American Politics

[LexusInfernus 908]

Don't underestimate just how cutthroat American politics are. No one ever rose to the top by behaving ethically. Indeed, if someone is running for president with support of a major national party, it is guaranteed they are a power-hungry sociopath. No one who isn't would ever pursue the job so emphatically.

 

This is perhaps the single biggest philosophical problem with the idea of political offices being held by people who choose to run for them. The people who get the job tend to be the people who want it the most. But the people who want it the most are inherently the least qualified to do the job because people who want power want it to serve themselves, not others.

 

It would be an interesting experiment if we decided to draw a lottery of all registered voters in a district and put the first five people picked on the ballot rather than relying on people volunteering to run. Then if you won you would be pressed into service in congress much the same way you would be on a jury, as a civic duty.

Overall you would probably get better representation this way. If nothing else you'd severely cripple the potential of lobbyists to influence the process.

Well even then, there is a difference between being a power hungry sociopath and being Frank Underwood. 

 

And overall, I do not believe that most American presidents are sociopaths, given how difficult it is for them to be elected. I think that most Presidents, and most world leaders do try to do what they think is best. And I believe that most of them realize that their actions have far reaching consequences, and that starting a war for personal gain is unacceptable. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

@Ocram:  America has enough troubles of its own and should not try to impose its foolishness on other cultures.  One aphorism is that if it moves or grows a Chinaman has eaten it.  America has its own dietary peculiarities, especially in the south.  I intensely dislike red-beans and rice as well as chitlin's and grits.  I am also not very fond of chop suey, which is railroad building coolie food from the labour that crossed this country in the 19th century.

 

And as far as America exporting democracy, it is something you don't have.  Exporting things means you have to possess them.  To the best of my knowledge, no one really has it. 

 

After 9/11 you are now living in the "Land of the less-free and the home of the brave", to paraphrase your national anthem.  Francis Scott Key and the other founding fathers of your country would be mortified by what it has become.  So Americans, especially the fools on the Internet, should butt out of others affairs.

 

@hym:  If Wendel Wilkie had defeated FDR, you would probably be speaking German now.

 

Edit -- Much later on a new topic.

 

U.S. "intends" to join the Ottawa Convention on Land Mines.

 

Rather a weak-sister approach, though.  Maybe they think blowing up robots on the battle field lacks pay-off.

 

And this little gem of analysis of the American voters.

 

The implication is that only 36% of voters see the Elephant or the Donkey as meaningful. 

  Edited June 27, 2014 by A Nonny Moose  

[Meg 368]

A discussion that branched off in the FIFA World Cup thread that fits better over here . . .

 

 

Ann Coulter seems to think that it's because America is falling apart morally.

 
The Voice of the Right wing nutters goes even further than that, tying soccer in the U.S. to insidious Liberalism, unassimilated immigrants, foreign brainwashing, collectivist destruction of individualism, the vast Leftist media conspiracy, Hillary Clinton, Frenchmen, light-rail, and even anti-Darwinism!  She forgot to include The Gays and The Terrorists.  Funny, yet frightening, because given the wacky and inane things Coulter often says politically, I actually don't think she is kidding here.

 

 

I don't think she is kidding either.  I believe that she believes it.  Even scarier, I understand what she is saying although she lacks the guts to say it outright.

 

Speaking as a American born in the middle of the 20th century, I can say that, generally speaking, we have spent most of our lives woefully ignorant of what goes on outside of our borders.   This point was really hammered home to me when I spent several evenings in the living rooms of average Brits discussing world events.   I was downright clueless and ignorant compared to what they knew and kept track of.

 

Okay, my fellow Americans, raise your hands if you know when the Federal Reserve is planning to announce the next forecast in the change in the interest rate.   My British friends knew.   and were anticipating it with concern.  They regard it as very important and relevant to their lives.   and I'm not talking about bankers or politicians.  I'm talking about a bookkeeper, a police detective, and a computer programmer.

 

They could discuss current and historical world events to a degree that I couldn't begin to match.   and I'm not some yahoo.  I have a university education.   In my economics classes, one professor was considered a bit radical because he insisted on included international factors in the equation.   The general thinking was that it didn't matter.  Seems really stupid today.

 

Does anyone realize what we are doing right now?    Regular people are discussing issues with regular people from other countries.   That did not happen when I was a kid.  We lacked the means to do so.  We could cheerfully keep our heads in the sand and no one would bother us.    That luxury is gone. 

 

I believe that Anne Coulter's real point is that she feels the cozy American bubble being destroyed and it scares the heck out of her. 

[Ocram's Razr 964]

Well, Meg, according to several statistics (happiness, debt, satisfaction with government, perception/opinion on the police, violent crime rates, publicity of police brutality, and others), the USA has been going downhill since 1960. The 1950's are considered the peak of American happiness and prosperity. On the other hand, the mostly unstoppable force of technological progress has been keeping us afloat in these dangerous times. Some aspects of American culture are obviously degrading and other aspects are arguable or subtle. Lastly, as we decline other nations are rising though we will take down the majority of the world if we fall. Therefore, it is in the best interest of other nations that we either downsize to the point we no longer are Too Big To Fail while others try to take our place OR for us to improve again.

--Ocram

[BLANKBLANK 4,414]

A discussion that branched off in the FIFA World Cup thread that fits better over here . . .

 

 

Ann Coulter seems to think that it's because America is falling apart morally.

 

The Voice of the Right wing nutters goes even further than that, tying soccer in the U.S. to insidious Liberalism, unassimilated immigrants, foreign brainwashing, collectivist destruction of individualism, the vast Leftist media conspiracy, Hillary Clinton, Frenchmen, light-rail, and even anti-Darwinism!  She forgot to include The Gays and The Terrorists.  Funny, yet frightening, because given the wacky and inane things Coulter often says politically, I actually don't think she is kidding here.

 

 

I don't think she is kidding either.  I believe that she believes it.  Even scarier, I understand what she is saying although she lacks the guts to say it outright.

 

Speaking as a American born in the middle of the 20th century, I can say that, generally speaking, we have spent most of our lives woefully ignorant of what goes on outside of our borders.   This point was really hammered home to me when I spent several evenings in the living rooms of average Brits discussing world events.   I was downright clueless and ignorant compared to what they knew and kept track of.

 

Okay, my fellow Americans, raise your hands if you know when the Federal Reserve is planning to announce the next forecast in the change in the interest rate.   My British friends knew.   and were anticipating it with concern.  They regard it as very important and relevant to their lives.   and I'm not talking about bankers or politicians.  I'm talking about a bookkeeper, a police detective, and a computer programmer.

 

They could discuss current and historical world events to a degree that I couldn't begin to match.   and I'm not some yahoo.  I have a university education.   In my economics classes, one professor was considered a bit radical because he insisted on included international factors in the equation.   The general thinking was that it didn't matter.  Seems really stupid today.

 

The US has seemed a little fragile lately and if one is concerned about international factors, then I think the life span of the US dollar as the global reserve currency is the most important one. While currency deals -- which don't use the US dollar as an intermediary -- have gradually increased from a small base, that could vastly change if the US goes into another major financial crisis or WWIII happens.

 

Most of the US currency resides outside of the country but should a large amount of dollars come flooding back into the country, then inflation is going to come in hot, government bond yields will rise, the dollar will devalue and eventually the US government will go bankrupt. It will be like a Soviet style collapse and the US -- despite having a military armada and a huge war arsenal -- won't have the money to use most of it.

 

The biggest problem the US faces is the soaring cost of entitlement programs, pensions, food stamps and healthcare. Fifty million Americans are on food stamps and that number has barely gone down from recent highs last year. And a real opportunity for a reset was ignored during the 2008/09 financial crisis, instead it's been risk on, leverage up and kick the can down the road.

 

I really hope the US doesn't go down lashing out at other countries. It tried to incite war with Syria last year, the CIA has played its part in stirring up a civil war in Ukraine to piss off the Russians. Of course there's all the news about ISIS taking over Iraq, but ISIS originated in Syria and most of its money and supplies come from the CIA and NATO who have been arming the Syrian rebels, and now its spilt over into Iraq.

 

Now the US is indirectly helping Al Queda in Syria, its consorting with neo-Nazis in Ukraine and ratcheting up the Cold War rhetoric against Russia. One does not mess around with the Russians. Napoleon tried it. Hitler tried it. This is no longer the Soviet Russia. The Russian government has paid off most of the debt, they're expanding their manufacturing, they have the energy and mineral resources to sell to the EU and China, the corruption is slowly being weaned out, and the poverty is being tackled. Russia is finally recovering from the ravages of Communism and Marxism.

 

The way I see it I think Russia wants economic power, I don't think the Russian government wants a war because it cannot afford any prolonged conflict- the Afghanistan fiasco of the 80s taught them.

 

Oh yes, never try and wage war in Afghanistan and occupy the country. The British tried it and failed. The Soviets tried it, failed and went bankrupt because of it. God knows what the legacy of the US will be when it eventually leaves Afghanistan.

 

If the US backed off on its military interventions and empire building, the world would be a little safer and the US government will be more financially afloat.

[Meg 368]

Well, Meg, according to several statistics (happiness, debt, satisfaction with government, perception/opinion on the police, violent crime rates, publicity of police brutality, and others), the USA has been going downhill since 1960. The 1950's are considered the peak of American happiness and prosperity.

 

Well, that depends on who you ask.    There are large groups of people who believe their lives have been better since the 1960s happened.   During the 1950s and before, most people had societal roles that were defined by their gender, race, and ethnic background.   That may have been warm and cozy for some; for others, not so much.

 

 

On the other hand, the mostly unstoppable force of technological progress has been keeping us afloat in these dangerous times. Some aspects of American culture are obviously degrading and other aspects are arguable or subtle. Lastly, as we decline other nations are rising though we will take down the majority of the world if we fall. Therefore, it is in the best interest of other nations that we either downsize to the point we no longer are Too Big To Fail while others try to take our place OR for us to improve again.

 

 

Remember that old science experiment about permeable and non-permeable membranes?

 

Fill a container with fresh water.  Divide it with a non-permeable membrane.  Mix salt into the water on one side.   The salt water stays on that one side because the membrane is non-permeable.

 

Now, fill another container of fresh water.  Divide with a permeable membrane.  Mix salt into the water on one side.   The salt water will seep through to the other side until the concentration of salt is equal on both sides.

 

The national borders on this planet are becoming more and more permeable.  

 

Eventually (as in during your children's lifetimes) the American standard of living is going to look a lot more like the standard of living elsewhere.  That will be bad for us and marginally better for many other people.   As good as we have it, we don't have enough "salt" to bring the rest of the world up to (what we consider to be) a decent standard of living.   (There isn't that enough land on the planet, for starters.)

 

We can secure the physical borders all we want but that isn't going to help.  As long as people elsewhere are so desperate that they will work for very low pay, companies are going to move to where those people are.  

 

and some people continue to insist that global poverty is not their problem.   It is.  Even if you disregard the humanitarian issues (which some people are inclined to do), global poverty is reducing our standard of living. 

[LexusInfernus 908]

I always thought it was interesting the way Americans see so many things as a zero sum game. If you pay attention to it, you will see that this black and white attitude permeates everything in American culture. There is so little gray with you guys (no offense). 

 

Development is not a zero sum game. For other countries to get richer, you don't need to get poorer. The fact that many Americans are not feeling so well off at the moment has nothing to do with the performance of other countries. The American economy is growing, and it has been growing almost constantly. The problem is that non of that growth is noticeable for the average American. All that economic growth goes straight to the the top 1% of the US. The skewered wealth distribution in the US is the problem. Other than that, you guys are doing relatively okay.

 

Oh yeah, there is that talk that American culture is somehow failing. What part exactly is failing? And, its kinda similar to the whole 'our kids are horrible good for nothing monsters' argument. Its been around since forever. Go back to the 50's and you'll find plenty of pearl clutching people shrilling about how comic books or rock music are destroying the moral foundation of American culture. Yelling that culture is about to fail is just the knee jerk reaction of conservatives at a moment a culture is undergoing change. In this case modern communication networks and the liberal victory in the 'culture war'. 

[Meg 368]

I take your point about how life is not a zero sum game even though many Americans do see it that way.   The politicians in Washington, DC are especially guilty of this.

 

And you are indeed correct about the top 1% of the country seeing most of the benefits.  (Personally, I think it's closer to 5% but why quibble?)

 

It's that bottom 99% of the country who has the problem with jobs being shipped overseas because the poor people there will do the work for mere pennies.  There are entire towns here that died when the factories were shut down.

 

My point was:  if people elsewhere were not so desperate that they are willing to work for next to nothing, the jobs would have stayed here.   Yes, there could be two factories, one here and one there but that is only going to work if people there have enough purchasing power to buy whatever the factory is making.   Again, it goes back to poverty over there being an issue that needs to be addressed.

 

As for American culture failing, I don't think that it is.   I think there are many things that we are finally starting to get right.  But there are also things that need to change.   I've been asking for a while who died and declared us to be the world's police force.

 

For starters, we need to get rid of the belief that everyone on the planet would live in a democracy if we just managed to give them a chance.     Just because we like the system doesn't mean everyone else has to.  Democracy has to be something that the people really, really want in order to make it work.   If you look at American history, you can see that democracy worked the least for those who didn't sign up for it.

[BLANKBLANK 4,414]

For starters, we need to get rid of the belief that everyone on the planet would live in a democracy if we just managed to give them a chance.     Just because we like the system doesn't mean everyone else has to.  Democracy has to be something that the people really, really want in order to make it work.   If you look at American history, you can see that democracy worked the least for those who didn't sign up for it.

 

For most of American history the country was a constitutional republic, the Founding Fathers were rather iffy about democracy.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Executive Powers.

 

When the Hose of Representatives is recalcitrant, the President does have a way around it.  How drastic is this?

[hym 358]

Executive Powers.

 

When the Hose of Representatives is recalcitrant, the President does have a way around it.  How drastic is this?

 

Call me cynical, but I suspect that this has less to do with a legitimate desire to improve things and more to do with the fact that Texas has decided that, if the federal government isn't going to enforce border control, Texas will do it on Washington's behalf.  It puts Obama and Democrats in a rather uncomfortable position for that to be happening, especially if Rick Perry's decision winds up improving the situation.

[AcmeSigns 97]

President Obama's plan for immigration reform may well be amnesty for the millions of illegal aliens currently in the U.S.  If nothing else, it would probably give the Democrats a huge influx of new voters (as the new voter's way of saying, 'Thanks', of course). I'm sure that has nothing to do with his circumventing Congress.

 

What I find interesting is that when President Bush (the younger) was in office he was stymied in his quest for immigration reform by Congress as well. A Democratically-controlled Congress to be exact.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Immigration_Reform_Act_of_2007

 

Hmmm...they didn't want immigration reform with a Republican President but they do with a Democratic one. Can you spell hypocrisy?

[LexusInfernus 908]

I take your point about how life is not a zero sum game even though many Americans do see it that way.   The politicians in Washington, DC are especially guilty of this.

 

And you are indeed correct about the top 1% of the country seeing most of the benefits.  (Personally, I think it's closer to 5% but why quibble?)

 

It's that bottom 99% of the country who has the problem with jobs being shipped overseas because the poor people there will do the work for mere pennies.  There are entire towns here that died when the factories were shut down.

 

My point was:  if people elsewhere were not so desperate that they are willing to work for next to nothing, the jobs would have stayed here.   Yes, there could be two factories, one here and one there but that is only going to work if people there have enough purchasing power to buy whatever the factory is making.   Again, it goes back to poverty over there being an issue that needs to be addressed.

 

As for American culture failing, I don't think that it is.   I think there are many things that we are finally starting to get right.  But there are also things that need to change.   I've been asking for a while who died and declared us to be the world's police force.

 

For starters, we need to get rid of the belief that everyone on the planet would live in a democracy if we just managed to give them a chance.     Just because we like the system doesn't mean everyone else has to.  Democracy has to be something that the people really, really want in order to make it work.   If you look at American history, you can see that democracy worked the least for those who didn't sign up for it.

1% or 5%, in both cases it represent a tiny minority and in both cases the vast majority is left out in the cold. Indeed, why quible over what is essentially semantics

 

Ah well its not that those people are working for next to nothing. They are working for next to nothing compared to American standards. But the thing is, those sweatshops pay better than what those people would otherwise make. For them, they are not working for next to nothing, they are getting a pay raise. Don't forget, they are essentially at the point where Europe and the US were back at the beginning of the industrial revolution. Our factory workers also got paid a subsistence wage. But it was still better than what they made as farmers. If it didn't they would have never left the country side to become factory workers. 

 

And while it might seem that this hurts American workers, one has to realize that those kind of jobs were gone anyway. If not to Third World countries then to automatization. Just look at how cars were made in the past and how they are made today. And in any case, its just stupid to build a local economy around a single employer. If the employer stops employing people for whatever reason, be it outsourcing, automatization or just because they went bankrupt, it would devastate the local economy. Those towns are dead because they were build around an unsustainable economic model. Now of course, its not all their fault obviously. There would have been options to save such towns, but that would have required investments from either the government or indeed, the elite 1-5%. This is where the real failure lies. The lack of investments in society. The lack of investments in the public sector. And this is the fault of the elites and the government that conspires with these elites. With everything privatized and individualized, the public sector is weak and underfunded and that means that a lot of people get hit hard once they cease to be useful to whatever oligarch employs them or keeps their local economy afloat. 

 

And I agree, democracy can't be imposed, most certainly not by any military force. Democracy is founded on the idea of citizen participation in politics, its not something that can genuinely form under the barrel of a gun. You'd be better off supporting citizen movements. civil society groups, etc. Of course, that is soft power and soft power only has a small place in the predominantly realist black and white foreign policy approach favored by the American policy makers. 

 

 

For most of American history the country was a constitutional republic, the Founding Fathers were rather iffy about democracy.

 

Ugh I see this argument pop up from time to time. Democracy and being a constitutional republic are not mutually exclusive. Democracy refers exclusively to how the leaders of the country come into power and how decisions are made, namely by some system of voting. Being a constitutional republic refers to what form and what powers and what kind of division of those powers is put in place in the actual government. 

 

The founding fathers were iffy about the kind of democracy we have today, one where everyone of a certain age can vote with no restrictions being placed on their race, gender or wealth. The founding fathers were very clear that the country they envisioned was one run by a small elite of rich landowners, all of which were of course white males. But even if only a small group of people vote for who rules the place, its still a democracy. 

[Duke87 1,070]

Hmmm...they didn't want immigration reform with a Republican President but they do with a Democratic one. Can you spell hypocrisy?

 

Not quite as hypocritical as one might immediately think. Remember, the Republican viewpoint on immigration tends towards more deportation while the Democratic viewpoint tends towards more amnesty. Which happens depends on which party is in charge at the time it happens. So of course Democrats are more gung ho about immigration reform with Obama in the white house. If they went with it under Bush, the resulting reform would have looked less like what they want.

 

But yes, this does rather conveniently mean opposing someone from the other party but then siding with someone from your own party. No surprises there.

 

 

For most of American history the country was a constitutional republic, the Founding Fathers were rather iffy about democracy.

Ugh I see this argument pop up from time to time. Democracy and being a constitutional republic are not mutually exclusive. Democracy refers exclusively to how the leaders of the country come into power and how decisions are made, namely by some system of voting. Being a constitutional republic refers to what form and what powers and what kind of division of those powers is put in place in the actual government. 

 

The founding fathers were iffy about the kind of democracy we have today, one where everyone of a certain age can vote with no restrictions being placed on their race, gender or wealth. The founding fathers were very clear that the country they envisioned was one run by a small elite of rich landowners, all of which were of course white males. But even if only a small group of people vote for who rules the place, its still a democracy. 

 

To be honest I think 90% of "we're a republic, not a democracy" is purely a desire to describe the country with an adjective that sounds similar to the name of the Republican party while avoiding one that sounds similar to the name of the Democratic party.

 

I mean yes, we are a republic ("...and to the republic, for which it stands..."). But our style of government is technically known as "republican democracy". What it is not is "parliamentary democracy", which most other democracies on Earth today are. There is politically motivated desire to call the former a "republic" and the latter simply "democracy" because it makes it convenient to say "hey, those Democrats want to make us look like all those socialist countries in Europe". Of course, you could make silly semantic arguments all day. I'm sure most Democrats would rather not talk about how their party was once named the "Democratic-Republican" party, which in its day was the party of small government.

 

It is often a convenient rallying point to talk about "what the Founding Fathers intended", but this sort of argument generally romanticizes history and assumes that the people who wrote our constitution generally agreed with each other and had a unified vision for what the country should look like... and that simply isn't true. The constitution is riddled with compromises and provisions which were controversial. Our founding fathers had just as many political disagreements as politicians today do, they just acted classier about it back then. Well, mostly. There was that story about how one of them shot and killed another one in a duel.

 

The most coherent argument I have heard for what makes us from a "democracy" is that we do not rule by simply majority, we have checks in place to prevent minorities from not having a say in things. Hence filibusters in the senate, the need for supermajorities for important functions, the system of having representation both by population and per state, the electoral college, etc. Essentially, the US is not a place where if half of all people plus one want something, it happens. Minority opinions are afforded some protection.

...at least, that's how it works in theory. In modern reality, all this philosophy really does is serve to allow special interests more influence than they really should have.

 

As for, "run by a small elite of rich landowners, all of which were of course white males"... well, those were simpler times. The general intent was to allow direct participation in government only by educated individuals and prevent unintelligent people (the ignorant masses) from having a say. So yes, the system was rather set up as an oligarchy from the start. Problem is, in those days you could carve out "white male who owns land" and include most educated and informed individuals while excluding most uneducated and uninformed individuals. Today, smart and stupid people alike exist across all demographics, so you can't restrict voting to only smart people by such means.

 

Although I must admit I wouldn't particularly mind the idea of requiring people to pass an IQ test in order to be allowed to vote. Or reproduce. Or rant on air about the horrors of this or that. Alas, this would have to be enforced by some subjective means, so you run into the old qui custodiet ipsos custodes problem.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Meh, plenty of Republics and things other than a parliamentary democracy to be found in Europe as well. France is a Republic. Germany and Austria are both Federal systems. The Netherlands is a Constitutional Monarchy, though in practice its more like a parliamentary democracy. 

 

And the US isn't the only country that has checks and balances build in to limit what governments can do. Every country has those. Although probably non go as far that its possible to shut down the entire government because the two major parties can't fit through a single door.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

The Prisoner of the White House.

 

Very like the adventures of the Prisoner of the Vatican.  His Holiness sometimes dresses as a regular priest and goes for a walk in his parish (Rome).

[Ocram's Razr 964]

Well, the USA is a representative democracy, which is the only type of country that can be called a republic but there are quite a few tyrannies without any type of honest elections that call themselves republics.

--Ocram

[CapTon 592]

I believe that this is a bit off-topic from what the main discussion is here, but I thought it was worth mentioning.

 

I recently saw on television that 33% of registered voters believe that President Obama is the worst president since World War II. I also saw that 54% of registered voters believe that the Obama Administration is incompetent.

[hamsterTK 93]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/07/02/either-obama-is-the-worst-president-since-world-war-ii-or-americans-just-have-really-short-memories/

 

Turns out people always say that. Used to be Bush, then before people said Clinton(and now in hindsight people love him), etc.Nobody even knows who Carter or Nixon were anymore, or that Eisenhower could fit on the good list.

[AcmeSigns 97]

Nobody even knows who Carter or Nixon were anymore, or that Eisenhower could fit on the good list.

Not true. I do.

Carter is the one that caused both myself & my wife (we hadn't yet met ay the time) to switch from Democratic to Republican. I doubt that we were the only two.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Well, the USA is a representative democracy, which is the only type of country that can be called a republic but there are quite a few tyrannies without any type of honest elections that call themselves republics.

--Ocram

France is a Republic and I very much doubt you want to call France a tyranny of any sort. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

 

Well, the USA is a representative democracy, which is the only type of country that can be called a republic but there are quite a few tyrannies without any type of honest elections that call themselves republics.

--Ocram

France is a Republic and I very much doubt you want to call France a tyranny of any sort. 

 

France is as confused as any republic.  After the French revolution, you could never tell if anyone was in charge.  I see the police are investigating Sarkozy.

 

Various forms of pseud-democracies exist.  Yours, ours, the Americans, the Brits, etc.  The ones who say they are Democracies like North Korea, really are the worst dictatorships.  So what's in a name?

 

The biggest element in good governments is freedom.  There are a lot of freedoms, and you can see ours in our constitution.  It is called the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  The freedom to shoot your neighbour is not one of them.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

As for American culture failing, I don't think that it is.   I think there are many things that we are finally starting to get right.  But there are also things that need to change.   I've been asking for a while who died and declared us to be the world's police force.

Well, I see popular culture becoming more and more trashy, violence going up, and people being punished for saying stuff in private while being secretly recorded illegally. Also, the USSR died and that made the USA the world's de facto police force.

Sorry for not responding earlier,

--Ocram

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

If you mean the U.S. is the world police by default, I think that is just inflated egos in the CIA and other clandestine agencies.  The world police is Interpol.

 

We don't need Johnny Yank riding in on his horse and waggon blowing things up and shooting innocent people.  Nor do we need automated assassination squads flying around using stealthy model aircraft.  Proscription went out with the Roman Empire. 

 

What we need is fewer cowboys and more due process.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Well, I see popular culture becoming more and more trashy, violence going up, and people being punished for saying stuff in private while being secretly recorded illegally. Also, the USSR died and that made the USA the world's de facto police force.

But violence and crime is actually going down. Only the media reports about violence have gone up. And popular culture getting trashy is something that has been going around forever. Parents in the 50's also thought culture was getting trashy with all that rock'n'roll. 

 

As for being the worlds police force, one, thats what you made yourself out to be and two, you guys have done a horrible job as the police force. If the US is a police man, its a horrible corrupt one. 

[hym 358]

The world police is Interpol.

 

That is if you believe that international bodies have any real authority as a form of world governance.  Many people believe that the true world government is whatever the hegemon country says it is (and has the power to enforce).  This, by default, also makes the hegemon the world's police.  The Cold War was not some special battle between the US and USSR; it was simply the result of two world powers vying for position of the hegemon.  The theory suggests that the US and China will ultimately get involved in a cold war at some point in the future, and there has already been some evidence that this is beginning to happen.  However, as the US is currently the only country in human history with the theoretical ability to go to war with the whole earth, plus 13 other earths, and still wipe out everyone, the US gets the hegemon's position by default, and will sustain that until it falls apart or a new country is able to overpower the US.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

^ Force majeur is one thing.  Civilization is another.  I expect the China/U.S. conflict, which has already started, will be an economic one.

[hym 358]

It may well be a repeat of the first cold war. China is behaving roughly the same way the USSR did. Furthermore, the military posturing between China and the US has already begun.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

And where will the Iron Curtain fall this time, do you think?  China hasn't really expressed any territorial interest except for a couple of islands they are disputing with Japan.  They ought to take a look at what happened to the Soviet Union if they think they can out class the U.S. in any way.  The U.S. has been at this outproduce everyone game since the 1940s.

[LexusInfernus 908]

It will not be like the first cold war because this one won't be the result of a bipolar world order (US vs USSR) but a multipolar world order (BRICs, EU, US). 

 

And capacity to destroy does not make one the hegemony. Just a risk. A true hegemonic force can set the agenda and sway other people or countries to do its bidding or accept its position. Sure, military force is a factor in that, but if big guns and large armies are all you got, it doesn't necessarily translate into capacity to sway people to accept your point of view. And the US is clearly demonstrating that it lost its capacity to some degree. Other countries are getting more critical on what the US does and its lead is no longer followed unquestionably by most of the world. The US is no longer the hegemony it was in the 90's.  

 

And rightly so, because the US has demonstrated an inability to handle such powers responsibly. A multipolar world order will be better for everyone.