# 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:** 16\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2010, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-americans-so-angry-about-politics-because-the-u-s-is-declining-as-a-world-power/547243/81 "2010-07-21T22:51:38Z")
> [@Stoneburg](#): > > The cite was interesting but lacked the essential component: International comparison. > > It supports the claim that there _is_ economic mobility in the US. But it does neither support nor oppose the claim “There is more/less economic mobility in the US than in X”. [According to Wikipedia:](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_mobility#Worldwide) > [@](#): > > Using the ratio of an individual’s current income to that of their parent’s, there is no academic consensus whether the United States has less or more relative mobility than other industrialized nations[1][5][6]. According to one study, the income of a person’s parents is a great deal more predictive of their own income in the United States than other countries[4]. France, Germany, Sweden, Canada, Finland, Norway, and Denmark all have more relative mobility than the US, while only the United Kingdom is shown to have less mobility[1]. According to this study done by Miles Corak, The United States ratio of relative mobility is 1, whereas the other countries mentioned with more mobility have a range of 1.25 (France) to over 3 (Denmark)[1]. However, at least one other recent study has concluded that relative mobility is about the same in the US [7][note 1]. Economic mobility in developing nations (such as those in Africa) is thought to be limited by both historical and global economic factors[8] ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2010, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-americans-so-angry-about-politics-because-the-u-s-is-declining-as-a-world-power/547243/82 "2010-07-21T22:56:39Z")
Am I the only person who remembers the vitriol and crazy political stuff that went on in Bill Clinton’s last term? That whole impeachment business seems just as angry and divisive as anything afterward. I agree with those who say it’s the ability for the nuts to band together more than anything; if you look at when the real acrimony started (sometime in Clinton’s second term), it corresponds pretty closely with the rise of the internet as a popular medium/tool/what-have-you. ---
**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 21, 2010, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-americans-so-angry-about-politics-because-the-u-s-is-declining-as-a-world-power/547243/83 "2010-07-21T23:53:52Z")
[QUOTE=Stoneburg] It supports the claim that there _is_ economic mobility in the US. But it does neither support nor oppose the claim “There is more/less economic mobility in the US than in X”. [/QUOTE] That’s true enough, but I’m unconvinced that such comparisons aren’t apples to oranges…IOW, they are looking at different things. When I do a Google search about comparisons between income mobility between the US and Europe I’m seeing a lot of conflicting assertions. In addition, it depends on which parts of society you are focusing on for mobility, what mobility actually means to each group or person looking at the question, and how they are judging said mobility. Regardless, I don’t think a lot of American’s give a shit if they are or aren’t more mobile than our cousins across the big pond (I’d say most American’s ASSUME we have better mobility and leave it at that), so I don’t see that this is causing a lot of anger over here. In general, American’s don’t really care what our Euro-buddies are doing or how much they are making…or really, what the rest of the world is or isn’t doing or making. -XT ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2010, 9:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-americans-so-angry-about-politics-because-the-u-s-is-declining-as-a-world-power/547243/84 "2010-07-22T09:17:04Z")
I think Americans are getting fed up with being a superpower. For one thing, it has been economically, very costly. Second, Americans are realizing the enormous costs-we see the europeans getting health care, new bridges, highways , for the taxes they pay-while our infrastructure crumbles into ruin-while we pay for five carrier battle groups (a larger naval force than ALL of the rest of the world put together). I see a complete re-ordering of American policy, because: -we cannot afford to police the world any more -people are not going to send their sons and daughters to dies in ill-advised military adventures -we are at the limits of our borrowing-soon our creditors will be telling us what to do Take the case of N. Korea-why are we getting involved with this mess? Let China deal with it-all we need is another war in Asia. There are limits to what military power can achieve-if we had put what we spend on our global forces into an advanced nuclear reactor program (and electric cars), we would not have to import a drop of oil from the Middle East-and we could stay out of that hell hole. What have the billions of $ given to Egypt, Israel, etc., bought us? Nothing but grief and the enmity of the Muslim World. What has our relationship with Pakistan bought us? War and terrorism.Enough, I say. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2010, 9:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-americans-so-angry-about-politics-because-the-u-s-is-declining-as-a-world-power/547243/85 "2010-07-22T09:29:09Z")
I’d say the reason politics are any more divisive than usual is that we are in an economic decline. When the economy is bad, people blame the people in power. Heck, there’s a theory that says which party will be elected can be determined solely by how well the economy is doing. You can take that and contort it to have to do with the world at large, but few Americans really think about that. The only place I’ve heard about the Greece thing even was here. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2010, 10:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-americans-so-angry-about-politics-because-the-u-s-is-declining-as-a-world-power/547243/86 "2010-07-22T10:18:26Z")
> [@](#): > > ut, overall, mainly a reaction to America’s declining position in the world which has parallels in many other countries’ histories. I doubt it. More likely more mundane things like high unemployment. Also, the government siding with Mexico in importing their high school drop outs despite lack of jobs, futile Iraq & Afghanistan occupations. ---
**Author:** ![Stoneburg](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/df705f/32.png) [@Stoneburg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoneburg)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2010, 10:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-americans-so-angry-about-politics-because-the-u-s-is-declining-as-a-world-power/547243/87 "2010-07-22T10:54:26Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > That’s true enough, but I’m unconvinced that such comparisons aren’t apples to oranges…IOW, they are looking at different things. When I do a Google search about comparisons between income mobility between the US and Europe I’m seeing a lot of conflicting assertions. In addition, it depends on which parts of society you are focusing on for mobility, what mobility actually means to each group or person looking at the question, and how they are judging said mobility. I don’t think it is that hard to define, or measure. You look at what economic decentile someone started in and see where they’re at now. If they’re in another decentile, they have moved. The more people that move between decentiles, the larger the mobility. It’s apples to apples. > [@xtisme](#): > > Regardless, I don’t think a lot of American’s give a shit if they are or aren’t more mobile than our cousins across the big pond (I’d say most American’s ASSUME we have better mobility and leave it at that), so I don’t see that this is causing a lot of anger over here. In general, American’s don’t really care what our Euro-buddies are doing or how much they are making…or really, what the rest of the world is or isn’t doing or making. That’s a very good argument and I am inclined to agree. You make the case that perception is what matters, and that as long as people _think_ there’s a lot of social mobility, it doesn’t matter whether it is true, with regards to its effect on “civil unrest”. What you don’t know won’t upset you. Cynical perhaps, but it makes sense. ---
**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 22, 2010, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-americans-so-angry-about-politics-because-the-u-s-is-declining-as-a-world-power/547243/88 "2010-07-22T13:41:18Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > What has our relationship with Pakistan bought us? War and terrorism.Enough, I say. It kept the Soviets from getting a warm-water port. That’s all we wanted. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2010, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-americans-so-angry-about-politics-because-the-u-s-is-declining-as-a-world-power/547243/89 "2010-07-22T14:51:15Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > It kept the Soviets from getting a warm-water port. That’s all we wanted. What was that all about anyway? No important issue in the Cold War was ever going to be decided by whether the Soviets had year-round maritime access for their navy or their merchant marine. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2010, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-americans-so-angry-about-politics-because-the-u-s-is-declining-as-a-world-power/547243/90 "2010-07-22T15:07:33Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > I think Americans are getting fed up with being a superpower. For one thing, it has been economically, very costly. Second, Americans are realizing the enormous costs-we see the europeans getting health care, new bridges, highways , for the taxes they pay-while our infrastructure crumbles into ruin-while we pay for five carrier battle groups (a larger naval force than ALL of the rest of the world put together). > I see a complete re-ordering of American policy, because: > -we cannot afford to police the world any more > -people are not going to send their sons and daughters to dies in ill-advised military adventures > -we are at the limits of our borrowing-soon our creditors will be telling us what to do > Take the case of N. Korea-why are we getting involved with this mess? Let China deal with it-all we need is another war in Asia. There are limits to what military power can achieve-if we had put what we spend on our global forces into an advanced nuclear reactor program (and electric cars), we would not have to import a drop of oil from the Middle East-and we could stay out of that hell hole. What have the billions of $ given to Egypt, Israel, etc., bought us? Nothing but grief and the enmity of the Muslim World. What has our relationship with Pakistan bought us? War and terrorism.Enough, I say. I wish. There is nothing but endless wars in our future. It will not stop. The neo-cons won. ---
**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 22, 2010, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-americans-so-angry-about-politics-because-the-u-s-is-declining-as-a-world-power/547243/91 "2010-07-22T15:11:52Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > What was that all about anyway? No important issue in the Cold War was ever going to be decided by whether the Soviets had year-round maritime access for their navy or their merchant marine. Sure they were. You think the US maintained (and maintains) all those carrier battle groups because they look impressive during fleet review? The Soviet Union, for all its squillions of miles of territory, had minimal sea access. The northern coastline is locked in by ice nearly half the year; even Vladivostok is icy for three or four months out of the year. Moreover, any shipping from Vladivostok has to pass through the Strait of Tsushima, and therefore through the teeth of Japanese and Korean coastal defenses. All the ports on the Black Sea are strategically useless, because to reach the open ocean, shipping has to pass through the Bosphorus and Dardanelles, meaning a couple of submarines or destroyers could effectively cut them off. Now, _why_ would the Soviets want their navy out on the open ocean? Simple - to cut off _our_ shipping. The Soviet Union didn’t need to import much of anything, including oil. The Caucasus and Central Asia in general have more than enough oil to supply its wartime needs. On the other hand, the West needs lots and lots of imported oil, and cutting off Middle Eastern oil supplies would be by far the easiest way for the Soviets to win a conventional war. The Soviet navy was, of course, no match for the US Navy (except in sub warfare), or even the other NATO navies (particularly Britain and France), but it didn’t have to be. All it had to do was park in the Arabian Sea and/or Persian Gulf and start lobbing shells. In time, the problem of western naval dominance would take care of itself, since the Western navies (even today, largely diesel-powered) would be sitting in port, unable to refuel. It’s pretty much universally understood that NATO air and ground forces would have been overwhelmed in weeks if the Red Army invaded Western Europe. Cutting off western oil supplies would have made it even easier, since the US couldn’t even have reinforced Europe (although it probably wouldn’t have been able to do so in time anyway). ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2010, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-americans-so-angry-about-politics-because-the-u-s-is-declining-as-a-world-power/547243/92 "2010-07-22T15:21:30Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Sure they were. You think the US maintained (and maintains) all those carrier battle groups because they look impressive during fleet review? **Yes.** In the Cold War, the U.S. and the USSR fought proxy wars in third country and always faced the possibility of a direct face-to-face war – neither of which was ever going to be a navy show. A direct conflict would be a total nuclear war, and such would not last long enough for America’s continued or interrupted access to imported petroleum to make a difference. The nuclear submarine fleets were strategically important, but those are equipped to stay so long at sea that year-round port access didn’t rally matter. As for why we have such a big Navy **now**. . . well, I suppose it’s to keep the sea lanes open, though against what naval threat is not clear. And to facilitate troop movements to remote hotspots, and use carrier-launched aircraft to bombard ground targets. But it’s doubtful the world will ever see another straight-up ship-to-ship naval battle; and even fleet-to-fleet battles via carried aircraft are going to be marginal. ---
**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 22, 2010, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-americans-so-angry-about-politics-because-the-u-s-is-declining-as-a-world-power/547243/93 "2010-07-22T15:25:17Z")
Ah, but the Soviets would never put the US in the position of having to initiate a nuclear exchange. As usual, [Yes Prime Minister](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IX_d_vMKswE) covered the _realpolitik._ ---
**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 22, 2010, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-americans-so-angry-about-politics-because-the-u-s-is-declining-as-a-world-power/547243/94 "2010-07-22T15:31:02Z")
> [@Stoneburg](#): > > Basically the premise is that the opposite of what I say is true, unless proven otherwise by me. > > Lets say that I claim that California is hotter than Florida. By the current system the burden of proof is now on me, and if I am not able to provide evidence the opposite is taken to be true. No, the default is that “we don’t know”. If you claim Cal is hotter than Florida, then you need to back it up (if anyone questions it). If someone else claims Florida is hotter, they have to back it up (if anyone asks). > [@bump](#): > > Am I the only person who remembers the vitriol and crazy political stuff that went on in Bill Clinton’s last term? That whole impeachment business seems just as angry and divisive as anything afterward. Yep. And going back, I can remember the war protests against GHW Bush and those denouncing them as unpatriotic. The acrimony we have today didn’t spring up overnight. > [@Stoneburg](#): > > I don’t think it is that hard to define, or measure. You look at what economic decentile someone started in and see where they’re at now. If they’re in another decentile, they have moved. The more people that move between decentiles, the larger the mobility. It’s apples to apples. (The word you’re looking for is “decile”. 🙂 ) That’s one measure of mobility, but it doesn’t correct for differences in the distribution. It’s going to be easier to change deciles if they’re closer to each other. (This is another, separate issue from the actual purchasing power of a given decile.) ---
**Author:** ![Stoneburg](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/df705f/32.png) [@Stoneburg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoneburg)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2010, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-americans-so-angry-about-politics-because-the-u-s-is-declining-as-a-world-power/547243/95 "2010-07-22T15:42:53Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > No, the default is that “we don’t know”. If you claim Cal is hotter than Florida, then you need to back it up (if anyone questions it). If someone else claims Florida is hotter, they have to back it up (if anyone asks). Yes and I am assuming that we are both interested in finding out what the truth is and thus fighting our own ignorance. > [@Pleonast](#): > > Yep. And going back, I can remember the war protests against GHW Bush and those denouncing them as unpatriotic. The acrimony we have today didn’t spring up overnight. I don’t _think_ anyone has claimed that the civil unrest (I just like that word for some reason) is new or recent. Maybe somneone did and I missed it, anyway, I agree with you. > [@Pleonast](#): > > (The word you’re looking for is “decile”. 🙂 ) Thank you. A tiny bit of ignorance fought right there. Don’t know why I thought it was anything but that, it’s decile in swedish too. > [@Pleonast](#): > > That’s one measure of mobility, but it doesn’t correct for differences in the distribution. It’s going to be easier to change deciles if they’re closer to each other. (This is another, separate issue from the actual purchasing power of a given decile.) Good point. It seems you are correct that decile mobility only shows relative movement in wealth, not absolute movement. My instinct is that relative wealth is what is important to the current issue since people will compare themselfs to others not to fixed numbers. ---
**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 22, 2010, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-americans-so-angry-about-politics-because-the-u-s-is-declining-as-a-world-power/547243/96 "2010-07-22T15:57:28Z")
> [@Stoneburg](#): > > Good point. It seems you are correct that decile mobility only shows relative movement in wealth, not absolute movement. My instinct is that relative wealth is what is important to the current issue since people will compare themselfs to others not to fixed numbers. I agree relative wealth is important. I’m not sure percentile-based measurements are the best approach to measuring it, though. I don’t know what would be better; probably ratios of some sort. But absolute wealth is also important. My sense is that the current economic discontent is more of the type “I lost my job” or “I can’t afford my mortgage”, rather than “I don’t have as much as my neighbor”. [Previous 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=4)