There is virulent divisiveness in today’s society which manifests itself in hateful speech and disdain for those who don’t share our political positions or even our religious beliefs or ethnicity. Social media allows it to spread and traditional media reports on it daily. All issues are viewed through a binary lens and we seemed to have lost the ability to the nuance and complexity of issues a populous society must deal with.
Given the current atmosphere, do you believe the 242-yaar experiment that is the American republic is in decline?
I think it’s at an inflection point. As coaches, you and I judged players and teams on how they performed in the pressure moments in a game, when the outcome was on the line. So now we need to judge ourselves. This may be a crisis moment for the Republic. Do we answer the call? Do we vote? Do we educate ourselves so we understand the issues, knowing that nothing that involves 330 million people is simple. The nation has faced crises before- the Civil War, the Great Depression, World War II. We survived those because of leadership at the top and a commitment from a majority of citizens.
Without doubt we’ve hit some major bumps in the road: every empire / govt of any power has gone thru major changes, usually thru revolution of some sort / ours is the result of a revolution and has morphed through decades of growth to where we emerged as thee power during 20th century. How we handle the obstacles before us determines our future, the drive for power has gone beyond the ideal need for bipartisan leadership. It’s troubling to hear one group of ppl say they are the patriots wtho giving credence to anything the other group says or does. The mere fact that we have become ‘sides’ is not good; a family lasts by working together despite differences, our current society can not get beyond the differences, or admit any potential self wrong. Ie,,, masks. We are in a troubled darkened place wth the potential ability to rise above, but it will take better than what we have at the moment.
Hard to say whether it's in decline, but I believe we're headed in a dangerous direction, which is not new for our nation. Efforts to eliminate the filibuster, add Supreme Court seats and new states for the purposes of securing power indefinitely will very likely exacerbate the "virulent divisiveness in today’s society", perhaps beyond repair. We seem to have accepted a "win at all costs" mindset, where the ends justify the means, and the justification for these means are often at best half-truths and spin, and at worst out right lies (we'll all be dead in 10 years due to the "climate catastrophe"). This mindset makes debate unnecessary, as long as my side can win, because after all, my way of thinking is the Right Way of thinking. No need to listen to opposing views. And while the direction to which I refer is not new to this nation, I believe the current environment of divisiveness may make it irreparable. And by divisiveness I mean the efforts to define individuals as members of groups (aka "identity politics) instead of individuals. Once a group is defined as "bad", then all members within that group become objectified. I'd like to see a return to individual thinking and away from group-think, but the Corporate Media seems to be determined to see that doesn't happen.
Also, it's tricky to define "decline" as it's somewhat subjective. If one highly values the basic underpinnings of our founding (i.e., individual liberties, citizens governed by the governed instead of subjects of a ruling class, a central government whose purpose is to protect those individual liberties within a structure designed to avoid concentrations of power, etc..), then I believe one could make a case that we are in "decline". However, if one subscribes to the notion that a powerful central government is there to force some sort of balanced OUTCOMES instead of one whose primary goal is to ensure equal access and OPPORTUNITY, then one could make a case that we are not. In fact, the latter case would suggest we are on the rise.
he duopoly that is our political system has drives divisiveness. Winner-take-all elections between the 2 parties are zero-sum contests. 50 years ago, the parties were not ideological: Southern Democrats were the conservatives, Republicans were the party of business, generally conservative of fiscal matters, liberal on most social issues. The parties were accustomed to working together on an issue-by-issue basis. Prior to Reagan, the Republican Presidents- Eisenhower, and Nixon, and even Ford- were moderate centrists. Nixon has been called the last New Deal President. But the fallout from the passage of the Civil Rights & Voting Rights Acts precipitated the movement of Southern Democrats into the Republican ranks. The parties began to sort themselves ideologically but it was still possible to have debates on policy. But conservatives disappeared from the GOP and with them went the robust intellectual conservatism that animated policy debates.
The issues you refer to - eliminating the filibuster, adding Supreme Court justices, and statehood for DC & Puerto Rico- are a symptom of the divisiveness, cudgels each side uses to wack the other. The filibuster is a fabrication, a quirk of Senate rules. (Look up Aaron Burr and the removal of the “motion to proceed” from the rules.) The formal procedure to end debate-"cloture"- did not even exist until 1917 and the supermajority required to sustain a cloture motion was originally 2/3's of the Senators and was reduced to 3/5's in 1975. In the mid-1970s, budget reconciliation bills were made exempt from the filibuster; both Democratic Leader Harry Reid and Republican Mitch McConnell engineered the elimination of the filibuster for judicial and some executive nominations, eventually including Supreme Court Justices. As far as "court-packing", here's a pop quiz: What was the original number of Justices on the Supreme Court? How many times has that number been changed?
If we are in decline, it is because we are bringing it on ourselves. Cynical leaders seek advantage in polarization (divide-and-conquer); a population easily manipulated by corporate media and, dangerously, disinformation campaigns. Citizens who are easy prey for simplistic solutions to the complex issues of governing 330 million people. Scapegoating those with who we disagree.
If there is hope, it is in the activism of voters. A record number of voters chose the loser in last fall’s Presidential race; a greater number chose the winner. Good signs on all sides.
I think it’s at an inflection point. As coaches, you and I judged players and teams on how they performed in the pressure moments in a game, when the outcome was on the line. So now we need to judge ourselves. This may be a crisis moment for the Republic. Do we answer the call? Do we vote? Do we educate ourselves so we understand the issues, knowing that nothing that involves 330 million people is simple. The nation has faced crises before- the Civil War, the Great Depression, World War II. We survived those because of leadership at the top and a commitment from a majority of citizens.
Will the United States do it another time?
This was a reply to Bkuz.
Without doubt we’ve hit some major bumps in the road: every empire / govt of any power has gone thru major changes, usually thru revolution of some sort / ours is the result of a revolution and has morphed through decades of growth to where we emerged as thee power during 20th century. How we handle the obstacles before us determines our future, the drive for power has gone beyond the ideal need for bipartisan leadership. It’s troubling to hear one group of ppl say they are the patriots wtho giving credence to anything the other group says or does. The mere fact that we have become ‘sides’ is not good; a family lasts by working together despite differences, our current society can not get beyond the differences, or admit any potential self wrong. Ie,,, masks. We are in a troubled darkened place wth the potential ability to rise above, but it will take better than what we have at the moment.
Hard to say whether it's in decline, but I believe we're headed in a dangerous direction, which is not new for our nation. Efforts to eliminate the filibuster, add Supreme Court seats and new states for the purposes of securing power indefinitely will very likely exacerbate the "virulent divisiveness in today’s society", perhaps beyond repair. We seem to have accepted a "win at all costs" mindset, where the ends justify the means, and the justification for these means are often at best half-truths and spin, and at worst out right lies (we'll all be dead in 10 years due to the "climate catastrophe"). This mindset makes debate unnecessary, as long as my side can win, because after all, my way of thinking is the Right Way of thinking. No need to listen to opposing views. And while the direction to which I refer is not new to this nation, I believe the current environment of divisiveness may make it irreparable. And by divisiveness I mean the efforts to define individuals as members of groups (aka "identity politics) instead of individuals. Once a group is defined as "bad", then all members within that group become objectified. I'd like to see a return to individual thinking and away from group-think, but the Corporate Media seems to be determined to see that doesn't happen.
Also, it's tricky to define "decline" as it's somewhat subjective. If one highly values the basic underpinnings of our founding (i.e., individual liberties, citizens governed by the governed instead of subjects of a ruling class, a central government whose purpose is to protect those individual liberties within a structure designed to avoid concentrations of power, etc..), then I believe one could make a case that we are in "decline". However, if one subscribes to the notion that a powerful central government is there to force some sort of balanced OUTCOMES instead of one whose primary goal is to ensure equal access and OPPORTUNITY, then one could make a case that we are not. In fact, the latter case would suggest we are on the rise.
Frank
he duopoly that is our political system has drives divisiveness. Winner-take-all elections between the 2 parties are zero-sum contests. 50 years ago, the parties were not ideological: Southern Democrats were the conservatives, Republicans were the party of business, generally conservative of fiscal matters, liberal on most social issues. The parties were accustomed to working together on an issue-by-issue basis. Prior to Reagan, the Republican Presidents- Eisenhower, and Nixon, and even Ford- were moderate centrists. Nixon has been called the last New Deal President. But the fallout from the passage of the Civil Rights & Voting Rights Acts precipitated the movement of Southern Democrats into the Republican ranks. The parties began to sort themselves ideologically but it was still possible to have debates on policy. But conservatives disappeared from the GOP and with them went the robust intellectual conservatism that animated policy debates.
The issues you refer to - eliminating the filibuster, adding Supreme Court justices, and statehood for DC & Puerto Rico- are a symptom of the divisiveness, cudgels each side uses to wack the other. The filibuster is a fabrication, a quirk of Senate rules. (Look up Aaron Burr and the removal of the “motion to proceed” from the rules.) The formal procedure to end debate-"cloture"- did not even exist until 1917 and the supermajority required to sustain a cloture motion was originally 2/3's of the Senators and was reduced to 3/5's in 1975. In the mid-1970s, budget reconciliation bills were made exempt from the filibuster; both Democratic Leader Harry Reid and Republican Mitch McConnell engineered the elimination of the filibuster for judicial and some executive nominations, eventually including Supreme Court Justices. As far as "court-packing", here's a pop quiz: What was the original number of Justices on the Supreme Court? How many times has that number been changed?
If we are in decline, it is because we are bringing it on ourselves. Cynical leaders seek advantage in polarization (divide-and-conquer); a population easily manipulated by corporate media and, dangerously, disinformation campaigns. Citizens who are easy prey for simplistic solutions to the complex issues of governing 330 million people. Scapegoating those with who we disagree.
If there is hope, it is in the activism of voters. A record number of voters chose the loser in last fall’s Presidential race; a greater number chose the winner. Good signs on all sides.
Great pop quiz on Supreme Court! Made me Google it... And now I know.