I don't think it's possible for anyone to actually be that salesman, at least right now. We are talking about generational type shifts.

I remember (and paid attention) to Ford (remember WIN?) and Carter and always turn off the lights. My wife won't turn off a light to save her life. We are on a big boat and it turns slowly. Obama might be the guy to at least stop going full speed ahead to ruin.

After reading the first half of the chapter, I agreed with most of the points Bacevich made.

Our society is focused on material consumption, and that attitude really took off in the Reagan administration. (However, it's important to note that the material well-being of the bottom 80% of the population been stagnant over the last few decades.) One major objective of US policy, domestic and foreign, has been to acquire the resources that are necessary to provide a higher standard of living, or maintain the existing living standards.

Over the same time period, Americans have received more freedoms, such as more rights for minorities, women, gays, and other groups. That progress towards universal citizenship is one of the great moral achievements in history, and it's good that Bacevich recognized that. However, I don't see the connection Bacevich raises between increased freedom and increased wealth.

Carter's so-called malaise speech is quite impressive; you should read it. Just think about how much better things would be today had we gone that route, aside from the added benefit nobody knew about in the 70's: preventing global warming.

Throughout the second half of this chapter, Bacevich's depiction was completely consistent with my liberal and pacifist views.

Both Democrats and Republicans pursued a aggressive strategy towards the Middle East that was immoral and strategically unwise. Meanwhile, the US economy became increasing precarious, as a result of the increasing reliance on foreign oil, massive deficits, and lack of savings.

It was very disappointing that the political parties and the mainstream media hardly ever consider the issues Bacevich raises. There was haredly any public debate, for example, about Clinton's policy of bombing Iraq and maintain brutal sanctions. Publications on the Left brought up such issues, but nobody else did. Most people weren't aware of the sanctions that killed half a million Iraqi children or contemplated the morality of dropping bombs on a population that the US wasn't at war with.

Bacevich's explanation of the continuity of US Middle East policy, from involvement in the Iran/Iraq war in the 1980's to the current war in Iraq, was very coherent, in addition to being depressing.

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."

Ronald Reagan may have been the first to cite this theory about the collapse of the Athenian Empire in a speech in 1964. How ironic that Bacevich describes Ronald Reagan as the central figure of the 'more' generation. Reagan was the icon for American freedom, interpreted as cutting loose from the bounds of reality, and the spiritual founder of the false Bush Doctrine that the USA can create reality. How long until collapse and dictatorship? RT

The thread on consumerism reminds me of Bacevich:

DWill wrote:I was glad to see someone give Jimmy Carter his due (34-39). He really tried in 1979 to take the country in a more rational direction with regard to energy; he wasn't afraid to tell Americans used to no limits that there had to be some, though he must have sensed this could be political death for him. People like Carter, warning about our mania for consumption, are accused of being Puritanical and pessimistic; they are always shouted down, in his case especially by so-called conservatives. Bacevich is known for being fairly conservative, but his is a much different, truer, kind of conservativism than was Reagan's.

Yes, a great point about Carter, a great American president, and interesting in light of the recent financial crash. Here is Bacevich's quote from Jimmy Carter's so-called malaise speech (p33)

In a nation that was proud of hard work, strong families, close-knit communities, and our faith in God, too many of us now tend to worship self-indulgence and consumption. Human identity is no longer defined by what one does, but by what one owns. But we've discovered that owning things and consuming things does not satisfy our longing for meaning. We've learned that piling up material goods cannot fill the emptiness of lives which have no confidence or purpose.

And then came 'Morning in America'. As Bacevich describes it (p36-43):

Ronald Reagan ... the modern prophet of profligacy, the politician who gave moral sanction to the empire of consumption... His real gift was telling Americans what most of them wanted to hear...Above all, he assured his countrymen that they could have more. Throughout his campaign this remained a key theme.... During the Carter years, the federal deficit had averaged $54.5 billion annually. During the Reagan era, deficits skyrocketed, averaging $210.6 billion over the course of Reagan's two terms... Far more accurately than Jimmy Carter, Reagan understood what made Americans tick: they wanted self-gratification, not self denial... Reagan's two terms in office became an era of gaudy prosperity and excess. Tax cuts and the largest increase to date in peacetime military spending formed the twin centerpieces... US security now required...permanent global military supremacy... Confidence that a high-quality military establishment...could enable the United States...to organise the world...in this malignant expectation... lies the essence of the Reagan legacy.

This is certainly a tough assessment, and malignant is a harsh word. I wonder what Barack Obama would think of it?

Robert Tulip wrote:This is certainly a tough assessment, and malignant is a harsh word. I wonder what Barack Obama would think of it?

I wonder, too, and I agree that the assessment is tough and perhaps too harsh. I don't think Barack Obama could do very much to change our concept of what constitutes a standard of living, even if he agrees with Bacevich. Politically, it would be just too great a distance from the positions he campaigned on. He could perhaps make some progress by stealth.

You don't feel that an increase to the cost of living through increased taxation will produce the desired effect and reduce Americas inflated standard of living? Or will he have to come out and tell everyone to stop living like they currently expect to be able to?

I'm am interested in what form this new "hard-times" culture will take on, perhaps a little more Bacevich style of contemplation and a little less infatuation with the BSpears school of thought? Or is that simply too much to ask?

Currently, over-consumption is a fundamental part of the overall economy. For example, people are currently spending less on holiday shopping because of fears regarding the economic downturn. As a result, the retail sector will have a weak fourth quarter, making the economic problems worse. Similarly, after the 9/11 attacks, Bush encouraged Americans to shop, even though most individuals would be better off if they saved more.

As Bacevich observes, this nation does focus excessively on material consumption. Since that attitude is baked into the economy, societal mindsets, media, and politics, it will be very difficult to change. Besides, as someone who's better off financially than most Americans, it's difficult for me to criticize someone who wants to live as comfortably as I do.

How is it that these companies, in say the retail or automotive sectors, can profit for so long and yet remain so fundamentally weak when facing losses?

Where is the natural moderation of the supply-demand economic model we were promised? Or has the system become so supply dominated that it is impossible for these highly pervasive companies to find a balance between their supply chain systems (direct from China of course) and what people are willing to consume (not much right at the moment), even now when they need to engage in a balancing act more than ever?

Grim wrote:You don't feel that an increase to the cost of living through increased taxation will produce the desired effect and reduce Americas inflated standard of living? Or will he have to come out and tell everyone to stop living like they currently expect to be able to?
I'm am interested in what form this new "hard-times" culture will take on, perhaps a little more Bacevich style of contemplation and a little less infatuation with the BSpears school of thought? Or is that simply too much to ask?

I didn't hear even Democrats saying they would raise taxes, except on the wealthiest sector. I don't think Obama's going to raise the income tax on the 90% of us earning below $250,000. I wish, though, that a gasoline tax would be instituted, at least $1.00 per gallon. This would still mean we'd paying less than when gas was a its highest a couple of months ago.

I don't think the problem is the that U.S. standard of living is obscenely high. We don't rank in the top five in the world, according to lists I saw. So what is it about our economy that is different from that of wealthier countries? Is it, as you suggest with Britney Spears, that our culture and economy combine to create a product--American culture--that is probably our biggest export right now (and not one to be very proud of)? Is it that we still consume a lot more than citizens in wealthier countries, often going into major debt to do it? Is it that we simply celebrate consuming more than any other country? It could be that countries like China are catching up to us in this regard.