My American friends are really nice people. I find them warm, generous and of good heart. This is not reflected in American politics, especially foreign policy where if Americans are not out there killing people, they are threatening to. I find this dichotomy a little schitzophrenic to say the least, and hard to explain to my English countrymen. If the American government truly reflected the will of the people, what do you think the US political landscape would look like?
this is because you have an image that all americans are alike or the same and the only difference is between the government and people. quaint but unrealistic. their are many with even polar opposite values and agendas in the population. not only that, but what they think represents what the "real" america is or should be or who "real" americans are. this is what you don't see.actually the dichotomy can be the opposite. for instance, the government has many policies and laws that in concept are humanitarian and just etc but the people don't reflect it. for instance, there will be those who don't respect the free speech of others, religions of others, may be racist, may be sexist, wouldn't agree or would even care to aid for other countries, some have communist leanings in some form but believe otherwise etc. all of these things are supposedly not american but many americans are like this. there are people who believe that the real america has been sabotaged long ago. these are not the people you may think are warm and good hearted either. no, the will of the people is not all good or innocent. i see almost no correlation between the population and it's government. sometimes that's a good thing and sometimes it's bad, depending on whether the people are better or more intelligent than those who are in control or vice versa. in the case of america, their government is much loftier than it's majority people on the one hand but not on another. the american government propping up dictatorships are in keeping with most of america's sentiments, power structure ec but probably not conscious image of themselves as freedom fighters etc. if the american government had acted on the majority will of the people, it's actions would have been way nastier in just about all departments and even more exploitive to other countries. they did act on their behalf but it just would have been worse because the average person does not have much of a conscience and only cares about what they can get. american people are not really good people either as a majority and never was, maybe a certain proportion but that's all.
Hi Birch, thanx for replying. However, the thoughts tar, brush and people come to mind. I value your interpretation of the situation, and hope others will post contrary or supporting comments.
It's not really Us vs. our government, even though it's too often cast that way. Even a flawed or forfeited democracy is still reflective of the mettle and mentality of the governed. Considering what we're made of we should have a close look at our collective identity and general character, with special attention to the growing instabilities of our national mood. This does of course require making educated generalizations. We're an unhappy lot today, facing hard times and raised on all the staples of exceptionalism- Nationalist overconfidence, ignorance, bad credit, blaming of others, self-obsession, etc. (many of the attributes of a sheltered and spoiled child, but in a self-reinforcing collective mentality). Although US exceptionalism has left us poor students of history, we are conditioned by the myths of a frontier past to put our desires before those of others, which is highly problematic in our approach to the globally-ntegrating economy. We do still hold a collective conscience, and occasionally good wills do align, and have and can conduct ourselves as a credit and benefit to humanity. but unfortunately, our national moods (as a national brat) are becoming volatile and easy to swing, and this attribute has become conspicuous in the world. Ominously, there are power-players who study how to swing the emotions of this impressionable US populace, knowing that at fateful moments our moods can overcome any hesitations due to national character and wisdom. Manipulators of national emotion inside our government and from the farthest reaches of place and ideology are the true enemies of the people (and of government by the same). Unless the citizenry as a whole can somehow become motivated as never before to examine ourselves as closely as our manipulators are doing, our Finest Hour may be forfeited in a mindless stampede- if not over a cliff then into hard lands where the herd will be cut until the predators cannot be fought off. This is why there is a lot of tension in collective consciousness over the control of information today. Some of the wolves are within our government, but not all of them- it's not a simple fight between a people and their government. It's a contest of collective will over predatory special interests that all humanity must face in the centuries ahead. Even if the people of the USA don't prevail, I hope that we can provide humanity with a compelling lesson about who we are and choose to be (as a species) before history's final exam. For all that the rest of the world may criticize our faults in the USA, we're only human. When our trials are over, you're next.
Interesting and valuable analysis Hype. Fortunately, we in the UK have a well defined sense of the national self, so I don't think we're in for the same kinds of problems as you guys. No way are we perfect by any means, but our history has left a legacy that we can all identify with. I think your traumatic adolescence as a nation is partly to do with being a relatively young country. If the will of the Americans I know were exhibited through the government, I believe we would see an entirely different value set. Your foreign policy is what is causing you the most harm in the world, I think, and has been doing so for years. When you address this and get it sorted out properly, I think you will have a much better future as a nation to look forward to.
People you may be friends with are not a representative sample of American society. A great many of us are stupid, hateful, pig-headed, religious sociopaths who belong in an institution.
Seems to me that these guys are the ones you keep electing! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
That's because they reflect the mentality of the electorate. Also, not everyone votes, so it's not the majority of citizens that elect these people, just a majority of the voters. Also, our population is far more conservative in the middle and the south. Senate rules also allow filibusters which overrule the will of the majority.
Would compulsory voting help re-balance the situation do you think, or are the problems you describe more endemic than that?
No one is going to go for that. I think vote-by-mail is helpful like we have in Oregon. Also, getting the corporate money out of politics is essential. I'm in favor of publicly funded elections.
That would be a hard one to sell to the electorate at the moment when money is so tight. I do agree that corporate power and disproportionate lobbying power should be curtailed somehow.
Corporations spend on politics anyway. Just make that illegal, add a election tax, and use that money.
That's a better scenario, for sure, but wouldn't it just invite massive corruption? At least at the moment you can mostly see who's paying for what..though corruption is still a problem to an extent. It could get as bad as Russia though.
I must say, the amount of money that gets spent in US elections is truly obscene. I am in favour of transparency in all levels of government as I believe it is more democratic. I am curious as to why so many favour the protectionist line when the US as a whole is becoming an ever increasing global player. You would probably get better terms from your trading partners if you were less protectionist.
A lot of the world still sees the US this way. Perhaps it's the aggressive way that the US does business. 'Secure the cash' is often seen to be the mantra over ethical or social considerations. I'm not criticising though, I am just trying to have an objective discussion about what I observed to be a strange dichotomy. US businesses are some of the most powerful anywhere, but not necessarily socially or ethically responsible. Even Clinton got himself impeached!
Corporations are only obligated to supply their shareholders with profit. They only care about ethics to the extent the law demands. Clinton was not a bad president, his sex life was never my concern.
