tart
I think we are talking about the same problem. Those instances where the either/or choices are portrayed as the only possible options (either American capitalism or Russian Communism, either for us or against us, etc) are the simplistic models, and their speakers are who usually resist nuance and complexity. I don't think it's a right/left issue (even right/left can be a crippling simplicity), but rather some varying ability to think independently or to cope with complexity and unpredictableness.
There's a lovely review in the last NY R of B on Didion's latest book where the reviewer quotes Didion's observations on the history of California (where Didion grew up) and how she sees it as an instance of American history, and America in the present...
Quote:There was never just the golden dream of riches and bountiful nature, but always a scene of exploitation and false promises, indifference and ruthlessness, a kind of hollow core.
It's an awareness, or a thesis, which would make a lot of sense to you or I or Lola or dys or nimh or pd, but I think george and timber and perc would reject it out of hand. For me, the adjectives 'ruthless', 'indifferent' and 'exploitive' describe our original interaction with the North American natives AND with the Middle East or Africa now. Cowboy movies of the forties or modern movies with brave caucasians besting arab-looking plane hijackers notwithstanding.
Didion is so valuable an observer because she is brave enough to investigate beneath the mythologies. That's usually not a comfortable journey, and that's surely why it is an invitation commonly refused.
One can quote, until one is blue in the fingers, Jefferson or Washington (eg, 1796, "overgrown military establishments [are] inauspicious to liberty") and get as a response..."it's not the case" or "everyone else is just as bad".