There’s a Ballard novel that everyone but me hates – “Hello America.” I don’t think anyone I’ve read really gets it: They take it as an environmental fable or a dumb adventure story or just a silver-age SF writer beyond his prime. In fact, it’s slamming American liberalism. Ballard was British, and liberal at that, which effectively means his fingernail clippings were harder to the left than Bernie Sanders. As such he had a lot of criticism of our politics, which I can sum up by saying “Americans liberals are doing it wrong.”
Case in point: the American ecology collapses. It takes a couple decades, but everything east of the Rockies becomes desert. The government’s response is to pour more money into youth programs, which they feel will really bear fruit a generation or two down the road. So while they’re building the National Youth Center (A twice-life-size fiberglass replica of the Taj Mahal), the country literally ceases to exist. That particular president later retires to a Buddhist monastery in Japan where he spends the rest of his life attempting to attain Nirvana. Which is just sort of the thing American liberals did in the 1970s (The book came out in 1980).
So hundreds of thousands of Americans are abandoning America every year (The largest American ghetto was in Dublin) while the Government was shutting down nuclear power plants. Because those are bad. All the while they could have easily solved the problem, but were more concerned with social issues than transitory things like the economy or individual human lives.
This sounds like an uber-conservative book, and most of the (few) people I know who’ve read it take it that way, never realizing that Ballard was about as far from conservative as it was possible to be without a doctor’s prescription back in the day. (Seriously: He has some hideously disturbing books that my conservative friends should avoid. If you REALLY want to read him, contact me and I’ll give you a list of (comparatively) safe books) Instead, he was slamming the American school of liberalism, which he (Apparently) felt was just as goofed up and fanatical and intolerant and whacked-out-of-touch-with-reality as the right wing was.
Why not rag on the right? Its shortcomings were obvious, and everyone else was doing that sort of thing anyway. Ballard was not one to follow the herd.
What made me think of this was a conversation with a friend today, and a similar one a few days ago with someone else, talking about how they’ve more or less been pilloried for not being liberal enough for the liking of the current freaked-out crop. I’m not making a political statement here. I’m annoyingly apolitical. I just find it interesting when fanatics get scared and turn on their own. I don’t really care which side of the aisle the fanatics are on.