C S A! C S A! ;-)
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 6:59 AM, Larry C. Lyons <larrycly...@gmail.com> wrote: > > http://www.alternet.org/visions/156071/conservative_southern_values_revived%3A_how_a_brutal_strain_of_american_aristocrats_have_come_to_rule_america_?page=entire > > Conservative Southern Values Revived: How a Brutal Strain of American > Aristocrats Have Come to Rule America > By Sara Robinson, AlterNet > Posted on June 28, 2012, Printed on July 20, 2012 > http://www.alternet.org/story/156071/conservative_southern_values_revived%3A_how_a_brutal_strain_of_american_aristocrats_have_come_to_rule_america > > It's been said that the rich are different than you and me. What most > Americans don't know is that they're also quite different from each > other, and that which faction is currently running the show ultimately > makes a vast difference in the kind of country we are. > > Right now, a lot of our problems stem directly from the fact that the > wrong sort has finally gotten the upper hand; a particularly brutal > and anti-democratic strain of American aristocrat that the other > elites have mostly managed to keep away from the levers of power since > the Revolution. Worse: this bunch has set a very ugly tone that's > corrupted how people with power and money behave in every corner of > our culture. Here's what happened, and how it happened, and what it > means for America now. > > North versus South: Two Definitions of Liberty > > Michael Lind first called out the existence of this conflict in his > 2006 book, Made In Texas: George W. Bush and the Southern Takeover of > American Politics. He argued that much of American history has been > characterized by a struggle between two historical factions among the > American elite -- and that the election of George W. Bush was a > definitive sign that the wrong side was winning. > > For most of our history, American economics, culture and politics have > been dominated by a New England-based Yankee aristocracy that was > rooted in Puritan communitarian values, educated at the Ivies and > marinated in an ethic of noblesse oblige (the conviction that those > who possess wealth and power are morally bound to use it for the > betterment of society). While they've done their share of damage to > the notion of democracy in the name of profit (as all financial elites > inevitably do), this group has, for the most part, tempered its > predatory instincts with a code that valued mass education and human > rights; held up public service as both a duty and an honor; and imbued > them with the belief that once you made your nut, you had a moral duty > to do something positive with it for the betterment of mankind. Your > own legacy depended on this. > > Among the presidents, this strain gave us both Roosevelts, Woodrow > Wilson, John F. Kennedy, and Poppy Bush -- nerdy, wonky intellectuals > who, for all their faults, at least took the business of good > government seriously. Among financial elites, Bill Gates and Warren > Buffet still both partake strongly of this traditional view of wealth > as power to be used for good. Even if we don't like their specific > choices, the core impulse to improve the world is a good one -- and > one that's been conspicuously absent in other aristocratic cultures. > > Which brings us to that other great historical American nobility -- > the plantation aristocracy of the lowland South, which has been > notable throughout its 400-year history for its utter lack of civic > interest, its hostility to the very ideas of democracy and human > rights, its love of hierarchy, its fear of technology and progress, > its reliance on brutality and violence to maintain order, and its > outright celebration of inequality as an order divinely ordained by > God. > > As described by Colin Woodard in American Nations: The Eleven Rival > Regional Cultures of North America, the elites of the Deep South are > descended mainly from the owners of sugar, rum and cotton plantations > from Barbados -- the younger sons of the British nobility who'd farmed > up the Caribbean islands, and then came ashore to the southern coasts > seeking more land. Woodward described the culture they created in the > crescent stretching from Charleston, SC around to New Orleans this > way: > > It was a near-carbon copy of the West Indian slave state these > Barbadians had left behind, a place notorious even then for its > inhumanity....From the outset, Deep Southern culture was based on > radical disparities in wealth and power, with a tiny elite commanding > total obedience and enforcing it with state-sponsored terror. Its > expansionist ambitions would put it on a collision course with its > Yankee rivals, triggering military, social, and political conflicts > that continue to plague the United States to this day. > > David Hackett Fischer, whose Albion's Seed: Four British Folkways In > America informs both Lind's and Woodard's work, described just how > deeply undemocratic the Southern aristocracy was, and still is. He > documents how these elites have always feared and opposed universal > literacy, public schools and libraries, and a free press. (Lind adds > that they have historically been profoundly anti-technology as well, > far preferring solutions that involve finding more serfs and throwing > them at a problem whenever possible. Why buy a bulldozer when 150 > convicts on a chain gang can grade your road instead?) Unlike the > Puritan elites, who wore their wealth modestly and dedicated > themselves to the common good, Southern elites sank their money into > ostentatious homes and clothing and the pursuit of pleasure -- > including lavish parties, games of fortune, predatory sexual > conquests, and blood sports involving ritualized animal abuse > spectacles. > > But perhaps the most destructive piece of the Southern elites' > worldview is the extremely anti-democratic way it defined the very > idea of liberty. In Yankee Puritan culture, both liberty and authority > resided mostly with the community, and not so much with individuals. > Communities had both the freedom and the duty to govern themselves as > they wished (through town meetings and so on), to invest in their > collective good, and to favor or punish individuals whose behavior > enhanced or threatened the whole (historically, through community > rewards such as elevation to positions of public authority and trust; > or community punishments like shaming, shunning or banishing). > > Individuals were expected to balance their personal needs and desires > against the greater good of the collective -- and, occasionally, to > make sacrifices for the betterment of everyone. (This is why the > Puritan wealthy tended to dutifully pay their taxes, tithe in their > churches and donate generously to create hospitals, parks and > universities.) In return, the community had a solemn and inescapable > moral duty to care for its sick, educate its young and provide for its > needy -- the kind of support that maximizes each person's liberty to > live in dignity and achieve his or her potential. A Yankee community > that failed to provide such support brought shame upon itself. To this > day, our progressive politics are deeply informed by this Puritan view > of ordered liberty. > > In the old South, on the other hand, the degree of liberty you enjoyed > was a direct function of your God-given place in the social hierarchy. > The higher your status, the more authority you had, and the more > "liberty" you could exercise -- which meant, in practical terms, that > you had the right to take more "liberties" with the lives, rights and > property of other people. Like an English lord unfettered from the > Magna Carta, nobody had the authority to tell a Southern gentleman > what to do with resources under his control. In this model, that's > what liberty is. If you don't have the freedom to rape, beat, torture, > kill, enslave, or exploit your underlings (including your wife and > children) with impunity -- or abuse the land, or enforce rules on > others that you will never have to answer to yourself -- then you > can't really call yourself a free man. > > When a Southern conservative talks about "losing his liberty," the > loss of this absolute domination over the people and property under > his control -- and, worse, the loss of status and the resulting risk > of being held accountable for laws that he was once exempt from -- is > what he's really talking about. In this view, freedom is a zero-sum > game. Anything that gives more freedom and rights to lower-status > people can't help but put serious limits on the freedom of the upper > classes to use those people as they please. It cannot be any other > way. So they find Yankee-style rights expansions absolutely > intolerable, to the point where they're willing to fight and die to > preserve their divine right to rule. > > Once we understand the two different definitions of "liberty" at work > here, a lot of other things suddenly make much more sense. We can > understand the traditional Southern antipathy to education, progress, > public investment, unionization, equal opportunity, and civil rights. > The fervent belief among these elites that they should completely > escape any legal or social accountability for any harm they cause. > Their obsessive attention to where they fall in the status > hierarchies. And, most of all -- the unremitting and unapologetic > brutality with which they've defended these "liberties" across the > length of their history. > > When Southerners quote Patrick Henry -- "Give me liberty or give me > death" -- what they're really demanding is the unquestioned, > unrestrained right to turn their fellow citizens into supplicants and > subjects. The Yankee elites have always known this -- and feared what > would happen if that kind of aristocracy took control of the country. > And that tension between these two very different views of what it > means to be "elite" has inflected our history for over 400 years. > > The Battle Between the Elites > > Since shortly after the Revolution, the Yankee elites have worked hard > to keep the upper hand on America's culture, economy and politics -- > and much of our success as a nation rests on their success at keeping > plantation culture sequestered in the South, and its scions largely > away from the levers of power. If we have to have an elite -- and > there's never been a society as complex as ours that didn't have some > kind of upper class maintaining social order -- we're far better off > in the hands of one that's essentially meritocratic, civic-minded and > generally believes that it will do better when everybody else does > better, too. > > The Civil War was, at its core, a military battle between these two > elites for the soul of the country. It pitted the more communalist, > democratic and industrialized Northern vision of the American future > against the hierarchical, aristocratic, agrarian Southern one. Though > the Union won the war, the fundamental conflict at its root still > hasn't been resolved to this day. (The current conservative culture > war is the Civil War still being re-fought by other means.) After the > war, the rise of Northern industrialists and the dominance of Northern > universities and media ensured that subsequent generations of the > American power elite continued to subscribe to the Northern worldview > -- even when the individual leaders came from other parts of the > country. > > Ironically, though: it was that old Yankee commitment to national > betterment that ultimately gave the Southern aristocracy its big > chance to break out and go national. According to Lind, it was easy > for the Northeast to hold onto cultural, political and economic power > as long as all the country's major banks, businesses, universities, > and industries were headquartered there. But the New Deal -- and, > especially, the post-war interstate highways, dams, power grids, and > other infrastructure investments that gave rise to the Sun Belt -- > fatally loosened the Yankees' stranglehold on national power. The > gleaming new cities of the South and West shifted the American > population centers westward, unleashing new political and economic > forces with real power to challenge the Yankee consensus. And because > a vast number of these westward migrants came out of the South, the > elites that rose along with these cities tended to hew to the old > Southern code, and either tacitly or openly resist the moral > imperatives of the Yankee canon. The soaring postwar fortunes of > cities like Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Phoenix, Houston, Dallas, and > Atlanta fed that ancient Barbadian slaveholder model of power with > plenty of room and resources to launch a fresh and unexpected > 20th-century revival. > > According to historian Darren Dochuk, the author of From Bible Belt to > Sunbelt: Plain-Folk Religion, Grassroots Politics, and the Rise of > Evangelical Conservatism, these post-war Southerners and Westerners > drew their power from the new wealth provided by the defense, energy, > real estate, and other economic booms in their regions. They also had > a profound evangelical conviction, brought with them out of the South, > that God wanted them to take America back from the Yankee liberals -- > a conviction that expressed itself simultaneously in both the > formation of the vast post-war evangelical churches (which were major > disseminators of Southern culture around the country); and in their > takeover of the GOP, starting with Barry Goldwater's campaign in 1964 > and culminating with Ronald Reagan's election in 1980. > > They countered Yankee hegemony by building their own universities, > grooming their own leaders and creating their own media. By the 1990s, > they were staging the RINO hunts that drove the last Republican > moderates (almost all of them Yankees, by either geography or cultural > background) and the meritocratic order they represented to total > extinction within the GOP. A decade later, the Tea Party became the > voice of the unleashed id of the old Southern order, bringing it > forward into the 21st century with its full measure of selfishness, > racism, superstition, and brutality intact. > > Plantation America > > From its origins in the fever swamps of the lowland south, the > worldview of the old Southern aristocracy can now be found nationwide. > Buttressed by the arguments of Ayn Rand -- who updated the ancient > slaveholder ethic for the modern age -- it has been exported to every > corner of the culture, infected most of our other elite communities > and killed off all but the very last vestiges of noblesse oblige. > > It's not an overstatement to say that we're now living in Plantation > America. As Lind points out: to the horror of his Yankee father, > George W. Bush proceeded to run the country exactly like Woodard's > description of a Barbadian slavelord. And Barack Obama has done almost > nothing to roll this victory back. We're now living in an America > where rampant inequality is accepted, and even celebrated. > > Torture and extrajudicial killing have been reinstated, with no due > process required. > > The wealthy and powerful are free to abuse employees, break laws, > destroy the commons, and crash the economy -- without ever being held > to account. > > The rich flaunt their ostentatious wealth without even the pretense of > humility, modesty, generosity, or gratitude. > > The military -- always a Southern-dominated institution -- sucks down > 60% of our federal discretionary spending, and is undergoing a rapid > evangelical takeover as well. > > Our police are being given paramilitary training and powers that are > completely out of line with their duty to serve and protect, but much > more in keeping with a mission to subdue and suppress. Even liberal > cities like Seattle are now home to the kind of local justice that > used to be the hallmark of small-town Alabama sheriffs. > > Segregation is increasing everywhere. The rights of women and people > of color are under assault. Violence against leaders who agitate for > progressive change is up. Racist organizations are undergoing a > renaissance nationwide. > > We are withdrawing government investments in public education, > libraries, infrastructure, health care, and technological innovation > -- in many areas, to the point where we are falling behind the > standards that prevail in every other developed country. > > Elites who dare to argue for increased investment in the common good, > and believe that we should lay the groundwork for a better future, are > regarded as not just silly and soft-headed, but also inviting > underclass revolt. The Yankees thought that government's job was to > better the lot of the lower classes. The Southern aristocrats know > that its real purpose is to deprive them of all possible means of > rising up against their betters. > > The rich are different now because the elites who spent four centuries > sucking the South dry and turning it into an economic and political > backwater have now vanquished the more forward-thinking, democratic > Northern elites. Their attitudes towards freedom, authority, > community, government, and the social contract aren't just confined to > the country clubs of the Gulf Coast; they can now be found on the > ground from Hollywood and Silicon Valley to Wall Street. And because > of that quiet coup, the entire US is now turning into the global > equivalent of a Deep South state. > > As long as America runs according to the rules of Southern politics, > economics and culture, we're no longer free citizens exercising our > rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as we've always > understood them. Instead, we're being treated like serfs on Massa's > plantation -- and increasingly, we're being granted our liberties only > at Massa's pleasure. Welcome to Plantation America. > > Sara Robinson, MS, APF is a social futurist and the editor of > AlterNet's Vision page. Follow her on Twitter, or subscribe to > AlterNet's Vision newsletter for weekly updates. > > © 2012 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved. > View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/1560 > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:352972 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
