It's still the dog days, I guess. I'm still not posting though I have a few drafts sitting around. Eventually things will be back on pace.

"Power, Terror, Peace, and War : America's Grand Strategy in a World at Risk" is fascinating. I bought it yesterday, and pretty much read it cover to cover when I got home. Mead plows through all the garbage and spells things out clearly and intelligently. He doesn't arbitrarily adopt a position on the political spectrum though he seems somewhat conservative.

Mead also articulates things I understand intuitively. His writing reminds me of Alexis de Toqueville (sp?). The difference of course is that he is writing from an insiders perspective. Still, reading his things gives me one of those "Aha!" moments.

He identifies four traditional schools of American political thought. Jeffersonians being isolationist libertarians, Hamiltonians being practical-minded lassez faire capitalists, Jacksonians being traditional American folk culture, and Wilsonians being idealist internationalists. He goes on to describe the current state of affairs in a historical and cultural context that makes a hell of a lot of sense.

I grew up in Wyoming where the Jacksonian tradition runs deep. It undoubtedly colors my perception of world events and American responses. I wrote earlier about how I noticed a change in the political wind, that people are drifting towards a more conservative moralistic attitude. Mead explains much better what I noticed and more thoroughly, but it's nice to know I wasn't making things up.

The end of the cold war, and Reagan's economic and institutional policies were perhaps the catalyst, and the first suggestion that things were shifting. Mead describes pre torn-down-wall days as Fordist capitalism. The period was characterized by fairly heavy-handed regulation, and bureaucratization. Reagan bulldozed these institutions which were no longer necessary after the Cold War ended and though it is a slow process and one the Democrats are fighting tooth and nail, we continue to hammer away at them. The result is a newly vibrant economy more akin to the early days of Americna economic ingenuity. There is a certain loss of stability our economy is more volatile than it has been, but there is also greater economic freedom and greater opportunity for competition. The protectionist policies that kept things somewhat static and protected certain large industries were wrecked. For some long time there were only a handful of companies that served certain industries. These companies, like AT&T lasted for decades. Having lost their policy protection they face stiff competition. Companies come and go in a matter of years, and there is always somebody building a better mouse trap.

This kind of economy appeals to Jacksonians and Hamilitonians. For the Jacksonians, it is at least somewhat cut-throat and they can exercise their rough and tumble attitudes in the business world. For the Hamiltonians it is the natural progression of a capitalist market. Capitalism follows the path of greatest efficiency and least resistance. Mead's Fordist society worked best during the Cold-War because people were prepared to make certain sacrifices and band together during that time to guarantee our triumph over communism. Now that we have won, it is no longer in the best interest of the market, nor is it desired by the traditionalists who mistrust elitists and institutionalists.

It's really kind of exciting to me. It's a prime example of the grinding revolution that carries on in America. Both parties are facing a period of transition. The Democrats are alienating large sectors of America by clinging to the old more statist version of capitalism, and in deed if not in word, are ignoring a large sector of the America. They still believe in elitism to a certain degree. Sociologists and economists and professionals of that sort should be telling us what to do because they know. Jacksonians tolerated them during the Cold War, but now it seems they've outlived their usefulness. The Democrats are struggling to maintain their leftist platform without losing the centrists they need.

The Republicans on the other hand are facing a split. Centrists and youngsters are moving towards the Republican party because they are more representative of traditional American folk culture, and that attitude is rekindled in America. The split comes about because the hard right is too stodgy and rigid. The new Republicans are more dynamic and tolerant and eager to see the change that is coming. I think the ideologies are similar enough that Republicans will stick to the party, but I think there will be many show-downs between the two wings. Over time the New Republicans will win out due to senescense if nothing else. It will probably be more abrupt than that though.

In any case, it'll be a slow process and before it's finished things will be changing again. Whadda place.