Is the United States doing okay?

[Edward64]

Brian had an interesting commentary on the "decline/death" of United States in the election thread.

I've had similar conversations with Galaril and others but it was more geared towards US being desirable, land of opportunity, breakdown of society etc. whereas Brian is referring more to "institutions" but there are obviously overlap and in/direct relationship.

Let's have a discussion. The ask is (and I think its reasonable) to keep emotions (and insults) out of this and try to have a more "intellectual" discussion.

[Edward64]

Here's the backdrop to the conversation so far ...

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Looks to be like the overall picture is that there is enough of a margin ... just enough ... to avoid any credible long-term court challenge.

This is the first time I've ever been physically ill the day after an election, '16 included. I may gain more perspective in time, but coupled with other events in recent years I conclude that most of what was once worthy in America from an institutional standpoint is dead. It's much different for me psychologically to consider it dead instead of dying, which has been my POV for decades.

My life personally will be fine, but I think the world needs more from this nation than we will ever be able or even interested in giving in the future.

Originally Posted by Galaril

Yes I agree we the “City on the hill” is dead or rapidly dying. Roman Empire circa 400 AD.

Originally Posted by bhlloy

Well said Brian. I agreed with what you said on election night and I still agree with it now. It's very hard to get over the fact that 48% of the country in a record turnout voted for another 4 years of division, hate and America continuing to become a negative influence on the world stage.

I guess a lot of smarter people than me think this is over, but I'm still nervous as hell. I'm not sure how the AZ numbers hold up unless there was something unusual about those ballots, and seems pretty certain that Trump might be able to force a recount there at which points courts get involved. GA is a toss up and PA is a court ruling away from being an absolute shitshow.

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Death of an empire.

A lot of places realized it in 2016 but we lived here so it was easy to show it as a one-off in our minds.

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

We're not the dying Roman Empire. If you want a Roman comparison, we're much closer to the death throes of the Republic Era than the Empire Era.

Originally Posted by Edward64

What do you mean by "institutional standpoint"?

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz View Post
Good question, Edward. I simply mean that nobody wants key American institutions to function they way they are supposed to. It's one thing when they malfunction and we implement them poorly. It's another when nobody wants them to work.

Most of this board doesn't need to be convinced that Trumpists are fine with undermining our institutions. They won't see the progressive movement in that light, because they generally have never placed the value I have on some American distinctives such as the Senate, EC, certain aspects of checks and balances & separation of powers, 'originalist' constitutionality, and so forth.

For someone such as myself however, I don't see a way back. Nobody's even pretending to defend such key ideas anymore. Extremism is on the rise in many places around the world as well, and the more stable democratic nations around the world have long had a dimmer view of American distinctives than the progressive wing here does.

That's without even getting into the need for someone to take the lead in moving towards the types of global authorities and cooperation we need to deal with the challenges of the future and move away from the nation-state as a whole. There are very few nations who have the clout to do so, and from my point of view they all seem content to have humanity slide into the abyss so long as they aren't the first ones down the vortex. We'll figure this out eventually, but it'll be way too late to avoid disaster by the time we do.

Originally Posted by Edward64

The discussion will get lost in this thread. I wouldn't mind participating in a separate thread if you are so inclined.

I messaged Nate at 538 and he said there is a 75% chance it gets to the "racism" angle and/or personal insults which is when I'll excuse myself

[jbergey22]

The attitude of society has shifted a lot of the past few years.

It doesnt appear to be the "work hard to achieve your dreams" attitude anymore. The attitude has shifted to "You have the god given right to be great no matter how hard you work"

If that doesnt fall in line.... Lets blame someone else.

This also falls into the chicken or the egg debate. People(in general) seem to think everyone should be born with equal opportunity. Its just never been the case as far back as caveman days so fighting about it will accomplish nothing.

[miami_fan]

This is going to come off snarky but you probable need to define "okay"

What I mean by that is yes if you read the actual words that describe the ideals of the country and its institutions, we are absolutely okay in theory.

However, if you look at how those institutions are actually executing and for some, have always been executing then no we are not okay. We are not living up to the ideals that we have set for ourselves.

[Swaggs]

I think the 24-hour news channels and internet, and particularly social media, make it a lot easier for people to both find and surround themselves with like-thinking folks (that further reinforce their own thoughts and beliefs).

[Edward64]

Basically, I agree that US is declining but disagree it's dead. I do believe much can be fixed with the right leadership.

I break this down to broad categories of (1) internal/domestic/societal, (2) external/international (3) military (4) economic/technological and (5) political. All 5 are related to each other but easier for me to organize my thoughts.

For external/international, pretty clear to me we can repair those relationships we need and mitigate the external threats if we had the right leadership.

For military, there are threats but overall, doing well.

For economic, the 2 biggest threats are our increasing debt to GDP and China. China can be blunted with right leadership and hey, being #2 is bad but not quite the level of Rome's barbarians at the gate. Unfortunately the debt is in chaos right now and I don't see an easy way out.

For political, it is bad but don't think it's terminal. In contemporary times, I can remember when the Clinton-Newt era was the "most" divisive ever and since then, it has gotten worse and fair chance it will continue to get worse. But we survive. I think it's the nature of things as politics has been approx. 45-50-5 (5% is for the independents) for a long time and will likely continue that way. What is "end of the world" for the 45% will be okay to the 50% and vice versa.

Internal/domestic is definitely the key challenge here and think this is the main thrust of Brian's thoughts. Lot's of issues to deal with for sure. I don't think there is any one or two root causes, its a culmination of a bunch of things. I'll write more of my thoughts later.

[Brian Swartz]

I agree that it could be fixed with the right leadership, but the right leadership implies an electorate valuing the right things and the point is they obviously don't. It isn't even a matter of what either side is ok with. Almost everyone on this board reacts as if I'm insane when I talk about the rule of law, including people who aren't particularly on the wings politically, and that's as fundamental to not just American but modern civilization in general as it is possible to get. Basic tenets of logic are considered archaic and obsolete.

You can't repair something without agreeing that it needs to be repaired. Some in America are happy it's broken and want to break it more; others want to do anything required to maintain/acquire power and defeat the opposition. If we decided as a nation that we wanted our institutions to be functional then we'd have a chance. It would still be really hard and messy to fix, but there would be at least a theoretical chance to get there. Right now there is no political movement of any significance to even try.

[sterlingice]

I promise I'm not being pedantic when I say "Define 'OK'" (I'm going to try to do it myself first). It makes me think of the line from Matrix: Reloaded: "There are levels of survival we are prepared to accept." Like people are going to keep living and living here - but we're talking about measures of degrees here. Using an extreme example, people still live in North Korea.

It's a bit like the problem of when environmentalists talk about "global warming". Even in the worst case scenarios, the planet is inhabitable for human life - it's not nuclear war where we've irradiated the surface and people just can't live or something. But it does mean significantly increased extreme weather, more uninhabitable places leading to mass migrations, and scarcer resources leading to resource wars. I think we can all (or almost all) agree that the former is better than the latter.

This is a country that's had a Civil War, more or less thrived through 2 World Wars, been involved in a number of smaller wars or proxy wars, owned people as slaves, had assassinations and impeachments to remove leaders, wiped out the native population, interned or imprisoned large segments of the population, had tons of economic panics/recessions/depressions, labor strife, and a whole host of things that I just don't have room to go through. We've endured a lot (heck, I'm sure many of our families were not here for a lot of that) and, yes, people will keep living here.

Similarly, I think we have this "Golden Era" of America from the World War II era through, I dunno, the 90s (which I'd argue was 2 or 3 different eras): where we "saved the world" (at least that's our story), had the best economy of all time anywhere (because every other developing country's was destroyed by war), scuffled a bit in the 70s, and then we can claim some extended bipartisan success in the 80s/90s (Reagan/Clinton years - not that the years were bipartisan but partisans will give credit to their respective leaders).

But are we heading in the right direction?

I don't think it's ever possible to recreate the economic success of the last half century. I don't see a scenario where we're a successful country and a World War doesn't draw us in more substantially now - we're a superpower, we're going to be more involved on our home soil (more than just an attack on Pearl Harbor). It's probably safe to say that we'll be at the center of any future World Wars if there are any (and I think we're heading that way with the accelerated rise of nationalism and the dying off of the people who saw the atrocities of the last one).

But beyond that: it's hard to say we're at or near the apex of power or progress. Military might? China's catching up fast so relative to say, 20 years ago, when no one could match our military might - we're not at the apex (and we've been shown that asymmetrical warfare can do some real damage to us militarily and to our country's morale). Economically - covered above, but we're also going back to a more gilded age system that is good for the very rich but bad for everyone else (which seems folly in a country where middle class wealth seems to drive our economy). Health-wise our outcomes are probably better than ever here, which is what we're talking about. But we lag behind our "first world" peers: we pay too much and have worse outcomes and there are huge discrepancies within our population - it feels like while we're the best we've ever been, we should be significantly (not just marginally) better, looking around at the world and taking our situation into account. Voting rights? We've gone from white landowning males to, ostensibly, everyone. Huge progress, right? But even with huge turnout 1/3rd of people feel disenfranchised enough to not vote and scores of others, especially in certain segments of the population, have it made much harder for them intentionally. It feels like we're backsliding there, as well.

And are some things irreparably damaged?

Man, I just don't know. I suspect there have been times where it has felt like things were so broken they couldn't be fixed and then someone found a way. And that's the story we all want to tell ourselves. But I also know there are a lot of times in history where something is broke and it doesn't fix for a long time. To use an extreme example: Germany is in great shape today but I think we can all agree that something broke irreparably after World War I and a couple of generations of Germans had to live through awful times. The Greek, Roman, and English empires are never coming back - I'm pretty comfortable saying that Greece, Italy, and England will never be as large or powerful as they were at their apex. We don't have a large land empire to lose (unless the country splits) but our economic and military might will never be what it was before (and, in some ways, it was never meant to be - that was unsustainable systemically, again, due to World War factors, a lot of which were outside of our control).

I think this has to be measured across different spectrums:
Are we the best we reasonably could be? No - but this will always be a near-impossible bar to clear.
Are we the best we've ever been? Nope.
Are we heading in the right direction? Seems like a resounding "No".
Are there paths to get back there? Maybe... but they seem to be closing down as we're heading the other way.

Addendum: What's always interesting to me is the people who want to take some time in our past and crystallize it like it's some perfect time. It always makes me think of this Daily Show clip, which really hits the nail on the head (skip to the last minute or two if you want the meat of it). The 50s were great for our economic and military might. But we're still living in the era of Jim Crow (some would argue we've never left), right for women were laughable, the Korean War wasn't our finest hour, etc. Or the idea that the Founding Fathers were these perfect men from a perfect era who crafted this perfect document for ruling a world superpower made up of 350M people in 50 states about 250 years of technology and problems later and not a document that was made to compromise to get 13 colonies together at the time and hopefully last longer than their lifetimes. Beyond that, I think it's restrictive just to measure us against our best time in our history rather than our potential - like I get that we shouldn't be like "why haven't we gotten faster-than-light travel and colonized Alpha Centauri" yet but I'm not sure why we still struggle with some things that we know work better elsewhere: better health care, better voting access, transitioning to better energy, the goddamn metric system even. Those are things that we /should/ be better at but aren't. Never mind the aspirational stuff where we could be better but we still have so many base-level problems first.

SI

[Brian Swartz]

Excellent post SI. I think we're just talking about totally different things.

Use Congressional dysfunction as an example. In no point in our history have we done judicial appointments as badly as we're doing them now. Norms of debate used for decades, in some cases centuries have been tossed aside. Bipartisanship just doesn't happen anymore. Dan Quayle and Ted Kennedy cosponsored significant legislation together as one example. Try to imagine that happening today. We've stopped even trying to pass budgets because we can't do it without shutting down the government, so it's just constant 'extend the debt ceiling' stuff. The Constitution mandates that all spending bills begin in the House, and we do all manner of chicanery to get around that. Executive orders are used increasingly for items that are none of the executive branch's business, and we barely bat an eyelash.

This is just a taste. There was bipartisan agreement - eventually - on impeaching Richard Nixon. You couldn't get bipartisan agreement right now that water is wet or that the sun is warm most of the time. Even in cases of foreign conflict there is increasing acrimony and 'wag the dog' accusations, both when it's justified and when it isn't. Politics doesn't stop at the water's edge; a lot of people believe their political opposition in America is the greatest threat to the country and view them as the enemy. Etc.

What I'm saying is that to get away from that, the nation would need to agree at least that country is more important than party; what unites us is more important than what divides us; put principle over politics; however you want to put it. That's not a situation where something is just a little rickety or not doing too well at the moment; it's a situation where the whole shooting match isn't functioning at all and is just coasting to it's eventual resting place, the laws of nature having taken over. Any other gains we make while doing that are rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, or working on the upholstery on the 138th floor while the demolition crew just set off several tons of TNT in the basement.

[bronconick]

Getting rid of earmarks to "cut the pork" sounded good, but was that the main way to get bipartisan legislation? I don't really remember

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Excellent post SI. I think we're just talking about totally different things.

Use Congressional dysfunction as an example. In no point in our history have we done judicial appointments as badly as we're doing them now. Norms of debate used for decades, in some cases centuries have been tossed aside. Bipartisanship just doesn't happen anymore. Dan Quayle and Ted Kennedy cosponsored significant legislation together as one example. Try to imagine that happening today. We've stopped even trying to pass budgets because we can't do it without shutting down the government, so it's just constant 'extend the debt ceiling' stuff. The Constitution mandates that all spending bills begin in the House, and we do all manner of chicanery to get around that. Executive orders are used increasingly for items that are none of the executive branch's business, and we barely bat an eyelash.

This is just a taste. There was bipartisan agreement - eventually - on impeaching Richard Nixon. You couldn't get bipartisan agreement right now that water is wet or that the sun is warm most of the time. Even in cases of foreign conflict there is increasing acrimony and 'wag the dog' accusations, both when it's justified and when it isn't. Politics doesn't stop at the water's edge; a lot of people believe their political opposition in America is the greatest threat to the country and view them as the enemy. Etc.

What I'm saying is that to get away from that, the nation would need to agree at least that country is more important than party; what unites us is more important than what divides us; put principle over politics; however you want to put it. That's not a situation where something is just a little rickety or not doing too well at the moment; it's a situation where the whole shooting match isn't functioning at all and is just coasting to it's eventual resting place, the laws of nature having taken over. Any other gains we make while doing that are rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, or working on the upholstery on the 138th floor while the demolition crew just set off several tons of TNT in the basement.

I agree with most of this and I think what ultimately happens is this leads to a "Strong Man" who breaks norms just to get things done because of gridlock. But, like in the other thread today, that's a feature, not a bug.

I know you're not going to like this but I'm going to place most of the blame of this at the feet of the GOP. This is a system that works for them. The Dems picked the most centrist candidate they have, a guy who got roasted in his own party for his failing in the past, and he's still branded a socialist and Mitch will still do everything he can to make sure nothing gets done in the next 2-4 years because it helps them. Hell, the party took two of their other decent centrists off the table right at the perfect time to get him the nomination. I think someone else posted something to this effect a couple of months ago in one of the other threads: "How do you not pick the radical candidate in the primary? It's easy the Dems just did it."

How do you fix the institutions when one party has a vested interest in just burning it down? I posted this as a response to you a month or so ago and I have even less of an answer today than I did then:

Front Office Football Central - View Single Post - 2020 Democratic Primaries/General Election Thread

This might be slightly oversimplified, but I think if you start getting too much in the weeds on any single point here, it risks missing the forest for the trees.

The GOP knows they're losing the demographic battle but the more devoted core following due to fundamentalist core elements. So their best play is to try and disenfranchise people. They do this by trying to prevent government from working (starving it resource-wise and running it ineptly). This has two beneficial effects. It helps reinforce their messaging as a self-fulfilling prophecy: "see the government doesn't work (because they sabotaged it)". And it demoralizes those who want to vote Democrat, decreasing their turnout and weakening them.

Getting a little lost in the "weeds" here, let's assign "0" to the center, "-1" to the right, and "1" to the left. On the right, this is a perpetual motion machine: the more we break things, the better for us so there's this race to the regressive (-0.5 to -1) end of the spectrum. On the left, they splinter between a center-left (0-0.5) and far left (0.5-1) factions. The center left could easily keep the far left in check because if you can point to incremental change (say, 0.3) as working, most people be content with that. However, the far left would argue that this is become more and more futile against increasing resistance and that the only way to change things wholesale and/or break things because the incremental change that's "halfway" is now right of center (0.3-0.5=-0.2) not left of center so compromise is actually just going backwards and that makes the far left as a more appealing place to start negotiations. I'm guessing those on the "socially" conservative side of the right see the same equations but that the social issues are more important than what they see as more marginal changes to if government is or isn't functioning.

Like how do you fix that? Especially when they continue to be rewarded electorally for heading out to the far fringes?

I mean, I think a significant bit of this comes from gerrymandering. If you force fairly drawn districts, you have to come back to the middle. But the GOP knows they can't win with fairly drawn districts so that's a non-starter for them. Then again, there's always been gerrymandering, for all intents and purposes, so maybe I'm wrong there.

SI

[Breeze]

I pretty much stay out of political discussions, but I have to say that Brian has hit on my biggest frustration/concern.

[sterlingice]

I'm trying as best I can to make this "fair" and check my biases but, systemically, there is an incentive for a group to not participate in making things "better" or "fairer". And until those incentives are corrected, why would they?

Again, I think if you draw congressional districts more fairly (computer generated?) that draws things back to the middle. But that breaks the GOP coalition so you're asking a political party to go against their own self interests which you should say "party over country" but it's naive. (Lots of people have no problem saying companies exist solely for profit motive and have no ethical duty, too, and I think this runs parallel to that line of thinking)

SI

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

The Dems picked the most centrist candidate they have, a guy who got roasted in his own party for his failing in the past, and he's still branded a socialist and Mitch will still do everything he can to make sure nothing gets done in the next 2-4 years because it helps them.

The electorate voted for a Democrat president, but Republicans gained seats in the House and will likely hold on to the Senate. In the end, it was a repudiation of Trump, albeit not as powerful of a repudiation as had been expected.

However, Democrats didn't just want to win and govern in the name of a deeply divided nation's fractured sense of the common good. They wanted to lead a moral revolution, to transform the country — not only enacting a long list of new policies, but making a series of institutional changes that would entrench their power far into the future. Pack the Supreme Court. Add left-leaning states. Break up others to give the left huge margins in the Senate. Get rid of the Electoral College.

As much as the majority of Americans despise Trump, they are also fearful of an unchecked Democrat president who might not last through his first term.
There will be no court packing. No added states. Instead, we will have grinding, obstructive gridlock.

I like divided government.

[PilotMan]

The flip side appears to be that the support of an authoritarian trump means that they are comfortable with a lack of checks on executive power, support for incredible federal power in the hands of executive, nearly unlimited power from any criminal activity by the executive, that extends to everything from personal profit from governmental policies, to dealings with foreign governments and influencers that only benefit the executive and the controlling party. The other branches of government only exist to support the executive not the other way around. They seem to have no concerns about any of those things.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

The electorate voted for a Democrat president, but Republicans gained seats in the House and will likely hold on to the Senate. In the end, it was a repudiation of Trump, albeit not as powerful of a repudiation as had been expected.

However, Democrats didn't just want to win and govern in the name of a deeply divided nation's fractured sense of the common good. They wanted to lead a moral revolution, to transform the country — not only enacting a long list of new policies, but making a series of institutional changes that would entrench their power far into the future. Pack the Supreme Court. Add left-leaning states. Break up others to give the left huge margins in the Senate. Get rid of the Electoral College.

As much as the majority of Americans despise Trump, they are also fearful of an unchecked Democrat president who might not last through his first term.
There will be no court packing. No added states. Instead, we will have grinding, obstructive gridlock.

I like divided government.

How can government even function if you can't agree on something like a yearly budget or simple functions of government? Like not negotiate one to the dislike but contentment of both parties but like literally not budget but continuing resolution after continuing resolution.

SI

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

The electorate voted for a Democrat president, but Republicans gained seats in the House and will likely hold on to the Senate. In the end, it was a repudiation of Trump, albeit not as powerful of a repudiation as had been expected.

However, Democrats didn't just want to win and govern in the name of a deeply divided nation's fractured sense of the common good. They wanted to lead a moral revolution, to transform the country — not only enacting a long list of new policies, but making a series of institutional changes that would entrench their power far into the future. Pack the Supreme Court. Add left-leaning states. Break up others to give the left huge margins in the Senate. Get rid of the Electoral College.

As much as the majority of Americans despise Trump, they are also fearful of an unchecked Democrat president who might not last through his first term.
There will be no court packing. No added states. Instead, we will have grinding, obstructive gridlock.

I like divided government.

Entrench their power? The whole system is rigged towards GOP control with a minority of votes, the WH, the Senate, SCOTUS, and even the House through gerrymandering. Supporting that status quo means favoring permanent minority rule.

It's might just work for the GOP, but let's not blame it on Dems wanting to restore a principle of majority rule.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I know you're not going to like this but I'm going to place most of the blame of this at the feet of the GOP. This is a system that works for them.

If we're talking about what's currently happening I would agree with you that the GOP is more to blame by far. If we're talking a lifetime achievement award then I'd say it's the other way around, and not close. But which party is more to blame is not particularly relevant here.

Originally Posted by sterlingice

How do you fix the institutions when one party has a vested interest in just burning it down?

They both have a vested interest in burning it down. See below:

Originally Posted by sterlingice

how do you fix that? Especially when they continue to be rewarded electorally for heading out to the far fringes?

This is exactly right; it doesn't get fixed unless the people demand it. Why did Nixon get impeached? It wasn't because Republican Congresspeople were particularly noble, that's for darned sure. It was because they couldn't defend not impeaching him to their constituents. If they wanted to survive politically, they had no choice. Now, if you want to survive politically, you stand by your party because the other side is worse than anything your party could conceivably do.

Obviously there's never been a time when there was pure nobility in operation. There manifestly though have been times when the system functioned well enough that if you erred too far, you got smacked down by the will of the people. The will of the people has no principle left in it to speak of. It's 'Just Win, Baby'. I don't think there is a top-down political solution; if I thought there was one I wouldn't be saying the republic is dead. I think a cultural sea change has to take place. Absent that, I believe any politician who tries to do otherwhise *cough* Justin Amash *cough* will get shown the door, and quickly.

As I've said many times; in a free society you get the government you deserve. Always. You don't always like what that says about you, but it's impossible for it to be otherwhise.

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I'm trying as best I can to make this "fair" and check my biases but, systemically, there is an incentive for a group to not participate in making things "better" or "fairer". And until those incentives are corrected, why would they?

Probably the biggest difference between us here, completely unsurprisingly, is the degree to which you don't see the systemic incentive swinging in the other direction as well.

[bhlloy]

Given that the President of the US just retweeted a call for electors to ignore a democratic vote and the will of the people, yeah I'm guessing we're probably not OK.

What's got us here and who is to blame is beyond my level of intelligence, but I'm pretty sure we're fucked.

[Brian Swartz]

That'd be no problem if there was a strong call across the board for him to shut up and let the adults handle this, and no of course we're not going to do that.

Unfortunately that's where the underlying institutions need to do their job. And well ...

[HerRealName]

There are a tens of millions of adults that believe there is a vast Satanist network running some kind of pedophilia/blood harvesting ring. Nope, America is not ok.

[thesloppy]

Seems like our economic system is also facing a lot of the same scale of existential issues, and probably belongs in the conversation somewhere.

[bhlloy]

In general I do think 24/7 access to information, the internet and technology will destroy society as we've known it (or at least change it beyond recognition) but it does feel like the US as the most prosperous nation in the world during this period is going to be the first to go and is furthest down this slippery slope.

As embarrassed as I am that the UK elected Boris Johnson and by Brexit, there's still an overall sanity and level of respect for democratic processes each other that isn't here anymore IMO. Obviously there are lunatics at the fringes like there are anywhere, but not QAnon level. At least not yet.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

It doesnt appear to be the "work hard to achieve your dreams" attitude anymore.

Because a lot of people have seen that idea is bullshit. Some of the hardest working people I've seen are folks who are barely making it because they never got a chance that others had handed to them. It's not hard to see that they may see the whole work hard and things will happen as being a lie.

And that's part of why I think the US is not doing ok. Too many people see themselves trapped because our country doesn't seem all that interested in rewarding hard work. We instead see people who are barely making it and assume they are lazy. I think it prevents us from removing the structural barriers in place.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

That'd be no problem if there was a strong call across the board for him to shut up and let the adults handle this, and no of course we're not going to do that.

Unfortunately that's where the underlying institutions need to do their job. And well ...

Who is this we? Seems like everyone but the GOP is saying just that.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

That'd be no problem if there was a strong call across the board for him to shut up and let the adults handle this, and no of course we're not going to do that.

Unfortunately that's where the underlying institutions need to do their job. And well ...

Brian, I did not really read the thread about how/what you post but I feel like we are all grown here. Who is not telling him to shut up and let the adults handle this. The electorate? Lawmakers? What institutions are not doing the job that is expected of them? There is blame to go all around but I don't think it helps to not place the correct blame on the correct people and institutions.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

The attitude of society has shifted a lot of the past few years.

It doesnt appear to be the "work hard to achieve your dreams" attitude anymore. The attitude has shifted to "You have the god given right to be great no matter how hard you work"

If that doesnt fall in line.... Lets blame someone else.

This also falls into the chicken or the egg debate. People(in general) seem to think everyone should be born with equal opportunity. Its just never been the case as far back as caveman days so fighting about it will accomplish nothing.

I'm more optimistic than you, don't think it's that bad.

There are many recent polls (from 2016) that show majority (60-70%)still believe in the "work hard to achieve the American dream". Googled on "poll work hard american dream". FWIW, willing to bet first gen immigrants will poll even higher.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/260741/...chievable.aspx

While most Americans, 70%, continue to view the American dream as personally achievable, 29% tell Gallup that even by working hard and playing by the rules, the American dream is unattainable for them. The latter figure represents a slight increase from 25% in 2009, when Gallup last asked Americans this question.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/do...Topline_V2.pdf

21. For you personally, is the American Dream ...
Alive and well.............................................................27%
Alive, but under threat................................................37%
Under serious threat, but there’s still hope................28%
Dead ............................................................................7%
:
23. Do you believe that today the American Dream can be achieved by anyone in the United States if they work hard?
Yes.............................................................................69%
No...............................................................................31%

By and large, people felt that that their actions and hard work—not outside forces—were the deciding factor in how their lives turned out.

Poll: Americans Share Their Views On Income Inequality : Shots - Health News : NPR

While the vast majority of the top 1% say they've achieved the American Dream, similar majorities of low- and middle-income people believe the American Dream is still within reach.
:
There was remarkable agreement among the income groups that hard work is seen as very important in being economically successful in America today. That's despite research showing that factors such as family income, neighborhood and race/ethnicity are closely tied to economic achievement.

Americans Say Hard Work And Resiliency Are The Most Important Factors In Success, Ahead Of The Economy And Government Policies

Nearly two-thirds of Americans (63 percent) believe they are living the American Dream, compared with 59 percent in March 2011.
:
More Americans (57 percent in 2009 to 64 percent in 2016) believe that determination and hard work are the most important success factors

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Who is this we? Seems like everyone but the GOP is saying just that.

That's the problem. It needs to be more than one side. I think this addresses miamifan's point too. The fact that there's almost never a more widespread consensus on this type of situation is the crux. In this case some of the GOP has joined in as noted in the other thread, but this is just an example of ... a bad action is a bad action but doesn't sink anything. It's how we react to it that matters.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

That's the problem. It needs to be more than one side. I think this addresses miamifan's point too. The fact that there's almost never a more widespread consensus on this type of situation is the crux.

I agree. The problem is the GOP. Saying our institutions or our leaders or the politicians, etc. doesn't really define the problem and keeps us from dealing with the root cause of a lot of our issues.

[Brian Swartz]

It's not a GOP-only problem. As mentioned above, the current problem is the GOP because they are the ones in power, they're the ones who have supported Trump etc., but it's not a case as previously discussed where the other side is wanting to restore institutional integrity. Heck, the great majority of this board has echoed the same refrain I've talked about, whatever it takes to defeat the other side.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

It's not a GOP-only problem. As mentioned above, the current problem is the GOP because they are the ones in power, they're the ones who have supported Trump etc., but it's not a case as previously discussed where the other side is wanting to restore institutional integrity. Heck, the great majority of this board has echoed the same refrain I've talked about, whatever it takes to defeat the other side.

I definitely agree it's a shared problem & shared culpability over the years. Specifically for the past 4 years, I'd put majority of the problems on Trump & GOP but the many challenges we currently face are not because of the 4 years (other than "fake news").

[Brian Swartz]

Just to be clear, and for at least miamifan's benefit, this is an example of me defining part of the problem:

Originally Posted by me, earlier in this thread

Use Congressional dysfunction as an example. In no point in our history have we done judicial appointments as badly as we're doing them now. Norms of debate used for decades, in some cases centuries have been tossed aside. Bipartisanship just doesn't happen anymore. Dan Quayle and Ted Kennedy cosponsored significant legislation together as one example. Try to imagine that happening today. We've stopped even trying to pass budgets because we can't do it without shutting down the government, so it's just constant 'extend the debt ceiling' stuff. The Constitution mandates that all spending bills begin in the House, and we do all manner of chicanery to get around that. Executive orders are used increasingly for items that are none of the executive branch's business, and we barely bat an eyelash.

This is just a taste. There was bipartisan agreement - eventually - on impeaching Richard Nixon. You couldn't get bipartisan agreement right now that water is wet or that the sun is warm most of the time. Even in cases of foreign conflict there is increasing acrimony and 'wag the dog' accusations, both when it's justified and when it isn't. Politics doesn't stop at the water's edge; a lot of people believe their political opposition in America is the greatest threat to the country and view them as the enemy. Etc.

Some of this is about the present-day GOP. A lot more of it isn't. If it was just a matter of waiting for the current-day rightward 50% of the nation to be consistently defeated or buy themselves a clue this would be much easier. It isn't. It runs deeper and longer than that.

[cartman]

Steve Bannon was banned from Twitter and YouTube for saying that Fauci and the FBI director should be beheaded as a warning to bureaucrats that they should fall in line.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by cartman

Steve Bannon was banned from Twitter and YouTube for saying that Fauci and the FBI director should be beheaded as a warning to bureaucrats that they should fall in line.

Wait? You mean John Podesta hasn't tweeted that Fauci (since he was still there) and James Comey should be beheaded?

SI

[QuikSand]

I'm more plugged into economics than political philosophy, and my bent will show here...

For all this musing about where we are in some sort of long historical arc... the far more consequential short-term question is whether the world is close to losing the faith in the US. Faith that has, for the most notable example, retained the US Dollar as the backdrop currency of record for international commodities like oil. The value to our country of that inherent stability is a really big deal, and if it were to be lost somehow, our culture and economy would really feel it.

I don't have any idea what steps might have to occur to see that happen, but in my lifetime it surely could.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Just to be clear, and for at least miamifan's benefit, this is an example of me defining part of the problem:



Some of this is about the present-day GOP. A lot more of it isn't. If it was just a matter of waiting for the current-day rightward 50% of the nation to be consistently defeated or buy themselves a clue this would be much easier. It isn't. It runs deeper and longer than that.

I appreciate what you are saying. I was speaking specifically about the part that I quoted. While I agree that the problems go much deeper than just the GOP, I can't really say that I have the glowing views our institutions' functionality that you do.

[Izulde]

Is the country surviving? Yes.

Is it prospering? No.

Will it remain a superpower? Perhaps, but it will be superseded in the world hierarchy by China sooner rather than later. People didn't pay enough attention to the Belt and Roads Initiative and it's going to be a nasty shock when they realize the results of it.

That's on a macro level.

On a micro level? Yeah, things are pretty much dead. We are a society of economic feudalism and only getting more so all the time.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by Izulde

Will it remain a superpower? Perhaps, but it will be superseded in the world hierarchy by China sooner rather than later.

They certainly got the COVID situation locked down much better that we did in the U.S. Of course, being able to use drone technology and the military forcing citizens at gunpoint to remain isolated certainly helped their cause.

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by Izulde

Is the country surviving? Yes.

Is it prospering? No.

Will it remain a superpower? Perhaps, but it will be superseded in the world hierarchy by China sooner rather than later. People didn't pay enough attention to the Belt and Roads Initiative and it's going to be a nasty shock when they realize the results of it.

That's on a macro level.

On a micro level? Yeah, things are pretty much dead. We are a society of economic feudalism and only getting more so all the time.

Agree with this. I am rereading a old favorite book series Giboons “ The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire” and we are well in the earlier decline of empire collapse we just don’t know it yet.

[RainMaker]

It's in sharp decline. Look at nation rankings in health, education, crime, etc and we fall pretty far behind. Most of the wealth is concentrated at the top.

I guess you have to ask what does this country do well? Our biggest industries are finance and data mining. Not adding much value to the world. And after losing in both Afghanistan and Iraq, even our super expensive military sucks.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Galaril

Agree with this. I am rereading a old favorite book series Giboons “ The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire” and we are well in the earlier decline of empire collapse we just don’t know it yet.

I think a lot about Asimov's Foundation Trilogy, too, since it basically is modeled off of Gibbon's book. Have we had our Bel Riose yet or are we on our way there?

SI

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I think a lot about Asimov's Foundation Trilogy, too, since it basically is modeled off of Gibbon's book. Have we had our Bel Riose yet or are we on our way there?

SI

Thanks, I did not know this. I'm not a big Asimov fan but I did read the trilogy a long time ago. I may have to give it another read now.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Thanks, I did not know this. I'm not a big Asimov fan but I did read the trilogy a long time ago. I may have to give it another read now.

Yeah, supposedly he had read it recently and then put it in space with the plot device of psychohistory to make it SciFi. Asimov is great with the giant ideas, though his characters aren't the strongest in Foundation. I have found myself thinking a lot about those books in the last few years.

SI