Ever since President Bush began his war on terror (and admittedly even prior to that) the U.S.A. has been plauged with a sort of “Super-Patriot” flood. Has the war on terror caused the onrush of too MUCH patriotism? IS the Democratic party indeed doomed to diminish until it exsists no more? Will the Republican party continue it’s rule (for lack of a better word)? If so, who or what will replace the Democratic party in order to keep this U.S. a democracy? (Because, you must admit, that with only one party we’d be no better then Nazi Germany.) Will this onrush of patriotism cause a rift that will not be healed, causing the nation’s children to be as cruel to the opposite political belief as they can be to, say, other races or people with other religious beliefs?
And finally, if so, how do you feel about that? (In regards to the previous question.)
Actually Texas among other states was a one party state for about a century. Somehow we muddled through.
I’m not too happy about the hyper patriot swing these days, but I’m not overly concerned either. These things go in cycles. Remember that during the 60’s people were wringing their hands over the liberal tilt to the country and wondering if the country could survive. We did then and we will now.
Actually Texas among other states was a one party state for about a century. Somehow we muddled through.
True, but I was referring to more then just a state-wide government. I was referring to the entire U.S.A. There must be a difference. And on a more opinionated note (HA!) I’m not sure that Texas has fully recovered from it’s one party status yet, meaning that I’ve heard (and this is just speculation) that it’s not very pleasant to live there.
Welcome to the Straight Dope, mindless_leader. (Is your user name based on your opinion of the current President?) I disagree with some of your points, but I agree with others.
As others have pointed out, there have been times in history when patriotism was a lot higher than it is now. E.g., at those times it would have been unthinkable for a college to refuse to have ROTC on its campus.
No, but I think the Dems will diminish for a while. They failed to take hold of the terrorism issue, and let the Republicans grab it. The reverse happened 50 years ago. The Republicans failed to take hold of the civil rights issue, and the Democrats grabbed it, to their gain and the country’s gain. As long as security is the #1 issue, the Republicans will have an edge IMHO.
Having a Republican majority for a period of time is all that’s likely to happen. We had large Democratic majorities during FDR’s and LBJ’s presidencies. The country survived and the Republicans eventually rebounded. Today’s Democrats will rebound, too, but not in 2004 IMHO.
No.
I’m conservative, so I’m happy to see a Republican majority. I wouldn’t at all like to see one-party rule, as existed, e.g., in Mexico for many years, but IMHO that’s not at all likely in this country.
I don’t agree. I think americans have gone from not really patriotic to somewhat patriotic. We aren’t super patriotic IMO.
Yes. People unify when an external enemy threatens them. Not only that, but myself, and alot of people i know are proud of the way the US is handling its problems. Although i will get a bunch of isolated incidents thrown at me for stating this, i’m proud that the US has dealt with terrorism by trying to reform destructive governments, freezing assets and mild civil rights restrictions. Many countries historically would’ve dealt with a similiar threat by widespread crackdowns & torture chambers. It shows that western civilization has evolved a bit.
When Bush sr. was in a war in Iraq his approval rating was 90%, and he still lost the 1992 election.
no. What are you basing that on? Gore won 50% of the vote in 2000. Bush’s domestic policy sucks, and the dems will probably play on that to get elected.
Nope.
Nothing. The democratic party is widespread.
I take offense to that. Thats like saying anyone who doesn’t agree with Bush hates america and loves Stalin.
I am not sure. I don’t think people are as patriotic as you are stating. I am more worried about the US screwing up its ties with France, Germany & Russia. I realize many of the French, Russians & Germans have hated us before the war on terrorism even started but i would rather live in a world of cooperation rather than animosity.
I find it very biased against bush and the US. but i expect that type of post on SDMB so i am not bothered by it. If i wanted mindless adulation i would post on Free Republic.
50% bush vs. 30% dem seems to be the most common result. But if the dems are able to form a working domestic policy while still being tough on terrorism (i think many were seen as appeasers in the Iraq war situation, a war which had popular support in the US. but i could be wrong), then they can come back and maybe win in 2004.
Well, the patriotism of recent is mostly in response to 9/11. I don’t think the “flood” of patriotism is that large, considering the context. Of course, I wasn’t around for Pearl Harbor. But, I would imagine the same swelling of national pride in response to that attack. If anything, this recent patriotism has been muted in comparison.
What you are missing here is that the reason the democrat party appears doomed is that they are too liberal. The worse they do in elections, the more they seem to move to the left (Nancy Pelosi). The reason, IMHO, for the success of the republicans is that they have moved to a more moderate position. Bush’s tax cuts are small. Religious issues such as abortion are not being aggressively pursued by the right.
So, if the Democrats do diminish until they exist no more, it will be of thier own doing. At some point they will figure this out and move more to the center and regain some of their former strength.
This is a silly statement.
I for one would be happy if politics was a more devisive force in our society than race. If I don’t like liberals around tax time that’s ok, because indirectly they are responsible for the outragous sums taken from my check. However, it’s inexusable for me to not like Blacks or Swedes for any reason because they don’t all have the same beliefs.
I see no more or no less patriotism now than 5 years ago. What I do see is the cynical application of buzz words like “Patriot”, “Liberty”, Freedom" in ways designed to deflect criticism of the underlying politics (How dare you oppose The Patriot Act?). More flags do not mean more patriotism.
Which means it is in the President’s interest to promote fear in America, whether it is based in reality or not. By taking the small real threat posed by Saddam Hussein and blowing it out of all proportion, Bush was able to whip up support for his invasion (predictably named “Iraqi Freedom”; who could be against freedom?). Expect to see a new boogey man to emerge soon to take the place of Saddam as the next big threat America must face.
I am glad to see that conservatives are complacent about their perceived domination of American politics. Perhaps you should pay attention to the news, december, and maybe you will see that Bush is having a hard time getting what he wants, even with a slim majority in Congress. For example, Fridays’s vote on the tax cut plan; Bush had to settle for half of the cut he wanted and even that came down to a 50/50 tie in the Senate that was only broken by Cheney’s vote. Do you realize the tax plan was only one vote away from going down to defeat? I really think conservatives are deluding themselves in thinking that they have any sort of overwhelming mandate.
So if Bush fails to maintain the drumbeat of fear in America, the #1 concern of the citizenry will quickly swing back to the economy. This is the issue on which Democrats will win the next election. You can pose all sorts of reasons why Bush should not be blamed for the dismal state of the American wallet, but you are fooling only yourself if you think he won’t be blamed for it. And no amount of flag-waving will prevent him from being turned out of office.
When the Dems whine about Bush flying a jet, they will lose. A comprehensive and focused plan on how they can improve the economy, and a focus on the effects of Bush’s economic policies on states (states’ rights–yeah) will help them win.
-The Democratic party is destroying itself. (For a while, at least. Many a person has predicted the end of the GOP/DNC.) Not much to be done about that. For starters, they could try participating in the legislative they are elected to, rather then running off.
-Nazi Germany was not considered ‘evil’ because it was a one-party state. Nazi Germany was considered ‘evil’ because of the massive curtailment of rights, attempted genocides, etc. America will always be better then Nazi Germany, but that can be said of the vast majority of states.
I do think there’s been an upsurge in patriotism among a certain sector of American society, to the extent that “patriotism” means “my country is the best, no matter what,” and criticism of/self-censorship by anyone who might normally point out the flaws of a particular course of action.
This tendency scares the crap out of me. I love America, but I really don’t want to see what will happen in the world if our leadership continues to behave like they don’t hhave to listen to anyone else’s opinion, particularly if the holders of other opinions are better informed or are countries that are normally our allies. No matter how big and important you are, you still need friends.
People do not seem to be able to separate patriotism or “love of country” from loving the government of this nation. I am in full support of this nation, but rarely am I in full support of what the government of this nation wants to do. I love this country, but I rarely feel the same way about the things that the government wants to do.
Yeah, I know it is important to put ourselves first, because nobody else is going to do it for us, but telling the rest of the world to shove it is dangerous. It is very shortsighted. They should acknowledge the possibility that one day the USA will not be the top dog, and act accordingly. “Might is right” was supposed to be a policy of the past, not one for the 21st century. It is a tough path to walk, and I can’t honestly say that I would get it right everytime. All I can hope for is that everyone is being honest.
There are more than two parties in this nation. If the DNC collapsed, there would be other parties ready, willing, and able to fill that vacuum. This nation was not always ran by the Republocrats, and hopefully it will not be ran indefinitely by them either.
Original question - Will this onrush of patriotism cause a rift that will not be healed, causing the nation’s children to be as cruel to the opposite political belief as they can be to, say, other races or people with other religious beliefs?
===
I can’t say that the war in Iraq caused a huge onrush of patriotism here in the UK. A lot of folks didn’t agree with the war but supported the troops once they had engaged. OTOH, after the Falklands War, where there was a great deal of patriotic fervour, there was no discernable animosity towards the Argentinians. I think you should trust the people’s judgment on this one. (First post so I’m not sure if I’m doing this right, btw)!
I just want to point out really quick that a lot of people seem to think, by the wording I used, that I’m an ultra-conservative (something that people have been calling “neo-cons”). I am not. I’m pretty liberal on most issues and pertty conservative on others. I’m a pretty healthy mix I think.
And I tend to make “silly statements” as one person mentioned. That’s just me.
Finally, mindless_leader is more of a religious id then anything. I often have to explain this, as people tend to say, “Your id certainly is true. You are mindless. Blahblah.” Questions? Comments? I just love debate. This whole big thing was brought up by my husband not long ago, and it peaked my interest. (He’s more conservative then anything, so it’s interesting at our house, needless to say.) Thank you for the replies!!!
Amen. It is misleading (and in my opinion dangerous) to confuse the government with the nation. Patriotism should lead one to act oneself for the betterment of the nation, but not to support the leader just because he is the leader. He is merely on a temporary contract by the people, and the people should keep a close eye on whether he’s doing the job.
I can see how you would take offense to that comment, but I do not think mindless_leader was implying anything to that extent. In fact, I think exactly the opposite.
On another note, in my opinion, the country will not fall in destruction after any one president. There will always be times that are worse than others, and hopefully this will not be one of those times.
And yes, the country is way too patriotic. If a person wants to be super patriotic, all the power to them! But don’t become all for a country just because there is a war going on.
