They say American democracy is a shining beacon to the world. But this year perhaps more than ever, friends and family members aren’t talking to each other because of their choice of a presidential candidate. Surely there must be some way to disagree and discuss and argue without hating one another.
«They say American democracy is a shining beacon to the world.» «American democracy»- reminds me of the Holy Roman Empire – neither holy nor Roman, nor an empire….
In reading Ted’s excellent books on Afghanistan (and other sources) it’s evident that many people still do believe our hype. So, in that way we really are a shining beacon – even though the image is false, people still aspire to it.
Still and all, I’d rather live the dream.
«So, in that way we really are a shining beacon – even though the image is false, people still aspire to it.» Depending on how one chooses to count, the Holy Roman Empire lasted for around a thousand years. The US of A has been around since 1787 ; one wonders if the world can endure another 760 years with that «shining beacon»….
Of course they still believe it. There are still a lot of people here who still believe it after a lifetime of living with a government that does not care at all what they say, think, want or need.
The USA invented the modern propaganda state, and we do it better than anyone. Our masters spin an illusion so compelling, most people have to get burned several times before they start to pay attention to reality.
It is at the core of US imperial strength: if our armies can’t defeat you, we’ll just send Stephen Spielberg. He’ll have you eating out of our hand in no time.
The American political scene has always been confrontational, just ask the next Civil War survivor you meet. But I trace the current situation back to the Clinton admin, with Rich Limpbone and Salamander Gingrich attacking the party and persons more than the policies and actions. Later, Anne Coltface,Bill o’Liely, and Glenn Beckerhead added to the flames.
‘course the ultimate blame lies with the two-party system itself. It polarizes the playing field more than if we had multiple parties. If it’s two and only two, it’s easy to cast the opponents as ‘opposites’ but if you have multiple choices, you are forced to think of them as shades of grey rather than black-v-white. “I agree with this party on X, but not on Y, whereas this other party has Y right, but this other party is wrong on both…”
Trivia: Which president was the first to warn us about the evils of the two-party system?
Absolutely, the U.S.A. is in need of a system that offers more than “the lesser of two evils”! Hell, the system wouldn’t even allow either the Green Party or the Libertarian Party to participate in the formal debates. That is deplorable! 🙁
All this makes me wonder something I’ve been worrying in my mind for quite some little time now:
Let’s assume Trump wins. Put aside all the snark, all the melodrama, all the hyperbole. You all DO realize that it will basically give the media, and the pollsters, and the pundits such a black eye that it will be impossible to take them seriously from then on.
65 million years ago, an asteroid struck the Earth and wiped out the dinosaurs. If Trump wins, it’ll be an extinction event for quite a few people who pretty much bet the farm on him losing. A whole lot of people will simply not be able to show their faces the next morning because, wow, did they not read the tea leaves right.
And as a student of politics, I have to admit, just from that student perspective, I would find HRC’s concession speech utterly fascinating. It would be like reading Churchill’s letter of recommendation to get Hitler into art school.
«It would be like reading Churchill’s letter of recommendation to get Hitler into art school.» Interesting to note that both Winston Spencer Churchill and Adolf Hitler entertained artistic ambitions as painters….
Blind hate is the most essential ingredient in a “Divide-and-Conquer” culture.