Lex Anteinternet: A 2020 Holiday Reflection. Part 1 of 2, . . . or ...

Lex Anteinternet: A 2020 Holiday Reflection. Part 1 of 2, . . . or ...

A 2020 Holiday Reflection. Part 1 of 2, . . . or 3, maybe.

No one can doubt that 2020 has been an awful year for humanity.  And 2021 is going to start off that way too.  Just rolling over from December 31 to January 1 doesn't make things suddenly better. 

March, they say, comes in like a lion and goes out like a lamb. . .but this year. . . 

Which is not to say that years don't have their own characters or that 2021 will not turn out better than 2020.  It almost certainly will. By this time next year COVID 19 should largely be beaten and, it if isn't, it'll be something that we will start receiving annual vaccinations for, or at least a lot of us will.

Back to 2020.

2020 has been the year in which the entire world was put to a stress test and the United States and its citizens particularly were.  There's been a lot of personal tragedy and disappointment, with some disappointment measuring towards tragedy.  

By and large the United States hasn't come out of this looking good. But then a lot of the Western world hasn't come out of it looking very good either.

2020 was always going to be a stressful year for Americans as something has gone wrong with the American body politic, and moreover American culture, that really started to fester within the last twelve years.  In future years historians are going to debate about the point at which what we just went through became inevitable, just as they debate the point at which the Civil War, the last somewhat analogous American event became inevitable.  I have my own theories about this, but suffice it to say, something really went off the rails in our culture and its politics during this time frame.

It had been going off the rails, in all honesty, for some time well before that, like a lot of things, it can be tracked back to the mid 20th Century.  Whatever else we surmise the culture started to experience some serious decay following the Second World War and pretty quickly at that. A cynic might say that the culture went from hypocrisy, on some things, to libertinism, and we could debate which is worse, and they'd be at least partially correct.  But at any rate cracks in the culture formed during the Second World War and began to widen considerably in the 1950s.  They really started to split in the 1960s when the Baby Boom generation came into their own.

That generation is still "in its own" and its fighting out a lot of its fights right now, even as its members increasingly reach advanced old age.  Be that as it may, in the 1980s a shift started to occur that was a reaction to much of what had occurred in the 1960s.

As that occurred, the cultural left in the country moved increasingly far to the left and following them, but some time behind them in terms of the trend, the cultural right did as well, with reaction to the left being a strong part of the latter, and a sense of inevitable triumph and superiority being a feature of the former.  At the same time, the long post war economic dominance of American industry faded and ultimately industry, to a large degree, simply left the United States.  Economic globalism and cultural globalism came in, fueling a sense of abandonment in a large middle demographic in the country whose cultural, political and religious values had been celebrated as defining those of the nation and who were now told that none of that was true.  Reactions from the right to this became increasingly strident as did the policies of the left, with none of it really helping that large American class that tended to define in the past who Americans were supposed to be.  To make it worse, some of the reaction on the right made erosions into advancements that had served that American middle demographic, particularly in education.  Science education and solid history education took a pounding in the late 1980s and the level of science education that was common prior to those years has never returned to average Americans.  

By the time of Barack Obama's election in 2008 there were a lot of Americans who were prepared to accept arguments that Obama, who was a centrist candidate if ever there was one, was a radical leftist, with accusations of "Socialist" and even "Marxist" being leveled against him.  As we've noted before here, up until the last two years of his term about the most Obama could be accused of was being largely ineffectual, a reflection of his policy making style, but perhaps simply despairing of acceptance he took a diversion to the left at that point.

In 2016 the Democrats made the bizarre choice of running Hillary Clinton for the Oval Office when she was one of the most despised individual politicians in the United States.  That year the middle revolved in the form of support for Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump, with the Democrats essentially fixing their primary system so that Sanders couldn't possibly win.  That left Trump the natural candidate for the dispossessed middle.

Not really appreciated at the time, the choice of that demographic to back Trump also meant that traditional Republican conservatives were either pushed aside or even out of the GOP.   The GOP rapidly became Trump's party, with a rearguard of the traditional GOP backing him but for their own purposes.  Trump embraced the concerns and radicalized beliefs of his "base", which included a long festering view that the left was the cultural enemy of the country.  The Democrats managed to feed this feeling through ineptness, choosing to oppose Trump at ever turn.  When that failed, they chose to attempt to impeach him, an effort that was doomed before it started.  All of this fueled an increasingly radicalized Trump base in the belief that Trump was a hero standing against what has been practically portrayed as a Marxist tide, when in reality it was the old Boomer left trying to retain its gains, including significant gains made in the last two years of the Obama Presidency.

None of which is to say that the middle doesn't have a set of legitimate complaints.  And not just in the US, but seemingly all over the world.  Politics over the globe have increasingly come to resemble the United States's recent politics to a much greater degree than the American press might imagine.  Parties based on populism and traditionalism, some of which are highly radical, have made progress all over Europe, and not just there. The trend has been global.

And then came COVID 19.

COVID 19 entered the world in a way that no plague has, ever.  The Spanish Flu may have entered during a World War, but the Germans didn't blame it on the Allies and the Allies didn't blame it on the Central Powers.  It just was.  Prior pandemics haven't been attributed to political actors.  But in the heated political scene of 2020, views on the virus and what it meant rapidly took on a bizarre political atmosphere and a "with us or against us" type of character.  Donald Trump took action fairly quickly, but then he cast doubt on the danger of the disease, which took off to the point that by mid 2020 there were those who were arguing the entire matter was a Chinese conspiracy.  Support for or against measures to counter the disease came to signal political points of view.  This carried on to views about the vaccine, with people making medical decisions based upon their politics or even worse based upon wild rumors that were developed by the most extreme members of the camps and given life by an anti scientific movement symbolized best by the prostilzatons for it by Jenny McCarty, a boob model twit who came to fame by prostituting her mammary glands for cash and who would not be taken seriously on anything else in any other era of humanity.

That McCarthy would be taken seriously enough, before the pandemic, to give rise to a line of thought prevalent mid crisis, says a lot about the decline of American education in some fields and its politicization.  But that's only one stick thrown on a fire that's gone from smoldering in the last twelve years to raging.  

Coming out of World War Two the United States was not only an industrial titan, but no nation rivaled it.  Together with Canada, Australian and New Zealand, the US possessed the world's only major economies that didn't feature largescale firsthand devastation of its infrastructure during the war.  America's position in the global economy had less to do with American genius, although that was certainly an aspect of it, than it did with being the only giant economy which was not bombed during the war.  That fortunate positioning was sufficient to keep us going for thirty years before other industrial nations began to catch back up, and catching back up was what they were doing.  Naively secure in our new position, we not only failed to guard against what was occurring, we actively encouraged it, such that by the 1970s up and coming Asian economies began to seriously erode the American economic position.  Nothing has been done since then to address it, with one single exception.

That erosion meant that while the United States came out of the gigantic post Vietnam War recession of the 1970s, it did so as a nation that was shipping its industry overseas wholescale and which was creating no new jobs to replace those being lost. At the same time it became apparent that a country which had been a petroleum exporter, in the Oil Age, was now an oil importer, and had been for some time.  The first blue collar losses helped bring Ronald Reagan to power, to make a course correction, but it was already clear at that point that the nation was dividing sharply into two sections and people realigning accordingly.  New England liberals whose liberalism had been based on the views of Episcopal and Methodist preachers going back to colonial times began to base their views instead on those like Chomsky and his fellow travelers.  Mid state blue collar Democrats who had backed politicians like Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy now saw their fates aligned with prewar radical right wing Republicans who had opposed FDR.  Southern Democrats abandoned the GOP wholescale, brining with them a set of views that were formed in the 18th and 19th Centuries and which had never changed, driving out the first batch of Republicans who were fiscal conservatives but more moderate elsewhere, and whose Republicanism was based on a conservative economic model more than anything else.  With the drive still invested from the fall out of the Vietnam War, in spite of the success of eight years of Ronald Reagan, "progressives" in the Democratic Party, who shared nothing in common with the Progressives of the Republican Party from early in the 20th Century, began to seriously imagine remaking the United States from a solidly centered (small d) democratic nation based on a Protestant world view combined with a radical democratic impulse into one that had its religious and cultural origins expelled and instead based on a court enforced cultural secularization and collectivisation which was generally alien to American culture.  In this they were aided not only by the fallout of the Vietnam War but also by the pornification of the culture by the Sexual Revolution and the destruction of the industrial economy.

Already by the 1990s these divides were becoming sharp, if not fully obvious to all.  The rise of a new right lead by individuals like Newt Gingrich foreshadowed what was coming even as the last of the old left found new voice in the GOP through the Neo Conservatives.  The election of solidly middle ground Bill Clinton sparked a massive radicalized and fairly anti democratic effort in the GOP to expel the President through an impeachment, an effort that never ever should have been attempted.  The second George Bush and his first rival Al Gore were throwbacks to earlier calmer times, but in Barack Obama those on the left read in hope for a radical change even if Obama himself did not hold such radical views.  This in turn took the lid off of the rust belt centered populism that was mistaken for conservatism in that branch of the GOP.

Barack Obama's Presidency drug up a lot in both parties, much of which hampered his Presidency and made it fairly ineffectual.  By the last two years of his time in office he'd accommodated himself to being the presumed head of the liberal wing of the party and began to accordingly give some voice to that wing, although it was really the court, in the form of the Obergefell decision, that sparked a revived radical left in the Democratic Party. That same decision  helped ignite the already shouldering populism in the GOP as individuals who, as noted above, had defined Americanism culturally were informed that htey not longer did, and that their views were no longer really wanted.

During the same time, as already noted, the industrial base of the country did not recover at all.  On the fringes of the Midwest, that being the West, times were good in that the high prices of fossil fuels sparked economic booms that made the rugged region a success.  As that occurred, however, some areas began a population influx of those from the coasts, such as Colorado, that changed their cultural and political natures permanently.  The collapse of the fossil fuels in  the 2010s, however, brought the economic grief of the Rust Belt to the Far West, which was already conservative in its views.  The impact, however, of a large influx of migrants for economic reasons from other areas of the country had begun to change the region's political views from radical libertarianism to math the insurgent populism that was already at work in the GOP elsewhere.

And that brought us to the election of Donald Trump.

Whatever Trump himself may stand for, for his supporters he has come to symbolize the stand of a "real" America against an insurgent "foreign' one.  Democrats have reciprocated in a way by urging their supporters to "resist" Trump, recalling the "resistance" of World War Two, something which is unfortunate in a way as the resistance itself of that era was heavily left wing and which is moreover unfortunate in that it suggests that those engaging in the "resistance" are "resisting" an illegitimate power.

It was that view that took us in a little over three years from heated polarization to outright intellectual battle lines.  Populists in the GOP already regarded the Clintons as criminal and Obama as a socialist.  Democrats seemingly confirmed that by immediately resorting to words recalling the struggle against fascism of the 1940s and informing the Republicans that they basically would not work with the elected President.  They then confirmed that through a dedicated effort to remove him. That effort in turn convinced the GOP populist that the Democrats were in fact an enemy, something made very easy by a section of the Democratic Party already having declared itself to be just that.

With that view, the politicization of everything became easy, just as it tends to in times of real extreme tension.  And then that extreme tension arrived in the form of SARS-CoV-2, or as it is commonly called, COVID 19.

All through the election there were those who called for extremism.  Old symbols of radicalism came out and were demonstrated. Then George Floyd was killed by police in Minnesota and that in turn was used by various groups as a basis to demonstrate against the government and the times.  In far off areas which saw themselves as removed from the Minnesota event, this seemed like a thinly veiled excuse to attack the nation. And the pandemic became worse and worse.

All of which leads us to where we now are.

And where we are at is not good.

The middle of the nation in ever sense has voted for Joe Biden in what can truly be regarded as a vote to return to normalcy.  This means that most of the electorate has not bought off on the arguments of the populist and it doesn't seem the country as engaged in a war against a foreign alien radical ideology. They have also indicated, through their vote, that they don't want to radically remake the American nation and they basically share a lot more in common with the cultural ideal of the populist than they do with the radical democrats. They've basically decided to elect an old, JFK style, middle of the road imperfect Catholic, rather than a fire breathing radial of any stripe.  That probably tells us where we need to go, and how we want to get there, but it also tells us that there's an element of the nation that wants none of it.

On the right, right now, there's a very strong populist element that has become anti democratic, but doesn't recognize itself as such.  It's defining whose vote is legitimate to an extent by their politics, and its also given way to conspiracy theories that demonize their opponents to the point where it can be believed, in spite of all evidence, that they lost the election due to fraud.  Inherent in that belief is the belief that real Americans would have voted only one way.

At the same time, there are those who are already discontented with the new Democratic President as he shows no signs of equally extreme radicalism, but in the other direction. This body, accustomed to rule through the courts, would have the new President pack the Courts with jurists who would disregard the Constitution, even though those very jurists are the ones who saved the election from being overturned.  Following that, they'd force the remaking of society in their progressive image, a world devoid of gender, faith and connection with reality.

This is a road that we started on somewhere during the last seventy years, or at least the last fifty.  We're going to have to get off of it, or the nation won't survive.  Finding the off ramp wont' be easy, but it also means that if we don't do it, we're headed for disaster.

One thing already noted here is that, demographically, the country, and indeed the entire Western world, is headed towards a more conservative, and more educated, future.  The character of the up and coming demographics doesn't resemble those in control and those in the streets very closely.  So maybe we'll be saved from ourselves by our future selves.  

Anyway you look at it, the fall out of things that rose up since 1945 are plaguing us in the extreme right now, with a genuine failure to really deal with a plague as part of that.  Lincoln called on the better angels of our mercy in the 1860s, we don't seem to be calling upon them in 2020 very much.

All of which is helping to make 2020 not only an an annus horribilius, but probably a watershed as well.  The question of whether its a good one, or we're just going off a cliff, isn't evident yet.

Lex Anteinternet: Merry Christmas! Καλά Χριστούγεννα, Frohe Weihnac...

Lex Anteinternet: Merry Christmas! Καλά Χριστούγεννα, Frohe Weihnac...:   

Merry Christmas! Καλά Χριστούγεννα, Frohe Weihnachten!, Поздравляю со cветлым праздником Рождества!, Häid jõule, Mutlu Noeller, Priecīgus Ziemassvētkus, क्रिसमस की बधाई, Linksmų Kalėdų, Bella da Nadel!, کریسمس مبارک, สุขสันต์วันคริสต์มาส, Ya Krismasi, Felix dies Nativitatis, Nollaig Shona Daoibh!, Vrolijk kerstfeest!, Noflike krystdagen! Nollaig Chridheil, Krismasi njema, Natale! Joyeux Noël !, Gleðileg jól, ¡Feliz Navidad!, Feliz Natal!,God jul!. めりーくりすます, 행복한 크리스마스 되십시오, Chúc Giáng Sinh Vui Vẻ!, 圣诞节快乐, Maging maligaya sana ang iyong pasko, Hyvää Joulua! щасливого Різдва, Wesołych Świąt, Eguberri on, Eedookh Breekha, عيد ميلاد سعيد, חג מולד שמח, Craciun Fericit, Boldog Karácsonyt!, Cestit Bozic!

 

Now there were shepherds in that region living in the fields and keeping the night watch over their flock.  The angel of the Lord appeared to them and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were struck with great fear.

The angel said to them, “Do not be afraid; for behold, I proclaim to you good news of great joy that will be for all the people.For today in the city of David a savior has been born for you who is Messiah and Lord. And this will be a sign for you: you will find an infant wrapped in swaddling clothes and lying in a manger.”

And suddenly there was a multitude of the heavenly host with the angel, praising God and saying: “Glory to God in the highest fand on earth peace to those on whom his favor rests.”

When the angels went away from them to heaven, the shepherds said to one another, “Let us go, then, to Bethlehem to see this thing that has taken place, which the Lord has made known to us.”

So they went in haste and found Mary and Joseph, and the infant lying in the manger. When they saw this, they made known the message that had been told them about this child. All who heard it were amazed by what had been told them by the shepherds.

And Mary kept all these things, reflecting on them in her heart.

Then the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all they had heard and seen, just as it had been told to them.


Καὶ ποιμένες ἦσαν ἐν τῇ χώρᾳ τῇ αὐτῇ ἀγραυλοῦντες καὶ φυλάσσοντες φυλακὰς τῆς νυκτὸς ἐπὶ τὴν ποίμνην αὐτῶν. Καὶ ἄγγελος κυρίου ἐπέστη αὐτοῖς, καὶ δόξα κυρίου περιέλαμψεν αὐτούς• καὶ ἐφοβήθησαν φόβον μέγαν. Καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς ὁ ἄγγελος, Μὴ φοβεῖσθε• ἰδοὺ γάρ, εὐαγγελίζομαι ὑμῖν χαρὰν μεγάλην, ἥτις ἔσται παντὶ τῷ λαῷὅτι ἐτέχθη ὑμῖν σήμερον σωτήρ, ὅς ἐστιν χριστὸς κύριος, ἐν πόλει Δαυίδ. Καὶ τοῦτο ὑμῖν τὸ σημεῖον• εὑρήσετε βρέφος ἐσπαργανωμένον, καὶ κείμενον ἐν φάτνῃ. Καὶ ἐξαίφνης ἐγένετο σὺν τῷ ἀγγέλῳ πλῆθος στρατιᾶς οὐρανίου, αἰνούντων τὸν θεόν, καὶ λεγόντων, Δόξα ἐν ὑψίστοις θεῷ, καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς εἰρήνη• ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκία. Καὶ ἐγένετο, ὡς ἀπῆλθον ἀπ' αὐτῶν εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν οἱ ἄγγελοι, οἱ ποιμένες ἐλάλουν πρὸς ἀλλήλους, Διέλθωμεν δὴ ἕως Βηθλέεμ, καὶ ἴδωμεν τὸ ῥῆμα τοῦτο τὸ γεγονός, ὃ ὁ κύριος ἐγνώρισεν ἡμῖν. Καὶ ἦλθαν σπεύσαντες, καὶ ἀνεῦραν τήν τε Μαριὰμ καὶ τὸν Ἰωσήφ, καὶ τὸ βρέφος κείμενον ἐν τῇ φάτνῃἸδόντες δὲ διεγνώρισαν περὶ τοῦ ῥήματος τοῦ λαληθέντος αὐτοῖς περὶ τοῦ παιδίου τούτου. Καὶ πάντες οἱ ἀκούσαντες ἐθαύμασαν περὶ τῶν λαληθέντων ὑπὸ τῶν ποιμένων πρὸς αὐτούς. Ἡ δὲ Μαριὰμ πάντα συνετήρει τὰ ῥήματα ταῦτα, συμβάλλουσα ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ αὐτῆς. Καὶ ὑπέστρεψαν οἱ ποιμένες, δοξάζοντες καὶ αἰνοῦντες τὸν θεὸν ἐπὶ πᾶσιν οἷς ἤκουσαν καὶ εἶδον, καθὼς ἐλαλήθη πρὸς αὐτούς. 














Lex Anteinternet: A Matter of Preception

Lex Anteinternet: A Matter of Preception

A Matter of Preception


I follow the US Ag Ambassadors blog.

And I like it.

But I was amused by this entry:

Before the Snow Flies


It starts off:

And it goes on:


It's a matter of perception of course.  I have a "to do" list everyday, but my outdoor or manual labor items are always at the back of it.  Always.  When I was young I dreamed of having a list like this, or work that was outdoors, in agriculture, and has a compact, to some degree, beginning and end.  

I can't say that I've ever imagined that in dread.

Which may get to what a person has done, up to that point, in life, I guess, and what a person knows of what other people do.  I tend to find most of us have very little perception on the lives of others.  Litigating lawyers do, because we explore those lives.

I wonder what this student will do.  Whatever it is, the student may find that days that had a list like that were the best ones that they ever had.  Meaningful work that had morning and evening horizons, and which took them outdoors, and which were surrounded by people who loved them.  Not everyone's work is like that.  Most peoples' in fact, isn't.

Lex Anteinternet: And why not? Back to the land?

Lex Anteinternet: And why not? Back to the land?:       

And why not? Back to the land?


 Gleaning Oats.  Lionel Percy Smythe

 A seemingly interesting trend here, maybe:
Milan, Italy - Confronted by the most severe economic crisis since the Great Depression, and with little support from a debt-burdened government, an increasing number of Italy's young people are returning to the land for agriculture production - a sector the generation before nearly abandoned.
Piergiovanni Ferraresi, 23, is one of these new Italian farmers. After graduating law school, he decided to return to his family's farm instead of practicing law. In the countryside just outside of Verona, in northeast Italy, Ferraresi transformed the farm into a modern agribusiness that produces milk, soya, and different varieties of grains. He has since hired two employees, including his younger brother Mario.
According to Italy's Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Forestry, 11,485 new agribusinesses were established in 2013 - a 2.6 percent increase from 2012. About 17 percent were started by individuals below age 30.
From Aljazeera
More younger people like Ms. Lavarde are making lives as small-scale farmers in France, drawn in some cases by idealistic notions of tilling the land and of getting away from the rat race of the cities. They often leave behind well-paid jobs, as well as relatively comfortable lives that they nonetheless find unfulfilling.
From the New York Times.
Lesbos, Greece - Odysseas Elytis, the Greek Nobel laureate and poet, once wrote: "If you disintegrate Greece, in the end you'll see that what you have left is an olive tree, a vineyard, and a ship. Which means: with these you can rebuild it."
Having endured eight years of a deepening economic crisis, thousands of young Greeks are taking heed of Elytis' words by leaving the cities to work on the land.
One of them is 35-year-old Alexandros Kleitsas­, who until four years ago had spent his entire life in Athens, the capital of Greece, working for a private company that certified organic products.
After spending two years being unemployed, Alexandros decided he had no other option but to leave everything behind and move to his grandparents' village in Kalabaka, four hours' drive north of Athens. There he started a farm with his brother and three friends.
"Someone has to start producing again in this country," Alexandros says. "We can't all be in the service sector and so I left the city. I started from zero, without any land or experience."
Alexandros isn't alone in his thinking. For the first time in 20 years, employment in the agricultural sector has been rising, from 11 percent in 2008, a 35-year low, to 12.9 percent in 2015, according to the latest available report by the Greek Statistical Service. Almost half of all new farmers come from the cities.
Again from Aljazeera
According to the USDA's most recent census of farmers from 2012, the number of principal farmers between the ages of 25 and 34 increased 2.2 percent from five years before.
In addition, a new survey by the National Young Farmer Coalition finds that millennial farmers are different from previous generations: they are more likely to be college-educated, not come from farming families, use sustainable practices and produce organic food.
Among those recruiting millennial foodies into farming is Kimbal Musk, brother of tech billionaire Elon Musk. His project Square Roots is an accelerator incubating vertical farming startups inside a shipping container in Brooklyn.
From CNBC
Liz Whitehurst dabbled in several careers before she ended up here, crating fistfuls of fresh-cut arugula in the early-November chill.
The hours were better at her nonprofit jobs. So were the benefits. But two years ago, the 32-year-old Whitehurst — who graduated from a liberal arts college and grew up in the Chicago suburbs — abandoned Washington for this three-acre farm in Upper Marlboro, Md.
She joined a growing movement of highly educated, ex-urban, first-time farmers who are capitalizing on booming consumer demand for local and sustainable foods and who, experts say, could have a broad impact on the food system.
The Washington Post
And you can find a lot of similar stories from within the United States and Canada.  Mostly of young people, often with no farming background or light connection to farming in their family, returning to farming. And for many, but not all, of these people the farming they are returning to is a true throw back. They aren't majoring in agriculture so they can go to work for ADM as an employee. No, they're getting involved in small scale agriculture most often in a way that resembles agriculture of the 20s, 30s and 40s. Very local, as a rule, and bordering in the yeomanry pattern of old.

What's going on here?

Well, maybe nothing whatsoever. After all, people with long memories can recall prior "back to the land movements", such as, for example, the Hippiecentric one of the early 1970s.  And we all  know how that played itself out. The commune living back to the lander would be paleolithic farmers moved back out a few years later, got themselves jobs in law, accounting and business, and are today's Boomers lamenting the lack of values and virtues in millennial's. Those same people who sit down and reminisce while watching Easy Rider are also reading the Washington Times and grumbling about the lazy young, dagnabbit, who won't follow their hard working example. . .  And we know that demographically its still the case that younger generations are moving from rural areas into cities.

This could be the same thing.  I.e., it could be a youthful flirtation like the one of the 1970s.

But I suspect it isn't.

Here's what I suspect is going on.

The move off the land, if you will, started some time in the late 19th Century but it wasn't really strongly in play until just about one century ago.  Indeed, we haven't quite gotten there yet, even as we've been tracking the years on a daily basis for some time.  1919 was the peak year in economic parity, in the United States, for farmers.  I.e., that's the last year that farmers family incomes matched, more or less, their urban counterparts.

Now, I don't know if that was also true for European farmers, but I suspect it was the case or close to it.  This plays out a little differently in  Europe, however, as at least on the continent the overall standard of living was lower than it was in the United States until some time roughly after World War Two..  We tend not to think of countries like France, Italy, Spain, etc. . . . or even Germany, having a lower standard of living, but they frankly did until, roughly, the 1950s*.

Village and town life in France, for example, was lower than the equivalent in the United States and it had frankly changed little since the 18th Century, or even earlier, in some significant ways but not so much as to make it roughly analogous in some ways to the average American's life, particularly if they came from rural areas, but even if they came from urban ones.  Lots of American farm and rural kids who served in France came from homes that didn't have electricity, that heated with wood, or certainly coal, and which didn't have indoor plumbing.  To them, conditions in the average French village were not very much different or were at least recognizable, to Americans.  Even those who came from larger towns and cities might still have only just acquired electricity in their homes, assuming they had, and outdoor facilities were still fairly common in smaller towns.  Bigger cities weren't necessarily nice places to live either, as a lot of Americans from large cities lived in pretty crowded and rude conditions.  For them, the conditions in larger French cities would have been darned near identical to what they had seen at home.

This plays out, by the way, in a strange way for American servicemen in World War One as compared to World War Two as the average American of the First World War was quite taken by the French, although those who served in the Army of occupation in Germany were very impressed with the Germans, particularly how clean they were.  Servicemen who wrote home during World War One generally found the French to be quite charming and they didn't complain about conditions in the French countryside.  While we hear about war brides from all wars, it's often missed that this this was particularly a phenomenon for American servicemen in World War One in spite of the very short period of time during which Americans were in Europe.  A lot of American servicemen met and married French girls in the short period they were stationed there.  Some met and married German girls during the short period the Americans occupied portions of Germany, and as noted Americans were hugely impressed with Germany while they were there, but of note a sizable number of Americans met and married Russian brides if they were stationed in Siberia during the expedition there, so many that a legal opinion had to be issued on whether the US recognized Russian Orthodox weddings (it did).

In comparison, American servicemen who fought in France during World War Two were sympathetic to the French but tended to be shocked by how "dirty" they were and how "dirty" the country was, and even more so by the Italians, who were regarded as truly dirty peasantry.  The common view of Italy at the time was that it was a hopelessly backwards nation full of peasantry.  Why the change in views?  Americans who entered Germany were again impressed with it, but all the more so in comparison with the countries south of the Rhine, and often noted that the country seemed a lot more like home than other European mainland countries did.  This became a problem for the American forces given the development of a level of sympathy with the German populace that the American Army did not want, although it did not occur nearly as often amongst combat troops who were pretty disgusted with the Germans as a rule.

So, what had changed?  Were the French and Italians really "dirty" and were the Germans really "clean" and if so why isn't it that American servicemen of World War One hadn't noticed that?  Well, because it wasn't really true, except in an odd context.  Conditions in Europe had not changed much between the wars.  Conditions in the US had.

So what's that have to do with anything?

Well, quite a lot.  What those American servicemen of World War Two really expressed was the American push away from far life that followed World War One. The same thing would set in all over Europe after World War Two.

The US went into World War One an industrial nation, but one that had one foot in an agrarian one.  It had become an industrial powerhouse but at the same time it remained heavily agricultural in nature in much of the country.  Of course, the US remains a country with a very large agricultural sector, but not like it had at that time and frankly would for some time thereafter.

After World War One the move towards the cities really started to accelerate, slowed only by the Great Depression, which also served to mask that.  The change was very real, however.  After the Great War the US entered an agricultural depression that accompanied a post war recession in the overall economy.   At the same time the march of the machines, which saw its expression in every aspect of American life, from the home to the factory, also was coming on strong in the countryside. At the same time, while rural life continued to be celebrated in American culture, the contrary force which depicted farmers and ranchers as hicks increased.  Farmers and ranchers themselves came to increasingly believe that the life for their children should be a city life, not a rural life, and pushed children in that direction.

Those children are the ones who fill the obituary pages today, and you can see the results.  A common obituary reads something like this, with of course a million variants.
John Doe was born on his families farm outside of Wheatland Wyoming.  He grew up on the farm and then attended the University of Wyoming until he was called into service during World War Two.  After he left hte Army after the war, he returned to University and graduated from law school in 1948, after which he practiced in Cheyenne.  He is survived by his children, Dr. John Doe II, of Cincinnati Ohio, and Jane Smith, of Denver Colorado.
What we see in these obituaries is that people of humble rural origin routinely left that life in their youth and went into "good jobs".  Their children went into better "good jobs".  Their grandchildren have discovered that a lot of the good jobs were, well, not so great.  So people who are one or two generations removed from the farm now wish to come back, and all the way back.

Perhaps automation is increasing this, and perhaps that's the ironic byproduct of replacing ourselves, as we are increasingly doing, with electronic machines.  Having made our work intolerable, and the conditions in which we live also intolerable, we are now ironically free to return to the work we escaped.  And its the most basic variant of it as well.  The types of farming that are low intensity in machinery.

At least it appears that many are.  Not all, by any means.  We're told that the millennials increasingly are moving to the big cities. . . but that's from the smaller cities and the suburbs.  Perhaps that migration isn't as unconnected in some ways as it might seem.  People seem to be recreating, in a cleaner less dangerous forms, the conditions their ancestors started leaving a century ago.

So now we're seeing a retreat all the way back.

*By standard of living we're not getting into the statistical analysis of this, which often leads to debates, but only using the term loosely. The "standard of living" isn't even the same from state to state, so it certainly isn't from country to country.  But what we mean by this is the overall economic picture at the family and individual level, and what that meant.

The irony.

 Same day, same paper. One ad celebrating agriculture, and one celebrating its destruction.