
America is moving toward becoming a better version of itself - lunchbreak
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/05/reinventing-america/556856/?single_page=true
======
WhompingWindows
Of course this is true. If anyone is naive enough to believe America is a
hellish wasteland of terrible politics, and that that transfers to overall
Quality of Life metrics for society as a whole, they might be surprised by
this. Any honest look at data on employment, QoL, services available for free
or very cheaply in the lives of the average citizen, there are many reasons
for optimism.

Personally, I try to cut from my media diet any purely speculative or fear-
driven content. Instead of telling us what _might_ happen in the future if
this _policy_ comes down the pipe, maybe tell us about what's already happened
recently, what the data shows us about the most important issues. To me, these
are issues like the opioid epidemic, not what a politician wrote on Twitter
recently. Another example would be focusing extensively on negative coverage,
like opioids, and ignoring positive trends made in science, technology, and
culture - who wants to read about the daily incremental improvements in life?

~~~
chongli
I look at the opioid epidemic as a symptom, not the problem itself. The
broader problem is globalization and the local inequalities it's producing.
The Heartland of the United States is being hollowed out and turned into a
desolate wasteland, economically speaking. The steady advances in economic
productivity are accruing to an ever-shrinking proportion of the population.

The media-political circus should also be taken seriously as a problem because
it distracts people from focusing on the real issues. The recent focus on
privacy on Facebook is a good example of that. The real problem with Facebook
is that it's designed to be addictive, that it's making people depressed and
angry, and that it's politically polarizing people who ought to have common
interests.

~~~
briandear
Opioid addiction is because opioids make you feel really good and they are
really addictive and they had a tendency to be overprescribed. Blaming the
economy for opioids is like blaming airplanes for AIDS.

As far as the wasteland heartland, I am not sure if Texas is included in the
heartland, but the Texas economy is one of the biggest in the world — about as
large as the GDP of Canada and larger than that of South Korea. Basically
Texas is the 9th or 10th largest economy in the world. California is 5th or
6th. The state of Ohio’s economy is only slightly smaller than the entire
country of Belgium.

The desolate wastelands are in the non-major cities and towns of Europe.
Avignon France, for example, in the city center, has blocks and blocks of
boarded up storefronts. Unemployment in Avignon is over 15% and only 35% even
earn enough to have to pay income tax. Gary, Indiana, about as heartland as it
gets, has a 7.6% unemployment rate — a rate that is declining. By European
standards of GDP, disposable income and unemployment, Gary is a boomtown.

Don’t just consume the NPR-worthy stories of the death of the US heartland.
Remember, most media outlets in the vein of the Atlantic, NPR, etc., they are
typically coastal elites who have barely ever visited the heartland, let alone
actually lived or worked there. They are also an echo chamber pushing an
when’d a of a certain political persuasion, so it helps their narrative when
“fly-over country” isn’t doing well.

~~~
wilsonnb
What media outlets do you recommend that we look to for a more accurate
assessment?

~~~
briandear
The local papers of the regions in question. Certainly not elitist echo-
chambers like the Atlantic — a publication that preaches diversity but fires
their only conservative writer before he spent five minutes working for them.

But coastal publications trying to write about the heartland is as absurd as a
small town Texas paper writing about Brooklyn.

~~~
wilsonnb
I agree that the Atlantic is left leaning, although I'm not sure I would call
it an elitist echo chamber.

That said, I don't agree with your premise that coastal publications can't
write about the heartland.

I can see why you might dismiss a local paper from a coastal city writing
about what goes on in the heartland, as you like to call it, but the biggest
national newspapers in our country happen to be coastal publications.

The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, USA Today, and LA
times have been writing about the whole country (the whole world, actually)
for many years. They can afford to send people anywhere in the world to
research their stories. They can consult basically any expert they want on any
subject. There's a reason local papers go out of business all of the time or
get bought out by a larger paper.

It's absurd to compare a small town Texas paper writing about Brooklyn to
papers like those I mention above. They have resources and experience that
small town papers simply don't have.

I'm also not sure you know how NPR works. A lot of their coverage comes from
the local member stations which seems to be exactly what you want, but you
refer to NPR as coastal elites anyways.

------
gerbilly
>What explains the gulf between most Americans’ hopeful outlook on areas and
institutions they know directly and their despair about the country they know
only through the news?

The fundamental attribution error[1]

[1] [http://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/fundamental-
attri...](http://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/fundamental-attribution-
error)

~~~
bilbo0s
You pretty much summed up what I was thinking the entire time I was reading
the article. The average person will say, "Oh yeah... WE'RE doing a GREAT job!
We're doing what we need to do to make progress, and things are improving for
us."

And then they'll say, "It's all those OTHER people and places that are being
jerks!"

I wish people could better see where other people are coming from so to speak.

------
humanrebar
> What explains the gulf between most Americans’ hopeful outlook on areas and
> institutions they know directly and their despair about the country they
> know only through the news?

In their anthropological foray, they notice that people generally get along
with local people in local contexts. That's certainly true.

A lot of the acrimony, tribalism, and fear comes from the growing divisiveness
of American culture at large.

The fact that The Atlantic needs to don some pith helmets and mix with the
locals is itself indicative of the problem. Kudos to the authors for actually
doing so, but these aren't migrants trying to learn how to be American. These
are people born and raised in America who are somehow on the outside of what
The Atlantic considers to be America.

> There is of course evidence that this has happened, in the form of the
> bigotry that has been unleashed since 2017.

And, ironically, The Atlantic ignores the bigotry [1] it contributes to the
situation. The Kevin Williamson incident [2] is _very_ recent and is literally
a failed attempt to actually include different kinds of perspectives in The
Atlantic. And it seems the institutes of journalism aren't exactly interested,
in general, in doing the journalism to accurately represent Williamson's views
on the matter [3]. By the way, Kevin Williamson is _from_ these places and
writes with a unique take on how these places are and how they could be
better.

So when you live in these places and you see hatred for people like you, how
are you supposed to be optimistic and excited about the prospects for your
children and grandchildren?

[1] "stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that
differs from one's own"

[http://www.dictionary.com/browse/bigotry](http://www.dictionary.com/browse/bigotry)

[2] [https://www.wsj.com/articles/when-the-twitter-mob-came-
for-m...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/when-the-twitter-mob-came-for-
me-1524234850)

[3] [https://www.weeklystandard.com/kevin-williamson/what-new-
yor...](https://www.weeklystandard.com/kevin-williamson/what-new-york-
magazine-told-kevin-williamson-about-abortion)

~~~
justin66
No idea what he has to say for himself in the wsj since it's behind a paywall,
but I did google him. I wasn't familiar with any of this but if this is
accurate:

 _It was Mr. Williamson’s hard-line stance on abortion — namely, that it
should be treated as premeditated homicide and punished accordingly, perhaps
by hanging — that generated the initial controversy over his hiring._

Well, you know, his time at The Atlantic wasn't destined to end well. Their
readers aren't going to allow them to turn into Newsmax.

It's mostly distressing that a lunatic like that can get the time of day, let
alone a paying job as an opinion writer. Speaking of "tribalism," I don't
think his views are likely representative of his own "tribe." It's just that
the discourse has degraded to the point where plenty of people get off on
hearing something they think will offend the right people.

~~~
ModernMech
> It's mostly distressing that a lunatic like that can get the time of day,
> let alone a paying job as an opinion writer.

That's who you've got remaining on the right. Take a look at sane conservative
writers like Jennifer Rubin at the Post. She wrote as a conservative for years
under Obama, and now she's suddenly labeled a leftist traitor now that she's
critical of Trump. She didn't change, her party did.

Or just look at the economy. Fox News can't find reputable economists to come
on air and say a trillion dollar tax cut and increased spending by a trillion
is going to balance the budget. No one will say that because it's nonsense,
yet that is the policy they have to sell.

Or look at the President's legal team. You'd think a billionaire President
would have the pick of the biggest DC firms to represent him in the case of
the century. But he is left scraping for guys like Sekulow.

The only people willing to toe a line like that are extremists, or people who
are easily duped. Not people you would label experts or competent.

It's what Brennan meant when he called the US a kakistocracy - a government by
the shittiest.

~~~
SlapHappy
Have you taken the time to investigate KDW's actual views on abortion or
capital punishment? Are you aware that he opposes capital punishment? Have you
ever read some of his columns? Do you know that he's the walking, talking
definition of a Never-Trumper? Have you ever read some of his brilliant
theater reviews for The New Criteron? Have you read his excoriating, searing
take down of white identity politics and the populist right (The White-
Minstrel Show)? Have you read his heartbreaking and nuanced piece of the
opioid epidemic (How Prescription-Drug Abuse Unleashed a Heroin Epidemic)?

Edit: removed personal comment.

~~~
ModernMech
I don't remember attacking you personally, so I'd appreciate if you didn't
attack me. I'm not going to engage with this kind of response.

I'll just close by saying yes, I have read much of what you mention, and maybe
that says something about you that you would immediately assume and then
attack based on wrong assumptions. Maybe some time for some introspection?

------
spodek
In a nutshell:

Except for all the problems, this place is great!

That's the way it's been since the start and likely will be as far as we can
tell.

Now let me tell you about how I traveled all over the place and talked to
people who are the salt of the earth.

------
exelius
I agree with this sentiment, with some caveats.

I think Americans are totally done with identity politics based on race,
gender, religion, sexuality, etc. We’ve had those arguments and the battle
lines were drawn, but at the end of the day we all just live our lives. There
seems to have developed somewhat of a “gentleman’s agreement” in most public
spaces (explicitly political forums like protests notwithstanding) along be
lines of “don’t provoke me for my religious beliefs and I won’t provoke you
for your homosexuality”.

I do still think we have a long way towards navigating those differences as
they play out on an interpersonal level. A classic example is sexual
harassment in the workplace: women are justifiably upset by it, but men are
also upset at the blowback. Fact is, it’s pretty easy for a man to be
threatening to a woman without realizing he is — most men don’t understand how
much the sheer size/strength difference intimidates most women when emotions
get heated. Navigating this environment takes empathy _from both sides_ and is
something that has to be established on a person-to-person basis.

IMO this is just the new normal. There was a time when people could hide their
differences, but with social media and such I’m not sure that’s reasonable. So
we actually have to learn to navigate the differences rather than pretending
they don’t exist.

That, in my mind, is progress.

~~~
croon
> A classic example is sexual harassment in the workplace: women are
> justifiably upset by it, but men are also upset at the blowback. Fact is,
> it’s pretty easy for a man to be threatening to a woman without realizing he
> is — most men don’t understand how much the sheer size/strength difference
> intimidates most women when emotions get heated. Navigating this environment
> takes empathy _from both sides_ and is something that has to be established
> on a person-to-person basis.

That might be true in some edge/fringe cases, but your characterization as an
equal push-pull here is wildly misleading. There is a change happening, very
much for the better, but that is clearly in one direction, and not rooted in
"both sides".

> There seems to have developed somewhat of a “gentleman’s agreement” in most
> public spaces (explicitly political forums like protests notwithstanding)
> along be lines of “don’t provoke me for my religious beliefs and I won’t
> provoke you for your homosexuality”.

Given the previous quote, are the "religious beliefs" in this case relating to
sexuality? In that case, one thing is not like the other.

You can (and I personally have) grow out of judging people based on their
sexuality, grounded in your inherited religion. You can however not grow out
of your sexuality. One has to be accepted, religious prejudices (IMHO) don't.

"Meeting in the middle" doesn't work, if the middle is way off to the side of
where rationality lives. I don't think we can judge thinks purely objectively,
but trying on different optics at least helps to inform our argument, whatever
that is. This is the goal I hope we reach.

~~~
assblaster
The problem with your statement on religious intolerance, is that wanting
someone to change the fundamentals of their religion can be equated with
intolerance of that religion, even having a term specific to it: Islamophobia.

I think reform of Islam must involve accommodating people who are considered
sinners. The problem is that communicating this critique of Islam can be
considered hate speech by the tribalists.

~~~
ModernMech
When people talk about religious tolerance in the US as an issue, they usually
are referring to letting white evangelicals get their way politically and
culturally. For instance, I know many people who feel their religious liberty
was infringed when gay marriage was legalized, but also voted for a guy who
called for the "complete and total shutdown of Muslims entering the US".

It's not about religious liberty as a concept or ideal. It's about I win You
lose.

~~~
assblaster
In what way does "White" play into this discussion?

Islam, whether practiced by whites, blacks, Hispanics, Pacific Islanders, is
clear in its denouncement of homosexuals as people. Islam doesn't even
separate the act from the person, the person must be killed as prescribed in
the Quran.

~~~
ModernMech
White evangelicals are a voting bloc in the US with outsize influence on the
Republican agenda.

------
ggm
I found it hard to read this article as having grounds to draw the positive
conclusion from it's own premises: the inherently racist views of communities
with low real immigration despite obvious dependencies on the immigration
present bodes very badly, as does the underlying false optimism of a new wave
of political consciousness.

I suspect the new America is an isolationist America

~~~
TheAdamAndChe
Why would immigrants move to where they're not wanted?

Also, how is the desire to maintain a common identity in your small town
racist?

Many of our country's rural trends are a pushback against multiculturalism,
which pushes the idea that there is no right or wrong way to live as long as
you don't hurt other people. Common languages, religions, norms, customs, and
beliefs simply don't matter. But how can a sense of community form when you
can't even talk to your neighbors? Why is this pushback being met with cries
of racism?

~~~
ashleyn
For decades, America has embraced a civic nationalism over a European-style
ethnic nationalism. This is that certain notions of freedom and
responsibility, not blood and soil, were the real ties that bind.

A sense of community can transcend religion and race, and this is what we
should strive for.

~~~
bluthru
"Decades" is a short amount of time and "embraced" obviously varies wildly.
When the Immigration Act of 1965 was passed it was promised that "the ethnic
makeup will not be upset". The American people never voted to be
demographically displaced. (Why would they?)

>A sense of community can transcend religion and race

It can, but you're swimming against nature. Do you think the Japanese people
would be happier if Japan was minority Japanese?

~~~
pknight
> Do you think the Japanese people would be happier if Japan was minority
> Japanese?

The more interesting question is why are the Japanese so miserable, 53 other
countries rank over Japan despite features that some say should promote
happiness. You might even say that the hypothesis that social cohesion must be
upheld by deterring ethnic influences in the pursuit of happier communities
can't find a worse example in Japan.

~~~
bluthru
[https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/16/these-are-the-
top-10-happies...](https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/16/these-are-the-
top-10-happiest-countries-in-the-world.html)

White countries with low diversity.

~~~
pknight
These are all modern economies, most of which operate immigration-friendly
regimes. Sweden, Netherlands, Switzerland, Iceland, Denmark, Norway and
Finland are all signed up to freedom of movement, which doesn't discriminate
on the basis of religion, ethnicity or place of birth, provided you are a
citizen in the EEA or Switzerland, or if you are married to such a citizen.

Anyway, the point is not that diversity cultivates happiness (no simple answer
to that), the point is that some people believe in keeping communities
homogeneous and argue that this promotes happiness. That happiness boost is
nowhere to be seen when looking at real world examples.

~~~
bluthru
>These are all modern economies

They aren't the only modern economies. Demographics plays a role.

>most of which operate immigration-friendly regimes

Recent policy and current demographics are two different things. These are
still homogenous countries for the most part, especially Iceland which is
exceedingly safe. Where demographics have shifted drastically away from the
native population, the quality of life has reduced. (Look at Malmo, for
example.)

>That happiness boost is nowhere to be seen when looking at real world
examples.

[http://archive.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/...](http://archive.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/)

Here's a list of countries ranked by diversity:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_ranked_by_et...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_ranked_by_ethnic_and_cultural_diversity_level)

Doesn't look like a happy list.

~~~
pknight
I'm not advancing the claim that high levels of diversity bring about
happiness, I'm scrutinizing the belief that populations are happier because
they get to be homogeneous in composition. It's been my observation that the
people who push back against the idea of diversity the most tend to be quite
miserable even when living in homogeneous communities.

~~~
bluthru
>I'm scrutinizing the belief that populations are happier because they get to
be homogeneous in composition.

Read Robert Putnam. People love a sense of belonging and it's embedded in our
genes.

[http://time.com/5095903/genetic-similarities-friends-
study/](http://time.com/5095903/genetic-similarities-friends-study/)

[http://www.bu.edu/sph/2017/04/07/married-couples-with-
common...](http://www.bu.edu/sph/2017/04/07/married-couples-with-common-
ancestry-share-similar-genes/)

>It's been my observation that the people who push back against the idea of
diversity the most tend to be quite miserable even when living in homogeneous
communities.

There can definitely be miserable people who are looking for a scapegoat. It
also takes a certain level of desperation to be vocal about it today because
it's so taboo.

On the other hand there are people like me: anonymous, have traveled the
world, lived in rural areas and cities, have a masters from a top 10, have a
good job, etc. who look at the data and go: "Oh, the data is indicating that
this recent configuration of humans isn't as good as it could be." You only
have to go back 2-3 generations for homogeneity to be the overwhelming norm--
were they all miserable?

Portraying people who are against diversity as ignorant or miserable doesn't
disprove the fact that if you take a homogenous, high-performing population
and flood it with diverse, lower-IQ, culturally-incomptable, more violent,
less-productive people the nation will become worse.

Simple question: would Europe be better or worse today if there were only
Europeans in it?

~~~
pknight
> It also takes a certain level of desperation to be vocal about it today
> because it's so taboo.

It's not taboo though is it. People go on and on about immigration and there
are entire media outfits that are devoted to casting foreigners as threats
while promoting the idea that 'these people are not as good natives, have
lower IQ, are more violent and less productive', which is typically based on
outright lies and prejudice. Beliefs about immigrants are entirely warped to
cater to a smaller subset of the population which has a hard time dealing with
change while they grip with tremendous entitlement to mythical constructions
of the past.

> You only have to go back 2-3 generations for homogeneity to be the
> overwhelming norm

A very curious statement. Europe's history is one characterised by migration
and constant changes in demographics. There have always been groups of people
at odds with one another because they were different enough to be seen as a
threat. Every generation has struggled accepting new groups of people with
both good and bad results.

~~~
bluthru
>It's not taboo though is it.

Very much so. Anyone could be fired for writing what I've written. Diversity
is the new state religion.

Trump voters knew what they were voting for, even if it was dressed up as
"economic anxiety" (although low-skilled immigrant workers devaluing labor
right before automation is the last thing we need).

>which is typically based on outright lies

Absolutely not. Pick any metric for latinos in the US and compare them to
whites. Fun fact, when you read "immigrants commit less crime than natives"
it's due to existing blacks and latinos. They commit more crimes than whites
and asians.

>which has a hard time dealing with change

Does it even register with you that change and immigration can be bad? It's
not some force of nature. Again, we literally never voted for our immigration
policy to change and it was promised that the ethnic makeup would not be upset
in 1965.

>Every generation has struggled accepting new groups of people with both good
and bad results.

So why are you advocating against nature and causing avoidable strife?
Diversity is a failed experiment that leads to problems.
[http://freakonomics.com/2011/12/01/the-violent-legacy-of-
afr...](http://freakonomics.com/2011/12/01/the-violent-legacy-of-africas-
arbitrary-borders/)

I noticed that you didn't answer my question. Europe would be better in every
meaningful way if there were only Europeans in it. How many thousands of
British girls are you fine with being raped in the UK from grooming gangs? How
much is enough? Why should a tiny minority in the world (whites) subsidize
their own displacement?

------
ShadowFaxSam
Its refreshing to read a hopeful and positive piece about the future of
America. So much has been written of the state of the great divide between
races, conservatives and liberals, heartland America and the coastal liberal
cities, republican vs democrats. At least out of all this turmoil there is a
sense of activism and involvement in politics I have not seen in years.

>“If you want to create a great community, you move someplace that needs your
help,”

~~~
whatever_dude
Activism and involvement, yes, but born out of growing polarization.

