Skip to main content

The 2020 Vote: Is our political experience normal?

The alarmist argument is: “Hey, things are different, and they’re heading in a dangerous direction.” The anti-alarmist argument is: “No, things have always, or at least often, been this way. The parties always say bad things about each other. Politics have always been ugly.”

The anti-alarmists have a point if you contrast the political drama of two recent eras. When Obama was President, he was taking us into a faithless state-controlled future and the sky was falling. With Trump as President, he is taking us into a truthless xenophobic aristocracy and the sky is falling. The parties are squabbling, and they have always squabbled, so get over it. I take the anti-alarmist point seriously.

I’m making a case that things are different, and that some fundamentals in America have shifted. We're losing one special advantage that made democracy work. American political life has also become more normal, but normal in a destabilizing way.

I'll start with the special advantage that we've lost.

Agriculture was a special advantage that helped make America more democratic and egalitarian for much of its history. Yes, farming. I wish I could start with something more exciting, but it’s true.

Immense amounts of wealth were sewn into the soil across this country. For most of American history, farming was an intensely local enterprise. Starting with the first European immigrants, families spread across the land and extracted value from the land through hard work and intimate knowledge of local weather, soil, and crops.

In aggregate, the value produced was immense. We take it for granted today, but nations can't exist without food security.

This crucial resource could not be concentrated into the hands of a few owners. A few owners could monopolize railroad empires, oil empires, and manufacturing empires, but all the while farmers continued to extract their reliable value from the soil. The practicalities of farming prevented the concentration of that great resource, and provided a large voting block that disliked the concentration of power and resources.

The distribution of a crucial resource helped America remain relatively more democratic and egalitarian than other parts of the world. China has vast expanses of land, but not the distributed agricultural wealth of America. As such, it has a history of centralized power. Africa and the Middle East both have immensely valuable resources, but they are concentrated in specific locations, not spread across the land. As such, they have a history of different groups fighting over access to those resources.

Agriculture in America has changed profoundly over time. Advances in technology and horsepower allow many fewer people to farm larger expanses of land. Advances in transportation and food storage allow food to be shipped globally. Food has been commodified, and the percentage of Americans working in agriculture is a tiny fraction of what it once was.

The inherent distribution of value has been lost, and the American economy looks more like that of less democratic countries. Specifically, it is easier to concentrate the sources of value. Agriculture is the driving example, but it’s true across the economy.

Where it is easier to concentrate value, greed will do its work. Greed will capture sources of value, bend the rules to its own advantage, and generate propaganda to glorify greed.

America's agricultural wealth still makes it strong and resilient. But it's no longer a special advantage for democracy and the broad distribution of power. We're more vulnerable than we used to be.

Next time, I’ll unpack a change that has made American more normal, but in a destabilizing way.

<end>


<Notes>

Article: Paul Krugman, economic decline in rural America is hard to fix.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/18/opinion/rural-america-economic-decline.html

Recommended book: The Rise and Fall of American Growth, by Robert J. Gordon

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Deferred Maintenance

I once worked at a public university that had a huge 'deferred maintenance' problem. Their major equipment was often 35 years old with an expected lifetime of 30 years. As a result, they were constantly doing repairs and paying overtime, but had little time to do preventive maintenance and little money to make pro-active investments in new equipment. In one dorm, water from bad showers on the upper floors started leaking into the main lobby, and the 'fix' was to drag out garbage cans to catch the water. I was told that repairing the plumbing itself was expensive so it was being figured into the "five-year budget plan." The garbage can fix went on for at least a year. A two-page spread in The Atlantic Monthly (March 2008, p 38-39) calls out our nation's growing infrastructure problem. This is a real 'tragedy of the commons' situation: individuals are not willing to give up more tax money if they don't see a real-time, personal benefit. At the sa...

Whose fault are high gas prices?

GM recently announced the closing of several auto plants in North America, primarily those that make large, gas inefficient vehicles. The news anchor began the segment with "Due to high gas prices..." Since everyone's blaming high gas prices for our woes these days, it begs the question "Whose fault are high gas prices?" Your driveway is the first place to look for answers. If your car gets bad mileage, that's probably your fault. Some luck, huh? After that, I blame "the invisible hand." This is the idea that when everyone follows their own self-interest in a free market, everyone ends up better off. Everyone is motivated to work hard and be efficient and produce goods that others want to trade for. Free markets do a fine job of producing wealth and prosperity, but they've really botched the energy situation. For all it's glory, the invisible hand has little strategic foresight. In the 1970s, we learned that America was vulnerable to high e...

Real Estate in America

We sold our house this summer and bought a new home. The experience has led me to reflect on homes and home-buying in America. As in any industry, there are good and bad incentives at work in real estate. A home seller would like to get the highest price for their house and sell it in a reasonable period of time. The industry operates on a commission system so that the agent seeks to sell the house at a higher price. This incentive works, but only to a point. Consider the impact of $5000 on the seller vs. the agent. Six percent of $5000 is $300. After the realty company and purchasing agent take their cut, the agent isn't left with much. A $5000 difference in the price of the house means little to the agent, but a lot to the home owner. Does an agent become successful by getting the highest price or by turning over lots of houses? The answer is obvious. An agent's ideal world is not one where people get exactly the right price for their homes, it is a world where everyone is wi...