When did America go astray?

[/end Anti-American, Blame America for Everything, Anti-Bush Rant]

So enters the demogague. Speaking out against the pres and the admin doesn't constitute anti-American. It's Pro-American at it its best. Please stop with the dissembling.

It's that evil Satin and his minions, Velourzebub and Polyestaah.
Sin-thetic fabric of society has strayed...
if everybody was naked, there'd be more love in the world.

America went astray when Americans decided to turn against their own brothers and call them traitors, for having a difference of opinion. That's when America started to fall apart and resort to intellectually dishonesty. This guy, SDW, is the perfect example of why America sucks right now.

That's an easy question to answer:

Why not ? Bush blames everything else for his mistakes!

Power corrupts i really have seen this on local,state and the federal level. Now take Power and back it with Big Big money that comes from these mega corporations and you start asking yourself who is making policy? Look at George's Bush's or rather Dick Cheneys position on many things and its very clear that not us Americans are making policy but Big Business is.Whats number 1 for big business? the dollar. Our forfathers did not intend this. If there ever was a president who was running for the Big business executive it would be George.

I think it happened when Clinton was reelected.

Fixed it for you.

America became screwed up when it went to this 2 party system and thinking whatever your party does its right. So we have 45% of the populace that think Republicans are allways right,45% think Democrats do no wrong and both partys are screwing America this is why we swing from democrat to republican presidents because neither is really representing us as Americans. Look at history back and forth,back and forth. America doesnt want a far right president as George nor a far left Guy this is why Bill Clinton was elected twice. Moderation is the key not extremism.

And Dole getting elected would have been better, how?

The election of Andrew Jackson.

Well, yes, but no no no!

J. Q. Adams... now that was a mistake.

It must if the quality of life necessitates cheap labor to keep prices down. That is not to say there must be a decrease in our quality of life as the world catches up -- its that for sometime now our quality of life won't increase as rapidly as other nations, but absolutely it will still get better.

When we started getting too comfortable, too complacent, too filtered and too over-materialistic, and riding roughshod over the rest of the world in order to maintain the resulting short-term gain, for a powerful and well-connected few. Our kids and grandkids will pay a terrible, perhaps impossible to overcome, price for it.

Not anti-American? You rip the nation as far as it goes back, and that's not anti-American? You refer to President Bush as "Napolean"?


How about the above? That's not anti-American?

There is such a thing as unreasonable and irresponsible criticism

This country was like any other country only that its bad things were amplified through the fact that it was very big and very strong: so, what it did wrong it did wrong big . . . . many of those things have been acknowledged . . . even the mistakes of backing Guatemalan and Bolivian etc death squads, for which there were public and official apologies (probably no material compensation though . . but better than nothing) . . . But its good things were also amplified and were GREAT . . . and still are.

But I must say that something has actually changed recently and things have become disproportionally screwed up . . .

I would say that something started shortly after Barry Goldwater's campaign.
I would say that what happened (and there is a poorly written article in the recent Harper's about this) was was that a few extremely powerful and rich families decided to combat what they perceived to be anti-capitalist Left, and they decided to promote an extreme Corporatism (New-Conservatism) over all other civilizing values - over, even, the notion of 'country'.

They did this through a concerted demonization process that, over the years, crystallized into a behind the scenes PR, media-surrogate, self-reinforcing 'Intellectual-Property' Machine

That wouldn't have been so bad in itself.

But, what happened was that the Cold War ended and the 'Enemy' disappeared. This sense of a real identifiable 'Enemy' gave this powerful network of heavily funded backdoor media channels and spokespeople the reasons for defining a new 'Enemy'. 'Liberalism' came to replace what was previously seen as only the seriously 'Left' Communist . . any manifestation of social principles were demonized in order to consolidate the Ideology for the New Conservatism. And they used any means of consolidating their power-base.

And this, to me, is what is so terrible: they FALSLY associated their aims -which are patently pro-Corporation, anti-regulation, and anti-Government with other unrelated ideologies . . . these became MEANS to consolidating power . .

In other words, they LIE about what it is they are promoting by including ideologies that are not really the same under their umbrella: social Conservatism, Religious Extremism . . . etc
You might say that they are the same . . . but they are not. . . in principal religion has nothing to do with the prime ideological factor of NC, which is the self-conscious approval of 'Greed' and its being held up as a social virtue.

anyway, the point is is that they were quite comfortable telling lies in order to maintain their power: Philosophers (ex; Strauss) who have bolstered these people, in their intellectual justifications, even have a term for it: they call it "the Noble Lie"
For them, the 'masses' are too stupid to understand the 'higher purpose' which only they understand . . . so they tell them lies: such as "we are Patriots" . . . clearly, their ideas are 'Corporate capitalism come before country, before any form of mediating power . . . before, even, the Law"
(because in their Ideology, completely unregulated competition creates the balance better than the Law does)
Now that they were comfortable lying in order to consolidate their ideology with the religious, and all sorts of other groups whom they don't really respect, they used their lies to assault the Demon of Liberalism at all costs . . and all costs means; without regards for civility or stability or even truth.

The problem is is that they (NCons) were so successful. Now the Ideology perpetuates itself through innumerable channels . . . and yet still carries the residue of its vicious and untruthful means . . . puppets of the Ideology mimic even the malice of the demonization . . . they have taken on the mean-spiritedness . . . you can see it in every 'anti-Liberal' blog: they all want to imagine themselves as witty Rush Limbaughs viciously taking down those hippies with their mean slights.

So, what I think has happened is that we are now inundated by a self-reinforcing Ideology which has divorced its ends from its means and hoodwinked the lot-of-us from reality.

And, unfortunately, a big portion of that ideology is 'take what you need and lie about what you are doing because what you are doing is the 'right thing'' (how that has revealed itself? I'll leave that up to you to figure out)

It seems that this was once merely an ideology among others but now this is the ideology that steers America . . . ot rather, that uses America for its ends

[Troll Mode]

[/Troll Mode]

Without addressing your absolutely hateful attack, I'll respond.

There is such a thing as criticism that's just unreasonable and unpatriotic. The opening post of this thread is an example. The POTUS was described as "Napolean", for example. That just discredits any justified criticism that should be taking place. I think you need to go back and read the post.

On this issue of anti-Americanism, it seems we've come full circle. Those who viciously attacked the Administration (not disagreed, attacked)...were sometimes called unpatriotic because these attacks were slanderous and ill-timed (for example, Ted Kennedy saying ON THE SENATE FLOOR that Bush used concocted reasons to go to war...while we have boots on the ground in Iraq). Ripping the CIC like that in time of war is absolutely tasteless, and yes, I think it's unpatriotic.

In any case, calling someone unpatriotic or accusing him of making an unpatriotic statement has now become stigmatized and nearly taboo. Anytime one does so, we hear the voice of Hillary Clinton screaming "We have a right to disagree with any administration!!!" Well, no shit Hill. Of course we do. No one is saying that we don't or shouldn't. The reason people are called unpatriotic is because their criticisms are often just slander in disguise. They don't just have a debate about what we should and shouldn't do in this country.

There such a thing as a lack of partriotism. In this country, we have the right not to be patriotic. I also have a right to point out when someone just goes off on some sort of anti-American tirade. Free speech is not free of social consequences.

Aurora, you are really starting to make me laugh now. Do you have any idea what business ties Kerry and Thereeeaaaaaza Heinz have? They are filthy, disgusting rich. Heinz is a giant multination corporation that has exported US jobs. Imagine that! And you conclude that Kerry is out for the little guy, the American worker, the poor, et al? Please stop! You're killing me!

Both parties are tied to business. Grow up.

Except that liberal policies created after about 1960 have clearly failed. That's what you fail to mention. You also make no mention of the clear and demonstrable lies told by many on the left. In fact, you're really attempting to turn the tables on the "elitist" argument, and wrongly so. Republicans have traditionally stood for limited government and individual responsibilty. Democrats have generally stood for larger government and more social programs that create dependency. They have typically called for more government planning and involvement in private lives. How exactly are the Necons the elitists, again?

(I should point out that the Repuiblican party appears to be ceding quite a bit to overspending and social programs, and getting way from their traditonal roots. Democrats have moved even further left, ceding power to the most leftward fringe of the party).

Same old tired rhetoric I've heard before.

eat it up party-boy!

Like a true trooper



.


.

Except that the shortcomings of the 'Great-Society' are only partly due to the reasons that Machine defined for you. Things are far more complex than the slogan-End-Of-History
Real 'Liberalism" is responsible for most of the aspects of our civilization which make it truly Great . .. balanced with earnest and responsible Capitalism, the Liberal impulse has pulled us out of the muck of Spencerian enslavement and racial stalemates and provided deep and important Public works and Institutions . . .
reform is periodically necessary, but simply because Jonson's 'Society' fell on its nose is no reason to perpetuate the facile and glib rhetoric that generalizes to all cases of Government . . .

BTW: there are important new ideas aboiut the nature of Historical Fascism that might interest you: specifically with regards to its Corporate-Statism and its aesthetic Use of other Ideologies within its otherwise empty consolidating template of Power

Must go now . .. want to argue more though . .

1913. Creation of Federal Reserve, possibly the biggest single step towards abandoning the gold standard.

So um, the um, Civil Rights act failed?

The EPA, while being established by Nixon, a truly responsible conservative in his oddity, has failed?

What the hell are you talking about?

Are you trying to make out that say Affirmative Action, which was also 'established' by good old Nixon, hasn't had an influence on your likelihood to higher a minority who is equally qualified? I am certain it has, and all the evilness associated with it is less than the vile and racist nature this nation did business before that particular cause.

If you are discussing the welfare state, that is older than the 1960's and/or at least the principles and precedent for its founding are far older. It failed because the men who could have made it not a dependency relation (read republicans), had a motive to destroy the program. The same motive that Nixon had in establishing the ground rules for affirmative action, to effectively force white males into mad dash towards the new protectors of the white race (read republicans).

Jesus. Do any of you wingnuts read anything but right wing tin hat pamphlets?

Listen carefully. Theresa Heinz Kerry inherited a great deal of money from the Heinz family fortune.

She does not own the Heinz company. She has nothing to do with the management of the Heinz company.

Moreover, saying that the Heinz company has "exported jobs" is a huge distortion. They are a multinational company that makes products consumed the world over. When consumption goes up in Europe, they build a factory in Europe. That doesn't entail closing a factory in America, of which they have quite a few.

Here, let Snopes tell it.

Now, knowing you, SDW, you'll probably let this one lie for now, and then later use it again as if you had never heard different.

I mean, what is the damn deal with the right and made up shit?

Unlike Bush/Cheney.


Unlike Bush/Cheney.


Waitaminute. Kerry runs or has run the Heinz corporation?!?! Wow! Oh wait. You mean his wife ran it? When? Dates?

You do know, of course, that the reason Teresa's name is "Heinz" is because she was MARRIED TO THE REPUBLICAN SENATOR HEINZ FROM PENNSYLVANIA who was killed in a freak airplane accident, right? Right?


Just like Bush, right? Right? It's all about the little guys like him who went to Phillips Andover.


Like Bush, right? He knows all about the American worker! He hangs out with them all the time in his historic family ranch in Crawford, right? Oh, wait. It's not an historic family ranch.


And Bush knows all about the poor, too!


No, you're killing us.


Indeed. They are. But the question is whether or not one cares more about those ties than the other.

Interestingly, I googled "Heinz outsourcing" and got about 300 right wing sites and blogs, most of which appeared to be proceeding from the (to them, richly ironic) assumption that yes, indeed, Theresa and John Kerry own and operate the company that makes the ketchup.

Small wonder we're having a bit of a reality problem lately on these boards.

And don't they own the Steelers to?

After all they play at Heinz field!

That's why they sucked last year!! . . . . damn Liberals!

And Kerry claims he's going to help the Steel industry! Steal your money more like! To pay for more band aids! I love America! In my way!

There's something about that statement that strikes me as being very, very dangerous. There's something about the way the words unpatriotic and traitor are bandied about that leaves me thinking the US has taken its first tentative steps towards fascism. There's something about the criticism of your war vets that makes me feel deep sorrow and pity for your country.

In Australia, in the absence of evidence of war crimes, criticizing war vets is the one thing I can think of that might get you called unpatriotic. But I can say our PM is sleazy scum for supporting Bush's war, that white Australians have completely screwed over the indigenous population, that our notion of a fair go hides a deep-seated racism or that our treatment of refugees brings shame on the entire country, and nobody's going to call me a traitor or unpatriotic. I thought you guys were the bastion of freedom.

Great topic. Nice to see somebody asking the question. My knowledge of US history is pretty crap but I've had the impression, unresolved divisions from the Civil War have a lot to answer for. But as regards more recent history I have this theory (Theory #138 ) that one of the results of 9/11 was to put the US into a state of shock - a kind of collective Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome. And hey, who could blame you. But the practical effect is that as a nation, for the past 3 years, you've found it difficult to think straight, you've lost the plot.

Funnily enough, I remember many in the US asking this same question in the first couple of days just after 9/11.

And then the moment passed.

Two pieces of great writing keep ringing in my consciuosness when I think about the US these days.


The Second Coming -- W. B. Yeats

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all convictions, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?


And from Brecht's "The Life of Galileo":

Andrea: Pity the land that has no heroes.

............

Galileo: Pity the land that needs a hero.


Thoughts of a real Outsider (and as I don't vote in the US election, getting hot under the collar at me would be a complete waste of effort).

Total aside:

The irony is that the pretty standard reading of this poem (at least the one I was always taught) is that it is about the coming of democracy, not fascism (and of course fused with Yeats's weird personal mythology). For instance:

"The falcon cannot hear the falconer;"

My understanding is that this simply does not happen in falconry. And if it does, if the falconer loses control of the bird, something has gone horribly wrong in the natural hierarchy.

"The best lack all convictions, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity."

This is Yeats's essential position regarding democracy. In other words, you cannot trust the herd to make decisions for themselves because they are either lazy or easily manipulated.

Anyway. Just thought it was an interesting side-note.

Ever seen this film. The Rise and Rise of Michael Rimmer

WB might have been onto something. Democracy - great in theory but hard to make work in practice.

It's so long since I studied The Second Coming about the only thing I can remember regarding its interpretation was that it reflected the way WW1 shattered Europe's existing world view.

Maybe that's the common element - that 9/11 has had a similar unravelling effect on the US's understanding of itself and its place in the world.

And, of course, it's just one very dark, scary, foreboding mothf**ker of a poem that, to me, somehow captures the spirit of this moment in time. (Sorry to the late WB for my somewhat crass description ).