‘How America Can Rise Again’ by Avoiding Familiar Platitudes

James Fallows’ “How America Can Rise Again” provides a snapshot of American domestic politics within the wider geopolitical landscape at the start of the second decade of the 21st century. The financial woes – driven by the 2008 financial crisis – led to the rise of the “declinist” alarmists and their “jeremiad” discourses of impending American doom. Fallows’ piece responds to these fears through the somewhat playful question: is America “finally go[ing] to hell”? For Fallows, “going to hell” translates to the failure of US government to adapt to meet the evolving domestic and global challenges.

Fallows assures readers the US will be able to meet the emergent challenges. First, he unpacks the declinist discourses to show historical resonance. He argues bouts of declinism recurred on several occasions in American history and each was a sources for great renewal. Second, he notes distinct American advantages – open immigration, excellent universities, as well as open political system, economy, and media – over emerging peers, and therefore America will be able to better adapt to evolving challenges. Yet, the US is not without internal problems. For Fallows, the fundamental problem lies in a “broken and dysfunctional” government “great for distributing benefits” but unable to face longer-term problems 75-years in the future. Fallows acknowledges, however, “policies are ours to change” for the better, and therefore the array of challenges – while important – should not be overstated. What, then are Americans to do?

Fallows cobbles together a convoluted array of prescriptions ranging from public-private development, open immigration, preserved excellence in universities, “muddling through” problems, and widening the view of American problems to address those 75 years down the road. He claims Americans should opt for “doing more” rather than “doing less”, yet it is wholly unclear about what he means.

While Fallows aptly contextualizes declinist discourses and some of the emerging global challenges, his central prescriptions – to “muddle through”, to address challenges 75 years away, and “doing more” (as opposed to “doing less”) – reek of superficiality. The concrete recommendations of stronger public-private partnerships, open immigration, and strong universities have some semblance of specificity, but his other recommendations are simply platitudes bereft of meaning. Of course, Americans should “do more”, but what exactly does that mean? Does Fallows mean taking a more active role in advocacy for public changes? Fallows seems to forget there are diverse perspectives and varied groups – or individuals – advocating for their respective positions; for him, these would amount to “earmarks”. Equally problematic is the view of the long-term. Various politicians – just like individuals – have deeply divergent visions of the world 20 minutes from now, much less 75 years. Thus, Fallows’ vague platitudes serve little more than as sound bites or slogans fit for an election cycle, and therefore leave readers wondering whether Fallows is preparing for a political campaign. Regardless of his political aspirations, the oblique prescriptions merely reinforce the emptiness of his own critique.

Fallows’ critique also carries along with it a deeply problematic implication: public apathy. Fallows implores American to work within the “flaws and limits” of the corroded governing system to spur changes. The message here is straightforward enough: “do what you can, but do not challenge the system.” The problem with this logic, however, lies in the debilitating effect on public engagement and the lack of political change it will produce. For instance, would racial segregation have ended without civil disobedience of public protests or marches to challenge systematic racism? No, apathy – and fealty to government power (as advocated by Fallows) – erodes the very premise of public participation in democratic government. And the current historical moment in America is not the time for apathy. Not when damning NSA revelations of government intrusion into Americans’ communications occur, rights to privacy abated, US citizens are assassinated via drone strikes in far-flung countries, and staggering inequality persists in America (Katulis 2014). These overt transgressions have and should rightly so spur public mobilization to demand political changes to a broken system.

In the end, Fallows’ piece provides an important snapshot of an American’s reflection on history, emerging challenges, and the way forward. His connections to American history provide valuable context for the current moment, and his review of the challenges is at points, poignant, but it’s a shame he fails to develop more coherent and incisive prescriptions for the way forward. Rather, he heaves well-trodden platitudes bereft of much meaning. In the end, this may help readers grasp whether America is “going to hell”, but it does little to suggest a way forward.

Reference

Katulis, B. (2014, January 30). Obama’s foreign policy ‘to-do’ list. The Washington Post. Retrieved from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-foreign-policy-to-do-list/2014/01/30/5ad0bcd4-8925-11e3-916e-e01534b1e132_story.html