At exactly two minutes after midnight on Jan. 1, 2000, an alarm sounded at a nuclear power plant in Onagawa, Japan. Government officials and computer scientists around the globe held their breath. Was this the beginning of a massive Y2K computer meltdown? Actually, no. It was an isolated event, one of a handful of glitches to occur (including the failure of 500 slot machines at two racetracks in Delaware) as the sun rose on the new decade. The dreaded millennial meltdown never happened.
Instead, it was the American Dream that was about to dim. Bookended by 9/11 at the start and a financial wipeout at the end, the first 10 years of this century will very likely go down as the most dispiriting and disillusioning decade Americans have lived through in the post”“World War II era. We’re still weeks away from the end of ’09, but it’s not too early to pass judgment. Call it the Decade from Hell, or the Reckoning, or the Decade of Broken Dreams, or the Lost Decade. Call it whatever you want ”” just give thanks that it is nearly over.
Calling the 2000s “the worst” may seem an overwrought label in a decade in which we fought no major wars, in historical terms. It is a sadly appropriate term for the families of the thousands of 9/11 victims and soldiers and others killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. But the lack of a large-scale armed conflict makes these past 10 years stand out that much more. This decade was as awful as any peacetime decade in the nation’s entire history. Between the West’s ongoing struggle against radical Islam and our recent near-death economic experience ”” trends that have largely skirted much of the developing world ”” it’s no wonder we feel as if we’ve been through a 10-year gauntlet. Americans may have the darkest view of recent history, since it’s in the U.S. that the effects of those trends have been most acute. If you live in Brazil or China, you have had a pretty good decade economically. Once, we were the sunniest and most optimistic of nations. No longer.
Are they so sure the ’00 decade was the worst? We seem to be in a pretty big hole now, and digging deeper.
The glass is half empty.
I suppose if I still had a job at Time, Inc., life would look like hell, what with the hemmorhaging of readers and constant staff cuts. The magazine has always held its own, however, by being in the alarmism business (“Is God Dead?”. Life is changing, to be sure, but the hangover is probably much worse in places that drank freely from the money stream flowing from the last bubble, like New York City and California.
1. Katherine wrote:
[blockquote]Are they so sure the ‘00 decade was the worst? We seem to be in a pretty big hole now, and digging deeper. [/blockquote]
Welcome to the ’00s, Katherine.
[i]Time[/i] makes a pretty good case for the 00s to be the worse decade since WWII. And you [b]seem[/b] to agree until you hit the last three words. But the “hole” was dug in the 00s, and we are still in the 00s for another month.
No one knows whether the 10s will be better or worse. Doomsayers like Rush and his followers hope that it is worse and that America and Western civilization fails. Others are more hopeful. Who is right only time will tell.
I find this argument laughable. I think in terms of disillusionment and economic problems, I think the 60’s and 70’s would be higher up that scale. Vietnam, race problems, Watergate, etc., would seem to have left a much more lasting detrimental impact than anything in the ’00s.
I think the coming decade is going to be worse. Massive federal debt that is going to balloon, inflation is going to skyrocket, I think we will eventually find a way to lose Afghanistan and Iraq forcing our foreign policy standing to tank. Medicare is going to go insolvent by 2019.
If these writers think the 00’s are bad, they ain’t seen nothing yet.
#4 wrote in part:
“Doomsayers like Rush and his followers hope that it is worse and that America and Western civilization fails.”
That’s flat out silly. Rush may believe that America and the rest of Western civilization is failing, but he and is followers would prefer some sort of renewal, rather than a continuation of our present course of institutional decay.
#5 is right. The argument is silly, and ahistorical. The 1930’s were far worse. The 1890’s weren’t so hot, and I don’t think that the years since 2000 have been as bad as the years between Nixon’s re-election and the end of the Carter administration.
RE: ““Doomsayers like Rush and his followers hope that it is worse and that America and Western civilization fails.â€
No — Rush and those who agree with his political worldview merely believe that the *consequences* of the current worldview that is in power will lead to failure.
Maybe I need to reread the article. If recall, it essentially was making the case that it was the worse decade since WWII. I suppose one can argue that the 60s and/or the 70s were worse. I do know that in addition to the (last phase) of the Great Depression (which I do not remember), WWII, the Cold War, the Korean “Conflict”, Vietnam, the Gulf War, Iraq and Afghanistan, a few minor “conflicts”, the assassination of a President, the resignation of a disgraced President and Vice President, the hyper-inflation triggered by the Nixon-Ford era, the captivity of embassy staff in Iran, the recession and S&L collapse of the Reagan-Bush I era, the partisan impeachment of a President, the disgraceful election of 2000, 9/11 and other terrorist attacks, the two recessions and collapse of the banking system of the GWB era, natural disasters, mass killings in schools, churches and elsewhere, innumerable political scandals, corrupt business practices, the moral decay of Western Civilization, etc. the past 70+ years have not been any sort of Golden Age and the U.S. has been in decline for most of that time.
As for Rush, his exact words were “I hope that [the President] fails.” Part of our current mess is that we have already had 8 years of one failed President; we do not need another. And so far no one on the right has offered any alternatives which have any chance of success. “No” will not solve our economic, political, social and moral problems.
Come on, Septuagenarian, you know better. If one doesn’t agree with a politician’s worldview and policies, then of course, one wants their policies to “fail” – or were you an enthusiastic supporter of GWB’s policies, hoping that each and every one succeeded, just because he was president? I doubt it. Don’t be silly. I hope many of Pres. Obama’s policies “fail” because I disagree with his fundamental perspective on government and the role of the state. I have no ill will towards the man himself, but I think his policies are disastrous. That is what politics is about – “No” might not solve problems, but it can keep some problems from getting worse.
RE: “As for Rush, his exact words were “I hope that [the President] fails.â€
Yep.
And I do too.
The President’s actions and policies are, of course, based on his collectivist and anti-Constitutional worldview and I hope — profoundly hope — that they are catastrophic failures, and serve to grind into a fine powder that worldview, once again, in the stark public glare of all the world.
Rush should have said it more eloquently and passionately, in fact. He held back too much.
To be crystal clear I hope Obama fails as much as I hope that KJS fails.
It looks, at the moment, that the former is more likely for 2010.
Limbaugh says he hopes Obama (referring to his policies) fails. He also says the reason for this is because he dearly loves America and all she stands for and doesn’t want to see that disappear because of this administration. Limbaugh comes out very strong in favor of the America of our Fathers and the Founders.
I believe the exact quote was: “I hope he fails, because I want the country to succeed”
He expanded this in an interview:
[blockquote]RUSH: (laughing) You’re being contentious with no reason. It came after a thorough explanation of my belief that liberalism, which is what Obama represents, destroys the free market, destroys capitalism. I think this stimulus plan with about re-FDRing America, the New New Deal, and as a conservative I want liberalism to fail. I want the country to succeed, and that’s what I meant, and that’s what I said over and over again. You’ve gotta stop reading these left-wing liberal sites that take me out of context.
ERIN BURNETT:: Bottom line, Rush. You’re saying as an individual, you hope Barack Obama succeeds, right? He’s your president, too?
RUSH: Yeah. I want him to succeed in bringing the country around, but the policies he’s announced are not going to do it. I want the policies to fail; I want America to succeed. I love the country.[/blockquote]
It helps to research the context of the comment before commenting.
Jim Elliott
Florida
I’ve come to see in the 1990s an analogue to the 1920s and in the 2000s an analogue to the 1930s (though not on quite the same scale).
By that logic, I suppose we’re on the verge of revisiting the 1940s.
I can’t say objectively what was the worst decade but the worst decade subjectively was for me the 60’s. Part of this is based on age and gender. After the assassination of Kennedy the comment was made, “The nation will laugh again but it will never be young again.” The assassination of MLK and E. Kennedy made it seem as if we were in a state of anarchy when combined with the Kent state shootings, bombing and burning on campuses. I was drafted out of college into the army even though I wasn’t on academic probation. Most of the threat to the U.S. was in the U.S. We may have been close to a financial melt down in this decade but we were close to a national meltdown in the 60’s.
#9: Obama wants (or pretty clearly supports):
– same-sex ‘marriage’
– an unlimited abortion license
– embryonic stem cell research
– a lower profile for the United States in the world
– a rapprochement with the Islamic world (without the adoption of western freedoms there)
– the expansion of dirigiste Government into health care
– the huge expansion of budget deficits.
This is why his approval ratings have collapsed, as Rasmussen reports. Most Christians would want all or most of these policies to fail.
#9.
[blockquote]“No†will not solve our economic, political, social and moral problems.[/blockquote]
“Yes” will make them worse.
To those hoping Obama (and Schori, et al.) fail, I would direct your Advent meditations to the words of Jesus, who said, “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.”
I do, Archer_of_the_Forest, pray for all elected officials. But loving your enemy doesn’t mean agreeing with what they are doing, and you know that. Separate the person from the actions and one can love the person and disagree vehemently with the actions.
#18: The Apostles did not pray that the persecuting government would succeed in its aims; quite the reverse (Acts 4.23-31).
[i]Time[/i] is writing now that the 00s are the worst etc etc. I agree with Archer of the Forest that when the debt bear comes home to roost, that the 10’s will take top spot. Folks, in the coming years we’ll be looking longingly back at the 00’s and earlier decades, when we didn’t have rationed, socialized health “care.” And once Ahmadenijad gets his bomb(s) built, and starts dropping them on Israel, then the 00’s will look positively wonderful…
Archer, might I point you to this [url=http://www.facebook.com/LibraryJim?ref=profile#/group.php?gid=328264035581&ref=mf]Facebook page[/url]?
Jim Elliott <><
TIME is writing from its editorial perspective, with its set of biases in place, and what is “worse” is in the eye of the beholder. For instance, throughout the Bush years they loved to describe him as “divisive.” What they meant was that they didn’t like him and his policies. With public opinion today very deeply divided on a range of Obama and Congressional policy initiatives, it seems to me that this administration is at least as divisive, if not more so. And yet we never see that adjective.
RE: “To those hoping Obama (and Schori, et al.) fail, I would direct your Advent meditations to the words of Jesus, who said, “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.â€
I completely agree.
In fact, all peoples should love their enemies, not merely those who want for people with dreadful harmful and immoral ideas to fail.
But I’m not certain what loving one’s enemies has to do with the quite separate issue of hoping that they fail in a public and completely pulverizingly fashion. Hoping an enemy will fail in their dreadful efforts has little to no connection with loving them.
Ten years gone, and the arithmetic is still as faulty as before.
A decade is ten completed years, not nine, just as a century is 100 completed years, not 99. The first decade of the new century and millennium runs from the start of 2001 to the end of 2010. Our year numbers are ordinals, not cardinals. We are currently near the end of the 2009th Year of Our Lord, not the 2010th. So we’ve got another full calendar year for these (rather foolish) guessing-games.
How many beans make five/ten?
10. Branford wrote:
[blockquote]Come on, Septuagenarian, you know better. If one doesn’t agree with a politician’s worldview and policies, then of course, one wants their policies to “fail†– or were you an enthusiastic supporter of GWB’s policies, hoping that each and every one succeeded, just because he was president? I doubt it. Don’t be silly. I hope many of Pres. Obama’s policies “fail†because I disagree with his fundamental perspective on government and the role of the state. I have no ill will towards the man himself, but I think his policies are disastrous. That is what politics is about – “No†might not solve problems, but it can keep some problems from getting worse.[/blockquote]
You’re the one being silly. Yes, I thought many of Bush’s policies were wrong and would prove to be the disasters they turned out to be. Yes, I did speak out against them. But I never [b]hoped[/b] that they would fail, but rather once instituted that they would actually succeed. Failed policies of government cannot be isolated from the success of the nation. Failed policies of government (even when right in principle) do not contribute to the well being and security of the nation or, as we have seen, even to the world.
If the Obama’s policies fail, then we will all be worse off, not better off. And those who come after him will have an even graver plight to deal with than he inherited.
And yes, I directed the lay readers where I was priest-in-charge to pray [b]for[/b] President Bush by name.
16. azusa wrote:
[blockquote]Obama wants (or pretty clearly supports):
– a lower profile for the United States in the world
– a rapprochement with the Islamic world (without the adoption of western freedoms there)
– the huge expansion of budget deficits.[/blockquote]
Azusa is clearly wrong on these points. The previous administration seriously damaged the “profile” of the U.S. internationally. Improving relationships with other countries does not equate to a “lower profile”.
It is in the interest of the U.S. to achieve “a rapprochement” with Islamic countries even if they do not adopt “western freedoms”. We have long had “a rapprochement” with Saudi Arabia and have in recent years achieved “rapprochement” with Libya and Egypt. Such rapprochement can be, in point of fact, a contribution to the “War on Terror” and can isolate extremist groups like al Qaeda.
The expansion of the national debt is a necessary consequence of fiscal (and monetary) policies followed in previous years. It is necessary to deal with the economic crisis of 2008 and to deal with the lack of attention to investing in the nation’s infrastructure over many years. If successful, these policies will contribute to the reduction of the national debt in the future. It’s rather like borrowing money to rebuild the business after the fire sale.
25. Dr. Priscilla Turner wrote:
[blockquote]Ten years gone, and the arithmetic is still as faulty as before.
A decade is ten completed years[/blockquote]
Well, yes. That did occur to me as I read the article. But the truth is it is psychologically like watching your car’s odometer roll over from 39999 to 40000. And yes, I understand that there was a zero point for mileage, whereas there never was a year zero. (For that matter our “Year 1” is a fiction invented centuries after that divide. The people of the Roman Empire those many years ago were totally unaware of the calendar “rolling over” from 31 December 1 B.C. to 1 January 1 A.D. It was a non-event; it never happened.
It wasn’t the “dawn of a new millennium” that had computer programmers scrambling to modify programs, but rather the “rollover” from 1999 to 2000 and the mathematical consequence of computations based on “two digit years”, so that I would have to wait another 37 years to be born. 🙂
While I would agree that the “21st Century” began on 1 January 2001, [i]Time[/i] isn’t writing about the “200th decade”, but rather the decade of the “00s”. Years 2000 through 2009, all have a zero in the “tens place”; The year 2010 doesn’t.
And that doesn’t even account for the fact that Pope Gregory dropped 10 days entirely when he adopted the modern Gregorian Calendar.