What Happened?

Opposition and debate and criticism is good. I am sure I don't have to elaborate as to why.

But ISTM that in the USA there is a lot of noise coming from those who really believe that there is some secret (Deep State) conspiracy to overthrow not just a government but the entire cultural and political reality of the country.

I haven't been in the country since 1971 when our belief then was that the US was overreaching its acknowledged remit as "leader of the Free World" but that both liberals and conservatives knew that the challenge to US ideals came from OUTSIDE the country, not from INSIDE it.

Without the usual descent into left right squabbles and counter accusations, can someone(s) explain how this at times quite vicious internal civil schism happened? and perhaps consider that the reasons involved some international issues too?

Finally, has anyone realised that such deep division is exactly what will being the USA to its knees and fulfill the rosiest hopes of the REAL enemies of the USA as you weaken your ability and confidence to govern? The USA has already lost a great deal of its credibility outside itself. Putin must be delighted.

 

People who want responsibility for their own personal well being to be placed on the collective vs people who don't want to be responsible for other's irresponsibility.

Its nothing new. Just part of the cycle of civilization.

 

Thanks for replying.
I have to ask, is this enough of a reason to tear a great country like the USA apart?
As you say, it is nothing new and occurs in almost every democracy on earth. IMO it is a question of degree, not treason. Other countries manage to balance and deal with it without screaming screaming and accusing each other of plotting to destroy the country.
Why is is so acerbic and destructive in the USA?

 

Because compromise is a two way street, yet those demanding more collectivization offer no compromize. Its more or nothing.

There's many who've had enough of the 'we demand 10, but we'll accept 5, until next election when we dmeand 10 but accept 5' tactic of gradual progression. Thats not compromise, its conquering slowly. Eventually opposition has to say 'no more' or there isn't really any opposition.

You want more income tax? I'm open to compromise. Lets reduce property tax.

Thats a compsromise. "we want to raise taxes 10% but we'll accept 5%" isn't a compromise.

 

Can you give some examples of a government demanding more collectivisation?
Or conversely, making private progress more difficult?

 

Faux News

I have watched Murdoch sow the seeds of division for years and all in the name of making a few extra bucks by boosting advertising - oh! And all the kickbacks he has gotten over the years from the GOP

 

I think it comes from the election of Obama and Trump. Each had extremely loyal supporters and extremely unhappy detractors. We've always had Dems and Reps in this country and always had those for and against the issues of gun ownership and abortion - which are polarizing enough. But when each of these men were elected, the division between the two widened significantly.

 

Taxes are an example of collectivization. Increasing taxes increases collectivization and reduces private (individual) progress ...to an extent of course. Govt is a necessary evil that must exist in some limited capacity for society and civilization to exist. But maximum govt is just as terrible as no govt (and I could argue that they're the same if thats the direction you want to take this thread)... Govt is also a form of collectivization, and we are rapidly approaching maximum govt. I will resist going any further. Those that wish to increase one facet of govt/collectivization must be prepared to sacrifice another in trade, or they're essentially just demanding the slow death of the individual and the innevitable compliance to the hive. Such is not reasonable no matter the timespan. We can start talking true give-and-take compromise ...or we can keep marching toward a civil war. I don't see a third option.

I think a good example of a true give-and-take compromise would be something like- if you want to increase the income tax, then lets reduce the property tax. Thats a compromise.

 

Yes we thought that the election of a black man would reduce racism - it didn’t it exploded it and not in a good way.

 

Every single time I read diatribes like this I am reminded of that saying. The government should be a servant not a master

 

"Should", yes. But that doesn't mean much. There's all sorts of "shoulds" that arent.

 

I'll take Modernpaladin's example of taxation as a good example.
However I don't assumes that one foot to the left equals an entire headlong flight over the cliff. and this is what seems IMO to be happening. or to put it another way, one sniff of a campfire and the whole forest is on fire.

I think you see some value on a collective society and at the end of logic, it does curtail enterprise. and of course each one of us has our own "limits" we can justify.
But this tension which is in all western countries seems to be ultra volatile in America, even to the extent that the basic fabric of the country is under severe strain and potentially creating weaknesses to be exploited by those who REALLY want you to fail. ie just this week there has been a suspected Chinese spy working in the heart of UK government. They are there just waiting and if they can, they will try to erode your very freedoms.
It is natural to have different opinions about the relationship between individual and state, but this visceral hatred is a form of collective suicide.

 

Perhaps the central issues in these examples is the relationship I mentioned between the state and the individual, and the "fuzziness" which exists.
Historically the US has valued "rugged individuality" and has never (except for the Civil war) had to make war within its own borders.
Europe however, had continual war between nations for centuries and finally realised that no one was profiting in any way , so found collectivity (and collectively agreed trade) solved the problem.
But that is a bit tangential. Why are these issues of where to draw the line" in the meaning and extent of American governance, so toxic?

 

Except that the increase in taxes is so that the government can collect more money - a trade off makes that impossible. What I would suggest is that, in exchange for higher taxes (of any kind), the people see those dollars at work in their own lives. We can agree or disagree on what that money is used for, but I would be much happier to pay higher taxes if I knew it would improve my life.

 

Fortunately for the French America was there for them or they would be speaking German or Japanese.

Anyone ever heard the one about the lot of French military rifles for sale? Never been fired and only dropped in the dirt once.

 

~ And likely they would not be eating bread and cheese ...

 

Can we stay on topic instead of being led into the undergrowth by some superficial tropes?
Americans in here make pretty clear and unremitting accusations about two seemingly simplistic sides of a common and global issue. They accuse each other of attempting to bring the entire country to a frightening demise. And of anything else that happens to have happened, either large or small;
This basic question of how much the state organises and controls its population happens in every country in the world. In some places it is allowed to be determined by the people and in others it is not but in the former, the politics are ALWAYS tied to this central issue. It affects everything th state does and every decision it makes.
Most democracies just weigh up the issus and vote according to opinion.
Americans assume "the other side" is the harbinger of doom.
Why?

 

when they talk about a collective society they can't possibly be talking about masses of trump worshipping sheep bleating "lets go brandon" ....

 

A very good question that is very difficult to answer with any accuracy. IMO it got its genesis with Obama declaring openly as a candidate that his goal was to "fundamentally transform" the government and country, and the media got sucked in and jumped hell-bent for leather into a propaganda arm of Obama and the Democrat party, abandoning journalism in the process. It got a big boost when Trump wrested away the Democrats divine right of power in 2016, abetted somewhat by some top Republicans, fearful of Trump's credible threat to drain the swamp (and destroy the fraternity) who unwittingly enhanced the break.
The whole idea of the political schism is precisely to bring the current constitutional republic to its knees and hope the other countries don't take too much advantage.

If I didn't earlier, welcome to PF.

 

~ All the answers are here my child...




" That's my book ..! "​

 

So help me here.
I have seen many negative references to Obama and Hillary Clinton as the backstop which they blame for the excessives of Trump (and his ability to confuse fake with real), but what IN PARTICULAR did these two do to cause such a schism in America?
What policies did they support or introduce which so enraged the right of the political spectrum and cause the election of such an extremist figure as Trump?

 

They're smarmy arrogance and tendency to talk down to people who have belief different than them probably played a large role there.

I'm guessing that was a pretty good part of it.

People tend to not admire that in a leader.

 

I am asking what beliefs were different.
What actual policies upset so many people? (Not forgetting Obama was elected twice).

BTW I can' think of a single POTUS in my memory being so arrogant, looking down his nose at others, snubbing the Queen of England, shoving other national leaders aside, and his behaviour while buying up land in Scotland for one of his golf courses was astonishing. His constant bragging about his wealth was legendary. To try to say that Trump behaved like the "common man" and spoke to them on an equal basis is seriously adrift of reality.

 

Obama's world apology tour was shameful, As was his bowing down to other heads of states.

His plane loads of cash to Iran.... how much time you got?....

 

What world apology tour? I don't remember any such apologies from him in Europe .
Nor his "bowing down" to anyone. I do remember his relaxed, easy way with people which put nothing between him and others. We felt he could knock on any door and make himself at home on THEIR terms.
What did he "bow down to heads of state" about?