For one, the United States lacks a good press corps of independent journalists with broad reach.
Everything is either politicized or commercialized. Shock value sells. Balanced rational discourse does not. Polarization makes too much money for too many people.
On top of that, a systematic destruction of education and a stranglehold of religion practically makes ignorance inevitable.
Maybe we could repair it, but it would take Republicans being blocked from making any decisions for several decades at this point.
No no…we had it fixed for centuries, until it was intentionally dismantled over the past 50-70 years (depending on where you wish to place the official start date.) For me, I place it during the 1964 presidential campaign, as that’s the markings of the first ever attack ad.
If you want the public to care about your politics, then politics needs to be about the policies of those politics. Reflection from within. Rather than “but what about the other guy? He’s bad.”
If candidate number one tells you “I will raise taxes, and use the money to pay for schools and roads”. And a second candidate says “I will lower taxes by dismantling social security”. You as a voter then have a choice to make. Pay slightly more in taxes, with better roads, and a better future for the next generation. OR pay less taxes, and probably have your retirement vanish.
Instead, that same scenario today would be “The other guy wants to take your retirement! He’s bad!” and the second candidate says “The other guy is raising taxes. He’s bad!”
So now the general public thinks both candidates are bad, and nobody looks into what the outcome of their other choices have historically been. This then leads them to vote based on sound bytes, rather than historical accuracies.
The end result is nobody cares about politics, because it’s all bullshit anyways.
No, in fact the very founding of the USA was arguably done primarily so that the ruling class could disregard the respectful boundaries that the English imposed to avoid strife with Native Americans and other colonial powers, which incidentally tended to curb our exploiting the land willy-nilly as we’ve shamelessly done since. It also locked out women and slave voters, preserving a classist system.
Since then there’s been various periods of little / negligible useful social policies, as well as periods in which the ultra-wealthy and common capitalists were UNCHECKED in their ability to thoroughly exploit people and form monopolies, etc etc. Seriously, if the Roosevelts hadn’t come along, those things might have progressed scarily unchecked.
So, no-- I certainly don’t see evidence that our form of democracy was ‘fixed for centuries.’ No, the fact is it’s been a shaky, wild, perilous ride from the day one.
…the 1964 presidential campaign, as that’s the markings of the first ever attack ad.
Maybe in terms of TV, but TV is just a natural extension of media, and media in the States has been used since… at least the early 1800’s? to completely slag-off or outright attack enemy candidates. Indeed, it’s been a perfect blood-bath of disinformation at times, which doesn’t even address all the nasty, vile tricks used to disenfranchise, or outright turn away undesirable voters at the polls. Which yes-- includes outright violence against undesirable voters across centuries in the States.
So, yeah… that all happened.
Altho I DO agree with you that somewhere between 50-70yrs back, the USA has been outright under attack by right-wingers, paving the way for fascism. Basically attacking most of the progress made under FDR and even Republican presidents like Ike.
Yeah it’s hard trying to save democracy when a large portion of the country has been brainwashed to destroy it all while thinking they’re the most patriotic.
I’m still amazed judges are so clearly divided into groups. I consider being a judge to require a degree of impartiality and authority that anyone clearly identifying as democratic or republican should be disqualified for. Democratic perhaps not since their more centric than left leaning or far left :/. Point being the one occupation that mandates impartiality is highly politicised. Of course everything is f*cked. The rule of law is not dictated by the majority or enforced by the trustworthy.
For one, the United States lacks a good press corps of independent journalists with broad reach.
Everything is either politicized or commercialized. Shock value sells. Balanced rational discourse does not. Polarization makes too much money for too many people.
On top of that, a systematic destruction of education and a stranglehold of religion practically makes ignorance inevitable.
Maybe we could repair it, but it would take Republicans being blocked from making any decisions for several decades at this point.
It’s a catch-22. We can’t fix it, until we fix it.
No no…we had it fixed for centuries, until it was intentionally dismantled over the past 50-70 years (depending on where you wish to place the official start date.) For me, I place it during the 1964 presidential campaign, as that’s the markings of the first ever attack ad.
If you want the public to care about your politics, then politics needs to be about the policies of those politics. Reflection from within. Rather than “but what about the other guy? He’s bad.”
If candidate number one tells you “I will raise taxes, and use the money to pay for schools and roads”. And a second candidate says “I will lower taxes by dismantling social security”. You as a voter then have a choice to make. Pay slightly more in taxes, with better roads, and a better future for the next generation. OR pay less taxes, and probably have your retirement vanish.
Instead, that same scenario today would be “The other guy wants to take your retirement! He’s bad!” and the second candidate says “The other guy is raising taxes. He’s bad!”
So now the general public thinks both candidates are bad, and nobody looks into what the outcome of their other choices have historically been. This then leads them to vote based on sound bytes, rather than historical accuracies.
The end result is nobody cares about politics, because it’s all bullshit anyways.
I really don’t understand you there.
No, in fact the very founding of the USA was arguably done primarily so that the ruling class could disregard the respectful boundaries that the English imposed to avoid strife with Native Americans and other colonial powers, which incidentally tended to curb our exploiting the land willy-nilly as we’ve shamelessly done since. It also locked out women and slave voters, preserving a classist system.
Since then there’s been various periods of little / negligible useful social policies, as well as periods in which the ultra-wealthy and common capitalists were UNCHECKED in their ability to thoroughly exploit people and form monopolies, etc etc. Seriously, if the Roosevelts hadn’t come along, those things might have progressed scarily unchecked.
So, no-- I certainly don’t see evidence that our form of democracy was ‘fixed for centuries.’ No, the fact is it’s been a shaky, wild, perilous ride from the day one.
Maybe in terms of TV, but TV is just a natural extension of media, and media in the States has been used since… at least the early 1800’s? to completely slag-off or outright attack enemy candidates. Indeed, it’s been a perfect blood-bath of disinformation at times, which doesn’t even address all the nasty, vile tricks used to disenfranchise, or outright turn away undesirable voters at the polls. Which yes-- includes outright violence against undesirable voters across centuries in the States.
So, yeah… that all happened.
Altho I DO agree with you that somewhere between 50-70yrs back, the USA has been outright under attack by right-wingers, paving the way for fascism. Basically attacking most of the progress made under FDR and even Republican presidents like Ike.
Username still doesn’t check out.
Yeah it’s hard trying to save democracy when a large portion of the country has been brainwashed to destroy it all while thinking they’re the most patriotic.
I’m still amazed judges are so clearly divided into groups. I consider being a judge to require a degree of impartiality and authority that anyone clearly identifying as democratic or republican should be disqualified for. Democratic perhaps not since their more centric than left leaning or far left :/. Point being the one occupation that mandates impartiality is highly politicised. Of course everything is f*cked. The rule of law is not dictated by the majority or enforced by the trustworthy.