In 2014, I finished an MA thesis at the University of Chicago. In that thesis, I argued that as economic inequality increased, American politics …
—– Interesting. and I tend to agree. I am no political theorist, nor an economist; I wonder, though, if much of what Studebakers is saying really reflects a certain type of realism which is countering idealism. For, the idealism nowadays is based in a very real economic system that can’t really be forced out by any significant number of people: this is because everyone now is dependent and loves the comfort that they live in.
Even the “have Nots” are tied into economic prosperity, or the symbols of economic prosperity, which are, cell phones, computers, and by extension space exploration. Social ethics compensate for the have-nots through the healing impetus of careers: Those people choose to help but also they are paid; however unequally, they still “have”.
As well, there seems just aren’t enough people whose lives are crappy who can attach themselves to an idealism of any sort of “better way” any more. Whereas, as Studebaker argues from a different standpoint and probably more politically theorized legitimacy, back in the 30s there were still a lot of questions that could not be answered. And they were answered by idealistic arguments, arguments that stemmed from, basically, “the unknown”. Idealism basically is a position that grabs sense from the unknown and argues that it is a “better way”.
Today we “know better”. We have an idealism that is based in a very real reality: Comfort. Not only this, it is an idealism which is based in the very real standpoint that exceptionally economically driven and powerful companies support the potential of comfort in trying to “help humanity”. We don’t have any more room for fantasy; They’ll be shut down by the sheer force of power. Small battles make more money, and offer the helpers places to help.
At least for now. 🧑🏾🚀