Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

hfojvt

(37,573 posts)
12. article does NOT live up to its title
Sun Aug 25, 2013, 12:01 PM
Aug 2013

"Here's why ..."

So I read through the whole article and they never say why.

Is it because we do not feel as cohesive as past generations who pulled together to fight "common threats" like Nazis and Communists?

Is it because of television and automobiles and shopping malls and population growth?

Television gives us a different type of society (and also probably teaches different messages). In pre-television society, people went to large PUBLIC events for entertainment - concerts, lectures, shows, even movies. Now with things like television, cable television, DVD players people can avoid the public and get their entertainment at home. Then too, the entertainment was probably higher quality. The public lecture about substantive issues, versus a TV show/movie with explosions and sex and fist fights.

Automobiles have more and more replaced PUBLIC transportation. Pre 1945, many people were probably still walking and taking trains. When you walk to a local store, you pass by neighbors on a regular basis. When you get in your car and drive to the big grocery store or wal-mart or strip mall, you are isolated from neighbors in a metal box. At the store, you are surrounded mostly by strangers who have also come from miles away. Even if you have a friendly interaction that person remains a stranger who you will not likely see again for many months if you even remember them, versus seeing the same people maybe multiple times a week at the local store.

Maybe population growth is less of a factor, but as cities become bigger, it seems to me one of the primary characteristics of the big city is that people are strangers in them. Again, perhaps because of the automobile. You do not work in your neighborhood with your neighbors. Everyone gets in a metal box and drives for half an hour to work with strangers and then drives home. True, if you stay at a job for a time, then people do not remain strangers, (and more job mobility is another factor here). But it is hard to have the interactions or connections outside of work if you live far apart. If I am driving 20 minutes from the east and my work-buddy is driving 25 minutes from the south, then to ever do anything outside of work requires a fair amount of effort.

Cell phones seem to add to this. With a cell phone you do not have to interact with the public - with the people who happen to be occupying the space near to you. Instead you can be on the phone, or texting with somebody who matters, some part of your little circle of family/friends.

Many of these things were discussed in the great book "The Poverty of Affluence" by Paul Wachtel, which unfortunately was never mass marketed.

K&R 99Forever Aug 2013 #1
About the time this came out fredamae Aug 2013 #2
a "public" policy that relies upon the apathy and ignorance of a majority of the people Supersedeas Aug 2013 #6
"could no longer afford the tab" = good explanation AnotherMcIntosh Aug 2013 #3
So it turned out we could not have both guns and butter, and we chose the guns. nt bemildred Aug 2013 #4
this ^^ exactly this ^^ phantom power Aug 2013 #5
I remember that discussion well. nt bemildred Aug 2013 #7
Good insight. malthaussen Aug 2013 #8
I believe the statistic is 4% increase in income (excluding the top 10%) truebluegreen Aug 2013 #14
Reagan provided thr story line zentrum Aug 2013 #9
The Reagan's are social terrorists - Frank Zappa n/t L0oniX Aug 2013 #16
We'd better get used to never leaving our homes. The cost of traveling on roads, once valerief Aug 2013 #10
Lets not forget Reagan started this and the republicans never got over it. That's why they love him. BrainMann1 Aug 2013 #11
Reagan really did not start it hfojvt Aug 2013 #13
Very true. I'd include Nixon's little jaunt over to China as another turning point to help set up gtar100 Aug 2013 #19
article does NOT live up to its title hfojvt Aug 2013 #12
We should add into that the failure of "leaders" who could use their power for good, but jtuck004 Aug 2013 #17
but in some ways though hfojvt Aug 2013 #21
They might be able to use that excuse for a bit, but once they can draw a large audience it jtuck004 Aug 2013 #24
The "perfect storm" SoCalDem Aug 2013 #15
Good synopsis!! K&R!! hue Aug 2013 #18
I dislike the premise of the article. Un rec mick063 Aug 2013 #20
If you boil down conservative ideology... chuckstevens Aug 2013 #22
I've often thought that there was a racial component. Jesus Malverde Aug 2013 #23
Oh I have no doubt gollygee Aug 2013 #25
divide + conquer. we have been losing the class war that was a COLD class war. pansypoo53219 Aug 2013 #26
Yep! They are still working at it too. Little Star Aug 2013 #28
We've come a long way baby. GeorgeGist Aug 2013 #27
This article seemed to explain the how but not the why Sanity Claws Aug 2013 #29
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Here's Why America Stoppe...»Reply #12