The United States is famously violent and awash in guns. Racism is practically a national creed. Drug abuse is rampant. We have the highest income inequality in the developed world. Our mass transit is laughable. We spend half our time in court suing each other. Our system of government is literally designed to make it impossible to do anything. American highways are death traps and we treat pedestrians like bowling pins. We're addicted to war.
In other words, we live in a chaotic and frequently ugly madhouse. And yet, we're the biggest and fastest growing major country in the world. We produce Nobel Prizes by the bucketload. We're the world leader by miles in software development. Our median income is among the highest on the planet. Entrepreneurship is off the charts. We're practically besieged by people who want to live here. Our universities are top ranked. By just about any broad measure, we've been the most successful large country in the world for the past 150 years and we still are.
This hardly makes any sense. And yet here we are.
Not to mention that, to the world, the United States is the cornerstone of freedom and democracy, has been for the last two and a half centuries, and will remain so until November, if not longer.
Some parts of the world, maybe. But in my experience almost nobody in the developed world currently believes this of the United States. I take no pleasure in writing this, but I think it's undoubtedly true. Much more so than is the rich democracy norm, the USA of our current era suffers from: regular, frequent, paralyzing political scandals; significant voting barriers; a highly politicized judiciary; gerrymandering on steroids; political violence, insurrections; extreme polarization; large-scale abandonment of objective standards of truth; frequent episodes of damaging gridlock. And so on.
America's economy is the strongest of any high income country, zero doubt. And its popular culture is unmatched in terms of influence. But much/most of anything to do with our government, public sector and constitutional order have fallen behind what you see in other high income democracies.
And yet, strangely, for every rich European country I check, net migration flows are lopsidedly to the US. For example, there are almost three times as many Germans living in the US as Americans living in Germany. This is despite the US bases that bring thousands of Americans to Germany every year who could get used to the place and stay.
This really is not surprising to anyone who spends time in Europe. New York has its problems but would you really trade for Rome, Madrid, or London?
"There are almost three times as many Germans living in the US as Americans living in Germany."
So? What does that have to do with perceptions of the US as "the cornerstone of freedom and democracy." Do you think all the South Asians who worked in Qatar prior to the world cup prove that it, too, is a cornerstone of freedom and democracy?!
The South Asians who work in Qatar are almost universally not permanent migrants (they cannot do that). In addition, many of their countries are not much more democratic than Qatar.
Germans who moved here in the last three decades?
if you can find a source for that show us.
What I can find is that there are almost three times as many German citizens living in the US as American citizens living in Germany. I have no idea when they moved.
And yet, strangely, for every rich European country I check, net migration flows are lopsidedly to the US.
There's nothing strange about it. Well-educated Europeans (the kind who would be eligible for H1B visas) almost all speak English. The opposite isn't true of Americans vis-a-vis French, German, Dutch, Italian, etc. But even so, it would appear US emigration to Europe is increasing rapidly—certainly more rapidly than the growth in European emigration to the United States.
https://www.economist.com/europe/2023/08/28/why-europe-is-a-magnet-for-more-americans
Also, I'm not contending that American mostly care about the increasing political dysfunction in their country. I think it's an open question whether the majority do, or not. So, a decline in the efficient operation of the US constitutional and political order wouldn't necessarily prompt a big outflow of Yanks (at least not yet). I mean, if Americans did care more about this sort of thing, I really doubt Trump would be leading Joe Biden in most polls. Indeed, indifference to the decline is probably our democracy's most dangerous enemy.
If your hypothesis is correct then there should be more Americans living in the UK than UK citizens living in the US. But again, UK citizens in the US great outnumber the reverse.
I must disagree. I spent 26 years living in the Netherlands …Americans fool themselves into believing they are the center of the universe…and everyone is just dying to move here.the quality of life for many Americans is just dismal…it’s fabulous for those at the top….everybody else lives in a state of low grade anxiety of possible financial ruin…health care disasters…impossibility of upward mobility. You can make a bunch of money in America…that’s the big draw… Americans also have a blind spot about their violent culture….and always counter any criticism with the fact it’s a huge country…with such diversity it’s impossible to solve its myriad of problems….its impossible if you can’t admit to them….which america …with its curious combination of ignorance and arrogance..never quite brings itself todo.
But again, more that three times as many Dutch people live in the US as the reverse.
https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb/news/2008/44/more-than-31-thousand-americans-in-the-netherlands
There are 16 million Dutch citizens ….are you saying the population of Dutch immigrants in America is almost 50 million people….wow….in the 50’s many Dutch fled holland because of WWII( my partner among them)…it was safer in their opinion. People come here because there are fewer rules….cut throat competion….ways to get rich…
Work on your reading skills.
There are more than three times as many Dutch citizens living in the US as Americans living in the Netherlands.
We actually are the center of the universe. For example we convinced the Netherlands to stop selling advanced chip making fabs to China. They did not know what to do on February 24 2022 so they followed the US lead. Etc.
But other than that you are right that other societies do various things better.
Well, having considered emigration on several occasions I can say that other countries seem to put up a lot of roadblocks. All the ones I checked out want a job waiting for you when you arrive. Or if no job is waiting for you they want you to have several millions of dollars to invest in their country. I get the impression that there are fewer hoops to jump through to legally immigrate to the US. But I've never seen side-by-side comparisons of the difficulty of immigration policies by country. That would be an interesting study. Kevin, do you have any data?
"almost nobody in the developed world currently believes this of the United States" -- that it is to the world the cornerstone of democracy and freedom.
How do you tell if a stone is a corner stone? Remove the stone. It's the cornerstone if the arch collapses regardless of one's opinions.
WARNING: This is merely a thought experiment, and definitely not a suggest.
The United States is the cornerstone. If the world needs freedom and democracy, then the world needs the United States for better or for worse, whether anyone wants it or not, and until the death of freedom and democracy do us part.
An opinion is a potentially but not necessarily accurate reflection of reality. Mike Lindell thinks perception is reality.
The US is definitely not the "cornerstone of democracy" since we have gerrymandering, a corrupt SCOTUS, a Senate that is radically skewed towards a shrinking white Christian minority of citizens, and violence and threats run amok.
Our democracy is backsliding.
https://www.npr.org/2021/12/01/1059896434/united-states-backsliding-democracy-donald-trump-january-6-capitol-attack
You place more blame on the Senate than on the House?
The Senate is 50/50 despite vastly more people voting for Democrats. That's undemocratic and absurd.
And also not fixable. The one thing about the Constitution that is explicitly sheltered from Amendment is the "equal suffrage in the Senate" guaranteed to each state.
Everything is fixable. The makeup of the states is not in the constitution, and states have been split, and therefore states can be combined. One thing for sure, fixable or not, this is untenable and a really stupid way to run a government.
nice
what exactly does "our highways are death traps" have to do with "produc(ing) nobel prizes by the boatload?" they don't exactly contradict each other.
I guess the argument is “look at all the bad things yet look at all the good people and achievements”
If the country was so bad, you’d expect us to drive away the Nobel prize winners. I see what Kevin’s getting at
Xi-whillikers, we have islands of a possible future for humanity living in a vast beautiful reactionary social wasteland. Climbing the greasy pole is the original American obsession; remember that the ancestors of everyone living here today except African-Americans who were dragged here in chains, came here because they were pissed off in the previous country.
The Native Americans WALKED here, long before horses were domesticated. Yes, they had dog travoises, but how much can a dog really drag?
This deeply genetic sense of the wrongness of things is a central factor in those world-beating Nobel prizes and the hyper-entrepreneurialism of Americans. It's also the genesis of four hundred years of sniping at one another.
Interestingly, African-Americans have the greatest sense of community of any group in America. Chance?
Probably not.
The Native Americans WALKED here, long before horses were domesticated. Yes, they had dog travoises, but how much can a dog really drag?
The peopling of the Americas is something of an intellectual hobby of mine, and my understanding is that the question of whether the first Americans had dogs or not hasn't been settled. I'm inclined to think "yes" — Northeast Asia and Beringia, I reckon, would have been very diffcult to settle without dogs—but I haven't been able to find definitive evidence either way. And the genetic clues are ambiguous as to when indigenous Americans first had dogs (some of the DNA evidence, I think, suggests it was later waves—perhaps those associated with the Na-Dene language group—who first brought dogs to the Americas). Anyway, was just wondering if you have a different understanding.
I do not have any data. I honestly just assumed what you asserted: they couldn't have made it without the assistance of dogs, limited though it is for actual transportation.
Dogs have been our sentries for millennia.
Individual things on a pro-con list don't have to be related.
The point is the country is a disaster but also vibrant and thriving at the same time. Both things are true at once.
The difference is that the people (mostly white men) who believed that a majority share in America's prosperity was their birthright are now increasingly angry that they have to share it with other, less worthy, citizens and that by definition now means that this country blows.
Which is why so many of them oppose the obvious discrimination by US universities against Asians?
Are Asians white?
They're honorary "whites" as long as they remember who sits in the corner office.
Discrimination which is never proven, oddly.
Was this meant as a serious question? Do you actually think that the white people funding attacks on Affirmative Action care about Asians? Do you think any of them object to the legacy admissions that actually limit Asian admissions?
Asians are a good bludgeons for people who think that black people have it too easy in this country. But one has to be pretty naive to think that this is about caring about Asians.
Of course! I mean, how on earth could we assume bad faith on the part of people who call Covid the "China Virus" and who committed hate crimes against Asians in record numbers because Trump blamed China for his own ineptitude?
No sir, they sincerely care about Asians!
Also, Asia includes Pakistan, a majority Muslim country, whose people Trump wants to ban from coming here. I bet MF (motherfucker?) supports banning THOSE Asians from the country and is excited to racially profile them.
Yeah, the Middle East (from the British colonial perspective?) is really West Asia. And India is definitely in Asia (although I think it was referred to as a subcontinent in geography class). But the typical image of an "Asian" person is one from East Asia to Southeast Asia who in a very general way share particular physical characteristics and culture.
It does also get complicated when people that would typically fit that definition of Asian are from a majority Muslim country in SE Asia.
Share? It literally takes power and success away from them to redistribute it. I'm not saying that's a bad thing but it is hardly surprising that a group losing power to other groups would not simply accept it.
It makes sense because, in the end, liberal democracy (broad, expansionary rights) has always come out on top.
Except, now it's starting to erode rapidly, with the Conservative's push towards a fascistic form of democracy. Rights will be curtailed and power will be limited to certain groups.
"in the end, liberal democracy (broad, expansionary rights) has always come out on top." Not much evidence for this statement.
Either there is evidence or not. "Not much" -- what is that supposed to mean?
You want proof? We're still in a liberal democracy, per se.
"Is or is not" - Fallacy of the excluded middle.
"You want proof? We're still in a liberal democracy" - Fallacy of assuming the conclusion.
The Dutch, the French, the Germans, and the Brits all thought they were God's gift to the world. They were all wrong, but we are the REAL cornerstone!
Around the early 2000s more people lived in Democracies. Now more people live in autocracies. Democracy is losing.
Well, we have the United States as an example. First, voting was restricted to white dudes with property. Then it (informallly?) expanded to all white dudes.
* 14th amendment gives the vote to formerly-enslaved black people.
* 19th amendment expands voting to female-type persons.
* 23rd let citizens of DC vote for President
* 24th let people vote without having to pay
* 26th let 18 year olds and older vote (previously, you had to be at least 21)
26th amendment passed in 1971, over 50 years ago. That's before the GOP and the NRA went crazy (Reagan era). See the Powell Memorandum (1971).
BTW, how is the ERA doing? Any day now?
A little history of our progress. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_amendments_to_the_Constitution_of_the_United_States#Ratified_amendments
When will DC and Puerto Rico have Representatives and Senators in Congress?
Seems unlikely. It used to be far worse and we made it here, we didn’t have general suffrage til the 1960s-ish. And we have GOP presidents holding up pride flags. I think you’re taking some progress for granted
It's called "coasting on fumes," Kevin. We thrive based on the inherent difficulty in dismantling education and science and technology, but it's not a permanent inoculation. Eventually you reach a critical mass of homeschooled morons who don't know the earth is round, who demand that libraries be shut down in favor of bible shops, and it all comes crashing down. Slowly, then all at once.
The American Taliban in SOOOO many ways.
The bible thumpers and the book banning morons are a permanent fixture in American history, though. You might just be more aware of them because of the internet. Not saying it won't be our downfall, because it requires constant vigilance. They don't give up, they just ebb and flow.
Upper middle class white folks (like me) are fine. As a democrat I’m supposed to care about the welfare of those less fortunate but they seem to be either criminals, drug addicts, nuts, and / or republicans so… to heck with them. They don’t seem interested anyway.
My America is fine. Good luck. Trump is gonna mess with you all big time.
Setting aside a couple bits of hyperbole the first paragraph is mostly true. The second is mostly true but is also mostly the result of the actions of the elites, however you want to define that. The average American is not winning a Nobel Prize or teaching at our top universities.
I’ve long claimed that the top 10% of Americans in whatever field can outcompete anyone anywhere in the world, while the dumbest quarter of our population is far dumber than the dumbest folks in other peer countries. The problems start when the nation comes to be more a product of its dumbest members than its smartest. I don’t think you have to look very far to see signs of that happening. Start with election deniers, anti vaxers, QANON followers, or really the comments section of any large mainstream news source.
I agree with everything you said. So what exactly is the solution? It's a pretty towering hypocrisy to say "We should limit the suffrage to people who are 'smart enough to govern', so we can save representative democracy!"
Kinda reeks, doesn't it? But what else would work?
Working to make the dumbest fraction smarter? I know, it's a long term and very expensive solution. Still...
Yes, long term and expensive. But we’ve BEEN doing it a long time and spending lots of money, yet here we are.
The biggest problem with that is that they could only be educated by forcing them into "re-education camps", and THAT'S not gonna happen in a 450 million gun country, is it? The only solution I can see is for the nation to be divided with the Blue States getting all the nukes and physics-related scientific facilities so the Gomers can't go nuclear on their own for at least twenty years, when most of them have died off.
Yeah, it sucks, but I don’t have a solution. I’m not sure who does. I’m struck by two competing Churchill quotes:
“The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.”
“Democracy is the worst system of government, except for all the rest.”
For the millionth time this WordPress thingy needs upvotes.
There was a lot of wealth to be extracted from a virgin continent when Europeans arrived. A HELL of a lot, all there waiting to be exploited just by brushing aside the poor devils who thought they owned the place. Lots of slave and indentured labor helped. Then America avoided the calamitous destruction of 20th century wars, but gained immeasurably by being able to preside over the ruins of half the planet while grateful client states rebuilt.
The interesting question is not really how the USA and lesser, similar nations like Canada and Australia managed to become so stable and prosperous. It's how South American countries like Argentina managed to not to.
But why didn't Canada and Australia do as well as the US?
Higher proportionate losses of working-age men in the World Wars, since as Commonwealth dominions they entered the wars years sooner?
Smaller, less diverse populations?
Pre WWI and not that long after the Civil War the US was still way ahead of Canada and very close to Australia.
https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Economy/GDP-per-capita-in-1900
The worlds largest proportion of deeply fertile, well-watered temperate-zone land to the total area of the nation. Add to that a few well-watered "hot spots" to grow what doesn't grow in the temperate zone and you have the basis for an economy to reach the stratosphere.
Much of Canada's prarie provinces are barely temperate, and everything north of them and Lake Huron is taiga or tundra. Brazil is just the opposite. A small part is temperate but most is tropical Amazonas. Recently, of course, Brazil has been mining the fragile fertility of the rainforest for production of meat or crops for a few years, then letting it go to vicious grasslands.
Geography and natural resources are not the reason countries are wealthy or not. Countries like Singapore, South Korea, Japan, The Netherlands, and Switzerland do not have much and yet are far wealthier than resource powerhouses like Argentina, Indonesia, Russia, and the Congo.
Culture is the number one determinant. And it certainly appears that Anglo culture produces economic success. The differences between the Anglosphere countries in economic success these days is negligible (aside from Britain, which is significantly behind) in the larger picture.
That's literally geography, tho.
Culture IS very important, but MF specifically asked about Canada and Australia. Canada is obviously a very good comparison, because it's our direct neighbor.
I didn't respond about Australia because I don't know the country very well; I do know that something like 60% of it is the Nullarbor Plains [e.g. "the Outback"] which will never be useful for agriculture.
And I would reply that every one of those three small countries got rich AFTER the industrial revolution and widespread public education had already occurred, so they didn't need the wealth accumulation that the United States underwent in the Nineteenth Century.
Remember that Argentina had a per capita wealth roughly equal to that of the US in 1900, and it has a similar proportion of its territory which is temperate-zone grasslands or hardwood forests. Now its culture of extreme hierarchical stasis meant that it couldn't turn that wealth into prosperity for all, but the US was ALSO running headlong into oligarchy during the first three decades of the Twentieth Century until the stock market went Blooey and a patrician Socialist took over.
I don't follow that argument. Singapore, South Korea, Japan, The Netherlands, and Switzerland certainly don't share "Anglo culture".
But they aren't based on Spanish style colonialism.
Yet you cite five wealthy countries outside the Anglosphere.
‘Culture’ is the explanation people fall back on when other simplistic attempts to explain economic outcomes fail. I rather think the determinants are just very complex, as is most anything to do with human beings. Geography, climate, resources, technological developments, historical trends all interact.
Because most of Canada is covered in snow and permafrost, and because most of Australia is desert. Buy a map. Learn some geography.
Australia is a saucer; everyone lives on the rim. The rest is desert.
Most Canadians live within 100 miles of the border.
Much smaller population in Australia's case, and the natural resources available for exploitation weren't in the same ballpark.
It's how South American countries like Argentina managed to not to.
I think the Iberian, centralized model didn't foster an economic or political culture as productive as the Anglo-Saxon one. The former was at war for essentially five hundred years in its quest to liberate the peninsula. That made for a highly centralized, militarized state. That model was ultimately brought to what is now Latin America, and it proved less conducive to prosperity and stability over the very long term. I mean, Spain and Portugal themselved didn't emerge as stable, high income democracies until the 1970s. I don't think it's Catholicism per se, as some of the wealthier bits of Europe (Flanders, the Rhineland, Northern Italy) were pretty heavily Catholic.
Anyway, Argentina had gigantic natural wealth (30 million acres of highly productive farm land) relative to its population in the late 1800s and so, once immigration kicked in, it went on a growth spurt. But its deeper political, economic issues eventually caught up with it in the second half of the 20th century.
For Argentina it was always a mirage. It had an extractive and agricultural economy so it lacked the resources both social and economic to compete in the 20th century despite looking like it had money at the start.
Not contradictory at all. Increasingly, the benefits are going to a smaller and smaller group at the top. The results of Reagan's trickle up. See the GOP plan as outlined in the Powell Memorandum (1971).
"It was the best of times, It was the worst of times..."
A paradox. A vortex spinning aspects into greater extremes, negative and positive, until the system makes a correction. What that correction will be...
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Probably a collapse. Of some sort. Hope it doesn't hurt.
I hope it hurts the people who got us into this
I can pretty much guarantee that only a small percentage of those at fault will suffer. That's the way of the world.
https://youtu.be/8Dzs4TS_rKc
Plus, Biden is too old to be President. That's the surest sign of decline.
lol
Your description sounds like a country with a brick on the accelerator pedal. Perhaps there is something to be gained by slowing down a little. Quality of life perhaps? Even a longer life? Time with family and friends? Cooperation instead of competition? Hygge? Perhaps there are many aspects of a good life that can't be so easily measured by bigger, faster or more.
Rising tide raises all ships. Turned out Luddites were wrong
Then why is there net migration to the US from all other OECD countries?
Mostly it's a language issue. How many Americans do you know cab speak French or German or Korean or Dutch? Good luck getting a job offer in a country where you don't speak the language. Also, nobody denies the US is a rich country characteried by very high salaries for the well-educated. Well-educated people are generally the only ones who can easily migrate overseas. Anyway, it's not really surprising to me that people who enjoy a high material standard of living in familiar surroundings aren't willing to risk that simply because their government has become shaky. YMMV.
(Though they may think differently after 3 or 4 years of dictatorship.)
The US makes it hard to get paid here without immigration; other countries are more likely to just accept the work without it, if they find it beneficial.
To teach in the US, you almost have to immigrate, to teach in other countries is to get a guest visa.
i have a friend, licensed to be a medical doctor in the EU. He still votes in US elections, the UK isn't giving him a path to immigrate.
We are neither the biggest nor fastest growing country. That would be China, vastly larger, and having greatly outpaced almost all other countries in growth for many years. Even now, China's economy is larger and growth faster adjusted for PPP and inflation.
Glad to read we are the "fastest growing major country in the world" because that's what this country needs: lots more people
Low density life? Pshaw! Nobody wants that. What's odd is that so many travel agencies promote vacations to places where there aren't that many people. Clearly, they have misread the public's preferences.
+1
I have to wonder if this a parody of a Leftist, or if Kevin has finally surrendered to the reductive extremism consuming the far left:
“Racism is practically a national creed.”
Racism is indeed the official creed of certain segments of the Left who publicly and unambiguously promote unconstitutional and racial quotas through DEI, but they are a tiny (though influential) and profoundly unpopular sect of ideological fundamentalists.
In reality, 21st century America is the only large democracy in world history to peacefully and successfully maintain such enormous levels of religious, ideological, racial, and ethnic diversity. It wasn’t easy to get here, and that just makes it all the more tragic when the Left simply refuses to acknowledge, let alone take pride in, such a stunning achievement.
You ever notice no one but you and your racist ilk talk about 'quotas'?
You seem to forget that slavery was here longer than the US has been a nation. Or that jim crow existed for almost a hundred more years.
Weird.
@Crissa:
OMG that is so absurd. DEI is an explicit reference to quotas. Leftists are not just referencing, but in fact openly demanding, racial quotas constantly.
And it’s one of the great wonders of our time that the Dem party has been so intimidated by its Left flank that it won’t call out such despicable behavior. And Trump may very well win as a result.
And yet, it's only explicit to other racists.
I wonder why...
Do not feed the logorrheic troll.
Their obsession with DEI is weirdly hilarious.
I've been to many different countries and have had friends from many more. As far as I can tell, racism, prejudice, and bigotry are everywhere I am afraid. So I concluded long ago it's an ugly part of the human condition, and not uniquely American. Conservatives seem all too willing to accept injustice (if it doesn't affect them), or call it 'God's plan'. Liberals seem to want to say this ugliness is part of the system and are unwilling to admit that it exists in pretty much every person's psyche. Just changing the system is half the work.
I celebrate the people who have worked to tame this ugly side of our humanity, who speak with power to how it holds us all back, making people want to change themselves. They are my heroes, and they have existed in every country (well maybe not ~1200 Mongolia), it seems like forever. They give me hope.
This. Humans are a tribal species. It's baked into our DNA. Andy Young said you should never trust anyone who says they aren't racist. You should say "I'm working on my racism."
This. I come from a several very early Virginia lines on my Dad's side: the Laniers, the Warrens, and the Buggs included. These were fairly to very wealthy families, which means they all owned slaves, most right up until June of 1865.
My surname clan was definitely second-rate in the wealth sweepstakes, but they were in the same businesses, just at a more modest level. My grandfather was even in the Tulsa Race Riot, on the wrong team.
My dad was always ashamed of that, but he also used the "N" word regularly. So, yeah, "I'm working on my racism" is about the best I can claim, and that's a constant regret.
@Joel:
Regarding this:
“Andy Young said you should never trust anyone who says they aren't racist. You should say ‘I'm working on my racism.’”
I am not racist.
In fact, I am more or less in complete agreement with Coleman Hughes when he asserts that he has always found the topic of race to be boring.
That being said, racism clearly does exist. We have all seen antisemitism explode among the young, well-educated Leftists in Ivy League madrasas. They were supposedly the hope of the future but have instead revealed themselves as narrow minded bigots.
Nevertheless, viewing ALL people as racist, as Andy Young apparently does, reveals more about Andy Young than it does about anyone else.
His simplistic and comically dark view of human nature arguably does more to obscure than to clarify the complexities that we actually live with.
But the same can be said about all reductive assertions, of the religious or the ostensibly secular variety.
What does one need to do, or think, to be defined as a racist? Bigot? Or be prejudiced?
As someone who says the "topic of race 'is' boring", you seem to think a lot about it.
"I am not racist."
Okay, buddy
It's a big country. The US can walk and chew gum at the same time, while also launching rockets to the moon and shooting to death unarmed suspects of color.
If we're smart (heh), we* would notice all the many bad things and consider that they may be signs of internal rot, as was revealed by the 9/11/2001 attacks. We might pull ourselves together and take action, before the rotted-out hollow tree of American democracy is blown over and crashes to the ground.
===
* Remember, "U.S." also spells "us." Nobody ever noticed that before.
Not to 'all loves matter' this, but the US also shoots white unarmed suspects at an alarming rate.
See also, my father.
It's just, they do that at a lower rate than for black people. But still alot higher than other industrialized nations.
America is great at wrecking other nations. The satisfied subjects of the Republic are content with the destruction of Vietnam, Iraq, Libya, Syria and the imperial impoverishment of Latin America.
Extolling the virtues of the nation with the highest incarceration rate in the world hardly makes any sense.
True. I'm a straight white financially secure man, so the incarceration rate here is not something I worry about much. But I do wonder how poor and working-class blacks deal with the constant stress of dealing with American cops.
all right we are two nations
Midjourney AI illustrates Trump and Putin's romantic adventure,
https://old.reddit.com/r/midjourney/comments/1azoiuo/where_do_i_begin_to_tell_the_story/
Well, crap. I see that's been deleted and I didn't save any of it.
The US is a large country which can contain multitudes. So I doubt there is any one explanation here. At lot of the pluses come from our universities, which were a gift from Hitler. He chased the greatest scholars in the world from Germany to the US, and there is some reason to worry that we are just holding on to an advantage we built in the post World War II years. Florida, in particular, seems to be trying to kill what makes US universities great. California seems to be just less pushing what makes them great. Without great universities a lot of Drum's list of good traits would disappear.
But on the bad list, racism is declining in breadth in this country even if it is increasing in volume. That is to say the racists are getting louder because they see their views becoming less popular. And here racism is a stand in for bigotry in general. We are seeing a part of the country want to return to a time when bigotry was more widely shared, and they are not doing well. But most people in the country live in urban areas which are increasingly diverse and for the most part doing well.
One interesting thing is that the system of government that is incapable of doing anything may be better than the systems of government that do things easily. I certainly find a lot of the anti-democratic aspects of the government frustrating, but they do prevent wild swings that would get in the way of the economy. Which is to say that I wish Obama had been able to accomplish more in his 8 years in office. But without our system of inertia I suspect that Trump could have done more damage in 4 years than Obama could have done in 8. It took every push there was to get Obamacare passed, but there were barely enough checks in place to prevent its being repealed.
Late stage capitalism explains this dichotomy pretty well.
Ultimately it boils down to size and resources. Even Russia is doing well in the face of drastic sanctions, and incomes are up 10-20% since they kicked in. Iran and apartheid South Africa had lots of resources too but weren't big enough, and the former cratered and the latter surrendered. China, the EU and India are big enough but their dependence on outside resources make them fragile.
De Toqueville predicted in 1840 that the US and Russia were destined to rule the world. There have been ups and downs, and demography make the Russians into the junior now, but it still would seem it has been going in that direction since February 2nd, 1943, when the mighty German 6th army surrendered in Stalingrad.
But in a shorter-term perspective it's worth noting Obama went back to Keynes after the financial crash while Europe stuck to the Chicago School. Many years later the difference is still felt.
“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of light, it was the season of darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair.”
Hah!
https://post.news/@/MuellerSheWrote/2csZqqCKxyPxX4iAUMJd6bZbYJ9
The people born post WWII have been taught that "we" are an exceptional country. But the generation that actually served during WWII (or worked to support the cause) were exceptional and when THEY had children they did everything they could to make their kids lives better! The "America is the greatest crowd" seems to want to paint America with a broad brush. We are generations removed from that era. Subsequent generations have failed to "measure up" against what many regard as the greatest generation.
Is America great? I dunno, I haven't lived anywhere else so how can I compare? I want to believe it because it's a good thought
The greatest generation had no interest in fixing racism and their flight to the suburbs didn't make all kids lives better.
nor did they want womens rights
I am somewhat confused as to their stance on racism. the greatest generation came home fromthe war and started having kids - THOSE kids were too young to partake in or be influenced by the like of MLK, or RFK.
So,which generation supported the march on Washington and the Civil rights movement?