# Are Americans so angry about politics because the U.S. is declining as a world power? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 19, 2010, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-americans-so-angry-about-politics-because-the-u-s-is-declining-as-a-world-power/547243 "2010-07-19T17:13:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2010, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-americans-so-angry-about-politics-because-the-u-s-is-declining-as-a-world-power/547243/1 "2010-07-19T17:13:11Z")
Yesterday I heard Sasha Abramsky [interviewed](http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128606442) on All Things Considered regarding an [article,](http://chronicle.com/article/Look-Ahead-in-Anger/66152/) “Look Ahead in Anger,” he just published in the _Chronicle of Higher Education._ Abramsky’s thesis is that the level of anger we’ve seen in American political discourse the past few years, on all sides but on the right more than the left, is partly due to general frustration at the economy, etc.; and on the RW side, partly due to a factional split between the moderate and radical wings of the conservative movement; but, overall, mainly a reaction to America’s declining position in the world which has parallels in many other countries’ histories. > [@](#): > > As America’s undisputed global dominance ebbs—trimmed by China’s surging economic might, by the European Union’s growing presence as a global player (even given the travails triggered by the recent European debt crisis and the fears of a Greek default dragging the euro zone into a deeper recession), by the United States’ own economic and military overstretch—the rage culture has matured to the point where it is coming to be a dark, and perhaps even a dominant, part of America’s identity. > > A stab-in-the-back narrative is being crafted within the world of conservatism: Things were going along just fine for a globally dominant United States (forgetting, conveniently, the depth of anti-American sentiment that developed around the world during President Bush’s tenure, culminating in the financial collapse of 2007-8) until a radical President Obama decided to expand government, shrink the private sector, and traverse the world apologizing for America’s purported past misdeeds. Like the decadent Europeans, guilt-ridden after their centuries of colonial dominance, so Obamians came into power intent on downplaying America’s glory and its exceptionalism, and on talking up its sins. > > \ > > The stab-in-the-back narrative is a trajectory familiar to students of empire the world over. As the ground shifts under the feet of a dominant power, as the structures supporting dominance start to crack, so the public gets angrier. It looks at past glories and doesn’t understand why the present situation is so much less resplendent. It blames the country’s leadership, or minority groups, or national enemies. It grieves for lost influence, or fears the imminent loss of influence, and it shudders at an increasingly shabby present. > > \ > > Anger, per se, is nothing new in American politics. As the historian Richard J. Hofstadter detailed in his classic essay “The Paranoid Style in American Politics,” rage politics is as American as apple pie, or as the sunny, simplistic, homogeneous visions of community epitomized by the paintings of Norman Rockwell. But the presence of that anger was always partially mitigated by the apple pie and the Rockwell, by the pervasive optimism that has long been a core part of America’s image. More often, despite episodic spasms of rage, the broader culture has worn a smile rather than a frown. With America ascendant, it was easy for the rage to be largely contained within relatively small subcultures—John Birchers, KKK’ers, the Weather Underground, anti-United Nations fanatics, some of the more extreme black-nationalist groups, and so on. That didn’t mean the rage wasn’t capable of inflicting tremendous hurt on society—witness the assassinations of the Kennedy brothers and Martin Luther King Jr.—but our Rockwell side did serve to limit the extent to which the culture as a whole could come to be defined as rage-based. > > What has happened recently seems to represent something new: The offsets that used to restrict rage’s reach have started to break down; the walls sealing the anger off to a specific community or locale, or around a specific issue, have started to crumble. As a result, rage is becoming an ideology unto itself. > > \ > > It brings to mind a quote from William Hazlitt’s 1826 essay “On the Pleasure of Hating”: “The pleasure of hating, like a poisonous mineral, eats into the heart of religion, and turns it to rankling spleen and bigotry; it makes patriotism an excuse for carrying fire, pestilence, and famine into other lands: it leaves to virtue nothing but the spirit of censoriousness, and a narrow, jealous, inquisitorial watchfulness over the actions and motives of others.” Cultures that self-identify as victims and come to see their defining historical references as a series of grievances have a tendency to mutate in ways that range from unpleasant to catastrophic. Examples include the American South in the post-Civil War decades, Germany in the post-World War I years, the Soviet Union, post-Yugoslav Serbia, and Rwanda. One could argue, as well, that much of the potency of Islamicism today arises from similar forces, as does some of the extremism of the settler community in Israel and the occupied territories. As cultures, hate movements perform somewhat similarly to feuding families or clans, their raison d’être increasingly defined by violence and fury. > > I do believe that American democratic institutions are particularly durable and resilient. But it is at least possible to envision a scenario in which, after years of high unemployment and declining living standards, the Tea Party essentially takes over the GOP. And it is possible to see how, over a series of election cycles, that movement could plant a brand of extremism in the center of American politics that would fundamentally change America’s identity. It would very likely be characterized by a series of negatives: being anti-intellectual, anti-foreign, blustering in its assertion of an increasingly fragile American superiority, unwilling to engage with the rest of the world on environmental policy, nuclear disarmament, or human rights. A tapestry of rage defined by what its practitioners oppose rather than support. Is this analysis substantially correct? It seems depressingly persuasive to me – and indicates American politics in general will not be getting any more reasonable or rational any time soon. ☹ ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2010, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-americans-so-angry-about-politics-because-the-u-s-is-declining-as-a-world-power/547243/2 "2010-07-19T17:41:48Z")
I daresay if Abramsky’s thesis had been “Americans are pretty calm about politics”, it would not have been published. I’d hazard a guess that American politics is generally about as reasonable and rational as it’s ever been. ---
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2010, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-americans-so-angry-about-politics-because-the-u-s-is-declining-as-a-world-power/547243/3 "2010-07-19T17:51:47Z")
I don’t think Americans really care that much about our position on the world stage. For a long time, we were a very isolationist country. It was only WWII and the Cold War that forced us out of that. Without some threat to keep our attention, we’d prefer to mind our own business. I think we’re headed back to that. The Tea Party movement seems isolationist and the Democratic party has leaned that way for years. The Neocons managed to tire everyone of interventionist policies. American politics for the next decade is going to be all about how we run American, not what we do with/to others. Personally, I think it’s stupidly short-sighted to ignore the rest of the world. Americans should be leading the world, both militarily and economically. (Our cultural domination is as complete as ever. 😉 ) The world needs to a superpower to provide some stability against rogue states. We can share that role with someone else, but we can’t shrug it off. And we need to lead the world by example with open trade–strong trade networks make everyone better off. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2010, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-americans-so-angry-about-politics-because-the-u-s-is-declining-as-a-world-power/547243/4 "2010-07-19T17:54:00Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] Is this analysis substantially correct? It seems depressingly persuasive to me – and indicates American politics in general will not be getting any more reasonable or rational any time soon. [/QUOTE] You will be unsurprised to learn that it smells like completely horseshit to me. When were American politics more calm or reasonable? Has America been declining for it’s entire history? Political turmoil and rantage have been MUCH higher in the past. Look at the 60’s for gods sake! Were we a declining power then too? And why would American’s CARE what our position is on the world stage? We are pretty much internally focused. It’s silly to think that our politics today are angry or loud because of some perception that we are declining (and I don’t even know how valid the PERCEPTION is, from American’s perspectives). We’re angry and loud because we’ve ALWAYS been angry and loud. Not that I’m buying that the US is on the downhill slope either. That other countries are on the rise doesn’t equate to the US is going down…that’s the thinking of the zero sum crowd, that if one country rises another must fall to make room. Horseshit. China can rise (if it gets past it’s own myriad problems and issues) and America can still be a world power. Europe can rise (again, if they get past their own issues) and America can still be an economic and military power. To me, this is similar to stuff I remember hearing before Japan took the long drop, about how they were going to take over and the US was on the decline, blah blah blah. The faces have changed, but the US is still THE economic and military power on earth. Even if we are eventually superseded, that will only mean we are number 2 (or maybe just number 1.5), not that we are done for. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Excellent](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f19dbf/32.png) [@Mr.Excellent](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Excellent)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2010, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-americans-so-angry-about-politics-because-the-u-s-is-declining-as-a-world-power/547243/5 "2010-07-19T17:56:21Z")
I don’t believe this is correct, for the most part. For one thing, I dispute the overarching thesis that the United States is in significant decline. It is true that emerging powers - especially China - have powerful economies and (regionally) powerful militaries, and can rival us in some regards. But this is nothing new - recall that we spent the Cold War locked in a struggle with a rival _super_power that came far closer to economic and military parity with the US than China is likely to achieve in the foreseeable future. Even in the midst of a serious recession, the American standard of living remains fairly high, and will likely continue to be fairly high. China is unlikely to match us in this regard in the foreseeable future - at least, outside the coastal cities. And as for military strength - there’s no one even remotely close. The US, by virtue of its naval strength and worldwide system of military bases, can project power on a truly global scale - no one else can do that on any kind of sustained basis. That being said, one thing we are beginning to learn is that military power doesn’t confer as great a benefit in assympetric warfare as we might wish. We’re constrained (and properly so) by powerful scruples that are not shared by our enemies. We can’t (and shouldn’t) engage in the extraordinarily bloody tactics that might crush the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan quickly. For example, the Russians got a lot of mileage out of dropping fuel-air explosives on Grozny - we won’t do that. And because we won’t, we need to accomplish our goals through the hard work of nation-building. But that doesn’t mean we’re in decline - it means, if anything, that the efficacy of warfare as a policy instrument is in decline, to the extent that it is constrained by our scruples. Of course, the narrative of America-in-decline may have some real force in our domestic politics whether or not it is true. But I think that gives too credit to our far-right-wingers. The areas that really get them going - bizarre conspiracy theories, homophobia, hatred of immigrants and pro-choice-women and Muslims and Ford knows who else - are too far disconnected from the reality of American life to owe much to that. The problem is likelier just that, with modern communication tools, it’s easier for nuts to find other nuts. Blogs, evites, meetup, and so on - where once our wretched bigots were safely contained within the ghettoes of their own blighted minds, they now can reach out to their fellows. And they do. It’s not that we’ve got more angry nutjobs - it’s just that, instead of ranting from barstools, they rant online. And once they start doing that, it’s easier to plan mass rants at the National Mall or in a parade or what have you. ---
**Author:** ![athelas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/5e9695/32.png) [@athelas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/athelas)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2010, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-americans-so-angry-about-politics-because-the-u-s-is-declining-as-a-world-power/547243/6 "2010-07-19T18:14:02Z")
The split is not so much left-right as insider-outsider, with those dependent on or supportive of government intervention set against those who resent it. This explains why well-connected corporations like Goldman Sachs can somehow be on the same cultural side as college professors, the SEIU, and the AMA. The fact that the disagreement is expressed in left-right terms is partly due to the Democrats being in power. Under a Republican administration, it’s unlikely that the tea party movement would be left-wing (too many left-wingers, rich and poor, depend on government to actively oppose it), but it might be a bit more like the Ross Perot movement; largely bipartisan but still dismissed by Those In The Know as crazies. This [article](http://spectator.org/archives/2010/07/16/americas-ruling-class-and-the/print) is a must-read for why some folks are “angry” about politics (the adjective, by the way, always seems like a way to delegitimize the opposition rather than engage its points. There are folks on both sides who need anger management lessons.) > [@](#): > > Never has there been so little diversity within America’s upper crust. Always, in America as elsewhere, some people have been wealthier and more powerful than others. But until our own time America’s upper crust was a mixture of people who had gained prominence in a variety of ways, who drew their money and status from different sources and were not predictably of one mind on any given matter. The Boston Brahmins, the New York financiers, the land barons of California, Texas, and Florida, the industrialists of Pittsburgh, the Southern aristocracy, and the hardscrabble politicians who made it big in Chicago or Memphis had little contact with one another. Few had much contact with government, and “bureaucrat” was a dirty word for all. So was “social engineering.” Nor had the schools and universities that formed yesterday’s upper crust imposed a single orthodoxy about the origins of man, about American history, and about how America should be governed. All that has changed… > > Today’s ruling class, from Boston to San Diego, was formed by an educational system that exposed them to the same ideas and gave them remarkably uniform guidance, as well as tastes and habits. These amount to a social canon of judgments about good and evil, complete with secular sacred history, sins (against minorities and the environment), and saints. Using the right words and avoiding the wrong ones when referring to such matters – speaking the “in” language – serves as a badge of identity. Regardless of what business or profession they are in, their road up included government channels and government money because, as government has grown, its boundary with the rest of American life has become indistinct. Many began their careers in government and leveraged their way into the private sector. Some, e.g., Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner, never held a non-government job. Hence whether formally in government, out of it, or halfway, America’s ruling class speaks the language and has the tastes, habits, and tools of bureaucrats. It rules uneasily over the majority of Americans not oriented to government… > > Sooner or later, well or badly, that majority’s demand for representation will be filled. Whereas in 1968 Governor George Wallace’s taunt “there ain’t a dime’s worth of difference” between the Republican and Democratic parties resonated with only 13.5 percent of the American people, in 1992 Ross Perot became a serious contender for the presidency (at one point he was favored by 39 percent of Americans vs. 31 percent for G.H.W. Bush and 25 percent for Clinton) simply by speaking ill of the ruling class. Today, few speak well of the ruling class. Not only has it burgeoned in size and pretense, but it also has undertaken wars it has not won, presided over a declining economy and mushrooming debt, made life more expensive, raised taxes, and talked down to the American people. Americans’ conviction that the ruling class is as hostile as it is incompetent has solidified. The polls tell us that only about a fifth of Americans trust the government to do the right thing. The rest expect that it will do more harm than good and are no longer afraid to say so… > > Describing America’s country class is problematic because it is so heterogeneous. It has no privileged podiums, and speaks with many voices, often inharmonious. It shares above all the desire to be rid of rulers it regards inept and haughty. It defines itself practically in terms of reflexive reaction against the rulers’ defining ideas and proclivities – e.g., ever higher taxes and expanding government, subsidizing political favorites, social engineering, approval of abortion, etc. Many want to restore a way of life largely superseded. Demographically, the country class is the other side of the ruling class’s coin: its most distinguishing characteristics are marriage, children, and religious practice. While the country class, like the ruling class, includes the professionally accomplished and the mediocre, geniuses and dolts, it is different because of its non-orientation to government and its members’ yearning to rule themselves rather than be ruled by others. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2010, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-americans-so-angry-about-politics-because-the-u-s-is-declining-as-a-world-power/547243/7 "2010-07-19T18:16:19Z")
What pisses me off is not that China is the emerging economic power, but that we made them that way. They did not invent a better mousetrap. They did not figure out how to manufacture things better. They were just willing to allow us to pollute like crazy and take advantage of their workers in pay and working conditions. For the love of short term profits and the bonuses that follow, the corporations were willing to transfer Americas jobs and intellectual properties to a Communist country . They felt no allegiance to America where they got wealthy. They just wanted to make more no matter what damage it did to us. China does not allow us to have free trade. They tax our products to keep their own cheaper. We are not allowed to do that. The agreements that our industrial giants pushed through wrote them that way. We are not able to become the arsenal of Democracy anymore. If we had a war we could not build what we need. Most of our plants are leveled or mothballed. We outsource nearly everything. It is sad how corporate , political and financial greed has left us exposed and vulnerable. China did not have super fast computers a couple decades ago. if you sold a computer there you could be in serious trouble. Now, in order for them to build our products our technology has been exported to them. In the end, we will fall behind. It won’t be the American workers fault though. ---
**Author:** ![Driver8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b5a626/32.png) [@Driver8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Driver8)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2010, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-americans-so-angry-about-politics-because-the-u-s-is-declining-as-a-world-power/547243/8 "2010-07-19T18:21:14Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Not that I’m buying that the US is on the downhill slope either. That other countries are on the rise doesn’t equate to the US is going down…that’s the thinking of the zero sum crowd, that if one country rises another must fall to make room. Horseshit. China can rise (if it gets past it’s own myriad problems and issues) and America can still be a world power. Europe can rise (again, if they get past their own issues) and America can still be an economic and military power. Power, unlike economics, strikes me as something that is closer to a zero sum game. I don’t see how you could define power outside of a relative comparison, and then the relative increase in power of other countries does imply a relative decrease of American power. An overwhelmingly powerful United States gets to call the shots in the world. An ascending China or India has enough clout to express a different opinion and have it stick - even if America is overall more powerful the diminishing difference is going to mean often it is in its best interest to go along with what many in the rest of the world wants - pick your battles and all that. I don’t necessarily see this as a bad thing - and I certainly agree that when it comes to economics this is not a zero sum game. Britain saw its power diminished drastically as the Empire collapsed, but remains a perfectly respectable first world place to live. I see future declines in American power in a similar light - if the rest of the world succeeds in growing their economies they will become relatively more powerful compared to the United States. Personally, I think America will benefit from this - I think free and balanced trade benefits everyone, and that the world would be a lot more stable as a set of prosperous countries powerful enough to look out for their own interests. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2010, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-americans-so-angry-about-politics-because-the-u-s-is-declining-as-a-world-power/547243/9 "2010-07-19T18:27:46Z")
> [@Mr.Excellent](#): > > That being said, one thing we are beginning to learn is that military power doesn’t confer as great a benefit in assympetric warfare as we might wish. “Beginning”?! Jeez, why didn’t we learn that from Vietnam more than 30 years ago?! > [@Mr.Excellent](#): > > The problem is likelier just that, with modern communication tools, it’s easier for nuts to find other nuts. Blogs, evites, meetup, and so on - where once our wretched bigots were safely contained within the ghettoes of their own blighted minds, they now can reach out to their fellows. And they do. It’s not that we’ve got more angry nutjobs - it’s just that, instead of ranting from barstools, they rant online. And once they start doing that, it’s easier to plan mass rants at the National Mall or in a parade or what have you. That is a large part of Abramsky’s thesis. See also the [NPR story](http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128606442) linked in the OP: > [@](#): > > About a week ago, California Congressman Brad Sherman, a Democrat, showed up for one of his regular town hall meetings with constituents. And at that meeting, Sherman was taken aback a bit when a constituent stood up with an unusual question. > > Representative BRAD SHERMAN (Democrat, California): The question in question started off by saying that the Department of Justice had a policy not to prosecute any African-American for any crime if the victim was white. > > RAZ: Now, the thing you should know about Brad Sherman is he’s one of the most mild-mannered members of Congress, a hardworking, if a bit nerdy, public servant. And so Sherman politely answered that question. > > (Soundbite of applause) > > Rep. SHERMAN: I am extremely sure that we do not have a policy at the Department of Justice of never prosecuting a black defendant if the victim was white. > > Unidentified Man #1: Yes, you do. > > (Soundbite of booing) > > RAZ: This is par for the course nowadays for many, many members of Congress, mostly Democrats now for obvious reasons: They have the power, and they’ve used it to make some pretty fundamental changes. But an increasing number of legislators from both sides are asking whether the intersection of politics and politicized news has made the idea of civil discourse impossible. > > \*\*Rep. SHERMAN: I mean, I remember extremely angry people on both sides of the Vietnam War, but they were both watching pretty much the same news every night. Now, you can have people living in their own separate worlds with their own sources of facts or alleged facts. \*\* > > RAZ: And in this parallel universe, government becomes the biggest threat to Americans, especially the current government. ---
**Author:** ![MOIDALIZE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@MOIDALIZE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MOIDALIZE)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2010, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-americans-so-angry-about-politics-because-the-u-s-is-declining-as-a-world-power/547243/10 "2010-07-19T18:33:14Z")
I think even the tea partiers are frustrated by the economy and anxious about their futures. They may not come right out and admit that, but they’ve voiced their support of government spending programs that benefit them. In fact, I’m coming around to the view that their opposition to stimulus spending is less motivated by a concern for America’s long-term fiscal health, and more a function of an unwillingness to see more of the nation’s wealth end up in the pockets of a politically-connected elite. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2010, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-americans-so-angry-about-politics-because-the-u-s-is-declining-as-a-world-power/547243/11 "2010-07-19T18:35:46Z")
I think what’s changed is not American political anger but rather the communications channels for expressing it. Pre-internet, political media was dominated by a few TV and major newspaper/magazine outlets that constrained public political discourse within relatively narrow bounds, arguably center-left domestically and anti-communist internationalist overseas (until Vietnam). Now, the Internet allows much greater participation in public dialogue from the right and the farther left, and the increased cacophony comes across as anger. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2010, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-americans-so-angry-about-politics-because-the-u-s-is-declining-as-a-world-power/547243/12 "2010-07-19T18:36:01Z")
> [@MOIDALIZE](#): > > I think even the tea partiers are frustrated by the economy and anxious about their futures. They may not come right out and admit that, but they’ve voiced their support of government spending programs that benefit them. > > In fact, I’m coming around to the view that their opposition to stimulus spending is less motivated by a concern for America’s long-term fiscal health, and more a function of an unwillingness to see more of the nation’s wealth end up in the pockets of a politically-connected elite. Substitute “politically powerless minorities” for “politically-connected elite” and you’re spot on. ---
**Author:** ![chappachula](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/d2c977/32.png) [@chappachula](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chappachula)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2010, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-americans-so-angry-about-politics-because-the-u-s-is-declining-as-a-world-power/547243/13 "2010-07-19T18:55:46Z")
Professional pundits love to worry about the dangers of American political discourse , and the imminent destruction of society. But very few average American citizens seem to be concerned enough to start the revolution.After all to destroy society, you have to , well , stop talking, and actually DO something. But most Americans don’t even care enough to bother to vote in a presidential election, and virtually nobody votes in the off-year elections. So, while the academics love to publish warnings about the dangers of political polarization, they never seem to notice that Americans are the _least_ politically polarized society in the Western world. Compare America with two countries who are so vanilla and bland that they rarely appear on the world stage, or in the pundits’ articles: Canada and Belgium. Both of those countries are so polarized that they have made very serious attempts to cut themselves in half, with each half using a different language. In America, I doubt if you’ll see a split into two countries. (Even if the dreaded tea-party comes to power , after, ya know, winning an election in a free,stable democracy) Some people just have a need to find bogymen where they don’t exist. Right wingers do this with the 2nd Ammendment. \* Liberals do this with the First Ammendment.\*\* .\*example 1: Any minor new regulation about assault rifles is the end of our freedoms. \*\*example 2:Remember how the Pariot Act was going to be the end of our freedoms? As for the OP’s question about the decline of America’s power—I don’t think people are so upset about the world-wide issues…they are more worried about their _personal_ issues. It’s becoming clear that the average American’s standard of living will continue to drop, and his future is very, very insecure. Jobs can disappear overnight, and people who used to feel safe,-- whether bankers or factory workers-- now know that they might be evicted from their home tomorrow. When you have no confidence in your personal life, it is much more scary than any abstract issues about the loss of confidence in America’s power on the world stage. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2010, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-americans-so-angry-about-politics-because-the-u-s-is-declining-as-a-world-power/547243/14 "2010-07-19T19:00:20Z")
No. Abramsky’s theory (and that stuff **athelas** quoted) is just speculation, and largely silly speculation, at that. Hell, Americans were a lot angrier from 1960 to 1980, and we weren’t the sole dominant player then, either. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2010, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-americans-so-angry-about-politics-because-the-u-s-is-declining-as-a-world-power/547243/15 "2010-07-19T19:18:27Z")
I think politics has always been devisive. It’s just that now we get to see more of it. Go back thirty years and how much time did you spend thinking about what was happening in Washington? You read the newspaper over breakfast and watched the evening news. Maybe you read _Time_ once a week. Nowadays you hear about politics twenty four hours a day, seven days a week. ---
**Author:** ![sleestak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/919ad9/32.png) [@sleestak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sleestak)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2010, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-americans-so-angry-about-politics-because-the-u-s-is-declining-as-a-world-power/547243/16 "2010-07-19T19:24:10Z")
I believe that the shift towards anger (and things have been much worse in the past) is due to a couple things and has nothing to do with America actually declining in the world. As far as I can tell, with the exception of China (and there are a whole lot of caveats about China) the rest of the world is in decline compared to the U.S. though it seems we are racing to catch up. The overspending by government in Europe has caused a huge problem for the whole area. The fact that a couple countries (Hey, Greece, I am talking about you) in Europe are heading for a huge fall that is going to affect the whole region. They bailed out Greece but I believe that the Greeks are too tied up by entitlements to fix the underlying problem, spending more than they have. That goes for more than just Greece. While it looks like the problem has mellowed for the time being, I expect it to come roaring back in the not too distant future. The measures taken so far seem to be easing the crisis but as far as I can tell have done nothing about the underlying problems. I believe that a large amount of the anger is based on some political and social issues. First, due to the nature of the internet and cable news shows, it is much easier for people to follow those that they agree with and ignore other sources of information. That goes both ways, right and left. Instead of having discussions with both sides it seems that a whole heck of a lot of people only listen to those they agree with and demonize the opposition. They re-enforce the negatives about the other side. The other side become evil, not people who just have a different point of view about issues. Heck, I see that on the dope. There have been some huge pile ons of conservative posters here that are just amazingly silly. (Note, that is not to say that there aren’t some conservative idiots on this board. There are, however, there are also some smart ones who get nailed because they are conservative, not because of their arguments). I used to watch MSNBC for news and commentary. I stopped because it became the ‘Bush Is Evil. Conservatives Are Evil And It Is All Their Fault’ channel sometime in the past couple years. I don’t watch Fox because they are the same way in regards to liberals. The second reason I think the anger is there is that some of the changes that the present congress and Obama want to put through are rather large changes. The whole health care thing is a big step. That can scare people, and scared people often get angry. I also think that tied into this is the debt problem that every politician (R&D) has been ignoring for a long time. While working on the health care issue, many people were saying things like "We are the only western country to not have socialized medicine’. What those people didn’t seem to realize is that for a lot of people the answer to that response is ‘Yeah, and those countries are all going to shit due to debt.’. The debt is a big issue for a lot of people. Both sides have done a horrid job at reducing it. People see that the future is looking bleak due to debt yet the politicians on both side keep spending like mad. Throw in the last downturn and the bailouts and it gets ugly fast. Another thing that seems to bother people is the bailouts which seem to go only to the irresponsible. The lenders and borrowers played a big game and caused a huge problem only to be bailed out. The people paying for that bailout don’t like it because, while everyone else was running around spending like mad, they were responsible with their money. Not all of them, but a lot. They did the right thing and feel punished for doing it. Their stocks got hammered and the economy tanked due to those who are now getting help from the government. And last, throw in a fundamental disagreement about the role of government and it can get really ugly. Those who oppose, for example, UHC or government run health programs are called evil and uncaring when the fact is that for a lot of people the issue is they do not believe it is going to work as designed. They believe it is going to make things worse, yet their concerns have been shrugged off as complaints from selfish, evil people. Slee ---
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2010, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-americans-so-angry-about-politics-because-the-u-s-is-declining-as-a-world-power/547243/17 "2010-07-19T19:28:13Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I think politics has always been devisive. It’s just that now we get to see more of it. Go back thirty years and how much time did you spend thinking about what was happening in Washington? You read the newspaper over breakfast and watched the evening news. Maybe you read _Time_ once a week. Nowadays you hear about politics twenty four hours a day, seven days a week. That’s a good point, but I’d nitpick it to say “you can hear about politics 24 hours day”. Many people choose not to. And while there’s a lot of polarization in the political arena, the bigger division is between those who are engaged politically and those who are not. ---
**Author:** ![Stoneburg](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/df705f/32.png) [@Stoneburg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoneburg)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2010, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-americans-so-angry-about-politics-because-the-u-s-is-declining-as-a-world-power/547243/18 "2010-07-19T19:57:47Z")
Pretty much everything bad in the US probably stems from the incredibly huge income gaps. Lack of social mobility, lack of social cohesion, lack of trust, corruption, crime, violence, poor health… Interestingly, the US society has also managed to paint the cure as evil. The phrase “redistribution of wealth” is a dirty phrase. Which is weird. How can you have democracy or politics or an economy without it? I dunno. But as long as you keep claiming that the cure is in fact poison, you’re not going to get any better. ---
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2010, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-americans-so-angry-about-politics-because-the-u-s-is-declining-as-a-world-power/547243/19 "2010-07-19T20:02:35Z")
> [@Stoneburg](#): > > Pretty much everything bad in the US probably stems from the incredibly huge income gaps. Lack of social mobility, lack of social cohesion, lack of trust, corruption, crime, violence, poor health… > > Interestingly, the US society has also managed to paint the cure as evil. The phrase “redistribution of wealth” is a dirty phrase. Which is weird. How can you have democracy or politics or an economy without it? I dunno. But as long as you keep claiming that the cure is in fact poison, you’re not going to get any better. How does redistribution of wealth improve social mobility? To have social mobility, there must be social differences–which is what redistribution tries to eliminate. And what does redistribution of wealth have to do with democracy? Democracy means respecting the wishes of the people. If the people don’t want redistribution then it is undemocratic to foist it onto the people. ---
**Author:** ![Stoneburg](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/df705f/32.png) [@Stoneburg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoneburg)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2010, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-americans-so-angry-about-politics-because-the-u-s-is-declining-as-a-world-power/547243/20 "2010-07-19T20:04:43Z")
You can not not redistribute wealth. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-americans-so-angry-about-politics-because-the-u-s-is-declining-as-a-world-power/547243.md?page=2)