Kidding aside, you’re right. There are multiple definitions of “America,” and this discussion has evolved into a discussion of which of those definitions do you, personally, view as prominent. System of government? Geographical? Cultural? Nominal? There’s no right answer; this is less a subject for debate than a poll.
I wish I could find the article from the Economist where they explored the idea of a benevolent dictator (I looked but my Google-Fu is failing me).
They showed, convincingly with real world examples, that this is a mythical beast and even where we have seen the closest examples of one they do no better and almost always worse than a democracy.
As frustrating as the democratic process can be the marketplace of ideas on ruling tend to generate better results overall. It is (broadly speaking) not a good thing when one side or the other implements all their good ideas with no check on whether or not they are, in fact, “good” ideas.
America breaking up into multiple successor states.
America being substantially depopulated and ceasing to function as a unit. A nuclear war, asteroid strike or quite possibly the Yosemite supervolcano erupting being examples of what could cause that.
America being conquered and absorbed.
America voluntarily becoming part of a larger organization and dissolving its national identity willingly.
Um, The United States and America (as the latter is used in this thread) are far more a synonym that the USSR and Russia ever were.
Let’s stick with your anology to France and see how that works out.
Pretty simply: I would define it as a break down of the Horatio Algier style American dream. Where hard work, study and ingenuity result in a better life for and an even better life for your kids.
I certainly benefited from the above and an era of affordable public education and make enough in a good year to be negatively impacted if the Bush tax holiday is repealed. And I think the Bush cuts should be repealed. YMMV
You want mythical? I first composed that post in my head with a hypothesis involving invading space aliens.
[QUOTE=Stoneburg]
How about amending the constitution? It can be done according to the constitution. What if there was a new amendment that was legally made, which said that “If it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt that the government by chosing to not adhere to the constitution, can increase the well being of all Americans, it may chose to do so if 2/3 of both houses will vote in favor of it.”
[/QUOTE]
Why go into ridiculous ‘what if’ propositions? If they amended the Constitution in such a way that they suspended the Constitution indefinitely and made Mickey Mouse God Emperor of the US (which they could do, in theory) then it wouldn’t be the US anymore…it would be a country that just happens to be where the US used to be.
But since they aren’t likely to do either thing, what difference does it make? It’s like asking ‘well, what if tomorrow we are invaded by flying aardvarks??’.
-XT
You would have been trumped by flying aardvarks. 
And that’s what’s so twisted about the USA. In no other country is the Constitution the foundation of the country; in every other country a constitution is the present governmental structure of the country, and replaceable. I think this encourages Yanks to replace patriotism with ideology and not even notice nor understand the difference.
Reducing the chances for a stable standard of living which may cause talented people to emigrate and cause those who stay here to support policies that do more harm than good. Both of which will accelerate the decline into our standing as a rich third world country.
Also a large scale sense of disillusionment about our politics and economics where people become apathetic and cynical about the benefits, importance and values of education, rule of law, hard work or democracy. I already see this, tons of people realize hard work, responsibility and education really don’t matter much in having a stable economic life, that democracy is subservient to plutocracy or that the rule of law is only for the bottom 95%. What matters is luck, power and connections.
That wouldn’t ‘destroy’ the nation. Nations like Germany and Russia went through far harsher things in the 20th century and survived. People can and do survive all over the world on far less income than even poor people in the US have. Living in tents and campers sucks, but you are still living. So I doubt the US can be effectively destroyed any time soon by income inequality. But I think it would be the end of innocence and naivete about what we are as a nation more than anything else. Maybe I’m naive for thinking those things existed in the first place.
It might be helpful to compile a list of modern countries that were destroyed.
Czechoslovakia? Well, the country doesn’t exist any more, but the successor states of the Czech Republic and Slovakia parted peacefully, and both are now doing better than ever.
Germany and Japan in the 30s and 40s? Or was Germany destroyed by German reunification?
The Soviet Union?
France and Great Britain losing their colonial empires?
I think the issue here is that we are still a young nation, as much as folks don’t like to think that way. It’s really hard to pin down what “America” really is.
France is France. It has occupied the same point of geography for centuries, going back to the medieval era. There is a continuous and uninterupted cultural heritage there that has been developing since the Classical era. Chaning the government of France does not necessarily make it Not France.
Germany is closer to us, in that Germany proper only came into being after the Napoleonic era. But even then, that was just bringing together a cultural group who had self identified as “Germanic” for a very very long time. Since that time, Germany has been a monarchy, a republic, a fascist state and even split into 2 countries on opposing ends of ideology, but it was still always Germany. Even that list split, when it was undone, was just the extending of one of the idealogies into the other side. Germany abides.
America is still kind of in the process of defining itself, I think. There is the start of an American culture, but it is still largely a poly-culture, made up of bits and pieces of other cultures from all over the planet. We have the 4th of July and Presidents day, but we also have gigantic Cinco de Mayo parties, and St. Patricks Day celebrations. We have no single official language, and probably never will, despite folks saying “We speak English here”. Yes, we do, but it’s not required.
I think (and this is just IMHO territory, I’m no scholar) that the question will break down along 2 different sides: Those that feel the “idea” of America is strong enough to last after a change of government, and those that don’t.
Yes, if the USA were to fracture into a multitude of smaller nations, that would be pretty clearly the destruction of the US. But how likely is that?
Assuming that there is a severe govermental change… a crisis occurs that requires the establishing of a Fascist state, or a dictatorship… would that nation, calling itself the USA, and probably still using the same capital, and the same borders, and the same general government officies, still be the USA if it were ruled not by a congress and a senate and president but instead by a “Council-in-State” or a “President for life”?
Is there an “American Culture” that would withstand a total change in governmental system, as exists in Germany, France, Egypt, China and other long lived nations?
I think there is, though I would be hard pressed to point at anything in particular and say “this is American culture”.
Many countries change their constitutions. I would only be worried if the new form of government was unconstitutional.
The United States could fall the way the Soviet Union did. By this I mean it could divide into two or more smaller countries. What is more likely is that the United States will lose dominance to China, the European Union, and perhaps Japan.
What is nearly certain is that the U.S. standard of living, which for most Americans has declined during the new century, will continue to decline. I do not think our children will live better lives than our parents did.
A continuing economic decline may lead to a ugly political environment making it difficult for the government to govern adequately. In order to be elected one will need to make unrealistic promises. These promises, once broken, will arouse contempt for the government. Individuals with talent and integrity will be unwilling to lie to the electorate in order to be elected, and will decide not to enter politics. This will cause the prestige of the government to fall even further.
Destroying America to me is giving little to no support for the infrastructure of how business is done, wealth is created and people are cared for.
Our infrastructure is decaying which places a significant burden on getting goods to and fro to add value to goods and generate wealth.
Americans in general do not want to pay for the real cost of education at any level, so development of a skilled labor pool is diminishing.
Americans in general do not want to pay for the real cost of anything, so the politicians that are elected by them have no mandate to change, only to bring back their tax dollars for local projects.
So, America is declining because our wealth is so vast that we are insulated from reality and do not want to deal with the specifics of keeping the US competitive in the world. We leave that to the politicians who, again, have no mandate from the people to do anything.
So what is Destroying America? Citizen apathy and a real disinterest in taking a long view of keeping America competitive.
So we’re going to be destroyed because we’re so wealthy?
Yeah, this country is very wealthy. And that means it’s going to take a looooong time before we can squander all that wealth.
As for complaining about apathy and corruption and inefficiency, well, have you ever visited another country? It isn’t like everyone in France or Britain is industrious and incorruptable. No, not even Japan. And especially not China.
There’s a very myopic tendency in America to look at our problems and not realize that these problems aren’t specific to our country, but are part of the human condition. I guarantee you that if you go to other countries, people will be bitching and whining about how crappy things are and they’d never put up with this crap in a modern country like America.
See, if you look around and see massive inefficiency, that isn’t a reason for despair, but rather for hope. Because massive inefficiency means that small improvements can return large gains. If things were running at 99% efficiency and we were still going down the tubes, thats a time for despair. Well, we’re pretty damn far from 99% efficiency.
Forgot to address this point.
According to this criteria, America wasn’t founded in 1776, or 1787, but was rather created in 1941 when America entered WWII.
George Washington and Thomas Jefferson would ask, at this point (and in 18th-Century verbiage), what is the down side to America not being a superpower?
“Defences”? In terms of direct military threats, the U.S. is in roughly the same position as Canada (only less so, because we have no arrogant superpower on our border). Why exactly do we need such an enormously bigger military establishment (even allowing for the 10-to-1 population difference) than Canada has?
We don’t. What we do have now is “foreign entanglements” that necessitate having that classical “Military Industrial Complex”.
What I would love to see is a long term view party. A group that thinks not of the next election, or the one after that, but one that looks at the US in 10, 20, or even 50 year terms.
We need… in fact, will HAVE to have a military draw down. Historically, after every period of conflict we have done exactly that. But after the Korean War, we began that peacekeeping role that we have been maintaining ever since, with it being justified by the Cold War. The Cold War is over. We don’t need to defend Germany or Great Britain or Japan anymore. Oil is going to flow, weather we have a carrier fleet in the gulf or not.
I would like to see the military reduced to about 25% of it’s current size and budget. Keep a training cadre, and do what we did between WWI and WWII.
The rest of that money can go to infrastructure, investement, paying down the debt, and evetything else that billions of dollars would do some actual good in.
I think so, too.