government, or should government interventions be reserved as a last resort? 

We're going to have plenty of opportunities to see how our choices play out across the nation over the next four years and beyond. Let's hope we have chosen wisely.