Democracy in America | Getting tough
"A nation of fearless, bumbling morons"
Or are we a nation of wimps?
By E.G. | AUSTIN
LAST week Ed Rendell, the governor of Pennsylvania, scolded the NFL for postponing a football game because of a snowstorm. "We've become a nation of wusses," Mr Rendell said, and the Wall Street Journal picked up the comment to investigate the question of whether the United States has, in fact, become wussier over time:
The United States defined itself by its pioneer spirit. "We were the brash Paul Bunyan nation with a don't-tread-on-us culture," says John Strausbaugh, author of the 2008 book "Sissy Nation."
Mr. Strausbaugh argues that World War II traumatized a generation of American men. Looking to shake off all that they had witnessed—horrific battles, Nazi atrocities—many of these former soldiers retreated into the U.S. suburbs, building lives of conformity. They became less adventurous, raising coddled children whose offspring would be even more indulged.
The print edition illustrated the decline in macho-ness with a photo of John Wayne ("Fort Apache") next to one of Jeff Bridges ("The Big Lebowski"), although the photo of Mr Bridges was taken from his role in True Grit (a wonderful film, and not a wimpy one).
Objecting to Mr Rendell's characterisation was one Lisa DeNoia of Virginia Beach, who wrote a stern letter to the governor saying, "We're not a nation of wusses. We're a nation of fearless, bumbling morons in pickup trucks who like to drink beer, go shirtless in the freezing cold for football, and drive in blizzards." I rather warmed to Ms DeNoia's description, which strikes me as funny, unpretentious, and not untrue.
On balance, I find the evidence interesting, but not conclusive, but of course I come from a state where the governor recently shot a coyote during the course of his morning jog. Indeed, some of our international friends would welcome a more mild-mannered America. But I thought I would bring it to our commenters, as the "wimps?" question picks up on our discussion from last week about the difference between conservatives and liberals. Later today or tomorrow, I'll return to the notion that America is somehow intrinsically "conservative". Is that true and if so, what does it mean?
But in the meantime, let me offer a salute to my colleague M.S., who is as tough as any John Wayne fan could hope for. I agree that increased contraceptive use would reduce the abortion rate, although I maintain that there's room for people to disagree over the appropriate fora for government to promote such methods. There are certainly many Americans who belive that extramarital sex is sinful and should therefore be discouraged; I don't think that's an invalid view, although it's not mine and although the epistemological basis of the belief isn't the type that I usually go in for. There are also atheists who would hope their kids postpone their age of sexual debut and Christians who aren't opposed to extramarital sex. In my view, abstinence-only sex education is less effective than the comprehensive variety, and the pragmatic approach would be to challenge it on those grounds, rather than on the basis of its cultural history. Still, once again we have a variety of valid perspectives, including mine and my colleague's.