.
It is an interesting explanation for the phenomenon of immediate reaction and the lurch from crisis to crisis. One of the things the author says is that we have lost the narrative of life. News and politicians, two of the most important groups, have lost the ability to create a beginning, middle and end. So instead of giving a story, we blunder along in the present without thinking forward.
.
To use the example of war.... The news media, he says, lost the ability to create a narrative arc in Vietnam - with the rise of television. During WW2 the newsreel had time to synthesize what had happened. They could create an arc (Battle of Midway, Attack on Verdun, etc) that had a beginning, a battle and an end - either good or back; they could sell that to America to get behind the war. But in Vietnam, despite the government's attempt to create "mini-stories" the reality of the drudge of war lost any ability to mold it into a story. And now in Afghanistan (and Iraq before that) the war is ignored because there is no arc. We went in and accomplished what we set out to do in a matter of months - and then just stayed. Everyday is both the same (no territory is lost or gained) and uniquely different in a horrible way (roadside bombings, attacks on young Americans or younger nationals).
.
It is an interesting premise and one he also uses to describe our visceral reaction to politics. Presidents (both Bush and Obama), he says, now react in the moment to whatever crisis rises. And the people response to the President's response based on if they like or dislike him - not based on some overriding narrative of America. In fact, he blames the lack of enthusiasm on President Obama's ability to sell "an arc" to young people (building a better world together), but then he was unable to sustain any action once in office. Most people don't blame Obama, per say, for not be able to implement it - but his failure contributes frustration and helplessness in the face of immediate problems.
.
The author credits this environment with the rise of the Tea Party (not judging the politics one way or the other) - a group that actively wants to go back to a narrative of America as imagined in 1950. He finds it an perfectly understandable, but un-implementable, response to the constant now. He also credits this now mentality with boom in Armageddon stories and Zombie stories - both of which define an end. He sees these two movements as two sides of the same coin. Both groups want the non-narrative "constant now" to end, one by remembering an earlier time they lived OR by imagining a future time without cellphone alerts and instant news.
.
Interesting.