Living in Lawrence KS I had the opportunity to walk past yet another Fred Phelps demonstration today when this question popped to mind. Now I know that there have always been bottom feeders such as this man but every year they seem to have more power and more influence.
This is something that I have worried about before and despite Cecil’s great crusade against ignorance, irrationality seems to breed like roaches at a sugar factory in a tropical climate. Is it that there are more rational minds to point these things out or do we continue turning ourselves into idiots?
It’s the classic ‘dying empire’ syndrome at work. The U.S. has been the only super-power in international diplomacy since the end of the cold war. This leads to a lack of focus, due entirely to a lack of national purpose, a lack of a goal. Next comes vomitariums, a string of mad leaders, and the rise of a subversive cult to shatter the stability of the empire. Look at Rome. Once Carthage was beaten, and the whole bloody world subdued, what happened? It all went horribly pear-shaped, and you only need to look at what happened in the collesium to see the irrational behaviour you’re talking about.
In the words of Eddie Izzard, “Be careful America!”
And as to the OP - I think America is declining rapidly due to a lack of personal responsibility, driven by our civil liability laws, activist liberal journalism (as opposed to neutral, carefully-researched journalism), stupendous technological illiteracy amongst the public, a general “sickness” of a least-common-denominator society, and the last 8 Clinton/Gore years in general.
FTR, before the Gore supporters gang-rape me publicly, I don’t think Bush would do any better really.
I’m actually worried not about the nation becoming more irrational, but more homogenized.
With Bush and Dole looking alike, and no Evil Empire to spur irrational talk, I kind of miss the rambling mindlessness of Ross Perot. Not to vote for, but to surn as irrational.
In his version of our world (which he created in the 50’s), American society reached a pinnacle near the turn of the century then moved into an era he calls “The Crazy Years.” It’s funny (or sad :(), but many of the examples of irrational public behavior he came up with pale in comparison to the crazy stuff people do today.
The Crazy Years finally end when a politician/religious leader unites the country into a Theocracy which lasts almost 50 years until the Second American Revolution which gives birth to the Age of Reason, the first period of true civilization in Human History.
Anyone else frightened?
I get more and more convinced that RAH was a time-traveller every day!
Is it just a hollywood assumption that the first age of real civilisation with spring from America’s thigh? The first came from Egypt, or arose in the near east, why shouldn’t the true one?
What about China? Whilst we were still whacking each other with clubs, they had a system of government. Why not a perfect civilisation in China?
Before we resign American society to a decline, just keep in mind that it’s the crazy stuff that makes the news whereas the good deeds go unnoticed. So, it may appear to be more irrational based on your source of information, but it may not actually be.
“What about L. Ron Hubbard?”
“You mean His Holiness, The Pope?”
“Boy, this really is and alternate universe!”
Anyways, regarding the decline of American morality or the rise of craziness or the fall of the empire of whatnot- don’t you believe it.
As a student of American History, I can assure you that American society is as insane and overloaded with crackpots as it ever was. C’mon, the Free Love movement began in the 1870’s. Crackpot preachers were a dime a dozen in the 19th Century- Graham and his whole-fiber/no-masturbation plan being a prime example. Read a little on the background of Charles J. Guiteau (the guy who assassinated Garfield) and you’ll be amazed by the number of bizzarre religious movements going on in the Civil War-era USA.
All that’s different today is that with modern communications, we hear about these things more.
I think you need to pay a little more attention to both American and Roman history. Rome outlasted Carthage by 1500 years, and Carthage was hardly Rome’s last great enemy.
The classic ‘dying empire’ syndrome has been debunked over and over and over again by serious scholarship. Perhaps we should start a thread on it.
The Third (and final) Punic War concluded in 146 BCE, resulting in an influx of new slaves and the transformation of the economy of the Italian peninsula from free labor to a slave-based one. Slaves work for free, so paid laborers were thrown out of work. The economic dislocation left a large population of poor, disaffected, and angry free Romans.
Tibierius and Gaius Gracchus, politicians who strove to enact land reform to benefit the poor, were opposed by Roman landowners who wanted to keep the status quo. This conflict erupted in civil war in 133 BCE and ended in the proscription and deaths of the Gracchi.
The civil conflict between landed aristocrats and the poor
continued off and on, destabilizing the Roman economy and the poltical system. Eventually, the weakened Republic was subverted by Octavian Caesar, who became Augustus, the first Emperor. however, Augustus never acted like a king and was considered, in law if not in fact, as merely the first man of the Senate and supreme military leader.
so youe thesis is just plain wrong.
In addition, while deplore the gladitorial games as barbaric, you have to remember that they (a)started out as religious rituals to honor the dead and (b) the Romans didn’t have TV and the WWF.
Ahh, shit, John…I’d just finished reading Anthracite’s post and I was already composing a screamingly funny diatribe along the lines of “Whaddaya mean, Clinton-Gore? It goes back to the SIXTIES, with all those damn kids smoking marihuana and growing their hair and parading in he streets, and all those young girls burning their brassieres…” and then I was going to trail off in a litany of short skirts and bare midriffs and tawny, supple young thighs and breasts, which would have amusingly pointed up the hypocrisy of rightwing bluenoses who talk about the moralistic Good Old Days.
And then you come along with actual historical references and render the entire thing superfluous. Geez.
All right, I’ll be out on the porch, shaking my fist at passing cars.
I assume you’re counting the Byzantine Empire, which fell in 1453 to the Turks, as Rome. Since the Eastern Empire became the Byzantine Empire over time after Rome itself fell to the Goths in 476, I suppose that’s fair.
John Corrado! You were already one of my favorite posters, but if you can tell me how I can get a tape of the Phil A. Delphia chronicles, I will love you forever!
Oh, and as far as the OP, it seems to me that every generation thinks the world is going to hell in a handbasket. Look, the very types you’re worried about are complaining that America is becoming increasingly secular and liberal. So there may not be anything to worry about after all.
Actually, as far as the Roman Empire’s fall, what destroyed it was not that they conquered everything and just sat around getting fat and lazy.
What destroyed it was a lack of internal processes and procedures, and a lack of checks and balances in power. Augustus created the Empire, but made set no standards for the succession of future Emperors, nor did he find a way to ensure the loyalty of Roman soldiers to anyone other than their commanders. As a result, the internal system was eaten away by intriguing leaders attempting to ensure their own power and rise to the position of Emperor; and the Emperor’s main job a lot of times was just trying to find a way to keep his troops happy and not rising against him. Ike- sorry; didn’t mean to deflate you there. I just always find it amusing that the “Free Love” concept that so many social conservatives consider an evil of the '60’s was in fact an evil of the 1860’s.
Aeryn- I have an old copy that I borrowed from a friend (and never quite remembered to return). E-mail me your address and if I can find a tape deck with two cassette reels, I’ll make you a copy.
My impression of these seemingly polarized events in American culture is simply a result of the latest technological advances. The leader of these advances is of course the internet (as invented by Gore ;)). Yes folks, the World Wide Wait has been the chief agent of change in out times. The easy dissemination of information - good & bad, fact & fiction - has been the catalyst of the types of polarization we are seeng. Having said that, I don’t believe that this is beginning of the end of all western civilization. Certainly not the end of American culture. This is simply a social adjustment period in which change, like an upturned stone, forces all the hard line status quo proponents into the light to shake their fist and express fury at the forces changing their static universe.
The reason we are seeing more of this in the US than the rest of the world is simply because (as someone pointed out earlier in another thread) the US a significantly ahead of the rest of the world when it comes to the internet and exchange of ideas and information.
It will take time for many people to understand and utilize this relatively new tool of communication and information but I believe that the US will get over the hump sooner and quicker than many other countries. It is the instability of those other nations that we must worry about. Nations that are getting further and further behind technologically and economically. Desperate people often do desperate things.
In short, I do not stay up night worrying about the American lunatic fringe society. They will be marginalized into virtual non-existance under their own power as long as the exchange of information and communication is allowed to fluorish freely and reason is permited to prevail over panic.
Actually, there never really was any, except for maybe a very brief period in the early part of the 20th century.
The earliest newspapers in America were partisan in a manner that would turn your hair white. They were often nothing more than shills for political parties and organizations. The only reason they made any pretense towards objectivity was to increase their readership beyond the scope of the converted, so to speak, but the papers existed to be partisan. They often delivered broadsides against political opponents that would make George Will or Molly Ivins feel like amateurs.
The modern masters of newspaper publishing were all highly partisan: Greeley and Luce were heavily Republican, and Hearst and Pulitzer were Democrats. And, believe me you, their papers reflected it. (Remember “Yellow Journalism.”)
Readers throughout the period expected partisanship from their papers. If they wanted to read the other guy’s opinions, they’d buy his paper.
Only for a short time, during FDR’s administration, did reporters openly agree (unofficially), to be “objective” and to resist the partisan pushes of publishers and editors. But by the post-WWII era, that objectivity had been handily dispensed with. These days, most major media outlets tend towards the centrist, but with a definite right or left bent. Here in Washington, who you are politically determines, for the most part, whether you’re going to read the Times (Republican) or the Post (Democrat). If your town only has one paper, it’s going to have an identifiable political tone.
In short, “objective journalism” is a myth. We never really had it in American, and probably never will.
Also, by the field of psychology. The development of this science has led to a shift in perspective, from viewing people as responsible for their actions, to viewing people as captives of their personalities.
John Corrado
Not to dispute your thesis, but the classification of a person or group as crazy must take into acount the extent to which they deviated from the norm of their time. By this yardstick many of the old time crazies were not as crazy as they seem in retrospect.
OTOH, I would point out that much of the reason that the old timers seem more normal is because in looking back at history people focus on the larger groups, and miss the crazies. Many crazy movements today will also be forgotten by future generations, who will in turn be convinced that their own crop is a new phenomenon.
That and some significant poulation growth. There’s more of every type these days.