time.
I remember reading something maybe ten or fifteen years ago by
a political scientist who writes about these things, Walter Dean
Burnham. He suggested that this may be a reflection of
depoliticization—that is, the inability to participate in a meaningful
fashion in the political arena may have a rather important psychic
effect.
That’s not impossible. People will find some ways of identifying
themselves, becoming associated with others, taking part in
something. They’re going to do it some way or other. If they don’t
have the option to participate in labor unions, or in political
organizations that actually function, they’ll find other ways.
Religious fundamentalism is a classic example.
We see that happening in other parts of the world right now. The
rise of what’s called Islamic fundamentalism is, to a significant
extent, a result of the collapse of secular nationalist alternatives
that were either discredited internally or destroyed.
In the nineteenth century, you even had some conscious efforts
on the part of business leaders to promote fire-and-brimstone
preachers who led people to look at society in a more passive way.
The same thing happened in the early part of the industrial
revolution in England. E.P. Thompson writes about it in his classic,
The Making of the English Working Class.
In a State of the Union speech, Clinton said, “We can’t renew our
country unless more of us—I mean, all of us—are willing to join
churches.” What do you make of this?
I don’t know exactly what was in his mind, but the ideology is
very straightforward. If people devote themselves to activities that
are out of the public arena, then we folks in power will be able to
run things the way we want.
Don’t tread on me
I’m not quite clear about how to formulate this question. It has to do