Dr. Cassandra Heads to the Bank
Annals of Political Anxiety
The Guilty Pleasures of “Civil War in the U.S.?”
This morning, a buddy reposted a New York Times review of another book suggesting that the U.S. stands on the brink of civil war. The Times itself had already sent the review, of course. Indeed, I have been inundated with annoyingly portentous considerations of this question recently, so I responded to the posting with the text below, a sort of fresco, drafted before the plaster dried. Much of the day was spent polishing and probably worsening the text, clarity paid for with effervescence. Ah well. By the afternoon, The New Yorker had weighed in along similar lines, as drearily predicted, and sometime during the evening, it was time to let go.
It’s difficult for somebody attempting social criticism and frustrated with academic publishing not to be cynical about the breathless discussions of civil war in not quite post Trump America. These are difficult times, granted, but so are most times. We self-dramatize, a lot. Phones and social media have made things much, much worse, and not simply among the “dispossessed.” Indeed, the tendency of the Times and the mandarin class generally to blame the dispossessed working classes for the nation’s polarization is a little odd in light of the relatively declining fortunes of the lower rungs of the mandarin class, as anyone struggling to pay off graduate school debt will recognize. On the other hand, at least so far, those on the lower rungs of the professional classes have confined themselves to little more than a polite “socialism.” That may change. Those really worried about civil unrest should keep eyes on young lawyers, not so much the dispossessed as the hungry, yon Cassius. It’s guys like Madison or Robespierre or Lenin who make revolutions, not some dispossessed redneck who can’t get a job in the new economy and is worried about his declining status. But enough about my students. What are we to make of all the drama?
Pace, comrades. I know, the Republicans _______; Trump and minions _________. Like I said, these are hard times. For that matter, Cassandra was right about Troy, and things ended badly for her. My own relatives did not take Hitler seriously soon enough. Of course it can happen here; it has happened here. And if we have another civil war, then any literate survivors are likely to point to this or that prognostication, maybe even say the prophesies were self-fulfilling.
Those things said, forces less grand are also at work. Not particularly subtle versions of “the peasants are revolting” have become memes among the mostly coastal mandarins, bureaucrats like us (using the word broadly) who make our living with texts, symbols, in large organizations whether nominally public or private. The Atlantic has devoted the year to the proposition. The language does not vary much: “sons of the soil,” “nativist,” “populist” “deplorable,” etc., etc. New? And one hears very similar things from other countries.
This is hardly the first time a polity’s elite has blamed its underlings rather than take thoughtful responsibility, well, any responsibility, for the polity’s failings. And sometimes the peasants do revolt, of course, and then things may go badly for our kind. (I don’t honestly believe that, but then again, I wouldn’t.) At least we will know, as we’re herded to the wall, that we aren’t “sons of the soil.” We are better. [I’m not sure why we don’t simply use “peasant.” Squeamish editors, no doubt.]
Historically speaking, one must concede that there may be rot at the top. We need not tarry long over that issue in our own case, of course — it doesn’t sell books among the right sort. Besides, our current woes are obviously the peasants’ fault, what with their nativist superstitions and general lack of couth. Only a misanthrope, traitor to his class, would ask what if our modernity isn’t . . . enough? That might be a place to start real critical thought. Sadly, that would be work, which is tiresome. Nothing here Li Zhi did not know (mandarin and critic of the mandarin class, Book for Burning).
But no need to be so negative, I say. Maybe the revolution won’t come, and even if it does someday, there are careers to be made while the deluge approaches. On the last day at Versailles, you can bet some courtier was still hustling. Even if we are waiting for the cake to be served, which I doubt, there’s probably time to get famous/make money, mostly by telling people what they want to hear. The review my buddy passed on is of a book that is both heated and in line — the academic equivalent of winning the lottery. Does anybody wish to bet, say at 2–1, that the book won’t be reviewed throughout the echo chamber? Well played!
As many of us can attest, intelligent books generally are in trouble, bought almost only by libraries and a few graduate students, both increasingly marginal. I’m on the editorial board of a modestly important and quite serious “little magazine.” It is really difficult to foster and distribute thinking/writing read by more than a few people, and worth reading for non-professional reasons. One solution is writing for the trades, and hoping for a review by the NYT and thereby the rest. Even if you do have to pander a lot, it is good work if you can get it. So is owning a string of Panera franchises, and I like Panera, which is to suggest a far more likely doom for intellectual life in this country than peasants with pitchforks.
But back to getting rich and famous: it helps to establish a personal brand, maybe a podcast. Build a following. You know the drill. Obviously, I’m being unfair by implication, probably just bitter, fiddling with my sound editing software. It is possible that one or the other of these books saying much the same thing about the threat of civil war is a piece of really good work, learned, penetrating, creative, maybe even slyly witty, and somehow drawing the attention of the folks on deck of the Gray Lady as it sinks into Midtown (Renzo Piano’s steel spars do have something naval about them). Do you believe that is the case? I am skeptical. Maybe if an interlocutor actually read and personally recommended such a book, I would make time to read, foregoing something else. But the stack of books that should be read is high, my own work calls, and I strongly suspect I’ve seen this film and felt like the hero, well, at least better than other people, which is important to me. (I’m so glad I’m not a Beta.)
So instead, I’ll note that this morning’s book just happens to align with the NYT’s immensely successful and confessed strategy of pursuing emotion, opinion, clicks, reader participation, lifestyle advice, video. The NYT is too established to be called “entrepreneurial,” and the paper is the house organ of the mandarin class, emphatically not speaking to the sons of the soil. But the Times shares much with the so-called “ethnic entrepreneurs,” viz., regular emotional stroking, phrased as thinking, demanding attention yet reassuring. War is on the horizon; you are a fine citizen just for reading this; good thing you are not an uneducated probably racist peasant. BTW, have you tried making sourdough from your own starter, or maybe retrofitted an old barn with solar? [You are good; the war won’t touch you; we weren’t serious; great narrative though; enjoy your prosperity.] This is not all the paper does, but the NYT does this, often. Such messages are repeated, reinforced, and their consumption monetized. Echo, echo, and as Shoshana Zuboff argues, the echoes are directed for profit rather than understanding. It works, too — the NYT has never been more profitable.
As suggested, social media (including the NYT) degrades our politics, and certainly makes our politics seem worse, because there is fame and money in that, for papers, for platforms, and for authors, too. In a way, this is good news, because media is not the world, it just seems that way to symbol manipulators. If one enters, say, a Discount Tire, or a hospital, or the DMV, or any number of other working places, maybe even a farming town inhabited by daughters and sons of the earth, the political situation looks much less bleak. Not perfect, still all too human, but people really do work together, and live (play, love, suffer) together.
The intellectual situation in this country, I worry, is worse than our politics, and that has consequences for a republic that claims to be founded on enlightenment. For another day. And, for those on a walk or otherwise with a bit of space, it is a great time to be thinking.
END
Note: This piece originated as a posting to the World Association of International Studies (WAIS).
Dr. Cassandra Heads to the Bank was originally published in Age of Awareness on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.