NationStates Jolt Archive

Disclaimer: This is primarily a discussion about American Exceptionalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_exceptionalism).

You may have hard the quote by Abe Lincoln:
"At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it? Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the Ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Buonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years. At what point, then, is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.

This was at a time when the civil war loomed large, but I believe there can be another meaning to it - namely that the US would abandon the principles upon which it was founded and become just another country.

Regarding that, there are a few points to debate:

Was the US any different to other countries when it was founded?

I believe it was. The rest of Europe was mainly absolutist or quasi-absolutist monarchies. They were societies based upon class, nobility and birthrights. France was a bit of an exception, but not for long.
The US however was founded based upon a set of beliefs that previously had only been mentioned in theory. Its leaders had a unique attitude towards government, and even though the practical aspects may have been copied from the Great Lakes Nations, as far as the West was concerned, the US was unique.

Has the US moved away from its principles?

I think the answer is pretty obvious. No matter who you ask, people will tell you that the Founding Fathers would be spinning in their graves if they knew.
Precisely why can be debated, but foreign wars, alliances, intervention in other countries for political purposes, income taxes, immigration restrictions and so on and so forth come to mind.

When do you think the US has committed suicide?

Was it perhaps during the civil war, was it during the times of imperialism, was it the New Deal or was it even later? Or was it a stillborn, because slaves and natives were not given the same rights as white people?

Why hasn't the population revolted?

Afterall, the idea behind the early US was that the people should be given the ability to change the government and the country at any point. But instead people have accepted all sorts of things being imposed on them. Today no one can claim that there is a real choice for US-Americans to change the way their country is run, the only opposition is not significantly different.

What does this imply for the claims that the US could be a force towards anything at all in the world?

Not freedom, not peace, not stability. All these things were at one time or another given up as the US changed from its great beginnings into this copy of Imperial Europe that it is today.

Excellent post, NL.

The thing that really bothers me about the effects of American exceptionalism is that the mentality it creates that keeps the US from handling its internal affairs in such a way as to be a model to the rest of the world is preventing the US from living up to the general principles it was founded on and making the nation hypocritical for trying to bring democracy to other parts of the world when our own system should be far more effectively democratic in the sense of higher voter turnout and political involvement.

Has the US moved away from its principles?

I think the answer is pretty obvious. No matter who you ask, people will tell you that the Founding Fathers would be spinning in their graves if they knew.
Precisely why can be debated, but foreign wars, alliances, intervention in other countries for political purposes, income taxes, immigration restrictions and so on and so forth come to mind.

Why hasn't the population revolted?

Afterall, the idea behind the early US was that the people should be given the ability to change the government and the country at any point.

1. Foreign wars were our game from the start.. the Barbary pirates come to mind.

2. Ever hear of a little thing called the United States Senate? 6-year terms, originally elected by state legislatures? It was the elite electing the elite, to relatively long terms.. these people did not want to relinquish power. Things are slightly improved today.

I think you may have a bit of a rosy view of the founding of the country...

I'll just mention that the standard of living, life expectancy and education of the average person have all increased by large amounts since the founding of the U.S.A. and liberty has increased with the freeing of slaves, lessing of racial discrimination and equality for women. The average person now is better off then they were 200 years ago 100 years ago or fifty years ago. (However the rate of economic improvment has slowed down for the average worker over the past generation, which kind of sucks.)

But yes, the U.S. does have some problems that it needs to adress it doesn't want to become "just another country." (But I don't think income tax is one of them. A balenced budget is.)

...is the fact that the circumstances that incubated the USA were quite exceptional.

You had a population of the unwanted (the initial transport of convicts was from England to NA, not to Australia), the persecuted, the economically ambitious...all people with a large stake in "doing it right this time".

You had a surprisingly literate and educated frontier aristocracy that absorbed the best ideas of the Enlightenment like a sponge.

You had the adversity of a protracted civil war that nonetheless did not severely raze the country.

In short, there was a combination of motivation to care about the state of society, the ideological tools to channel that sentiment into productive activity, and a widespread involvement of people in their own government because that was the only way to run the country at first.

However, the natural trend of government is to specialize and consolidate and have fewer and fewer people "in the loop" for control and decision making. Uniformity is administratively simpler, and maintaining the high levels of education and commitment necessary to work with a more complicated and redundant structure is very difficult.

And the USA simply never recognized this challenge, much less responded to it.

I will agree at the founding of the USA there were unique and laudible differences between they and the rest of the world, but most of those are gone, and mainly because people let the control of their own political destiny devolve to a progressively smaller and less representitive minority.

Sociologically, the elites of the USA are absolutely different from those whom they rule, btw.

As always, I blame Reagan. :D

Nice OP, by the way.

The US is ever evolving. A 223 year old Constitution is an absurd success story in the world.

No, it didn't start out as a place of equal opportunity for all. It took a few generations to emancipate the slaves (a holdover from the various Imperial European countries), and to give equal rights to women.

However, one must note that the WORLD wasn't a very enlightened place in the late 18th century. There were still absolute monarchs, no religious freedoms in most countries and serfdom in over half of Europe! Freedom of the Press? Not under Joseph II, George III or Louis VX, that's for sure!

So one must consider the context of the time.

These days, I cannot see any restrictions against anyone in the US -- barring the question of Gay marriage. That one too will ultimately pass, though it will probably take some time -- just like equal rights for women and blacks did.

It's not a perfect system, but then... even Americans are only human. :)

Was the US any different to other countries when it was founded?
Sure was. I believe it has constantly changed, but especially during the expansion period (which to a certain extend is still going on) when the former colonies became colonizers themselves and spread their influence.


Has the US moved away from its principles?
Oh ja. Question is - which principles did their truely, constantly uphold?


When do you think the US has committed suicide?
Still waiting for it - but those arms sure look they've been put through a lot (or a lot has been put through them).


Why hasn't the population revolted?
Okay, I'm exaggerating of course and this is not intended as an insult - but when you're "dumb, lazy and fat" the "what, when and why" of a revolution are not easy to answer.



What does this imply for the claims that the US could be a force towards anything at all in the world?
Not freedom, not peace, not stability. All these things were at one time or another given up as the US changed from its great beginnings into this copy of Imperial Europe that it is today.
True. True.

Last thought: To cross the ocean, conquer a country, only to then drink out of a river that at one time in its past not so long ago was so polluted that it could burn is a little off my track, I have to admit.

The average person now is better off then they were 200 years ago 100 years ago or fifty years ago.
BUt life has also gotten worse for a lot of people

I'm wondering whether it's one, the other or both:
The rest of the world has caught up with the US and are progressing rapidly past them.
The US is has fallen down a few notches, and thus everyone else is now better than them.

I think that it somewhere in between: The rest of the world has caught up (good) and the US has then decided to grow lax (bad).

Firts off, America is by the rich and for the rich. Thats because we as a society think we can rule the world economically.

I think America Committed Suicide in 1964 when Vietnam Started. It was then we finaly fought a war to purly benifit the wealthy buisness oweners. Think of the billions made off the war supplying weapons and stuff. Thats when America became y the rich and fior the rich.

Why hasn't the population revolted?
Because we are not united and willing to do so. If we really complain about gas prices and the war why aren't we doing something. Honestly if every american wanted to protest high gas prices why don't we all boycott gasolean for a month.

Over all its because we have become a society of "what i need and not you". It sickens me as an american to see us as this.

I think an attempted suicide happened after 9/11... after declaring "the terrorists hate our liberties" the government started taking them away. Of course they promise to give them back when the war on terror is over, but they defined it is over when all terrorists have been defeated, what almost certainly means "never".

Additionally, after the 2002 election which granted the Republicans majorities the checks and balances have nearly broken down - from now on they might only be used to obstruct a president from the other party.

And even before that, elections in the USA have become increasingly less competitive - people's votes hardly matter in the presidential elections in most states, and gerrymandering has made house seats safe for the incumbent in most cases.

The USA might still recover after 2008, but it isn't certain. The question is, do people want the ideals of a constitutional republic or would they prefer an empire as long as the emperor says he will enforce morals, law and order.

the one thing we prided ourselves on in the international arena was anti-imperialism. WE werent going to be international adventurers going around the globe invading countries setting up colonies for our own profit. that was a european thing, not an american thing.

that died with the spanish-american war and our refusal to let the phillipines be independant.

its been downhill ever since.

Ok, when I read the title I suddenly heard this tiny, meek voice piping up...

US: "I'm not dead yet."

Was the US any different to other countries when it was founded?

I believe it was. The rest of Europe was mainly absolutist or quasi-absolutist monarchies. They were societies based upon class, nobility and birthrights. France was a bit of an exception, but not for long.
The US however was founded based upon a set of beliefs that previously had only been mentioned in theory. Its leaders had a unique attitude towards government, and even though the practical aspects may have been copied from the Great Lakes Nations, as far as the West was concerned, the US was unique.

Misconception. The United States as we know it today was founded as a reaction AGAINST equality and democracy. The constitution is a highly conservative document designed to take power away from the people and give it to a handful of wealthy men (senate, the courts, the presidency/electoral college, even the house, as it was assumed that only the wealthy could afford to campaign for a seat).

Disclaimer: This is primarily a discussion about American Exceptionalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_exceptionalism).

You may have hard the quote by Abe Lincoln:


This was at a time when the civil war loomed large, but I believe there can be another meaning to it - namely that the US would abandon the principles upon which it was founded and become just another country.

Regarding that, there are a few points to debate:

Was the US any different to other countries when it was founded?

I believe it was. The rest of Europe was mainly absolutist or quasi-absolutist monarchies. They were societies based upon class, nobility and birthrights. France was a bit of an exception, but not for long.
The US however was founded based upon a set of beliefs that previously had only been mentioned in theory. Its leaders had a unique attitude towards government, and even though the practical aspects may have been copied from the Great Lakes Nations, as far as the West was concerned, the US was unique.

Has the US moved away from its principles?

I think the answer is pretty obvious. No matter who you ask, people will tell you that the Founding Fathers would be spinning in their graves if they knew.
Precisely why can be debated, but foreign wars, alliances, intervention in other countries for political purposes, income taxes, immigration restrictions and so on and so forth come to mind.

When do you think the US has committed suicide?

Was it perhaps during the civil war, was it during the times of imperialism, was it the New Deal or was it even later? Or was it a stillborn, because slaves and natives were not given the same rights as white people?

Why hasn't the population revolted?

Afterall, the idea behind the early US was that the people should be given the ability to change the government and the country at any point. But instead people have accepted all sorts of things being imposed on them. Today no one can claim that there is a real choice for US-Americans to change the way their country is run, the only opposition is not significantly different.

What does this imply for the claims that the US could be a force towards anything at all in the world?

Not freedom, not peace, not stability. All these things were at one time or another given up as the US changed from its great beginnings into this copy of Imperial Europe that it is today.


Are you even American?

Not all of us are interested in tossing aside democratic principles in favor of security. There was a sizable number of people who voted against George W. Bush in the past election. I myself was a Kerry campaign volunteer...something I have never done before or since. To say that America is becoming an imperial power is, in a way, to overlook the struggles of the people who are working to prevent that very reality.

I'd say it's been a long slooowwww slide, beginning with the Whiskey Rebellion. Notable points along the way include the Mexican-American War, WWI, the New Deal, certain effects of WWII and the cold war (especially the MIC), and the

However:

the one thing we prided ourselves on in the international arena was anti-imperialism. WE werent going to be international adventurers going around the globe invading countries setting up colonies for our own profit. that was a european thing, not an american thing.

that died with the spanish-american war and our refusal to let the phillipines be independant.

its been downhill ever since.

I'd generally agree that the worst happened during the Gilded age. While lots of good did come out of it, the bad outweighs it. In addition to the neo-US imperialism (which really didn't begin with the Spanish-American war - we'd already robbed Mexico, fillibustered Latin America, and annexed Hawaii by the SA war), there was the abomination that was "reconstruction", the Chinese exclusion acts, the start of the various prohibitions on drugs.

The Gay Ninetys were the worst, and the bail out of the US treasury by J. P. Morgan and the Rothschilds was probably the single most damaging event of all.

Disclaimer: This is primarily a discussion about American Exceptionalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_exceptionalism).

You may have hard the quote by Abe Lincoln:


This was at a time when the civil war loomed large, but I believe there can be another meaning to it - namely that the US would abandon the principles upon which it was founded and become just another country.

Regarding that, there are a few points to debate:

Was the US any different to other countries when it was founded?

I believe it was. The rest of Europe was mainly absolutist or quasi-absolutist monarchies. They were societies based upon class, nobility and birthrights. France was a bit of an exception, but not for long.
The US however was founded based upon a set of beliefs that previously had only been mentioned in theory. Its leaders had a unique attitude towards government, and even though the practical aspects may have been copied from the Great Lakes Nations, as far as the West was concerned, the US was unique.

Has the US moved away from its principles?

I think the answer is pretty obvious. No matter who you ask, people will tell you that the Founding Fathers would be spinning in their graves if they knew.
Precisely why can be debated, but foreign wars, alliances, intervention in other countries for political purposes, income taxes, immigration restrictions and so on and so forth come to mind.

When do you think the US has committed suicide?

Was it perhaps during the civil war, was it during the times of imperialism, was it the New Deal or was it even later? Or was it a stillborn, because slaves and natives were not given the same rights as white people?

Why hasn't the population revolted?

Afterall, the idea behind the early US was that the people should be given the ability to change the government and the country at any point. But instead people have accepted all sorts of things being imposed on them. Today no one can claim that there is a real choice for US-Americans to change the way their country is run, the only opposition is not significantly different.

What does this imply for the claims that the US could be a force towards anything at all in the world?

Not freedom, not peace, not stability. All these things were at one time or another given up as the US changed from its great beginnings into this copy of Imperial Europe that it is today.


Socrates said it best in Plato's book "The Republic" Timocracy is destined to fall to Oligarchy. Oligarchy is destined to fall to Democracy. Democracy is destined to fall to Tyranny in which it will remain until the government collapses.

*Disclaimer this was not a direct quote, but instead is a paraphrase."

1. Foreign wars were our game from the start.. the Barbary pirates come to mind.

2. Ever hear of a little thing called the United States Senate? 6-year terms, originally elected by state legislatures? It was the elite electing the elite, to relatively long terms.. these people did not want to relinquish power. Things are slightly improved today.

I think you may have a bit of a rosy view of the founding of the country...

No one denies that the United States was originally founded as a Republic. In the Republic system, Oligarchy not Democracy was the method of Governing. I do not remember wher e Thomas Jefferson wrote this but I am sure if you want to validate it you can look it up, when he called Democracy Mobocracy. If I am wrong or misunderstood Jefferson's quote then please ignore this post.

I think America Committed Suicide in 1964 when Vietnam Started. It was then we finaly fought a war to purly benifit the wealthy buisness oweners. Think of the billions made off the war supplying weapons and stuff. Thats when America became y the rich and fior the rich.

No, It almost happened when the likes of Kerry abused the first AMendment.

If we really complain about gas prices and the war why aren't we doing something. Honestly if every american wanted to protest high gas prices why don't we all boycott gasolean for a month.

I dare you to not use petroleum for a month. NO gas, plastic or medicine.

I've been reading the posts on this thread with considerable interest, and have come to the following conclusions:

1. The people who write and publish the history books currently used in high schools, colleges, and univerisites should all be stood against a wall and shot for bending history to their own purposes.

2. The results of 40 years of mindless public "education" are painfully obvious.

3. Home schooling is looking more and more like a great option.

4. Many of those proclaiming the demise of America are simply indulging their own demented fantasies.

5. Most posts on here overlook the almost infinite American capacity for self-renewal. As Mark Twain said, "Reports of my recent demise are greatly exaggerated."

The US committed suicide when it began electing NeoCons, who have squandered most of the world's goodwill towards the US. They are hemorrhaging funds into their wars for global domination. They have traded high ideals for manipulation and profit.

911 was perpetrated by people inside the US government. This wrist-slashing was intended to put americans in fear, and it worked.

It's all downhill from there. The current administration is going to bleed the US to the point that it will never recover completely.

Americans don't stop this slow progression towards death because they are too complacent, more concerned with their iPods and T-and-A television programming. More american people watch American Idol than the News.

In their ignorance, they accept what the man behind the podium says without questioning. It's just easier that way. To acknowledge what is going on would require them to get off their lazy asses and DO something.

(btw, i'm american, but not so proud of it.)

I've been reading the posts on this thread with considerable interest, and have come to the following conclusions:

1. The people who write and publish the history books currently used in high schools, colleges, and univerisites should all be stood against a wall and shot for bending history to their own purposes.

2. The results of 40 years of mindless public "education" are painfully obvious.

3. Home schooling is looking more and more like a great option.

4. Many of those proclaiming the demise of America are simply indulging their own demented fantasies.

5. Most posts on here overlook the almost infinite American capacity for self-renewal. As Mark Twain said, "Reports of my recent demise are greatly exaggerated."
I don't suppose you'd be willing to qualify any of those by addressing specific points, or by making any substantive statements? Because your post essentially amounts to "you're all stupid". Fantastic rebuttal as that is, doesn't really progress the discussion in any direction.

The US committed suicide when it began electing NeoCons, who have squandered most of the world's goodwill towards the US. They are hemorrhaging funds into their wars for global domination. They have traded high ideals for manipulation and profit.

911 was perpetrated by people inside the US government. This wrist-slashing was intended to put americans in fear, and it worked.

It's all downhill from there. The current administration is going to bleed the US to the point that it will never recover completely.

Americans don't stop this slow progression towards death because they are too complacent, more concerned with their iPods and T-and-A television programming. More american people watch American Idol than the News.

In their ignorance, they accept what the man behind the podium says without questioning. It's just easier that way. To acknowledge what is going on would require them to get off their lazy asses and DO something.

(btw, i'm american, but not so proud of it.)
BTW ... I'm American and VERY proud of it, although I'm definitely NOT proud of you. Do us both a favor and LEAVE!

The US committed suicide when it began electing NeoCons, who have squandered most of the world's goodwill towards the US. They are hemorrhaging funds into their wars for global domination. They have traded high ideals for manipulation and profit.

911 was perpetrated by people inside the US government. This wrist-slashing was intended to put americans in fear, and it worked.

It's all downhill from there. The current administration is going to bleed the US to the point that it will never recover completely.

Americans don't stop this slow progression towards death because they are too complacent, more concerned with their iPods and T-and-A television programming. More american people watch American Idol than the News.

In their ignorance, they accept what the man behind the podium says without questioning. It's just easier that way. To acknowledge what is going on would require them to get off their lazy asses and DO something.

(btw, i'm american, but not so proud of it.)

Shoot. I've heard that before! It was 1980, and I was sitting in the corner while I listened to my parents debating Jimmy Carter.

The only differences were substitute KISS for iPods, Star Wars for T&A TV, and Real People for American Idol.

That, and Carter couldn't get the hostages out of Iran and appeared before the American people in a sweater, asking us to turn down the heat.

BTW ... I'm American and VERY proud of it, although I'm definitely NOT proud of you. Do us both a favor and LEAVE!

Now, now E. The boy has a right to his own opinion.

Ok, when I read the title I suddenly heard this tiny, meek voice piping up...

US: "I'm not dead yet."

YAY! :D

I've been reading the posts on this thread with considerable interest, and have come to the following conclusions:

1. The people who write and publish the history books currently used in high schools, colleges, and univerisites should all be stood against a wall and shot for bending history to their own purposes.

2. The results of 40 years of mindless public "education" are painfully obvious.

3. Home schooling is looking more and more like a great option.

4. Many of those proclaiming the demise of America are simply indulging their own demented fantasies.

5. Most posts on here overlook the almost infinite American capacity for self-renewal. As Mark Twain said, "Reports of my recent demise are greatly exaggerated."

Fascinating. Any evidence for this rant? Such as, why the writers of these books should be kiled, perchance?

Are you even American?

Not all of us are interested in tossing aside democratic principles in favor of security. There was a sizable number of people who voted against George W. Bush in the past election. I myself was a Kerry campaign volunteer...something I have never done before or since. To say that America is becoming an imperial power is, in a way, to overlook the struggles of the people who are working to prevent that very reality.

Yeah, George Bush is the problem, thats a good one.

Yeah, George Bush is the problem, thats a good one.

Well, he's not really helping matters.

*snip*
You sound like Hans-Hermann Hoppe. :p He basically said America has only two things to be proud of: its Revolution (secession) and Constitution, and that is all.

Well, he's not really helping matters.

He wouldn't be shit if American ideals weren't already half-dead.

He wouldn't be shit if American ideals weren't already half-dead.

This is true, this is very true...

I'd say it's been a long slooowwww slide, beginning with the Whiskey Rebellion. Notable points along the way include the Mexican-American War, WWI, the New Deal, certain effects of WWII and the cold war (especially the MIC),

I think the Convention of Kanagawa and the Treaty of Amity and Commerce are also benchmarks.

You sound like Hans-Hermann Hoppe. :p He basically said America has only two things to be proud of: its Revolution (secession) and Constitution, and that is all.

I don't know if those are the only things, but they're certainly the Top Two. :)

Are you even American?
Nope. Call me an interested observer, if you will.

I've been reading the posts on this thread with considerable interest, and have come to the following conclusions...
And fact of the matter is that this administration is making absolutely fundamental changes to the way the US is run.
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,402588,00.html

And my hypothesis is that whatever the ideas and ideals of the original founders of this country, the US is hardly upholding them at the moment, and hasn't been for some time. My question is merely what you think about that hypothesis and the details of how this came about.

You haven't answered any of this, and instead preferred to engage in little more than childish namecalling.

As for home schooling...interesting choice. You'd make sure you teach your kids only patriotic facts, not the nasty ones?

the united states has not yet commited suicide. it has had various attempts and has had alot of struggles. but eventually the united states will commit suicide. i strongly believe that the united states will not be destroyed by another nation but by itself. i have felt this way for quite awhile now. The cause of death of the United States will be the thing so many people are currently fighting for, that is diversity. diversity sets people apart and sets nations apart. at the moment there are movements to make people accept diversity in their daily lifestyle and we are told that it is the "right" thing to do. but as people become more and more diverse they lose common ground and then the government has too many different aspects to govern. while a law on the east coast may make alot of people happy the same law may anger the people on the west coast. we have already seen examples of such with gay marriage being the most recent.

1. The people who write and publish the history books currently used in high schools, colleges, and univerisites should all be stood against a wall and shot for bending history to their own purposes.

Because shooting the intelligensia is what made Nazi Germany, the USSR and Cambodia great. Way to go Mr Eu.

Because shooting the intelligensia is what made Nazi Germany, the USSR and Cambodia great. Way to go Mr Eu.

The "intelligensia" don't write our textbooks. Far, far, from it. :p

As always, I blame Reagan. :D

Nice OP, by the way.

Why Reagan? Reagan was the fucking man. We were involved in far more foreign crap before him. In fact, if you knew history you'd blame it on Woodrow Wilson.

The "intelligensia" don't write our textbooks. Far, far, from it.

Personally I've noticed that anytime the government starts starts shooting any groups of people at all, the country seems to go downhill. Funny that. In fact, the best coutries to live in seem to be ones where the governments don't shoot any people at all. Weird, hey?

Why Reagan? Reagan was the fucking man. We were involved in far more foreign crap before him. In fact, if you knew history you'd blame it on Woodrow Wilson.

Yeah, but Wilson killed evil right-wing Germans, whereas Reagan killed righteous left-wing guerillas, who sought only to slaughter their bourgeois oppressors. So there you have it.

Personally I've noticed that anytime the government starts starts shooting any groups of people at all, the country seems to go downhill. Funny that. In fact, the best coutries to live in seem to be ones where the governments don't shoot any people at all. Weird, hey?

Personally, I've noticed an interesting literary device called hyperbole..

Personally, I've noticed an interesting literary device called hyperbole..

Let's hope that he was engaging in that. In fact, let's ask. Hey Mr Eu! Were you engaging in hyperbole or do you really think it would be a good idea to shoot people who write textbooks? I'd really like to know because my hyerbole detector is on the fritz.

(Oh by the way, we have hyperbole in Australia, we just call it by another name.)

Originally Posted by Neu Leonstein
Was the US any different to other countries when it was founded?

I believe it was. The rest of Europe was mainly absolutist or quasi-absolutist monarchies. They were societies based upon class, nobility and birthrights. France was a bit of an exception, but not for long.
The US however was founded based upon a set of beliefs that previously had only been mentioned in theory. Its leaders had a unique attitude towards government, and even though the practical aspects may have been copied from the Great Lakes Nations, as far as the West was concerned, the US was unique.


Misconception. The United States as we know it today was founded as a reaction AGAINST equality and democracy. The constitution is a highly conservative document designed to take power away from the people and give it to a handful of wealthy men (senate, the courts, the presidency/electoral college, even the house, as it was assumed that only the wealthy could afford to campaign for a seat).

Youre actualy both wrong. The United States was founded because of high taxes. They went under the flag of no representation no tax. It was influenced directly by the french revoulotion which happened beforehand. "France was a bit of an exception but not for long" Im not sure what that quote is supposed to mean?? Without France America wouldnt be America it would be britain. The US was not unique at all it copied most european nationalist beliefs

It was influenced directly by the french revoulotion which happened beforehand. "France was a bit of an exception but not for long" Im not sure what that quote is supposed to mean?? Without France America wouldnt be America it would be britain. The US was not unique at all it copied most european nationalist beliefs

The French Revolution did not happen beforehand.

It was influenced directly by the french revoulotion which happened beforehand.

Nope. It was more the other way around. The US declared independence from England in 1776 and ratified its constitution in 1788. The French revolution didn't start until 1789.

I'm wondering whether it's one, the other or both:
The rest of the world has caught up with the US and are progressing rapidly past them.
The US is has fallen down a few notches, and thus everyone else is now better than them.

I think that it somewhere in between: The rest of the world has caught up (good) and the US has then decided to grow lax (bad).

"The rest of the world" has went it's way regardless of the USA.
Spain - CNT
Scotland - Red Clydeside
France - the Republic
Russia - Bolshevieks
England - The Jarrow march
Ireland - Independence
India - Ghandi
South Africa - ANC

There are many more positive and negative (including in the USA) contributions which have been made elsewhere.

The point is, America is not special, no more than the history and accomplishments that are made anywhere else in the world.

... The cause of death of the United States will be the thing so many people are currently fighting for, that is diversity. diversity sets people apart and sets nations apart.


People are already apart by having different temperments, different traditions, different abilities, different goals.

The question is not how to fight the bugbear of "diveristy"....it is how to harness people's divergent interests to the State.

Historically, "the melting pot" approach was to demand uniformity of norms and standards. However, there are implicit side effects in this approach. How many people who would have the ability to contribute as managers or administrators in society (the form of labor which we have the most ongoing and severe shortages of) fail to become such under a system where failing to bend your knee to the Leviathan on _superficial_ issues of style of _no material import_.

Also, in insisting the State has the first say as to what you may or may not aspire to in the "pursuit of happiness" you pretty much abolish the "absolute and inalienable right" inherent to the citizen in this respect.

No, this is not an easy process, the coaxing of conformity of _action_ despite divergence in _feelings_. But it's interesting that there can be _four nations_ in the G8 (Canada, Britain, Germany, Italy) that are still quite competitive economically, and economic power is the foundation of the power of the State to accomplish its goals. If "diversity" is "suicidal", how do they manage so well ?

One of the most challenging parts in this process is where to draw that line on what you may do based on your personal feelings and convictions. For example, many Moslems feel that female genital mutilation (also known as "female circumcision, except it's a partial or total removal of the clitoris) is something that helps ensure the sacred chastity of their daughters.

But the State has a right to demand obedience to the law, and to say what a citizen _cannot_ do. Even Canada and Germany, the most "bleeding heart multiculturalists" of the lot criminalize this behaviour. You can force obedience to the law safely, because without consistent rules, everything falls apart, but you cannot be too expansive in making everything part of the law.

Why ? Because modern states subscribe to the theory of liberty propounded by Mills "the right to swing your arm stops at my nose". Mills logically demonstrated that because the power of the state is administered by fallible people (prone to error and subject to corruption) you must keep the decisions as simple as possible and confined to the most unamibguously important matters. This means no presuming to act as your brother's keeper ("I can intefere in your liberty for your own good"), a pessimistic reckoning of what consistutes impact with your nose (harsh words, for example, should not, as long as they have no characteristic of libel/slander) and a refusal to involve the government in purely private matters that do not adversely affect the person or property of any of the parties.

Yes, most states have gotten away from this quite a bit. Esp on brother's keeper-ism. But the reason we still honor it, even imperfectly, is because it allows everyone to pursue what is most important to them. And thus what motivates them to be economically productive, law abiding etc.

For example, one of communism's great shortfalls was that it presumed to divine the deepest and truest feelings and needs of every person in society, when in fact, at this level _there is no consensus_. And thus, a significant part of the apathy and dispiritedness of communist citizens was the knowledge that if they wanted things they were told they could not want and could never have these things, it rather impaired their motivation to work. Other things were also important in this demotivation, but this was a major point.

If you abandon the modern theory of liberty entirely, in order to crush "diversity", you set the stage for the endless civil wars of purity and conformity that characterized the bitter bloodletting of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation all the way through to the Cultural Revolution in China. There has _never_ historically been a case where the consensus wrought by blood has not weakened the nation by destroying ,dislocating or demoralizing a significant fraction of the citizens. Because for every citizen you remove, you scare another one or two _sh*tless_ and terrified folk don't do good work or contribute _actively_ to the well being of the State that they only fear.



at the moment there are movements to make people accept diversity in their daily lifestyle


Say "demanding gay rights" you obscurationist. There are _no_ other major issues of "conformity" versus "diversity" where the code phrase "lifestyle" is used. If you're going to oppose the uniform exercise of rights by all citizens then make it clear this is what you're in favor of.


and we are told that it is the "right" thing to do.


And do you have any logical thought that demonstrates that it is the wrong thing to do, aside from the emotional conviction that this is so ? Please refer to messages 239 (what are rights, why they matter and how they are one of the key ingredients of modern prosperity) and 75 (a hypothesis on the nature of the ethical clash between the people "saying it is right" and the people saying it is wrong over in Im a ninja's "What exactly bothers people about gays getting married?" thread for my position.

Do share any thoughts to contest these opinions :) Since what you're saying is that rights aren't important and traditional values should be the basis of society, not modern ones.


but as people become more and more diverse they lose common ground and then the government has too many different aspects to govern. while a law on the east coast may make alot of people happy the same law may anger the people on the west coast. we have already seen examples of such with gay marriage being the most recent.

(Shakes her head) you are very ignorant of US theory of law and governance. first, there's this little thing called "states' rights" which is a theory dedicated to maximum practical sovereignity to the individual states of the union. While it has been badly abused by both Republican and Democratic governments since Wilson (in particular, there never really was a time that the Federal gov't liked this doctrine)....and this is why there are State laws that are WILDLY divegent. In two states (I forget which) you don't even need a unanimous verdict to convict on capital crimes! I think that's revolting, but I will happily endorse the rights of those legislatures to be revolting because I want _my_ state legislature to revolt my ideological opponents too. Just so long as neither of us is allowed to use the Federal Government to impose our views on everyone else (yes, this is so seldom how it goes, alas)

That's the point of the USA..50 distinct societies bound by the bare minimum of mandatory conformity. And if you don't like the society where you live, you move. "It's a free country". While "bare minimum" has become "quite a bit", it's funny that as the conformity demands from the center increase, societal discontent ALSO increases. Could it be....that if you take away places that disagree with "the norm" on important issues, that people resent being unable to escape that norm ?

Btw, the coastal regions (well most of them since you have New England coast, the Deep South Coast, and the West Coast) the West and New England East are not so violently offended by this issue as you say. It's the conservative "heartland" of the 30 states with 1/3 of the population that have issues. And they should be free to grumble. But not to tell Dubyah to "make a law about this" to bind their dissenting neighbours with.

Secondly, the threat to the central government isn't from "diversity" (the existence of a wide range of interests and subsocietal groups)....it's the fact that these groups are becoming BALKANIZED! The growing distrust by them of the central government is _poisonous_ to smooth government and relatively peaceful relations between divergent factions. It is leading to groups attempting to rally sufficient influence to use the coercive power of central government to make sure the jackboot is on their opponents' throat, not theirs. And this "winner takes all, woe to the vanquished" practice of politics is the only _real_ threat to the Union in the short rant of yours.

When a group no longer feels guaranteed that the laws will be applied fairly and fully to protecting their well being, that group essentially begins to sociologically secede from the State, their participation going from willing to grudging. This needs to be headed off, and that is done by _sanctifying_ law abiding diveristy, not by condemning it.

I've been reading the posts on this thread with considerable interest, and have come to the following conclusions:

1. The people who write and publish the history books currently used in high schools, colleges, and univerisites should all be stood against a wall and shot for bending history to their own purposes.

2. The results of 40 years of mindless public "education" are painfully obvious.

3. Home schooling is looking more and more like a great option.

4. Many of those proclaiming the demise of America are simply indulging their own demented fantasies.

5. Most posts on here overlook the almost infinite American capacity for self-renewal. As Mark Twain said, "Reports of my recent demise are greatly exaggerated."


Re1: Have you seen a group of academics agree on _anything_ ? All historical facts are now in a state of flux. The point is there are valid interpretations from multiple camps on most of American and World history now, and this is a good thing.

It seems like this point is mostly b*tching that a lot of what is being written offends your sense of "what should be". Even though you are ignorant of the basic facts of modern history and do not posess expertise to wage the "war of footnotes" to prove, lawyer like ,that your conviction has any relation to objective reality. (No one who is not igorant of history could conclude that there should be a "single and final explanation of what the past was" because new evidence and new ideas are always coming to life. History is a narrative about the past that each generation must settle for itself.

The fact that you find the existence of this narrative outraging implies you don't respect individual liberty very much....

People criticize The State because they want it to be better; comparatively speaking, anarchists are the minority, and they don't have the mass following required to implement their values. To attribute to malice what in fact lies in _love of your own society_ is an impressive distortion.

Out of the ashes of the USA as it began, perhaps something with special distinct virtues may again arise, rather than the sad current status quo.

(2) (Laughs hard) I know that I was a nonconformist the whole time I was in school. When I was 10 to 18 (kids before age 10 really don't have rational opinions on abstract issues) I was _more_ conservative and pro-Statist than the majority of _teachers_, and when I was 19 to 29, I was remarkable LESS so.

And I expect I'm far from the only ideological misfit in this thread.

We are the canary in the coal mine, the steam whistle on the pot. Shooting the messenger is bad managment policy.

(3) It is true if you want the maximum input and influence in the decision of your children to subscribe or not to your own ideology, you really have to do this. I certainly will if I ever have children. And what does this have to do with the price of beer ? :)

Though what will you do if they repudiate your values even so ? I had excellent relations with my parents, I still do, and I am not of the same mind. We have many areas of agreement, but my beliefs overall bear little resemblance to theirs

(4) Indulging what fantasy ? The founding principles are dead, but we still have to live in the society the came after that death. We're just discussing where the transition came. If you think that the USA has been structurally, politically and culturally the SAME country the whole history, why not read the National Security Act of 1948 (I think it's 48, might be 47 or 49). It abolishes the constitution by saying "these things only apply if the president and a group of politicians say so!"

How can you possibly find seamless continuity in history ?

(5) A person is a much simpler and discrete entity than a society. Societies are like the sea, basically orderly but always changing in specific shape. To say that the shape has changed for the worse is NOT the same as saying the current shape is worthless. (Though yes, most of us in the thread are pretty unhappy with the sharp edges and dangerous flanges on the current shape, esp since most of them serve no useful function) And by the same token, saying there could not POSSIBLY be room for improvment is a position that history has proven wrong in all who professed it...over and over and over again.

America didn't commit suicide; it waged Abstract Warfare against Democracy and the rest of the world!

-snip-
Holy Shit!
Perfect. Absolutely perfect.

You know, I usually don't get involved in all these things...but I'll make an exception and offer you a fluffle or three:
:fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

*snip*

That was one of the most well thought out and rational posts I've ever seen on NS General. Your definition of the purpose of states' rights was exactly what I've had in my head but have been unable to articulate as clearly as I'd like. Well done.

Re1: Have you seen a group of academics agree on _anything_ ? All historical facts are now in a state of flux. The point is there are valid interpretations from multiple camps on most of American and World history now, and this is a good thing.


Maybe you should ask a textbook editor to explain the process to you some time, before you go making pronouncements. The content of textbooks nationwide is decided by the Boards of Education of the states of Texas and California - a dozen or so individuals. Less than half are teachers. Politics drive the process, and facts have little to do with it. Historical issues that might offend certain sensitivites are omitted or altered regularly; there's only one goal in text publishing: make the sale. If California or Texas doesn't buy, no one buys. This has been catalogued by better writers and advocates for fairness than myself, and can be researched with minimal effort by anyone.

Disclaimer: This is primarily a discussion about American Exceptionalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_exceptionalism).

You may have hard the quote by Abe Lincoln:


This was at a time when the civil war loomed large, but I believe there can be another meaning to it - namely that the US would abandon the principles upon which it was founded and become just another country.

Regarding that, there are a few points to debate:

Was the US any different to other countries when it was founded?

I believe it was. The rest of Europe was mainly absolutist or quasi-absolutist monarchies. They were societies based upon class, nobility and birthrights. France was a bit of an exception, but not for long.
The US however was founded based upon a set of beliefs that previously had only been mentioned in theory. Its leaders had a unique attitude towards government, and even though the practical aspects may have been copied from the Great Lakes Nations, as far as the West was concerned, the US was unique.

Has the US moved away from its principles?

I think the answer is pretty obvious. No matter who you ask, people will tell you that the Founding Fathers would be spinning in their graves if they knew.
Precisely why can be debated, but foreign wars, alliances, intervention in other countries for political purposes, income taxes, immigration restrictions and so on and so forth come to mind.

When do you think the US has committed suicide?

Was it perhaps during the civil war, was it during the times of imperialism, was it the New Deal or was it even later? Or was it a stillborn, because slaves and natives were not given the same rights as white people?

Why hasn't the population revolted?

Afterall, the idea behind the early US was that the people should be given the ability to change the government and the country at any point. But instead people have accepted all sorts of things being imposed on them. Today no one can claim that there is a real choice for US-Americans to change the way their country is run, the only opposition is not significantly different.

What does this imply for the claims that the US could be a force towards anything at all in the world?

Not freedom, not peace, not stability. All these things were at one time or another given up as the US changed from its great beginnings into this copy of Imperial Europe that it is today.

America isn't dead yet, and I've yet to see a nation with the kind of resiliency the United States has for reform through creative tension.

The United States was and to a large extent still is exceptional by virtue of the manner in which it was conceived. All nations, in order to exist as nations, depend on a common framework to unite disparate groups under one banner. Most nations, and virtually all that preceded the United States, achieved this unity through racial or ethnic homogeneity: we organize together politically because we have the same skin color, speak the same language, worship the same God, and have the same cultural practices. There were a few empires forged, but none usually lasted much longer than the man who willed them into creation. Thus, the empires of Khan and Alexander, while great, proved short-lived, as did the great Islamic empires of the seventh century before fracturing on tribal lines. Imperial Russia was vast, but only had peripheral issues with multiple ethnicities and benefitted from finding few true civilizations to oppose their march east.

The two nations that broke this mold in history were the Roman Republic/Empire and the United States. Rome broke it by making all men loyal citizens of the empire by forging them together in the cohesive military machine that was the Roman military. Romans, Athenians, Celts, and Egyptians all fought together, bathed together, bled together, making them brothers by circumstance if not by blood. The United States, by contrast, has broken this mold by making all men beholden to an ideal, an ideal that all men are equal and endowed with rights that no man or state can ever abridge. By building this common worldview, America is in many ways exceptional, and it is this worldview that must be shattered if America was ever to truly "die".

This worldview is under assault, but I am of the opinion that to call it dead is far too pessimistic an assessment. Basically, this worldview is under attack by a two-pronged assault, one of which is fairly long-standing, the other more recent. The first prong is the errant view that freedom means never having to sacrifice for your fellow citizen. Some would trace this doctrine back to Reagan; I would argue that he merely gave voice to a common sentiment of the Baby boomers. You see, the important thing to remember about rights is that they are justified not by a call to some odd Providential figure, but by remembering that a man outlawed from eating will break the law before he starves. This is true irrespective of whether it is a law that prevents him from eating, or economic circumstance. In order to keep the law, then, men must be willing to sacrifice some of the benefits of living under law to ensure that all men can afford to abide by it. Nonetheless, this fairly commonsensical view is currently derided as "redistribution" and somehow inherently unfair to those who benefit by living under the law, forgetting of course that this is really a measure to ensure that the law remains intact for them to benefit from in the first place.

The second prong of the assault is one that pops up every so often when the nation is scared, but more infrequent than the first. It is the errant view that this time, whatever "this time" constitutes, the danger is so great that we cannot afford to both be safe and have liberty. It is errant first because "this time" is seldom as bad as what has happened previously, just as the threat of terrorism today is paltry compared to the threat of the Soviet Union or even Nazi Germany from without, or the secession of the South or the Great Depression from within. It is errant second because it falsely assumes that the very thing that binds the nation together, this common view about the inherent eminence, worthiness, and quality even in the least of men to command their own affairs and own sense of dignity, can be set aside or put on the backburner without incalculable damage being done, damage that far exceeds even the worst-case scenario of what the enemy can inflict. In short, if we sacrifice expediency on the altar of liberty, we may lose a battle. If we sacrifice liberty on the altar of expediency, however, we lose who we are as a people, and if we lose that, we cannot win a war.

Both of those lines of thinking are prominent, perhaps even dominant in some elements of society. Nonetheless, I am in the long run optimistic, perhaps even ebullient. I retain my hope because despite how bad things are, I remember the very thing our nation is founded on, the sense that all men, even the least of men, are still worthy enough to have the self-respect and self-discipline to be called men. People in our country aren't stupid, ignorant, or incapable of self-government; they're scared, don't remember what it was like to face danger and not be scared, and have important people convincing them that they must remain scared and huddled or they will die. In short, they are acting out what they mistakenly think will do them good. To beat these threats down, then, requires only that we remind fellow citizens on their knees to remember what it was like to stand up, and pull back the curtain on the few Oz's of our society who would cow us with smoke and mirrors. That isn't a hard thing to do in the long run. Certainly, if you look at the efforts of World War II, the Civil Rights movement, the New Deal, the Progressive Movement, and the great westward migration in our nation's history, we've done much more before. We can do it again.

Maybe you should ask a textbook editor to explain the process to you some time, before you go making pronouncements. The content of textbooks nationwide is decided by the Boards of Education of the states of Texas and California - a dozen or so individuals. Less than half are teachers. Politics drive the process, and facts have little to do with it. Historical issues that might offend certain sensitivites are omitted or altered regularly; there's only one goal in text publishing: make the sale. If California or Texas doesn't buy, no one buys. This has been catalogued by better writers and advocates for fairness than myself, and can be researched with minimal effort by anyone.


I was referring to the _tertiary_ public education system. I realize this is somewhat nonstandard or even misleading usage, now. But I thought it was obvious that no one learns squat about history (or most of the other subjects) in Primary and Secondary school. And it's not because of "a liberal cabal" but because the structure of education is more oriented on _social_ goals (to create citizens who are prepared for the arbitary and stressful nature of work, and who are too demoralized and beaten down by pointless rules to protest the ruling cliques of society) than educational ones.

University ain't perfect, but it marks the only chance at a beginning of knowledge or wisdom that most people will get. Some can teach themselves all along. they're in the minority.

Re: Wallonchonia and Neu Leonstein

Thank you for the praise. Feel free to offer criticism or request clarification; I often need to "write it out" to get my thoughts in order, and sometimes, my first thoughts on a matter are simply wrong.

So what's a fluffle anyway ? I'm icon-illiterate. I just use smilies because I smirk and grin sardonically a lot.

Both of those lines of thinking are prominent, perhaps even dominant in some elements of society. Nonetheless, I am in the long run optimistic, perhaps even ebullient. I retain my hope because despite how bad things are, I remember the very thing our nation is founded on, the sense that all men, even the least of men, are still worthy enough to have the self-respect and self-discipline to be called men. People in our country aren't stupid, ignorant, or incapable of self-government; they're scared, don't remember what it was like to face danger and not be scared, and have important people convincing them that they must remain scared and huddled or they will die. In short, they are acting out what they mistakenly think will do them good. To beat these threats down, then, requires only that we remind fellow citizens on their knees to remember what it was like to stand up, and pull back the curtain on the few Oz's of our society who would cow us with smoke and mirrors. That isn't a hard thing to do in the long run. Certainly, if you look at the efforts of World War II, the Civil Rights movement, the New Deal, the Progressive Movement, and the great westward migration in our nation's history, we've done much more before. We can do it again.

I think you are right. Except that you state that people don't remember what it's like to face danger and not to be scared... I admit, I'm an outsider, so I'm not as familiar with the "character" of the nation, but it seems to me that there is no danger to be faced except from within. A terrorist attack? More people are killed by hurricanes, gunshots, accidents...etc. than terrorism.
The Russian nuclear bomb was the last "real" danger the Americans faced. Now it's all made up. Who really thinks Saddam was a threat to America? And Osama? Is he such a big threat? Other countries have dealt with terrorism without such a fuss, without all the drama and paranoya.
Sure, they have caused big problems, but I can't think of any nation reacting to terrorism the way the Americans have...It's just insane.

Though I've recently come to believe that Americas real problem is just it's refusal to listen to everyone else. It seems like the people think the "American way" must be unique, therefore it must go against everyone else's way automatically.

Other peoples fear? America.

BTW ... I'm American and VERY proud of it, although I'm definitely NOT proud of you. Do us both a favor and LEAVE!

I thought I smelt a petty, querulous tone 'midst all this well thought out posting. Whats wrong E? Hippy flash-back again?

I think you are right. Except that you state that people don't remember what it's like to face danger and not to be scared... I admit, I'm an outsider, so I'm not as familiar with the "character" of the nation, but it seems to me that there is no danger to be faced except from within. A terrorist attack? More people are killed by hurricanes, gunshots, accidents...etc. than terrorism.
The Russian nuclear bomb was the last "real" danger the Americans faced. Now it's all made up. Who really thinks Saddam was a threat to America? And Osama? Is he such a big threat? Other countries have dealt with terrorism without such a fuss, without all the drama and paranoya.
Sure, they have caused big problems, but I can't think of any nation reacting to terrorism the way the Americans have...It's just insane.

Though I've recently come to believe that Americas real problem is just it's refusal to listen to everyone else. It seems like the people think the "American way" must be unique, therefore it must go against everyone else's way automatically.

Other peoples fear? America.

I think you overvalue the fear generated by the Cold War and underestimate the degree to which America forgot about what it means to truly be afraid in the boom years of the 90's.

Put simply, the Russians inspired fear in the U.S., but they were also a known quantity that could be dealt with like another rational actor. They responded to incentives, they could be checked, and they responded to pressures like any other nation. That meant, in effect, that for all practical purposes the appearance of a threat to the American mind was reduced. As a consequence, America hadn't really been afraid in a genuine way since the Cuban Missile Crisis. They certainly had been convinced since the fall of the Soviet Union and Gulf War I that they had nothing to fear.

That goes a long way towards explaining why Americans reacted in the wake of 9/11 like McCarthy-era redux. No one under the age of about forty even remembered a time of direct and immediate threat to the mainland of the United States Eastern seaboard, and no one in the general public had even conceived of a threat emerging in such a dramatic fashion. As such, no one could really say that this wasn't the gravest threat to the United States because no one could really remember differently except for old fogies who remember the Great Depression, and to judge by how we're currently trying to reenact Black October with our current financial policies, it's pretty clear that nobody listens to them anyway.

Btw, the coastal regions (well most of them since you have New England coast, the Deep South Coast, and the West Coast) the West and New England East are not so violently offended by this issue as you say. It's the conservative "heartland" of the 30 states with 1/3 of the population that have issues. And they should be free to grumble. But not to tell Dubyah to "make a law about this" to bind their dissenting neighbours with.


Conservative heartland? I'm sick of people talking about issues they don't understand and basing their opinions on what they hear on CNN. The major cities of the Midwest (e.g. Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, and the Twin Cities) all routinely vote Democratic. Take a look at this map (http://www.esri.com/industries/elections/graphics/results_2004_lg.gif), which breaks down the election results by county, and tell me that coastal states aren't conservative. The majority of counties in California, Oregon, Washington, New York, and Pennsylvania, as well as significant portions of New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland inter alia voted for Bush in the 2004 presidential election. California, New York, Florida, and Texas are the four largest states (by population) in the Union. What's this about 1/3 of the population having issues?

By the way, I'm a Democratic Ohioan, and proud of it!

I think you overvalue the fear generated by the Cold War and underestimate the degree to which America forgot about what it means to truly be afraid in the boom years of the 90's.

Put simply, the Russians inspired fear in the U.S., but they were also a known quantity that could be dealt with like another rational actor. They responded to incentives, they could be checked, and they responded to pressures like any other nation. That meant, in effect, that for all practical purposes the appearance of a threat to the American mind was reduced. As a consequence, America hadn't really been afraid in a genuine way since the Cuban Missile Crisis. They certainly had been convinced since the fall of the Soviet Union and Gulf War I that they had nothing to fear.

That goes a long way towards explaining why Americans reacted in the wake of 9/11 like McCarthy-era redux. No one under the age of about forty even remembered a time of direct and immediate threat to the mainland of the United States Eastern seaboard, and no one in the general public had even conceived of a threat emerging in such a dramatic fashion. As such, no one could really say that this wasn't the gravest threat to the United States because no one could really remember differently except for old fogies who remember the Great Depression, and to judge by how we're currently trying to reenact Black October with our current financial policies, it's pretty clear that nobody listens to them anyway.

I don't think I'm overestimating the cold-war paranoya. I've seen those old commie scare-flicks produced in the US. I still remember when the last page in the phonebook had information on what to do in case of a nuclear attack and I still remember the fear people had of those two seemingly insane giants with the bombs... And that was just the 80's. The world held it's breath for decades waiting for the bomb... But then again, people forget quickly, and there was a sense of relief for the Americans when the USSR fell. But cold war paranoya lasted for a long time, and it's become quite a big part of American culture from what I can tell. The vietnam war isn't all that long ago either.
And surely there are many other factors... From what people write on here, there even seems to be quite a bit of suspicion and fear towards all things "foreign".

So what's a fluffle anyway ? I'm icon-illiterate. I just use smilies because I smirk and grin sardonically a lot.
I think it's just an expression of affection. People use it a lot here at times, although for me it's usually quite an exception. So feel honoured. ;)

Conservative heartland? I'm sick of people talking about issues they don't understand and basing their opinions on what they hear on CNN. The major cities of the Midwest (e.g. Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, and the Twin Cities) all routinely vote Democratic. Take a look at this map (http://www.esri.com/industries/elections/graphics/results_2004_lg.gif), which breaks down the election results by county, and tell me that coastal states aren't conservative. The majority of counties in California, Oregon, Washington, New York, and Pennsylvania, as well as significant portions of New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland inter alia voted for Bush in the 2004 presidential election. California, New York, Florida, and Texas are the four largest states (by population) in the Union. What's this about 1/3 of the population having issues?

By the way, I'm a Democratic Ohioan, and proud of it!

The map tells us there are Democratic voters everywhere, and Republican voters everywhere - which is right. However, there is a difference: there are states with conservative majorities which - in the slipstream of the Bush presidency - become even more conservative, while others only narrowly held by Bush cannot afford that since then eventually the moderates would side with the liberals and the conservatives lose... which might even happen in 2008 when Hillary campaigns with family values...

If the US is dead, how come I see all those American soldiers running around Iraq, wot?