Andrew Sullivan recently expressed his doubts about the state of America in a recent post:
My own view is that America’s crisis is a very deep one. The markets are reflecting the fact that seven years of Bush have added $32 trillion to future debt, and there is no one able to either raise revenues or slash entitlements to get us back to fiscal sanity. Iraq has shown that America’s imperial burden is becoming greater and greater even as her major rivals, China and Russia, get stronger and stronger. The threat of Jihadism is as salient today as it was in 2001. Climate change is a challenge the political system seems utterly unable to confront. The cultural, racial and religious divisions tearing America apart are as powerful as we allow them to be. Another election campaign that actually deepens this polarization will render it even harder to overcome.
I fear dark times ahead. Which is why I favor McCain and Obama. Both can rally their own supporters while appealing beyond them. We need that unifying potential – not because unity is always a good thing. But because sometimes it’s necessary. Like: now.
Rod Dreher, commenting, states that
Andrew does have a point in that both Obama and McCain, for somewhat different reasons, would be the kind of president who could rally the people in a difficult spot. But neither man represents the kind of changes that America really needs to make in the face of the critical issues now before the country. Then again, who does? That politician doesn’t yet exist because the awareness of how precarious our position is does not exist, at least not widely in the population.
In a recent trip out to DC, seeing a number of old friends from college, I was surprised to hear so many of them voice support for Huckabee. I understand the enthusiasm, which Rod Dreher has shared this last year, for a candidate who challenges the Reagan hegemony in the GOP. However, I remain sceptical that Huckabee is really doing things beyond party politics as usual. In other words, he like so many others, seems to shape-shift in subtle ways in order to appeal to as many voters as possible. Perhaps that’s not fair–but I really believe it’s a slippery slope, and going down it, the politician inevitably becomes embroiled in politics for politics sake.
What I really want to see is a discussion about the issues that are in fact the most important, issues that seem to be ignored by most candidates. In fact, I wonder if they are really thinking of these at all: our perilous economic situation (e.g. see this article by Pat Buchanon) where the U.S. continues to increase her debt to foreign lenders, and the facile solution of encouraging consumers to spend more and more (frivolously, I might add) to stimulate the economy; the increasing threat of technology and media-driven modes of discourse, particularly upon the youth in their schooling; the descent into militarism of our Foreign Policy; the increasing size, power, and seizure of subsidiary levels of responsibility and initiative by the federal government; the dominance of popular culture and the popularity and imposition of what is most banal, vulgar, and trite, and the way pop-culture has become THE pedagogical force in America.
These are the central political problems I see. Note, I did not mention abortion, the expunging of Christianity from the public square, or the aggresive polity of the homosexual agenda. I have lost confidence that real policy change will ever happen on these issues at the federal level. (Can someone try to persuade me that this is not the case?)
The threats of biotechnology and its assaults on bioethical norms seems to be an issue on the fence. I’m not sure if the government can stop this any more. But they might be able to.
I don’t think Huckabee, or any of the other candidates, really think about, let alone talk about, these critical issues. Like Dreher, I am persuaded that we are in a civilizational spiral and decline, and the best thing to do may very well be the MacIntyrean option of creating small communities (or in Pope Benedict’s words, “islands and oases”) where authentic “political” life can happen. Is politics on the national level still viable? I’m not sure. But I feel more and more that debates and arguments about the differences between presidential candidates aren’t all that critical anymore, especially when most of the candidates are blind to the deeper issues.
Except Ron Paul. He still seems the only candidate willing to enter into debate about (at least some) those deeper issues. At least, that’s my opinion.
But the fundamental thing seems to be, when sliding ever more rapidly into a “dark age”, do the outlines of political prudence suggest lines of action radically different from pretending that the status quo can be maintained?
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In