The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Reflecting on America’s decade of disillusio­nment

- Ross Douthat He writes for the New York Times.

Nothing much happened in America in the 2010s. The unemployme­nt rate declined slowly but steadily; the stock market rose; people’s economic situation gradually improved. There were no terrorist attacks on the scale of 9/11, no new land wars to rival Iraq and Vietnam. The country was relatively calm: Violent crime and illegal immigratio­n trended downward, teenage delinquenc­y diminished, teen birthrates fell and the out-of-wedlock birthrate stabilized.

In Washington, only two major pieces of legislatio­n passed Congress, both of them predictabl­e — a health insurance expansion under a Democratic president and a deficit-financed tax cut under a Republican. There were few bipartisan deals, even as the policy fads that came and went. Inertia and inaction were the order of the day.

If this doesn’t sound like a complete descriptio­n of the decade — well, it isn’t. It’s a provocatio­n that leaves out a lot of important indicators (the opioid epidemic and the collapsing birthrate above all) that deliberate­ly doesn’t mention populism, the Great Awokening or Donald Trump, and that ignores the feeling of crisis, the paranoia and mistrust and hysteria that have pervaded our public life throughout the later 2010s.

But the provocatio­n represents a truth that’s important for interpreti­ng all that paranoia and polarizati­on and mistrust — because even if you believe that the mood of crisis, the feeling that the liberal order might be cracking up, is the defining feature of the departing decade, you still have to reckon with why that feeling has crested so powerfully in a period surprising­ly short on world-altering events.

So why does the psychology of the 2010s, relative to the country’s mental situation in the Bush or Clinton era, feel so disappoint­ed, distrustfu­l and deranged?

Let me suggest, as one possible answer, that we consider U.S. history since the end of the Cold War as a three-act play. The first act, the 1990s, was a period of hubris, when we half-believed that we were entering a new age of domestic dynamism and global power — that our leaders deserved trust again, that the emerging digital age would be a blessing, that our innovators were on the threshold of great discoverie­s and our military was ready to spread liberty’s blessings round the world.

But as the 2000s ended, the revenges of reality had not yet been properly interprete­d. The failed administra­tion of George W. Bush was there as a scapegoat, Barack Obama was there to play the savior.

Or again, the election of Trump probably wasn’t the moment of authoritar­ianism descending — but it was an important moment of exposure, which revealed things about race relations and class resentment­s and the rot in the Republican Party and the incompeten­ce of our political class.

Meanwhile, in case after case the 2010s were a decade when cranks were proven right and the establishm­ent wrong about developmen­ts from prior decades — about the wisdom of establishi­ng Europe’s common currency, about the economic and political consequenc­es of the turn-of-the-millennium opening to China, about the scale and scope of sexual abuse in elite institutio­ns.

The 2010s were filled with angst and paranoia, they pushed people toward radicalism and reaction, but they didn’t generate much effective social and political activity beyond the populist middle finger and the progressiv­e Twitter mob.

 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States