Yet a response against Trump is pushing much of the world back off that. Canada and now Australia both illustrate that. Maybe more to follow.
(ETA: deleted original edit as it was a mess)
It is positive what’s happening in Canada and Australia, I wish the UK were not drifting the other way.
The latter part is most important. America, just like the USSR won’t change its approach on all sorts of socioeconomic issues because it’s operating on faith based politics. Communism in their case, hypercapitalism in ours.
The “radical and unsustainable” part wouldn’t be so bad if the faith aspect didn’t mean that we’ll drive our unsustainable system off the metaphorical cliff before changing course. That’s what changes it from being experimental to being self destructive.
Plus the emergence of the US as the most powerful country on earth. I think that that period had a remarkable confluence of circumstances in which there was a most powerful country on earth, that country had some very profound and advanced moral motivations (for selfish reasons or otherwise), and the sheer overwhelming and uncontested power, to lead and construct the post-war world order.
The problem now is that there is no such power except for China, and that half of the US electorate will still think that all this shit is ok.
For some time, this was true among some circles. I remember growing up in Taiwan in the 1990s and nearly everyone spoke of America in glowing-praising terms. Nobody had a bad word to say about it. Disney movies and the NBA and almost everything American was highly popular. A large number of people wished to live there or have grown up there. The admiration was real.
Thinking about how America’s reputation is now in the gutter makes those fond memories give a sickening feeling now.
Yes, it’s been in tatters for that long. But no, all Americans definitely didn’t know that.
I agree with you. There have to be radical changes in the laws that govern Washington, from POTUS on down. As it stands, many of them are too vague, relying on Americans electing honorable people and everyone playing by the existing rules.
I think you’ll find that relying on people to understand the spirit as well as the letter of the law is a key part of any democracy. No-one’s got it all nailed down.
Yeah, but the US system has far too many, “We can’t do anything because of this one guy” stuff going on.
A President who can veto anything. A House and Senate where the Majority Leader can just decide to not allow a vote on anything. A Senate where one Senator can put an indefinite hold on so many things.
I know it was designed to be hard to do things, but it’s become almost impossible to do anything.
I agree, but the level of what needs to happen is a major of amending if the constitution. We need to end the electoral college and diminish the strength of the senate so we break the tyranny of the rural minority. It’d be more effective to stage a managed dissolution akin to the break up of Czechoslovakia.
That is not how you spel kleptocracy.
As Tom Lehrer noted, “We taught them a lesson in 1918, and they’ve hardly bothered us since then.”
Maybe, but the guys who fought the battles of 1918 have been replaced by the selfie-taking, Tik Tok performing, self obsessed narcissists of today.
Whole different can o’ worms.
Kleptocracy would be an improvement. A hallmark of the American version of capitalism is malice; it’s at least as focused on inflicting poverty and suffering as it is on the wealthy further enriching themselves. The belief that the non-wealthy are evil parasites who deserve to suffer; a belief shared by many of those non-wealthy people.
That’s the point - it used to be that there were a small number of national news outlets/networks and a bunch of local ones. So if you read your local paper, you got AP and Reuters articles for a lot of stuff outside of your local area. Or CBS national or affiliate stories on tv/radio.
The right wing started trying to subvert this setup 30-ish years ago with the launch of Fox News. It wasn’t too bad at first - just a certain conservative bias. But over time, it’s become worse and worse to the point of presenting what amounts to alternate facts and promoting conspiracy theories.
The rise of internet news played right into this by allowing echo chambers and bubbles to happen and get entrenched before anyone really knew what was going on.
Somewhere in the late 2000s/early 2010s, the Right essentially broke from pretending that they were presenting the same facts as everyone else and started presenting their own version and claiming their competitors were full of BS.
It’s a testament (or whatever the negative version is) to how uncritical so many people are, that it wasn’t just laughed into bankruptcy.
I mentioned in another thread that historians a few hundred years from now may well pinpoint the beginning of America’s downfall to the elimination of the Fairness Doctrine, which gave rise to Limbaugh and the other right wing talkers who set the stage for Fox News. They got people into the habit of not only consuming media that told them what they wanted to hear, but conditioned them to distrust media that did otherwise and to distrust those who got their news from outside the bubble. That resulted in a perfect media ecosystem for a bullshit artist like Trump to thrive in.
Thanks, Reagan.
posting in a hurry, so forgive me if someone has already said this, but…
I think a lot will hinge on what we do post Trump. If we act like it’s all good with a new ‘normal’ president, there won’t be much willingness from the world to go back to status quo ante. But if we make some meaningful changes to our constitutional and electoral processes there might be. Of course, that assumes we still have enough of financial and military power to have anything to offer the world.
As an outsider it definitely seems to me that something like that will need to happen. But, with such a large proportion of MAGA, alternate facts, post-truth population, how do Dems and the left accomplish this without being significantly obstructed, if not actually stopped?
A constitution in and by itself doesn’t matter. What matters is a willingness to abide by it. Until we can actually get some agreement among the factions on what sort of country we want, amending the current constitution would be literally rearranging the deck chairs on a sinking ship.
The USSR used to have a very liberal constitution that guaranteed the citizens all sort of civil rights. Didn’t help any.