A good deal of public head-scratching has been taking place since Sunday, when Angela Merkel’s CDU, together with its future coalition partner the FDP, handed the German socialists their worst electoral defeat since 1945.
Some journalists and public intellectuals are openly fretting about the demise of European socialism, ironically coming at a time when the capitalist system itself appears to be under direct attack from every angle. Some bloggers have noted that Europe appears to be moving away from socialism just as the United States seems to be veering toward it, but this would not be the first time that major political events in Europe and the United States have moved in different directions at the same time, rather than in lock step.
In a similar vein, David Brooks, in his latest effort to both scurry away from actually being a conservative while working doubletime to retain some changed version of that label, worries that America remains mired in:
the obsolete culture war, which has put secular liberals on one side and religious conservatives on the other. But the slide in economic morality afflicted Red and Blue America equally. If there is to be a movement to restore economic values, it will have to cut across the current taxonomies. Its goal will be to make the U.S. again a producer economy, not a consumer economy. It will champion a return to financial self-restraint, large and small.
Brooks argues that financial conservatism is a moral issue, because America’s Calvinist founders and their WASP heirs saw it as a moral issue. I personally doubt it can be recast as an issue of national morality, or that the current “culture wars”, which are in fact waning in any case, will be replaced by some kind of war against fiscal profligacy from the moral perspective.
Nevertheless, all of these articles about the current swirl of change in the West do underscore one important point for men to consider carefully. We stand currently at something of a historical crossroads. The old regime — socially, culturally, politically — is being replaced by something else throughout the West. Men sometimes spend a lot of time fretting about this, but in my view these changes are inevitable and can’t be helped. What men can do, however, is react to them personally in a creative and useful way, for themselves.
In a sense this relates to what Zed wrote recently in these pages, to wit:
Well, fast forward 50 years and we find that men have far more freedom and flexibility than any group of men has ever had in the history of the world. They can now choose to be husbands, and/or fathers, or anything else, and the social pressure and stigma which used to force the vast majority of men into early marriage (and often early graves) and the role of a specialized beast of burden bred for the specific purpose of dragging around an emotionally and financially dependent wife and family is simply no longer there.
Certainly, some men might wish to continue to choose those roles for their lives. And the social Luddites, who fear and resist change, may want to try to keep men trapped in those old roles. But, as women’s roles have changed, the system which gave men only one set of choices has changed whether people wanted it to or not.
Men may choose to be husbands and fathers. Or not. They can choose to be travelers, or explorers, or scholars, or X-box players. Or not. They can be househusbands, assuming they can find a breadwinning wife and are willing to deal with the residual social stigma toward a man who does not live up to the traditional roles. But, women have blazed the way in breaking down those old roles and in their place have left men a world of opportunities limited only by their own imaginations.
The real challenges confronting men these days are the topics Novaseeker and Prime have recently written about – defining core masculine values by which men define
themselves. For too long men have been allowing women to define us – either in the negative, by giving a us a list of things they don’t like about us, or by demanding that we become more like them. Some men are comfortable with becoming more like women, and we will see how women really end up liking them once they do.But, for the rest of us, who have never had any desire to be women, we now have the opportunity to completely define for ourselves what sort of masculinity will serve us, and those we love, best in the coming years.
Very much so. These changing times — and it does appear that change is once again accelerating — offer us a great opportunity to recast ourselves as men in whatever mold we wish to. Clinging to the past is not going to be fruitful for most of us, because the past is not going to come back to life. Rather, a new way forward is the most viable path for us, as men, in reaction to all of the swirling change around us. We have the freedom, today, to do this, and as men it’s our responsibility to ourselves and future generations of men as well to take up the reins of that freedom and run with it, in the process broadening the scope of what masculinity means in the 21st Century, rather than having it redefined for us by women, academics, elites and others.
This is a time of great change and dislocation, to be sure. But it is also our time, the time of our freedom, if we choose to recognize that and embrace it in our lives. We can be our future now, if we only have the courage to grasp that destiny with both hands and mold it as we wish.
Subscribe to The Spearhead Newsletter for a free copy of the Book of Zed
{ 17 comments… read them below or add one }
Where’s that photo from, Nova?
It’s of the North Sea off the English coast.
Ah, I suspected Denmark or the Low Countries. I didn’t know they had offshore wind turbines in England.
Nova,
Do you think the culture wars are “waning” or simply changing?
I think they are clearly changing. The old issues (abortion, gay marriage) are moving into the rear view mirror in terms of getting the same amount of political passion behind them. What will the new issues be? Probably things like the environment, the role of government in private lives, this kind of thing. The social conservatives are losing a lot of force in our society currently. They may regain their footing at some stage, but they may not. In the meantime, though, the warfare is shifting to other fronts, different battles from the ones that have been the standard fare for the past few decades, I think.
Fair enough. It seems to me, as cliche as it sounds, that the country is divided more than ever. Not about one issue or another, like abortion or gay marriage, but about the whole concept of SECULAR American values, exceptionalism, the decency of its history, and its role in the world.
I think the “culture wars” have become much bigger than any one issue and isn’t just religious vs. secular anymore.
Absolutely, Gantt.
A part of what we are seeing is (1) the reassertion of sectionalism in a big way, but on a new basis and (2) the impact of the internet as a force for social disruption and division.
As to the first, the issue is not slavery or the legacy of the civil war, but a gap in values and lifestyle between the coasts, other large urban centres in the middle, and everyone else. The electoral map is striking when you look at it on a nationwide, county-based scale. It’s astonishing, really. Urban and many inner and middle suburban areas are blue, and everywhere else is red, with a handful of exceptions. This is a huge, new sectionalism based on the legacy of the culture war, in part, but also based on the issues you raise as well. Just a gulf, in cultural terms.
The second factor is even more subversive. Due to the internet, people are able to group together with like-minded people and ignore everyone else, if they wish. Of course the internet also exposes people to a variety of perspectives, but if you don’t wish to be exposed to these, you won’t be. And it’s a fantastic platform for bringing together people from various different places who have a similar perspective in common. Ultimately that is subversive to the existing social order, because it replaces the more traditional loyalties (to community, local society, even country) with a more personally-chosen identification — one that is not tied to community or country and has no particular allegiance in either way. That in itself is quite subversive, and the impact is hitting already, I think.
Well said.
“The second factor is even more subversive. Due to the internet, people are able to group together with like-minded people and ignore everyone else, if they wish. Of course the internet also exposes people to a variety of perspectives, but if you don’t wish to be exposed to these, you won’t be. And it’s a fantastic platform for bringing together people from various different places who have a similar perspective in common. Ultimately that is subversive to the existing social order, because it replaces the more traditional loyalties (to community, local society, even country) with a more personally-chosen identification — one that is not tied to community or country and has no particular allegiance in either way. That in itself is quite subversive, and the impact is hitting already, I think.”
That is worth repeating. Viva la Internet!
Indeed!
Anyone interested in the county-based electoral maps can find them here.
The most interesting one for 2008 is the blended county one which shows how counties leaned, rather than winner take all. Obama made serious inroads in 2008, but the map is still remarkably close to what it was in 2004.
Those wind turbines are ugly and very doubtfully cost efficient, absent government subsidy all over the place. They’re also a drop in the bucket. Going headlong into that kind of thing before the technology is there amounts to a religious/moral/social observance/sacrifice for “the common good”, rather than actually addressing the common good.
Nuclear power (of the pebble reactor vastly safer variety), much more research, carbon sequestration research, and the like are the way to go. Really aside from research the only really practical widescale alternative now is nuclear – and getting the grid and cars going on becoming electric from whatever source.
The overwhelming majority of nuclear’s cost is the greenie social/legal opposition and therefor huge delay/financing costs and other costs in building the things consequent from that. If greens are serious about global warming they can get serious about a massive building program on nuclear, while we work to make other options actually viable. Nuclear is now, with social /legal changes on tolerating opposition to it.
Doug1,
All true. But I have always wondered why Mexico doesn’t set up nuclear reactors in Tijuana, to sell electricity to the 25 million people in Southern California.
Or why Canada doesn’t set up reactors on the border, to supply Seattle and Detriot. They could make a lot of money, and bypass the US restrictions.
We don’t need it here in Seattle — we have more than enough hydropower in WA from the abundant mountain snowpack and the Grand Coulee Dam. That’s actually why they put Boeing factories here in the first place — cheap electricity made it easy to smelt aluminum for airplanes.
Interesting post Nova. I think the expansion of choices for men is a mixed bag of sorts–not necessarily good or bad, but different. It can and will be a great thing as men learn how to relate to the new world. But it’s also worth noting that more choices can be a bad thing if we don’t know how to prioritize our own desires and arrange our lives accordingly. This is the trap of modern society methinks, the belief that more options automatically equals more happiness. Yes, it can, but certainly not always and not without a good deal of wisdom to go along. Your closing paragraph captures that quite well.
Great to see some good discussion on the pros of nuclear. Thankfully, much of the rest of the world has figured them out as well and is charging ahead with aggressive nuclear building programs. This will result in the growth of a global supply base for components and engineering, not to mention plenty of experience gained from building the first wave of next-generation plants, both of which will make new nukes more affordable down the road. As the plants currently under construction and soon to enter the construction phase progress, we’ll see the U.S. jump on board in a bigger way. Lots of companies are watching and waiting but lack the financing due mostly to risks associated with cost overruns and construction/startup delays. But until then there seems to be too many risks and unknowns for a lot of companies to bite off that huge up-front cost. But with all the cap-and-trade BS going around the relative risk of nuclear is already getting lower.
Brooks argues that financial conservatism is a moral issue, because America’s Calvinist founders and their WASP heirs saw it as a moral issue. I personally doubt it can be recast as an issue of national morality, or that the current “culture wars”, which are in fact waning in any case, will be replaced by some kind of war against fiscal profligacy from the moral perspective.
What would such a moral revolution require? The transfer of funds to various victim groups would have to stop, and the desire of these groups for handouts would have to be labeled immoral and publicly shamed. Furthermore the politicians who get elected by promising these people handouts would have to be shamed and driven from office.
Not gonna happen.
From the UK via the internet – which may be a distorting mirror – the US looks like a house divided with two sets of people who simply cannot abide one another. For instance re gay marriage – other nations went with civil unions. But in the US it must be gay marriage or nothing. And i’m not sure that red team/blue team politics can contain that animosity – which extends beyond gay marriage, abortion etc.
(Of course the UK is pioneering other forms of disintegration).
Curtis –
It’s true. There is an abiding culture war in the US, although the issues of the “old” culture war are ending, while the new ones, or perhaps underlying ones, are ending.
The difference with the UK is that here the entire culture never really accepted the aftermath of the 60s/70s. That’s the basis of the culture war — it’s between people who think what happened then was great, and we need to keep pushing forward, and people who think what happened then sucked, and we need to run damage control to prevent further damage. These are two fundamentally different worldviews and are not subject to that much compromise.
On the specific issue of gay marriage, the reason why “marriage” is such a big deal for gays is because in the US marriage is a much bigger deal (in terms of % of people who marry) than in most Western countries. It’s still a sign of “cultural credibility” in the US. So gay people want that. It’s as simple as that. They’re not happy with civil unions, they want to social credibility of marriage just like straight people have.
Novaseeker,very interesting stuff. Reminds me of the late Irving Kristols comments in the essay “My Cold War”:
It is a cold war that, for the last twenty-five years, has engaged my attention and energy, and continues to do so. There is no “after the Cold War” for me. So far from having ended, my cold war has increased in intensity, as sector after sector of American life has been ruthlessly corrupted by the liberal ethos. It is an ethos that aims simultaneously at political and social collectivism on the one hand, and moral anarchy on the other. It cannot win, but it can make us all losers. We have, I do believe, reached a critical turning point in the history of the American democracy.