What Happened to the USA

Post Reply New Topic

I am American, I use to be very leftist and very liberal, I was born here while my parents are from another country, but all 3 of us are very much American in thought, attitude, behavior, etc. However, I've come to see how truly divided and delusional the US currently is, on either end of our two huge and aggressive political parties. I've been accused by both sides for challenging the views of either. I mean, how is it possible to be a dumb conservative and a crazy liberal at the same time? I've come to appreciate the merit of Conservative and Liberal values collectively. When you step back, it's really just people trying to help each other, educate each other on what is right both morally and factually from their own perspectives.

But in America, free speech is one of our virtues. It is a gift given to us by our founders, allowing us to speak against what we wish and to celebrate what we like. The government works in our favor when we make it, and has allowed us to pick up arms to form against another government that gets too powerful. I'd imagine this would work the same for a free market out of control. But then when I look around my town, and towns and cities across the US I just see violence, physical attacks, abuse, conflict, protest (though that is allowed and I encourage it, to maintain the rights of individuals and speak what they want), stupidity, ignorance, and intolerance from all sides. I know that 99% of people have a reason to think what they do, no matter how ridiculous a reason, but some of these people claim to be true Americans (again, from both sides) when everything they do is really against what America stands for. It is truly saddening when a someone burns a flag because they disagree with the US policy, or when another person yells racial slurs (Doesn't matter what race) because of actions that have been done in the past, by previous generations.

I have much more to add but I'd rather let a discussion form. Feel free to question my views, as I will attempt to respond logically and will do my best to avoid hypocritical assertions, but I'm just another individual who gets pulled into this massive political divide.

Contradictions in goals and values are becoming very sharp, to the point where there is really no way to reconcile them. Let's consider a couple of issues.

In health care, liberals want to make access to health care universal, a practice they consider to be par for the course for a developed country. They are tired of seeing people die or run up massive bills because of a lack of insurance coverage and a medical problem coming up. They think that by having universal health care, it will enable small business entrepreneurship due to not having to compete with larger companies' health plans, and ensure a healthier and altogether happier and more productive populace.

Conservatives, however, think universal health care would reduce the incentive to work hard and get a good job. They fear having it will result in rewarding the lazy good-for-nothings who won't get a job. They think if you develop a major medical issue and you can't pay for it, then it's your fault because you should have gotten a job and saved up, so you gotta suffer the consequences. But they do favor requiring emergency rooms to take patients regardless of ability to pay to prevent someone on the verge of death or major disability from succumbing, and simply sending the uninsured the huge bills afterward, the bills being the negative consequences for not having saved up money or gotten health insurance beforehand. They fear, also, that universal health care will lead to heavy health care costs and get between the patient and their doctor, and instead want to reduce regulations which they believe will cause costs to fall and make health care more affordable.

On global warming, liberals accept the IPCC's findings and the scientific consensus that the earth is getting warmer, it is due to human activities, and that it will be harmful for the planet as well as our health. They support taking measures to minimize the impact, such as by reducing carbon emissions. They are willing to use free market approaches, such as cap-and-trade (which is done in the US for acid rain), to do so. They want to work with the rest of the world, which is just as intent to fight global warming.

Conservatives reject the IPCC's findings and the scientific consensus, by pointing to the less than 3% of climate scientists who say they disagree and the fact it still gets cold in the winter to cast doubt on the science in the public's mind. They consider measures to fight global warming to be harmful to the economy and the ability of businesses to work and produce. They like seeing everybody getting to work and producing lots and lots of things because work is God's calling. Since they can't see the problem with carbon emissions, regulations dealing with them are just a waste of everyone's time and therefore money.

As you can see, on these 2 issues, there really cannot be any compromise. Obama did attempt compromise with his health care plan, the ACA, which was based on Romney's plan in Massachusetts, and both of these were actually based on a plan devised by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative organization. The thinking went for Democrats that implementing a plan like this would attract at least some Republican support due to the conservative origins of the plan. Alas, they were wrong. Republicans thought even that was going too far away from their newfound values (outlined above), which was to get government out of health care, so no deal. Democrats were forced to put it through in a partisan vote, because they wanted to implement something before they lost their supermajority.

The same with global warming, cap-and-trade was meant as a compromise by Democrats with the Republicans. The first President Bush actually signed a cap-and-trade bill for emissions relating to acid rain. The thinking by Democrats was to implement something similar for carbon emissions, that the Republicans will still get what they want by using a free market approach, and both sides can be happy to fight global warming. Alas, this was right around the time when the Republicans were switching from accepting the consensus to rejecting it (spurred on by "Climategate", where emails were taken out of context to make it look like the scientists were faking results). So they fought and fought and fought.

It's pretty obvious there is are huge contradictions here. The experience in the Obama Administration shows that compromise is little more than a pipe dream. This is a fight, a battle, with a winner and a loser. Somebody is going to get to implement their policy and somebody is not. We saw that the Republicans were willing to go pretty far to win in the 8 years of Obama's Presidency, refusing to compromise and threatening to default on our debt. Now we're going to see just how far the Democrats are willing to go.

Quasi-religious identity politics were deliberately cultivated in what is (despite protests to the contrary) a two-party system. What you're currently experiencing is the bursting of the bubble.

The good news is that eventually everything will probably calm down and that you have a President who, whatever flaws he may or may not have, seems to have a genuine desire to do what's best for America.

The bad news is that I've no idea how long that will take, and that there's an outside chance it won't calm down and things will get utterly bananas.

N.B. this is a pithy summary of where things stand right now, not a complete road map of how you got from A to B. That would, I fear, take far more time and energy than any resultant understanding would justify, or than I presently have.

People keep thinking identity politics is some religious thing, but it's really just an exhortation to not be an a**hole and to consider the views, perspectives, and feelings of those different from you. Nevertheless, people not wanting to have to think they might have been jerks and to reconsider how they might relate to others different from them led to the huge overreaction where an underqualified man was elected President:



I'm a trans person, and the fact remains, life is harder for me in certain areas than it is for other people. I have to deal with gender dysphoria, and people not wanting to view medical treatments for that on the same level as treatments for other conditions. It's caused a lot of suffering for me, and contributed to me not being able to work and going on disability, to not have access to necessary treatments. Basically, people on the right don't want to consider that they might be sanctimonious jerks in opposing coverage of such care, and would instead want to cast it as "semi-religious identity politics".

Still, this is yet another deepening contradiction in American society. You've got people like me fighting for equal rights and access to care, and people who because of religious or other reasons are completely opposed to it to the point where they would be aghast if there were any requirement to cover it. This is an issue that isn't just going to get resolved. There's a huge gap between the 2 sides here and pretty much no room for compromise. Somebody's going to win and somebody's going to lose. And for me, losing doesn't just mean I gotta take my ball and go home, it means I'm going to continue to suffer, and others like me will also suffer.

So I show up in the arena of politics and fight.

I'm referring to a specific type of identity politics that very much resembles a religion. By all means argue that they're a twisting or bastardisation of otherwise noble or reasonable ideas, because that at least gives us a starting point to address the problem. Personally I think they serve to highlight the flaws in those ideas, the vulnerability to abuse and the capacity to be used as a tool to abuse.



First, as you're "semi-directly" quoting me, I'll raise two points of order. The first is that I am not "right wing", nor am I "left wing". I deal in ideas, not ideologies, and I do so with my eyes wide open to the likelihood that those who do ascribe to themselves "left" and "right" will constantly make the mistake of casting me in the role of their chosen "other" due to my lack of alignment to their ideology. The second is that you're providing a one-sided critique of the "right" that doesn't remotely do justice to their moral perspective. If you wish to adopt the moral high ground, you absolutely must assume the best intentions of those with whom you disagree - until such a time as they demonstrate a reason not to.

Broadly speaking (for the sake of brevity), the "left" believes in enforcing its moral values through increased taxation and bigger government. They believe they're justified because the ends justifies the means. Again broadly speaking, the "right" disagrees with the means, but often agrees with the ends. In the case of (e.g.) hormones for transgender people, their belief that they shouldn't be made to pay for your treatment is not the same as a belief that you shouldn't be treated. Rather, they simply don't agree with the means of delivery. Some will argue that charity should fulfil the role that the "left" wants government to play, others will argue that your decision to use hormones should be met by a free market, in which you have to pay your own way, and some will argue both points whilst others will have a different perspective entirely. And yes, some will directly oppose the treatment in the first place because they don't believe it's the correct one.

My personal opinion is that, where healthcare is concerned, the best possible system would be something like our NHS but with the option of opting out and taking out a private policy (or no policy at all, at the risk of losing your livelihood), which I think is a reasonable compromise between the Libertarian and Socialist stances on National Insurance.

The point is that all of these are moral positions which stem from value systems in which each person has some justification for believing their position is "good" and just. In other words, you might want to consider that claiming your personal code of ethics is morally superior might well make you the sanctimonious jerk.

My stance on transgender is nuanced, but relatively simple. I'm sceptical that gender dysphoria is being treated correctly in all cases, or even in a majority of cases, and will remain so until I see sufficiently compelling scientific evidence in support of a single viewpoint. That said, I have no objection to someone wishing to alter their body in order to make themselves more comfortable, but I do object to any argument in favour of it being a "right" that should be paid for through taxation. That doesn't make me right wing, or a Nazi, or a jerk. Nor does it necessarily mean I oppose the decision to pay for it through the NHS - after all, you'd be paying your contributions too. The average cost of transition in the UK is in the region of £20k on average, with an overall cost of £17m per year, which is negligible.

You may feel free to ignore this, but my advice to you when dealing with people who oppose your opinions regarding transgender rights, treatment, etc is to recognise that holding a viewpoint that isn't in accordance with your own does not mean that they hold any enmity towards you personally. In other words, difficult as it is, the moral thing (in my book) is to try and be objective and understand why, instead of assuming the worst in people.



Are you fighting for equal rights, or are you fighting for a privilege? Is the specific treatment you endorse for gender dysphoria a right, or are you asking for special treatment? Is someone who argues against gender reassignment being paid for with taxes arguing against equal rights, or for them? I'd ask you to consider those questions from the perspective of someone who doesn't believe socialist solutions to problems are in the best interests of anybody. I'm not asking you to agree with them, but that you simply try to understand.



Whereas I show up in the arena of politics and I question, I observe, and indeed fight, and I learn a great deal more than I would if I solely did the latter.

I apologise for not contributing with an essay of my own.
I am only going to refer to one word as to how and why so many things have gone so wrong with the USA:

Corporatocracy

I think it's hilarious the right is trying to paint the left as close-minded! Wow!

Let me let you know something, I am quite aware of each of the views you have expressed. In fact, before transitioning, I considered them all at length and tried to play devil's advocate with my own while adopting the opposing ideas (my username in such situations was sumptos). In the end, I realized the preponderence of the evidence supports the views I have right now.

In any event, I appreciate your acknowledgement that as a contributor to the health plan, I should have a say in what is covered.

I should hasten to add, open-mindedness does not mean being in a state of perpetual indecision.

The political left in the US does not have any tolerance for sharing power or dissent, it views the world in as a Whiggish quasi-religious black and white battle between good(them) and anyone that opposes them(bad). It's a lie that they are liberal, it is a lie that tolerant, the only thing they can accept in the long run is the total subjugation of the populace to their views and they will lie & use incrementalism to achieve this if need be. This is why they hold 'red state America' in such disdain, this is why they demonize such a large percentage of the population, any movement away from their enlightened path is justification for hatred/violence/and extremism.

Globalism has not benefited all of America, it has benefited the liberal coastal cities and has made them wildly rich but devastated middle America. They've deconstructed, attacked, and destroyed the traditions and values of these middle Americans on top of their economic domination as it is truly a scorched earth campaign. These big liberal cities are controlled by the interests of the corporate elite who have embedded themselves in the Democratic party who purposely sow the seeds of racial division as they have almost since our arrival here on this continent, it's not the uber elite that control Wall Street or the billion dollar companies that don't that don't manufacture a thing in a America that oppress you but rather poor middle America who has seen its jobs and wall of life ripped away from them. The privileged children, as they always have, are getting brainwashed by deadbeat Marxist extremists at glorified day cares which you have to sell yourself into slavery to go to if you ever hope to be employed and a true member of the 'party'.

What rights should be reserved by those that do not believe in the concept of private property and by extension individual rights at all? Lets not pretend this is about Obamacare at this point.

That you're still making the mistake of labelling me "the right" is evidence that you're just as capable of being close-minded and partisan as the people you're denigrating, beneficii. You're asking for the right to have the ultimate say in what your identity is, yet you're completely unwilling to afford me the same right.



Whereas I don't think that the preponderance of the evidence is a sufficient standard of evidence in matters which might be at odds with the Hippocratic Oath, especially if the arbiter has a vested interest in one outcome over another.



Everyone should have a say in what is covered by a health plan that they pay for. That's not to say that they should get what they ask for. In the case of coverage via taxation, that's a matter for the people to decide.



Do you think I formed my very nuanced perspective on the matter in a reactionary heartbeat and set it in stone, or do you think it's my carefully considered opinion after many years of discussion, consideration and weighing of the evidence? Recognising that there is, as yet, no conclusive answer to a question is not indecision, nor is it static.

I'm a leftist who's against Social Justice.

The issue I see is that the Regressives did not find a solution to the issue of working class disenfranchisement. Trump had the closest thing to what the working class wanted, and the MSM focused mostly on gossip instead of reporting on events, criticising policy and doing actual journalistic work.



This video's a comedic look at the topic.

Also, Whilst I agree with some things that Trump wants, I disagree on his anti-climate rhetoric. The most important time for climate science is these next four years, as they'll dictate the fate of the next 100.

Also, no party should have any say on who should get married, what happens in people's bedrooms and what people do with their bodies providing that they are consenting adults. The right to free speech should also be protected, but it must be made clear that Free Speech implies complete speech freedom. You have the right to rebut an argument and lay criticism upon statements.

I am a Liberal myself. I think identity politics these days are dividing people with a common goal.

What's hilarious about the abiltiy to call a pig's ass pork?

Dude. You're trying to sow doubt, just like with the global warming issue. Despite the clear evidence at hand, particularly in global warming, you keep telling us we need to sit on our hands, while the problems fester.

Not only that, but I am no arbiter. I look to the relevant literature to determine what needs to be done.

Now could the literature be wrong on these subjects? Indeed. But as it stands, the evidence favors gender reassignment in certain cases of gender dysphoria (generally severe, persistent cases where other causes have been ruled out and attempts to reconcile them with their body have failed; see Merck Manual), and there is 95% confidence in the IPCC's conclusions. So we take action based on the conclusions, because the world isn't going to stop for us. The globe is getting warmer, people with severe, persistent gender dysphoria are suffering. Things continue to develop. We act now based on what we know, which isn't close-mindedness at all. Again, we could be wrong amd we keep an open mind, but we're still going to act decisively based on what we know now, not on some piece of evidence unseen, but *might* emerge in the future.

What I've seen you and others do is just sow doubt and confusion. For us to go along with you at this point would not be open-mindedness, it would be indecision.

Because my position is one of scepticism, and I'm appalled at the suggestion that's something to be avoided. People who reject scepticism tend to do so in order to justify dogma. You're still trying to moralise when you should be asking "how severe is the problem?" or "am I certain I'm not doing harm?".

And to reiterate, I've already told you my position is that I support people's right to do whatever they want to their bodies in the pursuit of happiness, or even mere pursuit of comfort. I'm not your enemy, but you seem intent on making one of me. Why is that?



You proposed that the standard of "preponderance of the evidence" was sufficient for you to make a decision. You stated this in the context of your personal, direct experience as a transgender person and in the context of considering yourself to be more than passing familiar with all applicable viewpoints. You've also framed yourself as being subjectively more moral than the demographic which typically opposes socialised healthcare. I think that justifies my usage of "arbiter".

You also cannot avoid the fact that you're also looking at the relevant literature with a prejudicial notion of what you want to be done.

I'm not saying that makes you Satan. We all have biases where our self-interest is concerned. I do my utmost to recognise mine, and I ask others to do the same (I'm sure I don't need to tell you that the majority of people seem incapable of doing so).



But the "we" you refer to is a minority acting in what it believes are the best interests of the majority. How can you justify that to yourself, let alone to me, or let alone further a hard-line Republican who opposes social medicine, when you demand the opposite when it comes to your specific healthcare?

On the subject of climate change, the fact remains that there has been a great deal of political fudging (including outright manufacturing) of data in order to push through a specific agenda. My distrust of such data is justified, because the agenda often precedes the evidence and the evidence has been repeatedly found to have been manufactured or fudged. I'm even more wary when the typical response to anyone who raises objections is automatically branded a "climate change denier", when what they're questioning is what we actually know of the human impact on climate change, how it will manifest, and whether the results will be detrimental to us or to a planet which was perpetually undergoing climate change long before we lived in caves.



Why is data that doesn't match your preference "confusing"?
What is wrong with doubt?
Why should your "us" get to make that decision?

I'm not asking you to go along with me. I'm asking you to appreciate the fact that my position is not just valid, it's necessary if the goal is maximum understanding of the issues in order to find the best solutions. I'm not convinced that we're causing any lasting damage to the planet, nor am I convinced that we're not paving the road to our own destruction as a species. Nor am I convinced that any of the proposed remedial actions are a net gain.

An example of this is "green" energy. What is the long-term offset of building windmills, taking into account the manufacturing process and the shelf-life of the average turbine, compared to simply building more nuclear power stations? How about the recent studies showing the downsides of using lithium batteries over oil?

I'm not just sceptical of the effects, I'm sceptical of the solutions, because time and time again I'm seeing concepts pushed through without due diligence, which later turn out to be a colossal waste of time. It's far too easy to secure funding for a project if you label it "green" (think Solar Roads) because the wider population is so scientifically illiterate.

So if I'm trying to "sow doubt", it's because I believe it is the right and proper approach if you want to minimise harm and maximise outcomes. I have no problem with you disagreeing with my opinions, but I caution you against using subjective moral arguments to oppose them.