Recent from talks
The Age of Entitlement: America Since the Sixties
Knowledge base stats:
Talk channels stats:
Members stats:
The Age of Entitlement: America Since the Sixties
The Age of Entitlement: America Since the Sixties is a 2020 book by Christopher Caldwell of the conservative Claremont Institute think tank, that observes changes in the social and political fabric of American society since the 1960s and their impact on contemporary life.
The book puts forward a critique of radical individualism, free-market fundamentalism, and unfettered globalization, and the resulting decay of social norms and civil society institutions over the last several decades. Caldwell argues these transformations were enabled by both left-wing and right-wing political parties but have been detrimental to wide swaths of the American public, particularly in the nation's interior. He is especially critical of Ronald Reagan, stating that he had left behind a movement and a nation more willing to "cut the past away, provided the cutting were done heedlessly by businessmen rather than purposefully by bureaucrats". Originally a revolt of White Americans, he critiques that "Reagan flung open the gates to immigration while stirringly proclaiming a determination to slam them shut". To him, all local victories were paid for by incurring further national debt.
The book has received considerable attention for its chapters addressing the nature and consequences of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Although originally conceived as a one-time corrective to end segregation and racial discrimination, Caldwell argues that the Act created an endless imperative for social reengineering, at great cost and at the expense of liberty and social cohesion. He argues:
"The changes of the 1960s, with civil rights at the core, were not just a major new element in the Constitution. They were a rival constitution, with which the original one was frequently incompatible—and the incompatibility would worsen as the civil rights regime was built out." (p. 6)
"Much of what we have called “polarization” or “incivility” in recent years is something more grave—it is the disagreement over which of the two constitutions shall prevail: the de jure constitution of 1788, with all of the traditional forms of jurisprudential legitimacy and centuries of American culture behind it; or the de facto constitution of 1964, which lacks this traditional kind of legitimacy but commands the near-unanimous endorsement of judicial elites and civic educators and the passionate allegiance of those who received it as a liberation. The increasing necessity that citizens choose between these two orders, and the poisonous conflict into which it ultimately drove the country, is what this book describes." (p. 6)
"The entrenchment of political correctness ... [made] clear what Americans had done in 1964: They had inadvertently voted themselves a second constitution without explicitly repealing themselves the first one. ... Affirmative action and political correctness were the twin pillars of the second constitution. They were what civil rights was."
Caldwell refers to civil rights legislation as "the most sacred totem in American politics", as well as the "lone metanarrative to survive the acids of postmodernity". To Caldwell, "color-conscious civil rights inexorably followed from color-blind civil rights". He posits the result are absurd disparate impact rulings, of which "eroding the undeserved 'privilege' of whites is the organizing principle". He sees the private sector as "the hammer of civil rights enforcement", although he also writes "corporations, advertisers, and the press did not behave this way out of high-mindedness; they did it, at least initially, as a pragmatic response to the threat of lawsuits. The cliché that businesses hate uncertainty turned out to be true, at least in this regard."
All in all, Caldwell writes that “just as assuming that two parallel lines can meet overturns the whole of Euclidean geometry, eliminating freedom of association from the U.S. Constitution changed everything.” Considering it the "master freedom" above all other liberties, to him "a society that systematically destroys every male-only social club is not a liberal one. A country that seeks to coerce ethnic neighborhoods out of their insularity (through, e.g., forced busing) no longer believes in pluralism." Regarding the eponymous "entitlement", he is especially critical of the Baby boomers but does not view the Greatest Generation very favorably either.
Hub AI
The Age of Entitlement: America Since the Sixties AI simulator
(@The Age of Entitlement: America Since the Sixties_simulator)
The Age of Entitlement: America Since the Sixties
The Age of Entitlement: America Since the Sixties is a 2020 book by Christopher Caldwell of the conservative Claremont Institute think tank, that observes changes in the social and political fabric of American society since the 1960s and their impact on contemporary life.
The book puts forward a critique of radical individualism, free-market fundamentalism, and unfettered globalization, and the resulting decay of social norms and civil society institutions over the last several decades. Caldwell argues these transformations were enabled by both left-wing and right-wing political parties but have been detrimental to wide swaths of the American public, particularly in the nation's interior. He is especially critical of Ronald Reagan, stating that he had left behind a movement and a nation more willing to "cut the past away, provided the cutting were done heedlessly by businessmen rather than purposefully by bureaucrats". Originally a revolt of White Americans, he critiques that "Reagan flung open the gates to immigration while stirringly proclaiming a determination to slam them shut". To him, all local victories were paid for by incurring further national debt.
The book has received considerable attention for its chapters addressing the nature and consequences of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Although originally conceived as a one-time corrective to end segregation and racial discrimination, Caldwell argues that the Act created an endless imperative for social reengineering, at great cost and at the expense of liberty and social cohesion. He argues:
"The changes of the 1960s, with civil rights at the core, were not just a major new element in the Constitution. They were a rival constitution, with which the original one was frequently incompatible—and the incompatibility would worsen as the civil rights regime was built out." (p. 6)
"Much of what we have called “polarization” or “incivility” in recent years is something more grave—it is the disagreement over which of the two constitutions shall prevail: the de jure constitution of 1788, with all of the traditional forms of jurisprudential legitimacy and centuries of American culture behind it; or the de facto constitution of 1964, which lacks this traditional kind of legitimacy but commands the near-unanimous endorsement of judicial elites and civic educators and the passionate allegiance of those who received it as a liberation. The increasing necessity that citizens choose between these two orders, and the poisonous conflict into which it ultimately drove the country, is what this book describes." (p. 6)
"The entrenchment of political correctness ... [made] clear what Americans had done in 1964: They had inadvertently voted themselves a second constitution without explicitly repealing themselves the first one. ... Affirmative action and political correctness were the twin pillars of the second constitution. They were what civil rights was."
Caldwell refers to civil rights legislation as "the most sacred totem in American politics", as well as the "lone metanarrative to survive the acids of postmodernity". To Caldwell, "color-conscious civil rights inexorably followed from color-blind civil rights". He posits the result are absurd disparate impact rulings, of which "eroding the undeserved 'privilege' of whites is the organizing principle". He sees the private sector as "the hammer of civil rights enforcement", although he also writes "corporations, advertisers, and the press did not behave this way out of high-mindedness; they did it, at least initially, as a pragmatic response to the threat of lawsuits. The cliché that businesses hate uncertainty turned out to be true, at least in this regard."
All in all, Caldwell writes that “just as assuming that two parallel lines can meet overturns the whole of Euclidean geometry, eliminating freedom of association from the U.S. Constitution changed everything.” Considering it the "master freedom" above all other liberties, to him "a society that systematically destroys every male-only social club is not a liberal one. A country that seeks to coerce ethnic neighborhoods out of their insularity (through, e.g., forced busing) no longer believes in pluralism." Regarding the eponymous "entitlement", he is especially critical of the Baby boomers but does not view the Greatest Generation very favorably either.