Who is to blame for Americas problems? Americans

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**ShumaGorath**

I personally agree on all counts here, and I'm glad the national cognitive dissonance is at least getting some small amount of attention, though given how irresponsible and ill educated most Americans are, it likely will never be tackled.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/233158

In trying to explain our political paralysis, analysts cite President Obama's tactical missteps, the obstinacy of congressional Republicans, rising partisanship in Washington, and the Senate filibuster, which has devolved into a super-majority threshold for important legislation. These are large factors to be sure, but that list neglects what may be the biggest culprit of all: the childishness, ignorance, and growing incoherence of the public at large.

Anybody who says you can't have it both ways hasn't been spending much time reading opinion polls lately. One year ago, 59 percent of the American public liked the economic stimulus plan, according to Gallup. A few months later, with the economy still deeply mired in recession, a majority of the same size said Obama was spending too much money on it. There's nothing wrong with changing your mind, of course, but polls reflect something more troubling: a country that simultaneously demands and rejects action on unemployment, deficits, health care, and other problems.
t the root of this contradiction is our national-characterological ambivalence about government. We want Washington and the states to fix our problems. At the same time, we want government to shrink, spend less, and reduce our taxes. We dislike government in the abstract: 67 percent of people favor balancing the budget even when the country is in a recession or a war, according to CNN. But we love government in the particular: even larger majorities oppose the kind of spending cuts that would reduce projected deficits, let alone eliminate them. Nearly half the public wants to cancel Obama's stimulus spending, and a strong majority doesn't want another round of it. But 80-plus percent of people want to extend unemployment benefits and put more money into building roads. Another term for that is stimulus spending.

Some say that the public is in an angry, populist, tea-partying mood. But a lot more people are watching American Idol than Glenn Beck, and our collective illogic is mostly passive rather than militant. The better explanation is that the public lives in Candyland, where government can tackle the big problems and get out of the way at the same time. In this respect, the whole country is becoming more and more like California, where the state's bonds have dropped to an A- rating (the same level as Libya's) thanks to a referendum system that allows the people to be even more irresponsible than their elected representatives. We like the idea of sacrifices and hard choices in theory. When was the last time we made one?
The politicians thriving at the moment are those best able to call for the impossible with a straight face. Take Scott Brown, the newly elected senator from Massachusetts. Brown wants government to take in less revenue, has signed a no-new-taxes pledge, and called for an across-the-board tax cut on families and businesses. But Brown doesn't want government to spend less money: he opposes spending cuts of any significance. He says we can lower huge deficits (which his policies would increase) simply by cutting government waste. No sensible person who has spent five minutes looking at the budget thinks that's remotely possible. The charitable interpretation is that Brown embodies the naive optimism of Ronald Reagan. A better explanation is that he is consciously pandering to the public's illusions along with the rest of his Republican colleagues.

I don't mean to suggest that honesty vs. dishonesty is what divides the two parties. Increasingly, the crucial distinction is between the minority of serious politicians on either side who are prepared to speak frankly about our choices and the majority who indulge the public's delusions. I would put President Obama and his economic team in the first category, along with California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Republicans are more indulgent of the public's unrealism in general, but Democrats have spent years fostering their own kinds of denial. Where Republicans encourage myths about taxes, spending, and climate change, Democrats tend to stoke our fantasies about the sustainability of entitlement spending and the cost of social programs.

Our inability to address long-term challenges makes a strong case that the United States now faces an era of historical decline. To change this story-line, we need to stop blaming the rascals we elect to office, and look instead to ourselves.

Weisberg is chairman of the Slate Group and author of The Bush Tragedy.

© 2010

Thoughts?

**Flashman**

I read today that Sarah Palin is gathering popularity again through this Tea Party movement thing. Seriously, you guys need to work on this. If there's the slightest chance of this nutcase being voted into office, it needs quashing now.

EDIT - I would add that we don't get any choice over here, as nutcases are all we have, be they permanently depressed Scotsmen or Overly earnest Eton toffs in desperate need of a clip round the ear.

**BluntmanDC**

As i've always said most people talk a big game and like to demand thinks from the goverment, but as soon as the tax is increased to fufill this demand they get angry. goverments can only do what you want if you give them money and effort

If you don't like taxes don't complain about the pot holes

**J.Black**

"Increasingly, the crucial distinction is between the minority of serious politicians on either side who are prepared to speak frankly about our choices and the majority who indulge the public's delusions."

I totally agree with this. It's a big problem here in England where the opposition party has been trying to pander to the voters, promising us that our problems will disappear once they are in charge. Then the party in power jumps on the same bandwagon in case their rivals steal a march on them in the polls.

/rant
I'd like to think this would provoke a nation-wide-facepalm, but the sad thing is we have the same state of affairs as the Americans do: People are so used to being given what they want by crap-TV, stupid bank loans and overly generous benefit checks that they fall for it and vote for whoever spends the most money on their advertising campaign so they can get on with watching Popidol and gaking out more rat-faced children rather than getting off their arses and actually thinking about something for once.
/rant

Bah.

**ShumaGorath**

I'm surprised by the overwhelmingly british response to this thread.

**Albatross**

@Shuma - Perhaps we're the only ones who agree with the premise of your post!

**Nightwatch**

Meh...I'm not american, the flag is mistaken. Politics is always screwy. In fact, "Democracy is the worst form of government...except for all the other kinds that have been tried." I think everyone's at fault for not devising a better system to properly represent everyone's feelings.

**Iron_Chaos_Brute**

I agree with Shuma. America unfortunately labors under a veil of ignorance these days. On my walks to class on campus, for example, I have to put up with idiots alternatively proclaiming that the Democratic and Republican parties are dead.

**Vindicator#9**

You know what would solve this problem.....PRINT MORE MONEY!!!

Seriously though i agree with what is said here especially about the lack of education in government and outside of it. Also about the lack of being able to make sacrifices.

**sebster**

The thing is, every country has idiotic voters, and almost everywhere they outnumber the informed voters. As a result politics has always, and probably will always, consist of promising to increase spending, decreases taxes and balance the budget.

But the rest of us haven't experienced the rapid decline in the quality of political debate the US has suffered in the last decade or so. I think that's really come from the politicians themselves, from a change in the culture of Washington - I've read a lot pieces about Washington becoming a much nastier place in the last couple of decades.

**warpcrafter**

One of the main problems is that we used to think of college as a way to get a well-rounded education, but now it's just advanced job training. People spend two or four years learning what they need to do a specific job and nothing else, so they're still idiots, albeit with student loans to pay off. People don't read like they used to, they skim headlines on the internet. Also, the U.S. used to have lots of high-paying manufacturing jobs that brought a lot of money into our economy. Now we have lots of low-paying service jobs and are bleeding money like never before. The tax base just can't support all of the infrastructure and social security demands like it used to. If we were a patient in a hospital, the doctors would be thinking about pulling the plug. And by the way, Glenn Beck is a walking argument against the first amendment.

**WarmasterScott**

You are also forgetting America is lazy and greedy. Look at that health bill, it gained help from buying off states. Those people are getting bought off why would they care what others are dealing with? Its America land of the secular and selfish.

**garret**

Every human is greedy and selfish.

**WarmasterScott**

Yea, we just super size it.. We don't take care of most global issues cause we care, we do it to keep up our obnoxious image. Considering we put ourselves on a pedestal as some great nation we're almost no better than a spoiled brat living off our rich dad(forefathers). Most wait for hand outs and do nothing but help us waste money to pull their lazy ass outta the fire.

**youbedead**

Vindicator#9 wrote:You know what would solve this problem.....PRINT MORE MONEY!!!

I'm almost positive that your being sarcastic but no. If Have a loaf of bread that i want to sell for one dollar and you had one dollar then it would cost one dollar however if we both got twice as much money then i would charge two dollars it seems like it would cost more yet it would be the same relative cost. So if you print more money it wouldn't change a damn thing.

**Wrexasaur**

sebster wrote:The thing is, every country has idiotic voters, and almost everywhere they outnumber the informed voters. As a result politics has always, and probably will always, consist of promising to increase spending, decreases taxes and balance the budget.

But the rest of us haven't experienced the rapid decline in the quality of political debate the US has suffered in the last decade or so. I think that's really come from the politicians themselves, from a change in the culture of Washington - I've read a lot pieces about Washington becoming a much nastier place in the last couple of decades.

I am going to have to agree with sebster here, I really don't feel that the fault is truly on the people at large. In fact, I would even argue that people in fact ARE more involved, but by way of instant communication, versus word of mouth (and alternative sources of information). If you really want a nation of people with college educations, you are the first step on the path to impossibility.

The amount of people involved in the last presidential election, was mind-boggling quite frankly. There was a massive push politically, from the people at large, on both sides. You have more independents that ever, indicating a general dissatisfaction with the state of both current political parties. People in general, have always, and will continue to want, and ask for, more than they can manage or which is feasible in the first place. There is no news there. Want your cake, AND EAT IT TOO?! No way, Jose, your crazy and your new fangled ways of doing things scare me.

With the addition of more people to the political arena, on a societal level, the amount of ignorance will rise, in proportion to the previous 'whole'. More people involved, more ignorance involved. Not more ignorance involved, less people involved.

The action that takes place now, may have more or less impact, and in different ways, to the generic course of politics in the U.S. Do "million people marches" (which were very rare, in fact almost nonexistent in the past, as they are now, though less frequent in general now) really make a difference in this day and age? Does the fact that information, (though prone to slightly more spinning/'opinionatizing') is now easily accessible and common place, really mean that little? I would argue that as always, politics change, but for the most part, people are pretty much the same; thus the access to information is being USED differently. Not entirely on the Politicians themselves though.

More emotion, more 'appearances', less actual substance from Washington. In general, more involvement from people on the societal level as well, perhaps indicating that this form of pressure being applied via the web (communication in general, etc...) has a detrimental effect, simply due to it's proliferation in the first place.

Translation:
It is very, very loud (politically), in the U.S. Most of that noise, does appear to be coming from politicians, though perhaps as a reflection of the pressure from their constituency.

**dogma**

While I agree with the sentiment presented, I also find myself wanting to tell the author to nut up. The average person is of average intelligence. This has always been true, and will always be true. Whining about something which cannot be changed is useless at best, and harmful at worst. If you are both intelligent, and interested in political change, then it is your responsibility to learn how to manipulate the political process.

This means speaking to the hypocrisy that is implicit in an angry public that lacks the knowledge to properly understand the role their desires play in the administration of the state. It also means practicing tight information control, manipulation of the public will, and getting elected. But most importantly, it means understanding that the specific desires of the public are less relevant than the probability of any given choice producing a positive outcome.

What the people really want is prosperity. They may be emotionally attached to one ideology, or another, but most citizens will throw their belief to the wolves when presented with a fat wallet.

**warpcrafter**

WarmasterScott wrote:You are also forgetting America is lazy and greedy. Look at that health bill, it gained help from buying off states. Those people are getting bought off why would they care what others are dealing with? Its America land of the secular and selfish.

WarmasterScott wrote:Yea, we just super size it.. We don't take care of most global issues cause we care, we do it to keep up our obnoxious image. Considering we put ourselves on a pedestal as some great nation we're almost no better than a spoiled brat living off our rich dad(forefathers). Most wait for hand outs and do nothing but help us waste money to pull their lazy ass outta the fire.

Way to spout off without adding anything in the way of solutions to the discussion. Perhaps we should start taxing churches. That would represent a massive influx of fresh federal revenue. After all, they're just as political as any other organization any more, they just aren't honest about it.

**dogma**

sebster wrote:
But the rest of us haven't experienced the rapid decline in the quality of political debate the US has suffered in the last decade or so. I think that's really come from the politicians themselves, from a change in the culture of Washington - I've read a lot pieces about Washington becoming a much nastier place in the last couple of decades.

There is a massive gap between the two partisan blocs. Massive. Its not even substantive, merely brand related, and that makes it almost impossible to overcome. Politicians reflect their constituencies, unless they're particularly brilliant manipulators, so that gap is reflected in Washington.

Seriously, I've seen people get up and leave in the middle of a political science class because we were discussing liberal theory. Not even contemporary liberal theory, just Hobbes and Locke. He had so much hate for the word that he couldn't stay in the room. I've also seen people do the same when discussing the ideology of contemporary position which weren't there own. Ridiculous, but college kids are usually ridiculous.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

WarmasterScott wrote:Most wait for hand outs and do nothing but help us waste money to pull their lazy ass outta the fire.

Real unemployment is 15%. That's nowhere near most of the nation, and I'd argue that most people who are unemployed are not lazy.

**Wrexasaur**

dogma wrote:There is a massive gap between the two partisan blocs. Massive. Its not even substantive, merely brand related, and that makes it almost impossible to overcome. Politicians reflect their constituencies, unless they're particularly brilliant manipulators, so that gap is reflected in Washington.

Do you think that is the main 'problem' right now? Are people so at odds that progress becomes unbearably slow?

The article speaks about people who want the best of both worlds, with no compromise whatsoever, and I occasionally (though rarely) see that occur in discussions. What seems to be more prominent, is a basic stubbornness when it comes to compromise, in a political setting. Versus sheer focused tenacity, at least from the public's side.

Is there really that little substance to most of these disagreements though? I am not entirely sure of that, as it seems (IMHO) that 'people' have taken two philosophical paths, that are just going in opposite directions. This would lead to lack of compromise in any setting, and with politics that is doubly true. Getting angry roosters (enraged and illogical as they may seem) to stop fighting, is no easy task.

Seriously, I've seen people get up and leave in the middle of a political science class because we were discussing liberal theory. Not even contemporary liberal theory, just Hobbes and Locke. He had so much hate for the word that he couldn't stay in the room. I've also seen people do the same when discussing the ideology of contemporary position which weren't there own. Ridiculous, but college kids are usually ridiculous.

That is pretty unfortunate, as that amount of what I would consider to be passion (I see hate as a form of passion) being lost from a discussion, can be bad thing.

**Cane**

I too agree with the article's sentiment but its an editorial that would fit in every generation of American politics tracing back to the founding fathers. And really just about all democratic nations have these problems.

At least we're not trying to accuse eachother of being Soviet spies and practicing nuclear bomb drills in schools anymore

**dogma**

Wrexasaur wrote:
Do you think that is the main 'problem' right now? Are people so at odds that progress becomes unbearably slow?

I'm conflicted on that idea.

Part of me says that American politics are about as fluid as they've always been, and its simply a function of information society eroding patience which makes us see the process as sluggish. That said, 'slow' is relative. If the political process is slow when it needs to be fast, then there is still a problem. Though not necessarily an unacceptable one; depending on what you want from the state.

The other part of me says that democracy is an even more problematic concept in the information age. Politicians need to develop a sort of resistance to the desire of their constituents, and the average citizen needs to develop a reasonable assessment of what their representatives can achieve. Unfortunately, that's simply a matter of adaptation over time.

Wrexasaur wrote:
The article speaks about people who want the best of both worlds, with no compromise whatsoever, and I occasionally (though rarely) see that occur in discussions. What seems to be more prominent, is a basic stubbornness when it comes to compromise, in a political setting. Versus sheer focused tenacity, at least from the public's side.

Its been my experience that many people in the United States see compromise as a sign of weakness. They're right, of course, but what is often missed is the fact that we are all weak in some sense. People who are open to compromise simply acknowledge that fact.

As for the issue of wanting the best of both worlds: That's partially the fault of survey question writers. If two nominally positive, but contradictory, concepts are tested independently of one another they will both report high desire. Why wouldn't they? Its also partially the fault of the cultural tendency of Americans to engage with political ideas from an idealistic stance. One made all the worse as it is passed off as realism.

Wrexasaur wrote:
Is there really that little substance to most of these disagreements though? I am not entirely sure of that, as it seems (IMHO) that 'people' have taken two philosophical paths, that are just going in opposite directions. This would lead to lack of compromise in any setting, and with politics that is doubly true. Getting angry roosters (enraged and illogical as they may seem) to stop fighting, is no easy task.

There are people who post to this very forum who want portable health care coverage, and yet oppose health care exchanges; which are pretty much the only way to dodge the 10th amendment.

**Anshal**

Hoho Im suprised to see that ANY Americans has this amount of awareness, But on the other hand it hadd to happen sooner or later but good jobb with getting a healty attitude towards your problems.

**Wrexasaur**

dogma wrote:
Wrexasaur wrote:
Do you think that is the main 'problem' right now? Are people so at odds that progress becomes unbearably slow?

I'm conflicted on that idea.

Part of me says that American politics are about as fluid as they've always been, and its simply a function of information society eroding patience which makes us see the process as sluggish. That said, 'slow' is relative. If the political process is slow when it needs to be fast, then there is still a problem. Though not necessarily an unacceptable one; depending on what you want from the state.

The other part of me says that democracy is an even more problematic concept in the information age. Politicians need to develop a sort of resistance to the desire of their constituents, and the average citizen needs to develop a reasonable assessment of what their representatives can achieve. Unfortunately, that's simply a matter of adaptation over time.

I would argue from those basic assumptions, that politicians need to me more active in their politics. Perhaps this is already happening in a way that can begin to bring a bit of change to our politics. It is clear enough to me, that the progressives are taking more of the stage up than anyone else, but President Obama has provided a substantial amount of transparency in general. I still sense that he is fresh (in both good and bad ways IMO), but he really has the ability to convey his points with rather concise and direct reasoning. He is a fantastic orator, but I think that he generically serves as a model for future politicians.

Its been my experience that many people in the United States see compromise as a sign of weakness. They're right, of course, but what is often missed is the fact that we are all weak in some sense. People who are open to compromise simply acknowledge that fact.

It seems that the desire to appear strong in general, has always been an 'admirable' trait in Americans. Strong may be the wrong word, perhaps independent, and successful. I do know a lot of people that take that to an unhealthy level, but on many occasions that almost obsessive behavior seems to pay off. We appear to reward that type of obsession in our society.

You will always need support, leading to various forms of compromise, if you want to succeed at nearly anything. Wanting to be able to do everything, and always be right about anything, seems a stupid endeavor.

As for the issue of wanting the best of both worlds: That's partially the fault of survey question writers. If two nominally positive, but contradictory, concepts are tested independently of one another they will both report high desire. Why wouldn't they? Its also partially the fault of the cultural tendency of Americans to engage with political ideas from an idealistic stance. One made all the worse as it is passed off as realism.

Makes sense, my Poli-sci teacher tries to present polls as hard evidence of some kind. I would not argue that they are void of applicable information, but taking them at face value just seems silly to me.

**dogma**

Wrexasaur wrote:
I would argue from those basic assumptions, that politicians need to me more active in their politics. Perhaps this is already happening in a way that can begin to bring a bit of change to our politics. It is clear enough to me, that the progressives are taking more of the stage up than anyone else, but President Obama has provided a substantial amount of transparency in general. I still sense that he is fresh (in both good and bad ways IMO), but he really has the ability to convey his points with rather concise and direct reasoning. He is a fantastic orator, but I think that he generically serves as a model for future politicians.

I mostly agree. I think that, now, conservatives have taken the lead in terms of political activity. However, the progressives did start the trend with the Obama campaign.

Speaking of: Obama has made quite a few mistakes, but I think he has done infinitely better than McCain would have. If only because he is so much younger.

Wrexasaur wrote:
It seems that the desire to appear strong in general, has always been a common trait among Americans. Strong may be the wrong word, perhaps independent, and successful. I do know a lot of people that take that to an unhealthy level, but on many occasions that almost obsessive behavior seems to pay off. We appear to reward that type of obsession in our society.

We do, and it has its benefits. It also has its handicaps. Obsessions are weaknesses, even the ones that relate to strengths.

Wrexasaur wrote:
Makes sense, my Poli-sci teacher tries to present polls as hard evidence of some kind. I would not argue that they are void of applicable information, but taking them at face value just seems silly to me.

It is, and with that realization you're already head-and-shoulders over most people.

**Orkeosaurus**

Anshal wrote:Hoho Im suprised to see that ANY Americans has this amount of awareness

**sebster**

dogma wrote:There is a massive gap between the two partisan blocs. Massive. Its not even substantive, merely brand related, and that makes it almost impossible to overcome. Politicians reflect their constituencies, unless they're particularly brilliant manipulators, so that gap is reflected in Washington.

Sure, but where does that brand identification come from? I'd argue that identification with conservatism and liberalism hasn't just appeared out of the blue, but been encouraged by the two major parties. Getting people to identify some part of their identity with a political ideology, and therefore with a political party, is a pretty good way to make sure they turn up to vote. It's a lot more reliable than winning people over with policy debate.

The problem comes when a generation raised to believe in the culture war grows up and starts winning political offices of their own. Before long you see people earnestly claiming healthcare reform is communism.

**dogma**

Silly goose, anything the Democrats do is communism.

Seriously though, you're right. The blame lies on politicians. Well, politicians and their advisers.

Ultimately fault is irrelevant. What is important is cause. The current situation is unacceptable, and my current country must rectify it if they hope to be useful in the future. Of course, that also requires a sense of tax history, so we're all doomed. Good thing I have many Indian friends.

**sebster**

dogma wrote:Silly goose, anything the Democrats do is communism.

Seriously though, you're right. The blame lies on politicians. Well, politicians and their advisers.

Ultimately fault is irrelevant. What is important is cause. The current situation is unacceptable, and my current country must rectify it if they hope to be useful in the future.

Yeah, that's a good point. Ultimately what matters is the solution. I guess a population that stops rewarding divisive rhetoric, and starts rewarding constructive, substantive debate would solve the problem in time, but good luck with that.

The other solution would be for the parties themselves to see where they've managed to steer the country and decide they need to change. This seems more likely, but that doesn't mean its very likely.

**dogma**

It isn't. We have people advocating 70% cuts to the federal government, no mind for the 14 million people that would be dropped on the market.

Emotionally motivated fools. So very sad. Also a good case for tyranny. Hilarious how that happens.