Are the Best Days of the United States in the Past?

So first - Fuck the MSM - this is a horrible lead into talking about a poll. "Rot of nation's core values quantified by single poll"

However, I came across the poll, and since it is tWSJ everyone will be hearing about it.

Personally, many of the drops in poll numbers that they count as negatives I see as positives.

Also, I know, and so do the polling companies, that while liberals tend to answer polls based on their evaluations of facts driving their feelings the conservatives based many of their answers on if the Republicans control the federal government, thus these polls swing wildly when the Presidency swings from Democratic to Republican due to this factor.

I totally disagree with the "doom & gloom" crowd. We are on the dawn of an exciting new era politically, technically and in our core values.

https://www.axios.com/2023/03/28/america-core-values-economy-poll

https://s.wsj.net/public/resources/documents/WSJ_NORC_ToplineMarc_2023.pdf

I gotta think that the heaviness will subside once society at large learns how to deal with the information age in a more appropriate manner. I hope the kids of today will be able to discern online ramblings of a cult vs actual like information.

Here is some pushback on one of the numbers in the poll...

Seems like Murdock's tWSJ might not be honest in its analysis, who would have thought that a rag owned by the biggest private propagandist on the globe would be shading its numbers?

While 70 percent of Americans in 1998 said patriotism was “very important” to them, that number dropped to 60 percent in 2019 and to just 38 percent today — about half of where it was a quarter-century ago. We’ve also seen sharp drops on views about religion, having children and community involvement. [...]

The Journal’s write-up features only polls from...three years — 1998, 2019 and 2023. But when the newspaper has highlighted this data in the past, it has mentioned another poll, asking the same question, in 1976 and 1977.

The results then? Not too far afield from today’s. At the time, just 43 percent said patriotism was “very important” to them. [...]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/03/27/that-jarring-new-poll-patriotism/

AvgMSUJoe wrote:I gotta think that the heaviness will subside once society at large learns how to deal with the information age in a more appropriate manner. I hope the kids of today will be able to discern online ramblings of a cult vs actual like information.

I’ve posted about this before so I apologize about my personal soapbox but I do not think people really appreciate the period in which their entire lives are being lived. One of the most impactful inventions historically was the printing press and at the time it opened up a new world to everyone. The internet is that on steroids, HGH, and crack all at once.

Things are going to have to adapt to that new reality. It’s going to take a long time, longer than any of us have. It’s a world where systems designed under the old way of doing things will have to adapt to a new world. Recent Ex- banks that aren’t used to bank runs that can take 10 minutes as opposed to two weeks. Some of those systems will simply not survive. To take it one step further but not just individual systems but the way society is structured will need to be reimagined. It has never been more the case that people that wrote rules down in the 1780s could not possibly imagine our current society. That’s been the case for awhile but it’s even more so now.

So anyway are our best days behind us? I dunno what does that mean? In the sense of being the biggest super power, maybe at some point. In fact yeah almost certainly at some point. But when that eventually happens, it’s not like the lives of individuals turn to ruin. You just become england. So the individual lives of citizens, similar to england, will probably continue to get better.

That’s if we don’t destroy the earth first. Which.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

AvgMSUJoe wrote:I gotta think that the heaviness will subside once society at large learns how to deal with the information age in a more appropriate manner. I hope the kids of today will be able to discern online ramblings of a cult vs actual like information.

I’ve posted about this before so I apologize about my personal soapbox but I do not think people really appreciate the period in which their entire lives are being lived. One of the most impactful inventions historically was the printing press and at the time it opened up a new world to everyone. The internet is that on steroids, HGH, and crack all at once.

Things are going to have to adapt to that new reality. It’s going to take a long time, longer than any of us have. It’s a world where systems designed under the old way of doing things will have to adapt to a new world. Recent Ex- banks that aren’t used to bank runs that can take 10 minutes as opposed to two weeks. Some of those systems will simply not survive. To take it one step further but not just individual systems but the way society is structured will need to be reimagined. It has never been more the case that people that wrote rules down in the 1780s could not possibly imagine our current society. That’s been the case for awhile but it’s even more so now.

So anyway are our best days behind us? I dunno what does that mean? In the sense of being the biggest super power, maybe at some point. In fact yeah almost certainly at some point. But when that eventually happens, it’s not like the lives of individuals turn to ruin. You just become england. So the individual lives of citizens, similar to england, will probably continue to get better.

That’s if we don’t destroy the earth first. Which.

Just a snide comment - with BREXIT England is probably not the best example, let us hope the US doesn't go that way, but we get what you are trying to say. Not sure I agree as the US has a unique global geographic location and vast unused natural resources.

I am undecided as to if the internet is all that. The speed of the exchange of opinions has an effect, however there will be counter effects.

One clarity in the US is not that the internet happened, but that the public information systems have changed from the post 1920's "objective news" back to what we had before that, many news outlets becoming soft or hard propaganda, but that was more Fox News than the internet, and that was created by pollical choice of dropping the "fair broadcast" doctrine.

The speed that some events can occur at due to a wider, faster communication system is a point, which is more than the internet, but the internet is part of that.

IMO - the huge technical change going forward is the replacement of fossil fuels with alternative fuels. To me that has the potential to be more disruptive than the internet, the PC evolution or the communication evolution. The percentage of the world economy used to support fossil fuel development is huge, and as that fairly quickly shrinks it will create large changes in employment and money flow in the economies and globally.

As the child of parents who had different experiences being in K-8 in The Great Depression (mother grew up on a 40 acre farm while my father grew up in the hill district of GR) I’ve heard enough from what happened from the roaring 20’s, Depression, Father Coughln, WW2, Korea conflict and Joe McCarthy to know there’s always been pessimism.

To date the US has always been able to right the ship. Today a lot of it comes down to money and we’re beginning to see that the GOP is no longer playing a no sum game.

Yes

GRR Spartan wrote:As the child of parents who had different experiences being in K-8 in The Great Depression (mother grew up on a 40 acre farm while my father grew up in the hill district of GR) I’ve heard enough from what happened from the roaring 20’s, Depression, Father Coughln, WW2, Korea conflict and Joe McCarthy to know there’s always been pessimism.

To date the US has always been able to right the ship. Today a lot of it comes down to money and we’re beginning to see that the GOP is no longer playing a no sum game.

There becomes a point at which the income & wealth inequalities become politically unsustainable, and the trends swing back in the other direction, at least I hope this is the case.

Had to look it up, but it appears that the US is near the apex to date of income inequality, how much higher it can go is the question.

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/110215/brief-history-income-inequality-united-states.asp

Trapper Gus wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

I’ve posted about this before so I apologize about my personal soapbox but I do not think people really appreciate the period in which their entire lives are being lived. One of the most impactful inventions historically was the printing press and at the time it opened up a new world to everyone. The internet is that on steroids, HGH, and crack all at once.

Things are going to have to adapt to that new reality. It’s going to take a long time, longer than any of us have. It’s a world where systems designed under the old way of doing things will have to adapt to a new world. Recent Ex- banks that aren’t used to bank runs that can take 10 minutes as opposed to two weeks. Some of those systems will simply not survive. To take it one step further but not just individual systems but the way society is structured will need to be reimagined. It has never been more the case that people that wrote rules down in the 1780s could not possibly imagine our current society. That’s been the case for awhile but it’s even more so now.

So anyway are our best days behind us? I dunno what does that mean? In the sense of being the biggest super power, maybe at some point. In fact yeah almost certainly at some point. But when that eventually happens, it’s not like the lives of individuals turn to ruin. You just become england. So the individual lives of citizens, similar to england, will probably continue to get better.

That’s if we don’t destroy the earth first. Which.

Just a snide comment - with BREXIT England is probably not the best example, let us hope the US doesn't go that way, but we get what you are trying to say.  Not sure I agree as the US has a unique global geographic location and vast unused natural resources.

I am undecided as to if the internet is all that.  The speed of the exchange of opinions has an effect, however there will be counter effects.  

One clarity in the US is not that the internet happened, but that the public information systems have changed from the post 1920's "objective news" back to what we had before that, many news outlets becoming soft or hard propaganda, but that was more Fox News than the internet, and that was created by pollical choice of dropping the "fair broadcast" doctrine.

The speed that some events can occur at due to a wider, faster communication system is a point, which is more than the internet, but the internet is part of that.

IMO - the huge technical change going forward is the replacement of fossil fuels with alternative fuels.  To me that has the potential to be more disruptive than the internet, the PC evolution or the communication evolution.  The percentage of the world economy used to support fossil fuel development is huge, and as that fairly quickly shrinks it will create large changes in employment and money flow in the economies and globally.

Using the term England broadly to mean that when you fall off from super power it doesn’t mean you immediately become a third world shithole

And you should not be undecided. The simple fact that you, a 69 year old retired guy in Michigan and me a 25 year old male porn star in California are having this conversation is completely unheard of through all of history. There’s no reason why I should know that any of you exist, much less what your opinions are in anything. But I do. And the ramifications of that only grow the more you consider it.

Anonymity may be the most dangerous part of technological advancement.

kingstonlake wrote:Anonymity may be the most dangerous part of technological advancement.

In a nation of over 330 million people on a planet of over 8 billion people that most people are strangers is really not that dangerous.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Trapper G

us wrote:

Just a snide comment - with BREXIT England is probably not the best example, let us hope the US doesn't go that way, but we get what you are trying to say.  Not sure I agree as the US has a unique global geographic location and vast unused natural resources.

I am undecided as to if the internet is all that.  The speed of the exchange of opinions has an effect, however there will be counter effects.  

One clarity in the US is not that the internet happened, but that the public information systems have changed from the post 1920's "objective news" back to what we had before that, many news outlets becoming soft or hard propaganda, but that was more Fox News than the internet, and that was created by pollical choice of dropping the "fair broadcast" doctrine.

The speed that some events can occur at due to a wider, faster communication system is a point, which is more than the internet, but the internet is part of that.

IMO - the huge technical change going forward is the replacement of fossil fuels with alternative fuels.  To me that has the potential to be more disruptive than the internet, the PC evolution or the communication evolution.  The percentage of the world economy used to support fossil fuel development is huge, and as that fairly quickly shrinks it will create large changes in employment and money flow in the economies and globally.

Using the term England broadly to mean that when you fall off from super power it doesn’t mean you immediately become a third world shithole

And you should not be undecided. The simple fact that you, a 69 year old retired guy in Michigan and me a 25 year old male porn star in California are having this conversation is completely unheard of through all of history. There’s no reason why I should know that any of you exist, much less what your opinions are in anything. But I do. And the ramifications of that only grow the more you consider it.

The thing is what you believe with your experience and what I believe with my experience and that we can share those beliefs is not all that much different than what occurred before the internet at our respective local bars on a Friday afternoon, since there are literally millions of people in this country with beliefs similar to each of ours.

There is some difference, and the speed of making connections between like minded fringe beliefs is quicker, but the weaponized propaganda broadcast on AM radio has had as much an effect on our country.

Thus I remain undecided on the overall effect of the internet as compared to a number of other advances in behavior over time.

Double post on mobile, I don't know how to delete.

So additionally I will say that the internet without mobile smart phones is less effective.

If you're trying to downplay the cultural impact of the internet, you've got a steep uphill climb ahead of you. Sort of a silly stance to take, frankly.

Cameron wrote:If you're trying to downplay the cultural impact of the internet, you've got a steep uphill climb ahead of you. Sort of a silly stance to take, frankly.

I am trying to say that the internet, by itself, which leaves out the development and commercialization of first the PCs, and next the cell phones, didn't have that much effect.  Historically the internet has been in existence since the mid 1970s, when it was developed as a defense communications system, and was running on university main frames later in that decade.  It really was the cheap computers at work and at home which broadened its impact, then the development of cell phones and then smart phones broadened it further.  The on line news presence by major outlets followed by Facebook and other social media gets us up to date.  If one wants to wrap that total 50 year development cycle up as one "internet" thing, then okay, however I see it as a series of unrelated steps, so we are talking of different perspectives.  Afterall, a 25 year old you tube star verses a 69 year old engineer who lived through the steps detailed are bound to have significantly different view points on this.

Also, the will to use the internet as propaganda is not "the internet".  It started with Reagan striking down the fair broadcast doctrine, in the 1980's, several years before "the internet" began to have a population wide reach, and I will suggest that had a much deeper effect on what we see on the internet than any of the internet developments.

I still see changing from a fossil fuel based society to a renewable energy one as being hugely disruptive an likey to have as significant an impact on us as the multistage development of communications we call "the internet"

To be clear, because often people think these are arguments to be "won". I am not arguing the "the internet", whatever that means to anyone, is not a significant development. It has had significant effects.

However, it is not the only significant development that has changed or will change our world.

Honestly, no. Even though politics are so polarized right now, we are closer to equality and equity than we have ever been.

I agree it really started with the "fair broadcast doctrine"... because that gave birth to limbaugh. He started, or starred?, as the lying right wing big mouth that is the standard of the party today. Listen to only me because they are lying to you, was all on him. I'd venture to guess it was with the same sincerity as the fox news crew.

That said, it took the internet to push it to the Q level of craziness.

Motown Spartan wrote:Honestly, no. Even though politics are so polarized right now, we are closer to equality and equity than we have ever been.

There are a great percentage of the population who understands some of the less than pleasant history this country has experienced. Sadly there is a counter group who wants to ignore our history in favor of a white washed version.

I share your joy that more of us do understand and have taken righteous actions to move toward the ideals expressed our founding document.

https://www.axios.com/2023/04/04/jpmorgan-chase-ceo-jamie-dimon-annual-shareholder-letter-2023

The U.S. economy is healthy — and is going to remain healthy for decades to come. So says JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon in his annual shareholder letter, released Tuesday morning.

Why it matters: Dimon's sunny outlook stands in stark contrast to his dark warnings 10 months ago, when he forecast an impending "hurricane."

The big picture: Market volatility notwithstanding, writes Dimon, consumers are spending 23% more than they were pre-COVID, and are sitting on $1.2 trillion of “excess cash” in their checking accounts. Other positives he cites include:

"Extremely low" unemployment.
Rising wages, "particularly at the low end."
"10 years of home and stock price appreciation."

Trapper Gus wrote:https://www.axios.com/2023/04/04/jpmorgan-chase-ceo-jamie-dimon-annual-shareholder-letter-2023

The U.S. economy is healthy — and is going to remain healthy for decades to come. So says JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon in his annual shareholder letter, released Tuesday morning.

Why it matters: Dimon's sunny outlook stands in stark contrast to his dark warnings 10 months ago, when he forecast an impending "hurricane."

The big picture: Market volatility notwithstanding, writes Dimon, consumers are spending 23% more than they were pre-COVID, and are sitting on $1.2 trillion of “excess cash” in their checking accounts. Other positives he cites include:

"Extremely low" unemployment.
Rising wages, "particularly at the low end."
"10 years of home and stock price appreciation."

Dimon also said we were screwed a couple of days ago. I think he's talking to audiences and not any specific truth.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/jamie-dimon-warns-banking-crisis-not-over-will-cause-repercussions-years

Is he just talking different time frames?

Trapper Gus wrote:

Motown Spartan wrote:Honestly, no. Even though politics are so polarized right now, we are closer to equality and equity than we have ever been.

There are a great percentage of the population who understands some of the less than pleasant history this country has experienced. Sadly there is a counter group who wants to ignore our history in favor of a white washed version.

I share your joy that more of us do understand and have taken righteous actions to move toward the ideals expressed our founding document.

There's no question that the history of the US isn't all sunshine and roses. Manifest Destiny, slavery, internment camps, racism, and a hundred other problems come to immediate mind.

And we should absolutely teach this history. People should be aware. We want to learn from these mistakes and ensure they don't reoccur.

For some reason, there's a faction of American politics that wants to dwell on these things incessantly. There needs to be a happy medium between Trump's American Exceptionalism and the left's shame and apology tour.

Trapper Gus wrote:Is he just talking different time frames?

Who knows with people like that.

Trapper Gus wrote:

Cameron wrote:If you're trying to downplay the cultural impact of the internet, you've got a steep uphill climb ahead of you. Sort of a silly stance to take, frankly.

I am trying to say that the internet, by itself, which leaves out the development and commercialization of first the PCs, and next the cell phones, didn't have that much effect.  Historically the internet has been in existence since the mid 1970s, when it was developed as a defense communications system, and was running on university main frames later in that decade.  It really was the cheap computers at work and at home which broadened its impact, then the development of cell phones and then smart phones broadened it further.  The on line news presence by major outlets followed by Facebook and other social media gets us up to date.  If one wants to wrap that total 50 year development cycle up as one "internet" thing, then okay, however I see it as a series of unrelated steps, so we are talking of different perspectives.  Afterall, a 25 year old you tube star verses a 69 year old engineer who lived through the steps detailed are bound to have significantly different view points on this.

Also, the will to use the internet as propaganda is not "the internet".  It started with Reagan striking down the fair broadcast doctrine, in the 1980's, several years before "the internet" began to have a population wide reach, and I will suggest that had a much deeper effect on what we see on the internet than any of the internet developments.

I still see changing from a fossil fuel based society to a renewable energy one as being hugely disruptive an likey to have as significant an impact on us as the multistage development of communications we call "the internet"

To be clear, because often people think these are arguments to be "won". I am not arguing the "the internet", whatever that means to anyone, is not a significant development. It has had significant effects.

However, it is not the only significant development that has changed or will change our world.

Saying the "internet" isn't a significant development, and only enabled significant effects, is like saying the automobile isn't a significant development.

What the internet allows is probably the biggest game changer in the history of humans. We have all of the world's knowledge (and quite a bit of disinformation) in our pockets. We can communicate with people across the globe instantly. Global markets are now available to bored housewives shopping at 9pm on a Tuesday night. Any flavor of entertainment - games, videos, porn, etc. - is available to you 24/7/365.

Yes, the "internet" is technically just a bunch of wires connecting some computers, but it's a pretty damn big deal in terms of what it provides.

TravelinMan wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

There are a great percentage of the population who understands some of the less than pleasant history this country has experienced. Sadly there is a counter group who wants to ignore our history in favor of a white washed version.

I share your joy that more of us do understand and have taken righteous actions to move toward the ideals expressed our founding document.

There's no question that the history of the US isn't all sunshine and roses. Manifest Destiny, slavery, internment camps, racism, and a hundred other problems come to immediate mind.

And we should absolutely teach this history. People should be aware. We want to learn from these mistakes and ensure they don't reoccur.

For some reason, there's a faction of American politics that wants to dwell on these things incessantly. There needs to be a happy medium between Trump's American Exceptionalism and the left's shame and apology tour.

Have you ever considered that the shame and apology tour part of that equation isn’t real and that it’s trumped up in order to scare you and to maintain the facade of both sides are the same coin? Or do we just skip right by that and accept it as fact?

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

There's no question that the history of the US isn't all sunshine and roses. Manifest Destiny, slavery, internment camps, racism, and a hundred other problems come to immediate mind.

And we should absolutely teach this history. People should be aware. We want to learn from these mistakes and ensure they don't reoccur.

For some reason, there's a faction of American politics that wants to dwell on these things incessantly. There needs to be a happy medium between Trump's American Exceptionalism and the left's shame and apology tour.

Have you ever considered that the shame and apology tour part of that equation isn’t real and that it’s trumped up in order to scare you and to maintain the facade of both sides are the same coin? Or do we just skip right by that and accept it as fact?

I think there are parts of it that are very real. Do some parts get exaggerated by the opposing side as part of the incessant back and forth of modern politics? Absolutely. But yeah, it's real.

TravelinMan wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

I am trying to say that the internet, by itself, which leaves out the development and commercialization of first the PCs, and next the cell phones, didn't have that much effect.  Historically the internet has been in existence since the mid 1970s, when it was developed as a defense communications system, and was running on university main frames later in that decade.  It really was the cheap computers at work and at home which broadened its impact, then the development of cell phones and then smart phones broadened it further.  The on line news presence by major outlets followed by Facebook and other social media gets us up to date.  If one wants to wrap that total 50 year development cycle up as one "internet" thing, then okay, however I see it as a series of unrelated steps, so we are talking of different perspectives.  Afterall, a 25 year old you tube star verses a 69 year old engineer who lived through the steps detailed are bound to have significantly different view points on this.

Also, the will to use the internet as propaganda is not "the internet".  It started with Reagan striking down the fair broadcast doctrine, in the 1980's, several years before "the internet" began to have a population wide reach, and I will suggest that had a much deeper effect on what we see on the internet than any of the internet developments.

I still see changing from a fossil fuel based society to a renewable energy one as being hugely disruptive an likey to have as significant an impact on us as the multistage development of communications we call "the internet"

To be clear, because often people think these are arguments to be "won".  I am not arguing the "the internet", whatever that means to anyone, is not a significant development.  It has had significant effects.

However, it is not the only significant development that has changed or will change our world.

Saying the "internet" isn't a significant development, and only enabled significant effects, is like saying the automobile isn't a significant development.

What the internet allows is probably the biggest game changer in the history of humans.  We have all of the world's knowledge (and quite a bit of disinformation) in our pockets.  We can communicate with people across the globe instantly.  Global markets are now available to bored housewives shopping at 9pm on a Tuesday night.  Any flavor of entertainment - games, videos, porn, etc. - is available to you 24/7/365.  

Yes, the "internet" is technically just a bunch of wires connecting some computers, but it's a pretty damn big deal in terms of what it provides.

The internet is a significant development.  Everyone who thinks I am saying it isn't please stop.

However, the elimination of fossil fuel use, if achieved, with have as much, or more, economic & political impact as the internet and thus is also a significant development.

Self labeled conservatives love the both sides response.  Once Trump used it to justify the actions of his supporters at Charlottesville VA in August of 2017 it became part of their justification vernacular.

Trapper Gus wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

Saying the "internet" isn't a significant development, and only enabled significant effects, is like saying the automobile isn't a significant development.

What the internet allows is probably the biggest game changer in the history of humans.  We have all of the world's knowledge (and quite a bit of disinformation) in our pockets.  We can communicate with people across the globe instantly.  Global markets are now available to bored housewives shopping at 9pm on a Tuesday night.  Any flavor of entertainment - games, videos, porn, etc. - is available to you 24/7/365.  

Yes, the "internet" is technically just a bunch of wires connecting some computers, but it's a pretty damn big deal in terms of what it provides.

The internet is a significant development.  Everyone who thinks I am saying it isn't please stop.

However, the elimination of fossil fuel use, if achieved, with have as much, or more, economic & political impact as the internet and thus is also a significant development.

Disagree

TravelinMan wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Have you ever considered that the shame and apology tour part of that equation isn’t real and that it’s trumped up in order to scare you and to maintain the facade of both sides are the same coin? Or do we just skip right by that and accept it as fact?

I think there are parts of it that are very real.  Do some parts get exaggerated by the opposing side as part of the incessant back and forth of modern politics?  Absolutely.  But yeah, it's real.

I was going to ask the same question as Travis, so let me add that I don't see the people who are advancing the history of the country to include all the inequalities forced upon some groups as being as limited as the viewpoint that if white males were the instruments of oppression then that they were and still are 100% evil.

To me, people who are attacking the scholarship of history in these manners has always are either limited in their imagination, or fighting to have more power by scaring unthinking people.  I also sometimes see people in these discussions "picking up" the language used by those who are attacking others and are broadcast by the MSM as though that is what one side thinks.

When a propaganda network, like Fox, tells you what "liberals" believe, it should tell you that is not what liberals believe.

I go back and forth on this topic. Is the present any different than periods of post-Civil War contention? The 1960s were defined by anti-establishment politics, intra-party fighting, sporadic political violence (and assassinations), and civil rights v. racial hierarchy. Minus assassinations, the present is similar, and we made it through the turbulent 60s. In the late 19th Century, you had very real divides about urbanization and connections to a growing global economy. Again, we survived. However, there are key differences we should take very seriously.

The appreciation for democratic politics has declined, and people are willing to accept diminished democracy if it means getting their preferred policy outcomes. Ironically, much of this goes back to public education. It was through public education that democratic culture and values were built, strengthened, and sustained. Whether for better or worse, public education was used as a vehicle to promote a democratic national identity even when it was not extended to all. Public education has been gutted and made to serve private interests and individualism over any sense of a democratic community. Ironically, the people responsible for gutting public education are now freaking out over the mess they created.

In the past, demagogues rarely consolidated power within the executive. Regardless of what Hamilton said about the electoral college in Federalist 68, Trump proved it was possible that an unqualified person with "talents for low intrigue and the little arts of popularity" could win the presidency. More troubling is that Trump received 10 million more votes in 2020 than in 2016. His national success, based on a cultivated cult of personality, is deeply troubling. We have had these types before, but our institutions prevented them from gaining access to the presidency.  

You also have the rise of Christian conservatism that will only be satisfied when Christian beliefs inform all aspects of life: politics, the economy, education, and even social relations and pop culture. This is becoming clear in the states. Florida is a mini autocracy.

Lastly, the impacts of global integration have blown back on the West, and we don't like what we see. Yes, the West, led by the U.S., pushed for greater global integration, but it turns out we don't like the results. Integration has brought new competitors to the table, encouraged urbanization at the expense of rural communities, honored freedom of expression through consumerism, and created noticeable demographic shits - the white population in the U.S. is now under 60% - especially for the purposes of labor. The urbanization and expression factors have contributed to what many conservatives see as undermining traditional American values and way of life. Here is what should make us think about this even more. These sentiments are not unique to the U.S. Similar sentiments have gained considerable traction in all of Europe's developed democracies. There has been a strong turn inward in conservative circles where there is a need to return to a narrowly tailored national narrative.

When you start adding this up, all of these happening simultaneously, it looks much more problematic. Then you add dangerous messages amplified and given legitimacy through social media, and it is even more problematic. I don't know if our best days are behind us, and our black and indigenous communities would be right to ask if those days ever existed, but dark times are ahead of us.

Turtleneck wrote:I go back and forth on this topic. Is the present any different than periods of post-Civil War contention? The 1960s were defined by anti-establishment politics, intra-party fighting, sporadic political violence (and assassinations), and civil rights v. racial hierarchy. Minus assassinations, the present is similar, and we made it through the turbulent 60s. In the late 19th Century, you had very real divides about urbanization and connections to a growing global economy. Again, we survived. However, there are key differences we should take very seriously.

The appreciation for democratic politics has declined, and people are willing to accept diminished democracy if it means getting their preferred policy outcomes. Ironically, much of this goes back to public education. It was through public education that democratic culture and values were built, strengthened, and sustained. Whether for better or worse, public education was used as a vehicle to promote a democratic national identity even when it was not extended to all. Public education has been gutted and made to serve private interests and individualism over any sense of a democratic community. Ironically, the people responsible for gutting public education are now freaking out over the mess they created.

In the past, demagogues rarely consolidated power within the executive. Regardless of what Hamilton said about the electoral college in Federalist 68, Trump proved it was possible that an unqualified person with "talents for low intrigue and the little arts of popularity" could win the presidency. More troubling is that Trump received 10 million more votes in 2020 than in 2016. His national success, based on a cultivated cult of personality, is deeply troubling. We have had these types before, but our institutions prevented them from gaining access to the presidency.  

You also have the rise of Christian conservatism that will only be satisfied when Christian beliefs inform all aspects of life: politics, the economy, education, and even social relations and pop culture. This is becoming clear in the states. Florida is a mini autocracy.

Lastly, the impacts of global integration have blown back on the West, and we don't like what we see. Yes, the West, led by the U.S., pushed for greater global integration, but it turns out we don't like the results. Integration has brought new competitors to the table, encouraged urbanization at the expense of rural communities, honored freedom of expression through consumerism, and created noticeable demographic shits - the white population in the U.S. is now under 60% - especially for the purposes of labor. The urbanization and expression factors have contributed to what many conservatives see as undermining traditional American values and way of life. Here is what should make us think about this even more. These sentiments are not unique to the U.S. Similar sentiments have gained considerable traction in all of Europe's developed democracies. There has been a strong turn inward in conservative circles where there is a need to return to a narrowly tailored national narrative.

When you start adding this up, all of these happening simultaneously, it looks much more problematic. Then you add dangerous messages amplified and given legitimacy through social media, and it is even more problematic. I don't know if our best days are behind us, and our black and indigenous communities would be right to ask if those days ever existed, but dark times are ahead of us.

I don't believe there is a rise in Christianity. If anything, number of those who consider themselves "religious" appear to be on the decline.

I think it's the conservatives that are pushing back as society becomes more accepting of other view points.

TravelinMan wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:I go back and forth on this topic. Is the present any different than periods of post-Civil War contention? The 1960s were defined by anti-establishment politics, intra-party fighting, sporadic political violence (and assassinations), and civil rights v. racial hierarchy. Minus assassinations, the present is similar, and we made it through the turbulent 60s. In the late 19th Century, you had very real divides about urbanization and connections to a growing global economy. Again, we survived. However, there are key differences we should take very seriously.

The appreciation for democratic politics has declined, and people are willing to accept diminished democracy if it means getting their preferred policy outcomes. Ironically, much of this goes back to public education. It was through public education that democratic culture and values were built, strengthened, and sustained. Whether for better or worse, public education was used as a vehicle to promote a democratic national identity even when it was not extended to all. Public education has been gutted and made to serve private interests and individualism over any sense of a democratic community. Ironically, the people responsible for gutting public education are now freaking out over the mess they created.

In the past, demagogues rarely consolidated power within the executive. Regardless of what Hamilton said about the electoral college in Federalist 68, Trump proved it was possible that an unqualified person with "talents for low intrigue and the little arts of popularity" could win the presidency. More troubling is that Trump received 10 million more votes in 2020 than in 2016. His national success, based on a cultivated cult of personality, is deeply troubling. We have had these types before, but our institutions prevented them from gaining access to the presidency.  

You also have the rise of Christian conservatism that will only be satisfied when Christian beliefs inform all aspects of life: politics, the economy, education, and even social relations and pop culture. This is becoming clear in the states. Florida is a mini autocracy.

Lastly, the impacts of global integration have blown back on the West, and we don't like what we see. Yes, the West, led by the U.S., pushed for greater global integration, but it turns out we don't like the results. Integration has brought new competitors to the table, encouraged urbanization at the expense of rural communities, honored freedom of expression through consumerism, and created noticeable demographic shits - the white population in the U.S. is now under 60% - especially for the purposes of labor. The urbanization and expression factors have contributed to what many conservatives see as undermining traditional American values and way of life. Here is what should make us think about this even more. These sentiments are not unique to the U.S. Similar sentiments have gained considerable traction in all of Europe's developed democracies. There has been a strong turn inward in conservative circles where there is a need to return to a narrowly tailored national narrative.

When you start adding this up, all of these happening simultaneously, it looks much more problematic. Then you add dangerous messages amplified and given legitimacy through social media, and it is even more problematic. I don't know if our best days are behind us, and our black and indigenous communities would be right to ask if those days ever existed, but dark times are ahead of us.

I don't believe there is a rise in Christianity.  If anything, number of those who consider themselves "religious" appear to be on the decline.

I think it's the conservatives that are pushing back as society becomes more accepting of other view points.  

It's not about the rise in numbers; it's about the desire among a strong minority to control public policy. Their theocratic visions, which probably amount to a minority viewpoint in the Christian community, have infiltrated key state and federal government positions. In fact, as we become less religious as a country, they become more threatened. Their power is not proportionate to their numbers.

Turtleneck wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

I don't believe there is a rise in Christianity.  If anything, number of those who consider themselves "religious" appear to be on the decline.

I think it's the conservatives that are pushing back as society becomes more accepting of other view points.  

It's not about the rise in numbers; it's about the desire among a strong minority to control public policy. Their theocratic visions, which probably amount to a minority viewpoint in the Christian community, have infiltrated key state and federal government positions. In fact, as we become less religious as a country, they become more threatened. Their power is not proportionate to their numbers.

This!

It is not the polling numbers, which favor progressive policies. It is the political power.

While there are any number of power player groups which are in play two stand out as opposed to what the polling suggests the majority supports.

First are the super wealthy, who want to rule the world with their wealth.

Second, hand in hand with them are the religious, here in the US the born again Christians, who provide a strong voting block that politicians cater to while ignoring what the majority of the population supports.

Legislating morality to policy will backfire spectacularly. It always has, always will.

kingstonlake wrote:Legislating morality to policy will backfire spectacularly. It always has, always will.

I think they have given up on legislating morality into law and moving toward imposing it by way of a hostile takeover of American politics.

Turtleneck wrote:

kingstonlake wrote:Legislating morality to policy will backfire spectacularly. It always has, always will.

I think they have given up on legislating morality into law and moving toward imposing it by way of a hostile takeover of American politics.

Many of the states that are outlawing abortion, and trying to follow up by outlawing birth control, might be a counter example for this.

Agreed the politics of the situation is that the state politicians are catering to a minority of the state's voters, however, that minority is a key voting block for them.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2023/4/13/2163663/-Must-Read-The-Republican-long-march-to-overthrow-democracy-is-nearing-the-end-stage

The Republican Strategists Who Have Carefully Planned All of This is a long-overdue exposé of the deliberate campaign stretching back decades to make democracy in America a dead-issue.

Republican leaders are now adopting increasingly autocratic measures, using the police powers of government to impose moralized regulations, turning private citizens into enforcement officers and expelling defiant elected Democrats...

Link to tNYT Article detailing this

Another rant, but full of truthful points, from Thom Hartman

https://hartmannreport.com/p/are-we-at-peak-commodification-of

Last week, the nation learned that it’s become a routine practice in the assisted living industry to drain elderly people of their entire life’s savings and then, when Medicaid kicks in at a slightly lower payment level to cover their costs, evict them onto the street.

Housing prices are exploding across the nation, the result of hedge funds and foreign investors jumping into the single-family residence market to the tune of billions every year.

The price of food, also essential to human life, is sliding out of the reach of many Americans.  CNN reports that Cal-Maine Foods company, which controls about 20% of the entire United States egg market, has radically increased the price of a dozen eggs from $1.61 to $3.30 over the past year. The result? Revenues and profits have gone up by 109 percent. They claim it’s inflation, but it’s actually price gouging.

Good health has become a commodity that’s exploited by giant corporations and the morbidly rich. A half-million American families are wiped out every year so completely that they must lose everything and declare bankruptcy just because somebody got sick.  The number of health-expense-related bankruptcies in all the other developed countries in the world combined is zero. Yet the United States spends more on “healthcare” than any other country in the world: about 17% of GDP.

Every one of these items are rightfully part of the commons, the stuff essential to life that’s either administered or heavily regulated by government to protect average citizens.

And while Democrats want to expand the commons, Republicans want to steal and monetize it. It’s really that simple.