Dear Diary, after months of struggling to connect the dots of modern American history, circumstances seem to have resulted in a significant "self-outing" of capitalism as a fundamentally anti-social system. It seems great when times were great. But the times, they have long been a changing.
Without an extended history lesson covering the Cold War--the hyped fear and contrasting domestic prosperity from defense industrialism--the sudden end to the Cold War, the ensuing era called "globalism", and waves of technological advancement (robotics and office automation) have resulted in a loss of middle class jobs of historic proportions. The separation of American economic fortunes is now characterized as the winners who take all and the 99% who don't. That may stretch it a bit but the middle is gone for all generalities and ain't coming back. Radical change will unearth new economy. But the heartless own the House. And the "party of no" means 250 million or so unfulfilled dead yeses.
So a new pontiff of the Catholic church, a Pope Francis, emerges to dare shake the conscience of the west to answer for itself as progress has been long been stifled by an insatiable hard-hearted purism and a resigned-to-caving-propensity to buy favor from it which appears to be never forth-coming. And the faces of defenders of the faith in market totalities and unfettered capitalism "rush" to tell the Pope off. And these faces are familiar just older and uglier now. Voices heartless. They are very simply, anti-social. Rush Limbaugh? Glenn Beck? Darrel Issa? Rick Perry? Karl Rove? Bill O'Reilly? Dick Cheney? Indeed the right-wing partisan media industrial complex with Rupert Murdoch and Charles and David counting their manipulative chips with shit-eating grins? Anti-social, anti-plural. Excluding. Out of sight? Out of existence on their balance sheet.
Democrats endeavor to offset the harshness of the anti-social ideologue who loses no sleep over anyone else's broken used up bodies not yet ready for death or children wondering why can't we stop living in the car. But they or we have not managed very well to fight the ever-droning stereotype of tax and spend liberals by re-branding under any umbrella strong enough and distinctive enough to unite we the 99%. And thus the penetrating grip of expanding industrialized partisan media persuades the small of mind and large of emotion to vote against their own interests in returning the anti-social capitalist to power. Chris Christie?
What seems to be called for is not "social capitalism" versus "anti-social capitalism" because that might be walking into the trap of admitting social-ISM without emphasizing enough that the system is essentially still capitalist. The wording may much better be to voice it as "pro-social capitalism" versus "anti-social capitalism" to get to the heart of the American divide (now that foreign "red menaces" are dead and long decomposed).
Who among us wishes to openly admit we are "anti-social"? I know I am not and can't imagine being that. Perhaps there will be many people if given the clearer cut choice between a decidedly refined and explicit "pro-social capitalism" and an "anti-social capitalism" will choose anyway to jump aboard the coo-coo caucus train with the Newt Gingriches and Rick Santorums of clearly anti-social old guard capitalism. But if ever there were a time for re-branding to say something of essential distinction against the tide of naked heartlessness which has now been outted completely by its own excesses, it is now.