I promised Kimberly another post, rather than an endless footnote of comments: so here it is, another product of my curious mind and its love of the path less trodden, the ways sniffed by wolves.
The peasants of the far Carpathian crescent impressed me by their energy, yet shocked me through some of the products of that enterprise. They worked long and hard at things that interested or benefited them; and then from time to time produced monsters. American the nation exercises a similar fascination.
Bear with me, for this isn't an attack. Just my analsysis; and I am not an enemy.
I am impressed by American industriousness, by the can-do attitude, by the enormity of what that nation can produce. Then come the monsters: of war, of government and corporations exploiting other nations (and more simple-minded citizens), of a supine acceptance of gross inequality.
There is a view, recently expressed in the final volume of A History of the English-Speaking Peoples, that America has received the baton from England and is outworking the final stage in the development of the Anglo-Saxon socio-economic model. However I am not so sure. A great many Eastern European peasants entered America during the period since the Civil War. They brought the mentality of the peasant, and that mentality appears still to colour political thinking.
A peasant is a subsistence farmer, hardy and hard working. Peasant society is conservative and highly stratified, and even those at the downtrodden bottom tend to defend the system that they know and identify with. Peasants tend to be self-reliant, yet often have a well-developed system of social help within their communities, often almost obviating the need for governmental social services. Peasants work for their families, and typically resent paying taxes: though frequently generous to individuals on their own terms. In many ways, peasants are good people: I know, I lived amongst them for nine years.
Britain has long passed beyond peasant society, and so has the American East Coast. For better or worse, society has moved on. Industrialisation, the division of labour, new forms of organisation (such as unions), education, and so on have broken the old mould and created a quite different society. Some roles, such as social help, law and order, education and healthcare, have been passed to society's representatives to provide.
I've seen the worst of peasants too. Jealousy and pettyness to anyone who isn't respected; cruelty to enemies (who are made easily in feuds); on occasions cruelty to animals; naive assumptions and desire for childishly simple expanations; a complete lack of sophistication when choosing leaders (my neighbours thoughtlessly voted fascist or communist based on how the demagogues acted during the preceding days); inability to understand cause and effect; a love of shiny baubles.
What I see in the wonderful spectacle of the current election process is a battle between an urban mentality and a peasant mentality. Democrats appeal to an economically and socially developed urban ideal, with lofty concepts of what is good and right, thoughts of cause and effect, ethical questions that concern equality and the rest of the world. Republicans appeal to earthy peasant ideals: a strong leader who is "one of us", easy access to the basics of life, and no-one interfering in how we live. On the face of it, each has its attractions.
On the face of it, the two ought to be capable of existing in parallel. Yet they compete. Historically, the peasants sought to profit from the urban demand for food, and would have starved the cities had they been given the chance. (They tried to in Russia in the years following the October Revolution, which is why the urbanite Stalin repressed them so savagely, killing millions.) Urban producers in turn sought to control the peasants' land, sell them manufactured goods to replace their crafts, open up their land with roads and railways. Through much of Europe, the aristocracy kept the lid on this ferment, keeping the peasants in their place whilst stopping the urban masses from adopting radical concepts - meanwhile profiting from both parties. In Britain, the old One Nation Conservatives fulfilled the role of keeping town and country in order - naturally protecting their own estates and interests - until a more modern society evolved. In modern America, that stabilising influence looks rather like a Republican Party role - offering baubles to the peasants to keep them in place, reining in the urban group from too many modern notions, and meanwhile making large amounts of money off everyone.
On the face of it, the Republicans are rather good at this role. One has to admire their confidence, their knowledge of their peasant voters, their brashness in wheeling on apparently unsuitable candidates knowing that they will harvest votes by the cartload. The baubles have not been too onerous: a continuing right to bear arms, a president who seems like a regular guy (embarrassing as his gaffes can be), a patriotic war whenever the "arabs" are stupid enough to launch a terrorist attack, cheap gasoline. Well, the last of those has rather gone up in smoke, but "our" corporations (owned by Republicans) can drill some more oil wells. But, hey, the new candidates for the White House are ordinary folk like us, they'll put things right, unlike those "unpatriotic" Democrats with their passports and notions, taxes and foreign friends.
Friends, citizens, peasants: any thoughts?
