The U.S. Is Fast Heading Into a Dangerous Place Politically.

Maybe I'm overstating this and being alarmist but in my opinion, the United States politically is undergoing changes in its national political system that could be extremely dangerous in the long run.

Republicans, after losing the popular vote in six if the last seven presidential elections have no reasonable, moral, ethical or political claim to representing the country as a whole.

Meanwhile the Democrats (for various reasons) have been reduced to being basically a regional political party. Able to win and dominate in New York and California and a handful of other places. Not only in the presidential race but in congressional contests......but with zero claim to representing vast areas of the country.

Thus the U.S. is moving closer to what was a major factor in the Civil War, that is "sectionalism". People don't feel represented (or even cared about) by the other side, thus they feel little loyalty when the other side happens to take power.

I don't worry much about another American Civil War. What I do worry about is increased chaos (including violence) in upcoming elections, increased bitterness and divisiveness that makes the U.S. virtually ungovernable.

Until a charismatic leader comes along like FDR or Reagan who can win massive majorities and thus make serious claims to leading the entire nation or the U.S. unites thanks to a war or something, I don't see things getting better.

Thoughts?

Besides TLDR.

Great thread, BTW.

And with all respect, when someone as notoriously partisan as yourself is picking up on this I daresay we're gonna be fucked.

Also, I don't see a war uniting America. The days of WWII (and the selective media that promotes the war effort) are long over and between Vietnam, Iraqi Wars I and II and Syria, few are jumping at the bit to get into another conflict.

I think it might if the U.S. had to fight a peer competitor like the Russians in the Baltics or the Chinese in the South China Sea.

But.

The prospects of an actual armed conflict between nuclear armed major powers is so appalling as to be beyond the pall. Regardless of its political effects on the U.S.

Nope, probably not even then.

As I said in the VA thread earlier, we need to stop making so many veterans by being more selective of our battles. Step back. Let the other powers in the UN fight their own fights. Lift the boot off of Japan's military because waifu culture pretty much ensures the good ol Imperial days of raping and pillaging are long behind them and let them take a more active role in fighting NK.

Shit like that.

We don't get to choose our battles much of the time.

And allowing or encouraging Japan to rearm (say with nuclear weapons) would be like dropping a Molotov cocktail in a fireworks stand across Asia.

Why do you say that? They're capitalist, a successful country in their own right and their culture has changed significantly in the last 75 years.

I've seen their tentacle porn. I don't lose seep at night thinking they'll become Asian Hitler.

Sure we do. The war mongering Black President Hussein has been starting wars on a whim for nearly a decade.

That's from an American standpoint. I would suggest the Koreans, Chinese, Filipinos and others have rather different opinions.

Good thread; but a charismatic leader is the last thing you need right now.

Perhaps "charismatic" was the wrong term. Maybe a "nationally respected" leader would be more appropriate.

They are already rearmed minus the nukes.

This divide will get bigger as the big sort continues. Cities will represent prosperity and rural areas will decline as cities build up. Those people will have different political opinions based on their lifestyles. No one will migrate to the rural areas since they lack jobs so there won't be a mixing of ideas anymore in those areas. Likewise rural people are limited by cities costs preventing mixing of ideas in cities. Thus the division becomes not just one of politics but of geography. You can talk of how liberals don't understand the rural point of view but the same is true in reverse.

Yeah, but fuck 'em, we gotta look out for 'Murican interests.

( )

Joke aside, I'm not ignorant of the bad blood between Japan and most of Asia, but enough is enough. China has killed many people under Mao and the Philippines President is basically Asian Governor LePage on crack.

I disagree with the part about cities not being able to take in rural folks. Sure they can. Seattle is one of the more expensive cities out there, but since I bought my place 3 years ago, 4 Alabamians, a Kansan and a Georgian have used it as a launch pad. All six live in the actual city (one, my old roommate from Mobile literally lives 4 blocks from me).

I agree with the point that it is rural v urban. Subsidized v productive.

You look at a county level election map and while it is mostly red, the small number of counties Hillary did win produce over 2/3rds of US GDP.

gerrymandering. Until it's declared unconstitutional at SCOTUS, things will continue towards the cliff.

Yes. Districts should be drawn as compact as possible and without regard for any demographics of the people inside the district. It should solely be based on headcount from the Census.

One of the better thongs I would like to see out of Republicans is repealing the laws NIMBYs use to block development. That and relaxing zoning laws which alsp defacto restrict supply thus driving up prices.

That needa to happen at the local and state levels though.

Yes, and they should correspond to local administrative units.

I can see writing an algorithm which considers other factors subordinate to the consideration of compactness and shortness of boundaries. For example, if a district can be drawn that is entirely urban (or rural) which is within a certain percentage, as compact as one which is split across two areas with divergent interests, then fine, consider that factor. But not if it means drawing irrational borders, and not with any consideration to previous partisan voting patterns.

What? Explain that as I don't know what you mean by local administrative units.

Well, I kept the phrasing a bit vague because I've never lived in the US and have a hard time outlining precise examples correctly, but take school districts, police districts, jurisdictional districts, as well as local political districts such as town borders, etc. They might be smaller or larger than voting districts, but their borders should usually coincide.

Centralisation of power is the primary problem, as control is appropriated, and migrated away, from regional decision making, it creates a gap.

The increased power turns governing from less of a calling, into more of career, and as such governing becomes just another job, and your constituents becomes the customer.

So you've shifted the dynamic from serving your country, to one more akin to a business where the two sides want to get as much as they can from the other side, whilst giving as little as they can in return. So a relationship becomes increasingly hostile, and the gap becomes increasingly large.

That invites people who can claim to bridge that gap to come in, and so contentious and corrosive has the relationship come between the governed and those how govern, those people need not have the best in mind for the governed, only to mean to do ill to those who govern to be regarded as saviours.

There needs to be a dismantling of central power, which isn't the same as fragmentation (you can retain national frameworks, just that implementing it becomes a more regional affair and can be tailored for those regions), and a return to those governing being actually part of the communities they are serving. It isn't just the US having this issue, the West has consistently tried to create ever larger institutions, and it's the wrong way of doing things.

I'd say this is a pretty spot-on analysis. There has been a drastic increase in partisan bickering over the last 10-15 years. True, there was always partisan bickering, but it has become especially nasty in recent years.

I think it will get worse before it gets better. Not sure what rock bottom will look like, but a lot of people will suffer, unfortunately.

I don't think a charismatic leader will come along who won't be demonized by the other side. There are some decent politicians, both left and right, who are great speakers and have very moderate politics. But they would be absolutely ripped apart by the 24 hour news/social media machine. In the past, charismatic leaders were so successful because they weren't under the microscope every waking hour. Reagan, FDR, JFK, they all had their skeletons and issues--but those weren't exposed until much later. Today, none of them would have stood a chance.

Hell with today's media I don't think Washington would have stood a chance.

In 2012, I would have said you were being a bit silly, that even though partisan politics were nastier than ever, people would come together and ultimately do the right thing. Even a few years ago, I would have considered it unlikely. This election season has shown me that the old ideas of unity, kindness, compassion, honesty, and integrity do not exist inside our political sphere any longer. It's not just about Trump. Donald Trump is a symptom, not the root of the problem. I'm not a technophobe, quite the opposite I love technology, but I think part of the reason that we're here now is because of the internet, and its ubiquity. In school, you are taught from a set standard of rules and educational guidelines. There's some variance due to teaching style, and implicit bias in the system, but overall it's something that can be overcome with a minimum of effort.

The internet, on the other hand, has no filter. There is no overseeing administration that ensures the quality and accuracy of the information people both dispense and consume. It is a free market of ideas, which is usually something to be applauded, but even a free market has some regulation to ensure a structure is in place to prevent corrosion of the "free" part of the market. The internet started as a vital link between military and scientific organizations. Then it expanded to institutions of knowledge and learning. Some years later, it became a tool of the professional; the businessman, the news editor, the banker. The internet is now in the hands of anyone who can hold a cell phone. It affects every human being, whether they can access it directly, or not. It is pervasive, permeating every corner of society in every respect, and its influence has grown to dominate them, rather than supplement them.

When NASA, and a guy who believes that aliens are rectally probing his sister, both have an equal voice in opinion, there is no problem. When CNN, and the woman who thinks God punishes people by having them be born black, have an equal voice when it comes to factual information, now we have a problem. When CNN then takes up the same tactics in their journalism, as the woman spouting unsupported assertions does on her blog, we have a disaster. We are in the midst of a change, and it's not a change for the better. In the early days of science fiction, many stories told of an advanced society where information flowed freely, and mankind was better educated, better capable, more equipped to handle the coming uncertainties of the future.

Well, here we are. Information flows freely, and the regulatory watchdogs we counted on to make certain facts stayed facts and opinions stayed opinions, had sold their shares to the purveyors of profit. That's not to say profit is bad, but profit in the wrong hands can be far more destructive than any nuclear weapon. At least with a nuclear weapon, there is an indication of coming destruction, but information is far more subtle. It digs into our brains, becomes a part of our thought processes. We inculcate it into the minds of the rising generation, so that when they take the mantle of responsibility, it guides their thoughts and actions as well. That is why for centuries the education system has sought to keep that information in check, to push it through clearing houses, and gates, in order to keep it as accurate as possible. We've watched, these past few decades, as the education system has been torn apart, institutions of higher learning becoming untrustworthy as sneers of unguarded elitism ascend from the hoi polloi.

In some cases, this has been true, but the overarching responsibility of every educational institution still served a valid, and important purpose. They were the hardpoints of critical thought. They defended the availability and accuracy of information as it passed from system to system, often self-correcting, and they instilled a level of respect, of integrity, into the intellectual process. They did do this, but they don't do it so well anymore, and without them, there is no default self-correcting mechanism. They have been superseded by the unending font of free information that is neither filtered, nor tested for safety. The internet will bring you the medicine of knowledge to cure ignorance, but it will also bring you your recreational drug of choice, and in the same package.

One more analogy, and then I'll close. An architect can design a beautiful building, both strong and complex. That design then goes to the developers, to ensure that the design is both safe and practical. The developers make changes where needed to ensure structural stability. This goes back to the designer, who updates his or her work with the modifications. The end result is a building that stands for hundreds of years, against wind, rain, and time.

So what would happen if everyone had the capability to release their own architectural designs into the wild, and for those designs to be built without needing oversight? Billions of designs, some practical, some extreme, but all given the exact same weight. The internet has become the tool of the social architect, and thus here we are.

I don't know where we'll go from here.

You Won't Believe What General Washington's Teeth Are Made Of!!!

I was actually thinking of that.

The country was always divided. Left/Right. Rural/Urban. It's just with the explosion in communication afforded by the Internet people more easily polarize. There's less exposure to filtered news through the 3 networks. This isn't a bad thing, except if you're stupid and have no reality filter.

With the political pendulum swung all the way to stupid, I think the mid-term and next presidential may swing back to the center and common sense. Hopefully Trump and Co. won't screw the pooch cratering the economy and perhaps the country in the meantime.

Apologies for the loaded language.