The Ages of Reagans

I wonder if that mother of all bombs, a mommy with an utterly phallic name, isn’t the air power version of the great skyscrapers which, according to stock-trader lore, typically are completed at the end, rather than the beginning, of one or another cultural-economic epoch.

It was a conversation at plain blog, and some recent reading, that returned me to this habitual frame of mind.  Jonathan Bernstein asked his commenters to take a position on a multi-part question:

[H]as the last thirty years been [a period] in which conservatives dominated US politics and policy? Has it been, in other words, the Reagan era? And if so, did that end in 2006 and 2008, or are we still in the Reagan era?

My own view is that there are fundamental problems with this set of questions, or at least with any attempt to answer them from some narrowly “political” perspective.  The invocation of terms like “era” and “age,” any notion of “U.S. politics and policy” being “dominated,” already implies and requires some super-political, world-historical and philosophical theory or standpoint, some position outside of the moment that the question assumes may still be ongoing.  Depending on how one went about defining the age, certain key claims, even including a claim that it was over or that it had never actually occurred, might end up situating the claimant entirely within it.

Eventually, poor dead Foucault was dragged into the discussion, his appearance serving to underline these difficulties.  While I was thinking about how to respond, I also happened to be finishing Corey Robin’s The Reactionary Mind (see also our headline thread).  Its conclusion turned out to be right on point:  “Conservatism,” Robin claims, “has dominated American politics for the past forty years…. The conservative embrace of unregulated capitalism and imperial power still envelops our two parties.” He goes on to suggest that the legislative assaults on labor and on women’s rights since the 2010 mid-terms frame something like the final battle in conservatism’s war against 20th century social progress.

What’s interesting, and I guess predictable, is Robin’s final dialectical turn. Throughout the book, which mainly consists of political-historical essays written over the last fifteen years, Robin describes reactionary conservatism as a movement that cannot live without an enemy, and that, as felt in the immediate aftermath of the fall of the Soviet Union, is therefore endangered by its own success.   This observation can bring us full circle to the beginning of the Age of Reagan – both an actual historical Age of Reagan as well as conservative Steven Hayward’s monumental or at least rather massive two-volume work of the same name (the cover at the right is from Volume I).  Hayward’s epic – a better work, I think, than the author’s subsequent career as rightwing intellectual might lead you to expect – begins by describing the Democratic landslide of 1964 as the victory from which, as seen from the perspective of 2001, liberalism still had not recovered.  Hayward convincingly renders his rise of Reagan as near-perfectly symmetrical with the “Fall of the Old Liberal Order.”  They are effectively the same process.

Sooner or later, we may always end up seeing our own moment as the hinge point of some grand historical narrative – a danger that Foucault and others have warned us against while tempting us with it all over again.  Resisting that temptation, or taking cognizance of its dangers, should not prevent us from being aware that the plates do shift, sometimes at the precise moment they seem to have gone completely still.

Home Page  Public Email  Twitter  Facebook  YouTube  Github   

Writing since ancient times, blogging, e-commercing, and site installing-designing-maintaining since 2001; WordPress theme and plugin configuring and developing since 2004 or so; a lifelong freelancer, not associated nor to be associated with any company, publication, party, university, church, or other institution. 

10 comments on “The Ages of Reagans

Commenting at CK MacLeod's

We are determined to encourage thoughtful discussion, so please be respectful to others. We also provide a set of Commenting Options - comment/commenter highlighting and ignoring, and commenter archives that you can access by clicking the commenter options button (). Go to our Commenting Guidelines page for more details, including how to report offensive and spam commenting.

  1. “Can’t live without an enemy”

    To my mind, one of the notable features about the AoR is the extent that its partisans see defeat in their supposed ascendency. If it’s been the AoR for 30 ish years, what’s all this “take our country back” talk?

    Framing things in the Age of ______ format can yield insights as long as the framers don’t loose sight of th limitations of their project/projection.

    • bob: To my mind, one of the notable features about the AoR is the extent that its partisans see defeat in their supposed ascendency. If it’s been the AoR for 30 ish years, what’s all this “take our country back” talk?

      It’s quite tempting to think the most Reaganish thing about our “age” is a kind of Alzheimerization of the national psyche. The Democrats are the party of collective self-consciousness, but unable to hold onto its expression. The Republicans are the party that rejects the collectivism part, but expresses the same yearning, achieving a semblance of ego-continuity through repetition of assertions whose actual or theoretical logical relationship to each other are either beside the point or threatening. American politics becomes a scene of two different forms of dementia, passive-pathetic vs. paranoid-aggressive.

  2. Well no, now mind you, the lack of proper skepticism re our adversaries, was not limited to the Democrats, Nixon and Ford,
    had the same problem, Carter’s naivete about the vaccuum that would be left by the Shah’s fall, was symptomatic, But even
    the Reagan Administration was insufficiently focused on the Shiite chiliasts, hence we were caught off guard in Lebanon,
    the same could be said about Central America, Biden and Kerry’s solution was to assuage the Soviets, with the nuclear
    freeze, Obama famously didn’t think ti went far enough.

    • As often, I don’t see what point you want to make, or what specifically you’re “no”-ing, but referring to “Shiite chiliasts” seems particularly odd in this context considering the prominent role of real ardent honest-to-God chiliasts in the Reagan coalition.

  3. I think the point Miggs is making is that no one, not even any Republicans, has ever been paranoid enough. Of course, in his mind there would be no consequences for being paranoid enough not to be caught off guard ever, and he exemplifies the paranoid spirit by referencing as many names and places as possible in order to cover all the bases that would otherwise make room for any bits of sensical information to sneak through his defenses.

  4. No, Scott, but you remember TWA 847, the shoot em ups at the Vienna and Rome airport, the former happened long after we had given up on Beirut, but in the era when apparently every Westerner was fair game,

1 Pings/Trackbacks for "The Ages of Reagans"
  1. […] or at least to emerge briefly renewed.  I therefore used this blog’s e-mail plug-in to send my post on THE REACTIONARY MIND to Corey Robin, who is also blogging these days.  And I’ll bounce this post over to Tanni […]

Commenter Ignore Button by CK's Plug-Ins

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *



Noted & Quoted

TV pundits and op-ed writers of every major newspaper epitomize how the Democratic establishment has already reached a consensus: the 2020 nominee must be a centrist, a Joe Biden, Cory Booker or Kamala Harris–type, preferably. They say that Joe Biden should "run because [his] populist image fits the Democrats’ most successful political strategy of the past generation" (David Leonhardt, New York Times), and though Biden "would be far from an ideal president," he "looks most like the person who could beat Trump" (David Ignatius, Washington Post). Likewise, the same elite pundit class is working overtime to torpedo left-Democratic candidates like Sanders.

For someone who was not acquainted with Piketty's paper, the argument for a centrist Democrat might sound compelling. If the country has tilted to the right, should we elect a candidate closer to the middle than the fringe? If the electorate resembles a left-to-right line, and each voter has a bracketed range of acceptability in which they vote, this would make perfect sense. The only problem is that it doesn't work like that, as Piketty shows.

The reason is that nominating centrist Democrats who don't speak to class issues will result in a great swathe of voters simply not voting. Conversely, right-wing candidates who speak to class issues, but who do so by harnessing a false consciousness — i.e. blaming immigrants and minorities for capitalism's ills, rather than capitalists — will win those same voters who would have voted for a more class-conscious left candidate. Piketty calls this a "bifurcated" voting situation, meaning many voters will connect either with far-right xenophobic nationalists or left-egalitarian internationalists, but perhaps nothing in-between.

Comment →

Understanding Trump’s charisma offers important clues to understanding the problems that the Democrats need to address. Most important, the Democratic candidate must convey a sense that he or she will fulfil the promise of 2008: not piecemeal reform but a genuine, full-scale change in America’s way of thinking. It’s also crucial to recognise that, like Britain, America is at a turning point and must go in one direction or another. Finally, the candidate must speak to Americans’ sense of self-respect linked to social justice and inclusion. While Weber’s analysis of charisma arose from the German situation, it has special relevance to the United States of America, the first mass democracy, whose Constitution invented the institution of the presidency as a recognition of the indispensable role that unique individuals play in history.

Comment →

[E]ven Fox didn’t tout Bartiromo’s big scoops on Trump’s legislative agenda, because 10 months into the Trump presidency, nobody is so foolish as to believe that him saying, “We’re doing a big infrastructure bill,” means that the Trump administration is, in fact, doing a big infrastructure bill. The president just mouths off at turns ignorantly and dishonestly, and nobody pays much attention to it unless he says something unusually inflammatory.On some level, it’s a little bit funny. On another level, Puerto Rico is still languishing in the dark without power (and in many cases without safe drinking water) with no end in sight. Trump is less popular at this point in his administration than any previous president despite a generally benign economic climate, and shows no sign of changing course. Perhaps it will all work out for the best, and someday we’ll look back and chuckle about the time when we had a president who didn’t know anything about anything that was happening and could never be counted on to make coherent, factual statements on any subject. But traditionally, we haven’t elected presidents like that — for what have always seemed like pretty good reasons — and the risks of compounding disaster are still very much out there.

Comment →
CK's WP Plugins


Extraordinary Comments

CK's WP Plugins