Packer rediscovers Fischer

Reacting to an essay by George Packer, I write,

In a recent essay drawn from a forthcoming book, George Packer says that American society has fractured into four groups. But David Hackett Fischer noticed these same four traditions, dating back to the first English settlers, in his carefully-researched book, Albion’s Seed. Fischer’s concept then became the basis of Walter Russell Mead’s book on tensions in American foreign policy, Special Providence.

15 thoughts on “Packer rediscovers Fischer

  1. Packer reserves the most disdain for Free and Real, although he does a reasonable job in critiquing all 4.

    Free = the road to serfdom

    Real = subtle and overt racism

    Both portraits struck me as odd and not particularly accurate in getting to the core of these movements.

    The strange part is that, by the end, he is basically advocating for a Free and Real approach to what ails us.

    “But a way forward that tries to make us Equal Americans, all with the same rights and opportunities—the only basis for shared citizenship and self-government—is a road that connects our past and our future.”

    Will this approach work? I’m hoping for the best, but believe that our differences are irreconcilable at this point. I’m sticking to the red states and will avoid the blue like the plague.

  2. I’m afraid I couldn’t make it very far into Packer’s piece. First, he said that “Free America” (libertarians) have been the most powerful over the last 40 years, which is total B.S., and then his description of Reagan as favoring only white Americans. Also total B.S.

    • I though he was being unfair by the time I reached his description of Goldwater (and of libertarianism as being defined largely by its alliance with racism and segregationsists, which I would say is similar to claiming that American progressivism has been defined by its alliance with communism and the Soviet Union).

      Progressives really need to come back to reality though on their estimation of the influence of libertarianism.

    • I suppose what Packer had in mind is that Republicans have been really fixated on tax cuts for a long time. There was also a lot of talk about smaller government, but it was just talk, as seen most clearly when Rs had Pres, House, and Senate under GWB. Also under DJT. Amusingly, when GWB was Pres, the Democrats started talking like they were the fiscally responsible ones, but that was REALLY just talk.

      • Sure, but if you believe in Ricardian equivalence (and I think in the long run it does somewhat hold) tax cuts without spending cuts aren’t really tax cuts at at all, and the real measure of libertarian influence on conservatives is government spending, and by that metric, well, it’s pretty hard to see much of a footprint at all.

        On regulation I’ll admit fusionism has been more successful, but only modestly so.

  3. Out of respect for Arnold, I read the whole Packer piece, and am sorry to have wasted my time. It falls in the category of stylishly written ideological bias confirmation drivel. Packer is dripping with ill-concealed contempt and hatred for what he calls “real America,” i.e., working and middle class, and has little critical to say about “smart America” (never mind their pervasive moral and intellectual failures exposed especially over the last year), or “just America” (read psychopathic hate filled activists).

    • Yeah, I dunno. The last paragraph was at least worth the price of the free admission for me. We are in a cold civil war and I’ve never heard of it referenced quite like that. Well said.

      “Meanwhile, we remain trapped in two countries. Each one is split by two narratives—Smart and Just on one side, Free and Real on the other. Neither separation nor conquest is a tenable future. The tensions within each country will persist even as the *cold civil war* between them rages on.”

      • He’s only half right though. Separation is entirely tenable. Not even referring to secession, but just actually making use of the principle of federalism. In fact he may not even be half right. Slow, cold conquest is arguably already underway.

  4. “Real America takes distrust of elites too far. It resists hard truths (about the pandemic, for example).”

    Yeah, ok. Hard truths…lol. Care to provide some evidence of this?

    I also do recall that team Just completely ignored the lockdown orders during the racial reckoning…and that team Smart completely apologized for and condoned it.

    I would also say that the virus skeptics aren’t nearly as anti-science as you make them out to be.

    ***
    MIT researchers ‘infiltrated’ a Covid skeptics community a few months ago and found that skeptics place a high premium on data analysis and empiricism.

    https://twitter.com/commieleejones/status/1391754136031477760?s=21

    • Ok, so who tolerates differing opinions more?

      This poll fits nicely with my experience. The so called religious fundamentalists are far more affable and open to differing opinions than the puritan left.

      Pick any random weekend…who would I prefer to hang out with? It’s not even close and I’m not remotely religious.

      ***
      Liberals have most difficulty getting along with opponents on ‘culture war’ issues

      “27% of lockdown opponents say it’s difficult to be friends with people on the other side of the Covid debate – compared with 55% of lockdown supporters who say the same.”

      https://www.kcl.ac.uk/news/liberals-have-most-difficulty-getting-along-with-opponents-on-culture-war-issues

  5. Any evidence that Smart and Just are truly different camps at this point?

    • Packer is either out to lunch with his categories, or deliberately misleading (my bet is on the former). For example, he states that his “Free”, which is a subsegment of conservatives, has in the past half century […] been the most politically powerful of the four, citing the Atlantic’s favorite betes noires, the Kochs, and implying that the “Free” have deregulated the hell out of everything they could get their dirty hands on in the service of evil capitalists. This is of course the standard Atlantic narrative. Packer’s direct observations – such as in his previous article on meritocracy – were interesting to me as anthropology, a look inside a world I don’t inhabit myself, but his thought processes and his conclusions seem to be those of an extremely conventional left-liberal.

Comments are closed.