America in Four, Fractured Parts

[Ken]

Josh. You are the one who appears not to be reading the article. In the very introductory paragraphs Packer tells us what he is writing about:

[In the past] the two parties reflected a society that was less free than today, less tolerant, and far less diverse, with fewer choices, but with more economic equality, more shared prosperity, and more political cooperation. Liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats played important roles in their respective parties. Americans then were more uniform than we are in what they ate (tuna noodle casserole) and what they watched (Bullitt). Even their bodies looked more alike. They were more restrained than we are, more repressed—though restraint and repression were coming undone by 1968.

Since then, the two parties have just about traded places. By the turn of the millennium, the Democrats were becoming the home of affluent professionals, while the Republicans were starting to sound like populist insurgents. We have to understand this exchange in order to grasp how we got to where we are.

I am suggesting that Packer's thesis as he identifies it above (and his explanation based on "four fractured parts") is only really accurate if one focuses exclusively or primarily on the White subset of the population. And not at all accurate if one steps back and takes a wider look at the nation as a whole.

[Sudsy]

Curious - placing this in the Written Word forum, how does this 'connect or detail Anabaptist theology' ?

Here’s what HK said:

“ I'm wondering if we could talk about this essay in a more detached way; without devolving to our intellectual priors e.g. blaming Trump, the Media, the elites, the Woke or sundry other scapegoats. What is an Anabaptist response to the very real and fractured state of American society and politics?”

For some reason, Ken keeps wanting to talk about who might or might not vote for Trump.

Thankyou. I will look for how Anabaptist theology is connected to this subject.

[Josh]

Josh. You are the one who appears not to be reading the article. In the very introductory paragraphs Packer tells us what he is writing about:

[In the past] the two parties reflected a society that was less free than today, less tolerant, and far less diverse, with fewer choices, but with more economic equality, more shared prosperity, and more political cooperation. Liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats played important roles in their respective parties. Americans then were more uniform than we are in what they ate (tuna noodle casserole) and what they watched (Bullitt). Even their bodies looked more alike. They were more restrained than we are, more repressed—though restraint and repression were coming undone by 1968.

Since then, the two parties have just about traded places. By the turn of the millennium, the Democrats were becoming the home of affluent professionals, while the Republicans were starting to sound like populist insurgents. We have to understand this exchange in order to grasp how we got to where we are.

I am suggesting that Packer's thesis as he identifies it above (and his explanation based on "four fractured parts") is only really accurate if one focuses exclusively or primarily on the White subset of the population. And not at all accurate if one steps back and takes a wider look at the nation as a whole.

I read the whole article and thought it was thoughtful and balanced and did look at the nation as a whole.

Can you find something to talk about beside race and ethnic groups? We already know those things make people different. This article discussed other things that divide people - that’s important to talk about. Particularly how those divisions cut across ethnic lines.

[PetrChelcicky]

Are the U.S. really more "fractured" than around 1900?
My impression is that mass media (radio, TV, movies etc.) for a while formed a purely artificial homogenity which was rather insane and could not be conserved against the individualization by modern PC's.
I think we can have a lot of cultural pluralism without hostility if only we are prepared to grant each other the freedom to pursue one's own way to happiness.

[Ken]

Are the U.S. really more "fractured" than around 1900?
My impression is that mass media (radio, TV, movies etc.) for a while formed a purely artificial homogenity which was rather insane and could not be conserved against the individualization by modern PC's.
I think we can have a lot of cultural pluralism without hostility if only we are prepared to grant each other the freedom to pursue one's own way to happiness.

I think you have it right. The US has always been a tremendously fractured country. Whether you pick 1900 or 1860 or 1820 or any other date.

I think also the mass media which was much more corporate dominated into three national networks (ABC, NBC, CBS) through the 1950s also enforced an artificial homogeneity, mainly by enforcing a white Norman Rockwell image of America that was never really accurate even then. Once of the first TV shows to portray non-white main characters in integrated settings was Sesame Street and that made it so shockingly political to a portion of America that there were protests and the show as banned in portions of the south. https://www.mississippicir.org/perspect ... nd-friends There was a tremendous concerted effort to tamp down political and racial divides in this country until the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and the anti-war movement of the 1960s made those divides too acute to ignore.

What we have now is a situation where large parts of America are getting increasingly left behind economically and other parts are charging ahead at light speed and that has widened divides. In past generations the same thing happened but people tended to just pack up and move to greener pastures. My own conservative Menno great grandfather packed up his family around 1910 after failing at farming in Ohio and Indiana and took them across the country, first to California where he worked on the railroads, and then later to Oregon where they were more successful farming and were early founders of Menno churches there. These days we don't see the same sort of mobility as in generations past. I'm not exactly sure why. I expect the cost of living in larger cities makes that more difficult than it used to be when poor families could rent cheap tenement apartments in every big city. Zoning standards and regulation has pretty much eliminated cheap urban housing and also greatly exacerbated the homeless crisis. And, of course, farming is far more difficult to break into than it was 100 or 150 years ago when nearly anyone could buy a small farm on credit and have a go.

As for how this applies to Anabaptists?

Much of Packer's thesis examines splits along political lines and that has certainly translated to the Anabaptist world as well. The churches that I'm aware of have been more split on political lines in recent years than in any other time in recent history.

Packer also explores fractures along educational lines with his talk about rural working class "Real America" and highly educated "Smart America" I suppose we can talk about how this split over education is reflected in Anabaptist world.

Packer does not (I think) talk about LGBT issues which I think has been the biggest source of division within the Anabaptist world in the past decade.

The question I would have for HondurasKeiser is whether he sees Anabaptists as a group standing APART from these political and social divides and playing some sort of a role in healing these divisions as outside observers like say outside Christian peacemakers might do in the middle east? Or does he see the Anabaptist world falling squarely into this same framework of four fractured parts of America and dealing with these same divisions just like everyone else. Personally I think it is very much the latter. At least in my own extended family which is more fractured than ever and largely along the lines that Packer describes.

[Josh]

Ken sees no future for people who don’t openly embrace strongly affirming homosexuality and transsexuality; he’s a good case study in the fracturing of America.

[Josh]

playing some sort of a role in healing these divisions as outside observers like say outside Christian peacemakers might do in the middle east?

Despite CAM’s pleas and CPT’s appeals in their fundraising newsletters I receive, there is no evidence that “Christian peacemakers” accomplish this.

The most effective peacemaker in the M.E. was, oddly enough, the last President. No bombs, lots of prosperity, no open wars for 4 years, hardly any rockets.

Christians have Christianity to offer. People going to war with each other aren’t terribly interested in Anabaptist do-gooders.

[ohio jones]

Packer does not (I think) talk about LGBT issues which I think has been the biggest source of division within the Anabaptist world in the past decade.

In the Smart and Just Anabaptist world, sure. In the Free and Real Anabaptist world it's barely on the radar.

[Ken]

Packer does not (I think) talk about LGBT issues which I think has been the biggest source of division within the Anabaptist world in the past decade.

In the Smart and Just Anabaptist world, sure. In the Free and Real Anabaptist world it's barely on the radar.

Since I got it wrong, maybe you can tell us what is the issue that split up MCUSA largely along liberal/conservative and urban/rural lines? Was it education? politics? race? head coverings? style of baptism? dress codes? or something else?

[ohio jones]

Packer does not (I think) talk about LGBT issues which I think has been the biggest source of division within the Anabaptist world in the past decade.

In the Smart and Just Anabaptist world, sure. In the Free and Real Anabaptist world it's barely on the radar.

Since I got it wrong, maybe you can tell us what is the issue that split up MCUSA largely along liberal/conservative and urban/rural lines? Was it education? politics? race? head coverings? style of baptism? dress codes? or something else?

That may well have been the primary issue in recent MCUSA divisions, but MCUSA is a rather small part of the Anabaptist world.