What happened to the USA?

[redeye]

In the early 19th century, it was the most democratic nation in the world; it had no monarchy, all white males aged 21 or more could vote (in Britain at the time there was still no universal white male suffrage and France was in complete turmoil), and it had a pretty modern constitution based on the enlightenment (the electoral college went obsolete about that time, but no other part had or did).

Well, look at the USA now. It is far more democratic than it was in the 1830s, there's no doubt about that. The world, however, has progressed far more than it; the USA denies felons the right to vote, its law has loopholes that allow presidents to be appointed by the SCOTUS rather than elected, its people are the stupidest in the world, and its income is distributed less equally than this of any other developed nation.

My question is, what happened? Why has the USA become the mire that it is now (don't blame Bush, by the way, because it was that bad in the 1950s, too)? Why, how has it turned from the most liberal nation and culture in the world to the most conservative in the free world?

[Bake]

1. Three words: SOLD ITS SOUL

Pure and simple. Sold its soul for the benjamins.

Bake

[ClintonTyree]

24. One word...........

capitalism.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

2. Only 8 states don't let felons who have completed their sentence

vote.

Aside from that a propaganda war was waged silently and skilfully starting in the 1950's. It was discovered in the 70's and outlawed but then regrouped under the guise of think tanks and charities and it funnelled down to communities where people use the lingo without ever realizing they have done so.

The Johns Hopkins manuals used to undermine foreign governments were put to use here.

That was the short answer.

[redeye]

3. I hear it's 15...

...including Florida.

And what propaganda war are you talking about?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

8. Only six states permanently disenfranchise all ex felons

7 others have various rules and hurdles.

http://www.sentencingproject.org/pdfs/1046.pdf

and this site breaks down the Right wing propaganda wars and the various movements that comprised it including the think tanks that are off shoots of national movements funneled down to the state and community level.

http://www.mediatransparency.org/issues.htm

[David Zephyr]

4. Political Democracy is Not Economic Democracy.

That, along with the instution of slavery which was remedied by civil war, has been the underlying flaw in the great American experiment from the Constitutional Convention.

The failure to address the great gulf of economic disparity in property and wealth has been the bacterial infection that continues to plague us today.

Democrats are frustrated when Bush, Inc. stole an election in broad daylight in front of the whole world and, yet don't won't to deal with the reason Bush was able to "win".

Political democracy is nothing without economic democracy.

[redeye]

5. Oh yeah...

...I should've put a disclaimer, "No rape of the words freedom, liberty, patriotism, democracy, and good allowed."

Define economic democracy please, and then explain what it is and how it is so vital to democracy.

[GreatAuntK]

6. Somewhat similar thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=106412&mesg_id=106412

[David Zephyr]

10. Briefly on "Economic Democracy".

Well, some familiar examples of economic democracy would be the progressive tax code (which is now being methodically eroded by purchased legislation), Public Education, Social Security, and Inheritance Taxation.

Other tools for economic democracy would include Agrarian Reform and Universal Healthcare.

I was answering the question you posed. I'm sorry that my answer did not fit into the inadequate framework of only social, cultural or political thought.

The problems that you addressed have economic roots. If you consider that "rape" by me saying so, then I'll let you be.

[redeye]

25. You didn't define economic democracy

You said what positions it advocates, and that's not the same thing.

Also, the problems I address don't have purely economic roots, because the USA was the most democratic and liberal society in the world in the 19th century even though it had serious inequality issues.

On a final note, I consider rape to be when you use the term "economic democracy" without saying what it is about (political democracy, for example, is about the rule of the majority and rights for the minority), presumably in order to make your position look more attractive by tying it to a postiive word, democracy.

[OldEurope]

13. Democracy is (or should be) when everyone has the

possibility to take part in the politics of his/her country. To make sure that everyone can do this, it is most important, that everyone gets informations; and you need a quite good education, so that you can use these informations. And you need a little time to make use of your rights to take part in the political life. So a democracy can only work, when everybody at least has enough money to get a good education ( for himself and his children), get every information, and have enough time (means: no need to have 3 Jobs to prevent the children from starving). When there are few very rich, and masses of poor, a democracy could hardly work. The rich would always try to suppress the poor, and they have the means to do it. So a stable democracy should try to avoid this situation, that people are too poor to take part in the political life. An economic adjustment, a little help for the poor, is a precondition for democracy.
No political democracy without economic democracy.:thumbsup:

[David Zephyr]

17. Nicely Stated, Old Europe.

n/t

[redeye]

26. Okay...

...what does this have to do with democracy? There's a perfectly good word in Englsih for that: equality.

And on another note, equality is not a precondition for democracy, because mostly in undeveloped societies the rich don't have the technology or the power to own a democratic system. When there isn't enough technology for, for examples, gerrymandering, lobbying, and coordinating activities in various regions, there can easily exist a democracy without economic equality (economic as opposed to racial or gender equality).

Moreover, it's not entirely true that "a little help for the poor is a precondition for democracy." It may be a precondition for democracy to work, but it is not a precondition for democracy itself, because there are many counterexamples (e.g. turn-of-the-19th-century-USA, Weimar Germany). Around 1900, the workers got some of what they wanted via the first social schemes, Progressive politics, and strikes. Was there equality then? No. In that sense, democracy created equality in the USA, not vice versa. Ditto the 1930s and the New Deal, when democracy worked to achieve equaltiy and not vice versa.

[OldEurope]

27. okay, welfare is not a precondition for

democracy, but, as you said: a precondition for the working of democracy.
And who needs a democracy that doesn´t work??? (Had enough of this here in Weimar!)
I dídn´t use the word equality, because I would not want all people be equally rich or poor ( communism, also had enough of this here in Germany) ). What I meant was: if you want a democracy beeing stable, there must be a sort of adjustment or care or welfare or relief or what ever, so that the poor don´t get too poor to join political life, if they liked to.

[Maple]

7. Well if you don't mind an outside observation

Americans are fantastic at marketing. (Canadians suck at it btw...we've got some great things here that maybe 3 people in the universe know about.)

But Americans are terrific at it.

However, at some point you start to believe your own publicity I think.

I mean, right from birth you're told that you're the biggest and the best, and that everybody on the planet thinks so. Americans have a brilliant this, a brilliant that, the first nation ever to do such and such, the only nation ever to have ...whatever. I don't know that you're ever taught to question it.

So why would you ever see a need for change, or renewal, and why would you ever learn about the rest of the world, or learn from other cultures? Their good points, their mistakes, their ideas....it all kind of gets brushed off.

There is a lot of isolationism in the US, mentally and emotionally...and it's not until there's a crisis that you notice there are other people on the planet.

Life is busy, and most people don't pay attention until something makes them do so. Then, of course, it's often too late.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

11. Very astute observation from someone who has had to live next door

to us all these years.

[Maple]

21. Thank you

Although I doubt it will be paid attention to. :D

[iangb]

23. OH PRAISE BUSH!! and..

......pass the barf bucket.....Maple's right!

(Being 'next door' maybe you could ring the bell, and shout "HELLLOOOO" until they wake up.

[sasquatch]

9. Her people turned into whores looking to make a buck

They stopped using words like we and us started using words like Me, Mine and I. I always believe in the rights of the individual but, to an certian extent. People decided it was more important for them to have a Mercedes then to see that their children recieved a good education. They decided that they would rather control and own people than work together with others. They decided to(quote Lemmy) "Save themseves and kill the world". They decided anything you can do to make more money is OK consequences of your actions be damned. Your son has asthma now because of your company poluting the air. They reply "aww... I'll just buy him an inhaler. You see it's about ME, ME, ME and to hell with anyone else. It used to be "it takes a village to raise a child". Now it's "Fuck those kids tell'em to get jobs. When there are no jobs because the local manufacturer decided to use third world child labor instead of american adults. They'll reply "tell'em to get real jobs". When drug use becomes rapant because of lost hope they'll say "they should send'em all to jail" instead of legalizing softer drugs and giving treatment to harder drugs. That solves the unemployment problem because we have to build more prisons and hire more guards to help "puritan america" try to achieve her Bullshit idealogical goal. The people become dumb because of sitting down and thinking of ways to make things better they'd rather watch The Travel Channel or ESPN to distact them from reality. If they do "wake up" start to use the sense that god gave'em they are called "Anti-American" or "Anti-Establishment". So they would rather sit around do what the man on TV tells them and never question their orders because they would rather "survive" than take a stand.

[AndyTiedye]

18. Americas Politicans are doing these things

America's People are Screaming Bloody Murder
But it doesn't make the news for some reason.

[imwatchingem]

12. Did it ever truly exist?

Or has it always been a dream, one we've learned to sleepwalk through?

[tkmorris]

19. I think that's the point.

No, of course the ideal Democracy never existed. The point though is that once upon a time we were closer to it than any nation on earth. Since then while we have improved, other nations have improved more and some now easily surpass us. Perhaps not in the realm of conspicuous consumption, there we reign supreme and are somehow sickeningly proud of it.

No, in terms of fairness, social justice, education, a real safety net that actually works and doesn't force it's occupants to live in abject poverty AND endure intentional social stigma, there is where we have been left behind. I would bet the trend will accelerate too. It seems to me that the CLC'ers and even some Dems are actively trying to redefine the American ideal to fit more closely the role we actually play. These notions of Freedom, Justice, Pursuit of Happiness? Quaint holdovers of a naive age. At least that's what they'd have you believe.

Americans used to believe they were the best nation on earth. Now it no longer cares, it simply wants to be the strongest nation on earth. There is a huge difference, though it may be too subtle for the new breed of slack-jawed Survivor watchers who can't remember a lunch that didn't come with fries. I read somewhere recently (though I cannot verify) that the United States spends 10 times more on it's military machine than it's closest competitor. 10 times. We are the 900 pound gorilla. We don't convince the world we're right through diplomacy and strength of argument, we tell em we're right because we SAY so. If they don't like it, too bad. Bring 'em on.

By the way, I don't really think the Bush administration is somehow viler than previous conservative nightmares. I think it merely seems that way because they are the first to remove the mask, to stop pretending in any real sense they are anything but what they are. I can still see Ari Fleischer, telling yet another whopper, and see that silly smirk on his face. He knew you didn't believe a word of it, not if you posessed two functional neurons, but he didn't care.

Americans will never wake up as long as they are not hungry, or poor, or without a job, or a home. You let em have the basics and give em lots of pretty lights to keep em busy for their useful lives and they'll stay out of your way. Leaving our leaders free to rape the world at their leisure.

But then, I could be wrong :beer:

[RichM]

14. It never really was "the most liberal" nation, except for a 40-year

period starting in the mid 1930's -- and THAT was just an aberrant period that was due to exceptional circumstances.

Before the Great Depression, the US was a Darwinian jungle. The laws, government, police & courts all existed simply to protect the interests of the well-to-do.

The Depression obliged the ruling class to make certain concessions to the working population. This, they did unwillingly, kicking & screaming all the way, under FDR's leadership. WWII destroyed the greatest US economic rivals, who needed 20 or so years to rebuild.

During this postwar period, the US was the undisputed hegemon, & could afford to continue the New Deal concessions to the working population. These were the "salad days" of US domestic liberalism. It seemed convincingly good to those living here, because government was supportive of the middle class (rather than of the upper class, as was the case pre-1935 and post-1975).

But even during this time, terrible processes were in motion internationally. Every single thing the US did in the Third World was vicious & criminal: Guatemala, Iran, Vietnam, Korea, Congo, Cuba, Indonesia... And the M-I complex grew steadily in size & influence.

However, because things were relatively nice for the middle class domestically, & because the media covered up for the government's crimes abroad, most of the population believed the US propaganda about itself -- ie, the stuff about "standing for freedom & democracy," etc.

The point: the idea that the US was so "liberal" is based 1) on a short time period that was really an aberration to the general pattern, & 2) on a false image of reality, since the extent of US violence & imperialism abroad was not widely understood domestically. It's not that the US "used to be so liberal, then became conservative." Rather, the country was ALWAYS pretty conservative, except for a 40-yr blip where it domestically APPEARED to be liberal (though there was less to this than met the eye).

[David Zephyr]

16. It Was "An Aberrant Period " Indeed

And it began to quickly reverse back to the old ways with the assassination of John Kennedy and the election of Richard Nixon.

I always appreciate your thoughts, RichM. :hi:

[mitchum]

20. that is a concise and accurate analysis

[Against ME]

15. Ignorance, and religion.

Or rather manipulation of religion.

[SodoffBush]

22. "...its people are the stupidest in the world"

Tell me about it. Americans think Chimpy exaggerated the information leading to a preemptive attack a country that never did anything to the US, but they're glad he did. D-U-M-B

http://msnbc.com/news/946173.asp?0cv=CA00

Nearly half of Americans believe President Bush exaggerated the evidence for going to war with Iraq, according to a new survey for NBC News and The Wall Street Journal, but more than two-thirds think he still made the right decision.

<snip>

...respondents faulted Democrats for making too much of the issue. More than half, 56 percent, said the Democrats were “playing politics” by accusing Bush of making misleading claims, compared with 30 percent who said the criticism was valid.
Nor has the drop in trust shaken Americans’ underlying belief that the war was proper. More than two-thirds — 69 percent — continue to believe the United States “should have taken military action,” down a statistically insignificant 2 points from May. Twenty-seven percent said it should not have taken military action.