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.
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
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’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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I wish. There is nothing but endless wars in our future. It will not stop. The neo-cons won.
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).
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.
Ah, but the Soviets would never put the US in the position of having to initiate a nuclear exchange. As usual, Yes Prime Minister covered the realpolitik.
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).
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.
(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.)
Yes and I am assuming that we are both interested in finding out what the truth is and thus fighting our own ignorance.
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.
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.
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”.