Posted on Jun 8, 2016
'The Fractured Republic' Explores How Nostalgia Led To Polarized Politics
1.02K
2
5
1
1
0
Nostalgia Politics? Interesting Take.
'The Fractured Republic' Explores How Nostalgia Led To Polarized Politics
Posted from npr.orgPosted in these groups: 
Politics
Politics
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 2
1
1
0
PO1 William "Chip" Nagel
I really hadn't thought about the Nostalgia of Both Sides. Really is an interesting way to look at it.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I take NPR at face value-for "them" to be discussing "nostalgia" in the cultural context is a bit like Braves fans discussing the Yankees.
Here's what they're missing-It's not "Mid-20th century" nostalgia...It's retrospection on everything that changed in the 20th Century, and where it has led us. I believe people can understand, if not relate to earlier periods of cultural history. Yes-anyone with reasonable intelligence knows that prior to 1950, the world was a vastly different place, and largely not for the better. Lifespans were shorter (by a lot), institutional forms of class separation still reigned...not only in Europe, but right here at home, and a panoply of diseases cut wide swaths through the surviving populations before and during not one, but two great world-wide, total wars. In sheer body count, history is hard-pressed to match the years between 1914-1945 without going back into the Dark Ages.
The "Boomers" experienced the benefits of a society that emerged from that crucible-Improved quality of life, victories against common diseases and poverty, and the subjugation of long standing social systems that ensured few people had access to upward mobility.
I believe that one half of them believes this was the result of something being stopped dead in its tracks...the other, the result of something that needs to be kept alive. They naturally passed these beliefs on to their children, and in turn, they passed them on to theirs.
I probably came out of the "side" that believes these improvements came out of putting the brakes on "industrialization" in favor of "innovation", and "socialism" in favor of "social order". By contrast, my peers in opposition seem to believe that "globalization" is superior to "centralization" and "federalization" superior to "privatization".
Here's what they're missing-It's not "Mid-20th century" nostalgia...It's retrospection on everything that changed in the 20th Century, and where it has led us. I believe people can understand, if not relate to earlier periods of cultural history. Yes-anyone with reasonable intelligence knows that prior to 1950, the world was a vastly different place, and largely not for the better. Lifespans were shorter (by a lot), institutional forms of class separation still reigned...not only in Europe, but right here at home, and a panoply of diseases cut wide swaths through the surviving populations before and during not one, but two great world-wide, total wars. In sheer body count, history is hard-pressed to match the years between 1914-1945 without going back into the Dark Ages.
The "Boomers" experienced the benefits of a society that emerged from that crucible-Improved quality of life, victories against common diseases and poverty, and the subjugation of long standing social systems that ensured few people had access to upward mobility.
I believe that one half of them believes this was the result of something being stopped dead in its tracks...the other, the result of something that needs to be kept alive. They naturally passed these beliefs on to their children, and in turn, they passed them on to theirs.
I probably came out of the "side" that believes these improvements came out of putting the brakes on "industrialization" in favor of "innovation", and "socialism" in favor of "social order". By contrast, my peers in opposition seem to believe that "globalization" is superior to "centralization" and "federalization" superior to "privatization".
(0)
(0)
LCDR (Join to see)
I would offer that you're re-stating my point, though more concisely. Industrialization truly "began" in the third and fourth decades of the 19th century-Our own Civil War both propelled and exacerbated by the stark contrasts created by the overturning of agrarian economies in favor of production economies. In that climate, the "excuses" used to defend slavery became passe', as did the "Nativist" position in the cities serving as points of entry for mass immigration. However, within fifty years, the same system that promoted less reliance on manual labor, and increased opportunities while offering the proverbial "melting pot"...imploded...not unlike it appears to be doing today.
Where you lose me is in that I'm not sure if you're asserting that in the 19th Century (I assume "pre-industrial age" a better term), people had it "better" or "worse". I think a better comparison is to range the world's standard of "civilization" for centuries prior and determine if each stage of "progress" was/was not book-ended by periods of unrest, famine, war and disease.
If you look hard for the stabilizing factors in each period of resurgence, I believe you'll find the establishment of social order. The decline of Greek society was reversed by the rise of Rome...the fall of Roman civilization was arrested by the rise of the Catholic Church...the centuries of Inquisition, Crusade and feudalism overturned by the Protestant Reformation...which gave rise to the "Enlightenment" and ultimately...the Constitutional Republic. Each transition was precipitated by a challenge to order, and each was resolved by order. Interestingly, the "order" changes little in structure, merely adopting new labels to describe common models. That order might be defined as "Civic Duty, supported by Moral Authority".
NPR is starting their argument in the middle of a complex transition between a nationalistic and idealistic "order" established after the second World War, which was overturned by the "Cultural Revolution" of the '60s and '70s. What truly divides "us" isn't nostalgia for what we grew up under...but rather, an intense disagreement over what the new "order" should be.
Where you lose me is in that I'm not sure if you're asserting that in the 19th Century (I assume "pre-industrial age" a better term), people had it "better" or "worse". I think a better comparison is to range the world's standard of "civilization" for centuries prior and determine if each stage of "progress" was/was not book-ended by periods of unrest, famine, war and disease.
If you look hard for the stabilizing factors in each period of resurgence, I believe you'll find the establishment of social order. The decline of Greek society was reversed by the rise of Rome...the fall of Roman civilization was arrested by the rise of the Catholic Church...the centuries of Inquisition, Crusade and feudalism overturned by the Protestant Reformation...which gave rise to the "Enlightenment" and ultimately...the Constitutional Republic. Each transition was precipitated by a challenge to order, and each was resolved by order. Interestingly, the "order" changes little in structure, merely adopting new labels to describe common models. That order might be defined as "Civic Duty, supported by Moral Authority".
NPR is starting their argument in the middle of a complex transition between a nationalistic and idealistic "order" established after the second World War, which was overturned by the "Cultural Revolution" of the '60s and '70s. What truly divides "us" isn't nostalgia for what we grew up under...but rather, an intense disagreement over what the new "order" should be.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google