A lotta somebodies dropped the ball...

[Hawkeye10]

I would argue that at least in part it is because psychology has progressed so far, so quickly, that it is possible to largely control what people think. And right now the Russians are working hard to divide your country, and have your country loose it's allies by making you think what they want.

Putting all that effort into getting Trump elected has worked brilliantly for them, hasn't it?

Technology has certainly gone far towards perfecting the police state, so those who desire to put their peers in chains and abuse them have an easier time of it....but that does not completely answer the question of why they want to.

We had believed that we had progressed as a species beyond that craving, at least in the West.

 

[The Mark]

That does not explain all of the lies, it does not explain the deciding to live in our fantasies.

Comfort is addictive.

Humans lie to themselves to retain it.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Comfort is addictive.

Humans lie to themselves to retain it.

We are not comfortable, we are pissed off and scared out of our minds and increasingly feel stressed.

We as a society are like an addict who is racing towards the crash at the bottom.

We are not right.

 

[The Mark]

We are not comfortable, we are pissed off and scared out of our minds and increasingly feel stressed.

We as a society are like an addict who is racing towards the crash at the bottom.

We are not right.

We're not the ones lying to ourselves, or at least not about the same things.

I was thinking of some in power lying to themselves that it was all working despite indications, because they were comfortable.

 

[chuckiechan]

Profit should never come at the cost of human blood. Any government that places profit before people is pure evil.”
-- Suzy Kassem, Rise Up and Salute the Sun: The Writings of Suzy Kassem
​

People like my folks, their parents, as well as myself and my siblings, as Ross Douthat writes in "Why We Miss WASPs," were "hardened in the cold of New England boarding schools, acculturated by the late-night rituals of Skull and Bones, [and] sent off to the world with a sense of noblesse oblige." Such folks formed America's Establishment; however, while circumstances and trappings distinguished the Establishment from everyone else, common to all were the virtues the Establishment embraced, those qualities thus enshrined as moral mores that formed the core of American culture.

Last week's abundance of reflections on George H.W. Bush's life revealed poignantly that sometime between 1960 and 1990, a hell of a lot of people "dropped the ball" as go cultural and personal ethics. Many of these folks shall, like most old guarders, to most remain nameless even as we daily encounter them. Others, most notably our current president, will go down as the architects and heirs of the cultural catastrophe coursing our cathedrals, colleges and countrysides.

Mind, there's plenty to revile regarding the rule of the WASPs. The Establishment presided over an America that, existentially even if not prepensely, denied to nearly all but white Anglo-Saxon Protestant males the promise, pursuit and fruition of the American Dream. That's nothing of which to be proud; however, the old American WASP aristocracy, the Establishment, for all its faults gets one thing right: it has an abundance of, thus shared liberally, modesty, humility, restraint and, most importantly, public esprit de corps. As public leaders and policy makers, late 20th century Establishment members, George H.W. Bush most notably but also being the only one to obtain the presidency, exhibited unassailable will and capacity to do the right thing, to act virtuously, when it'd have been far easier to cave to public opinion. Of course, one didn't need to be a WASP to behave so; that only took the will to do so.

So where have the WASPs gone? Well, the Establishment hasn't gone anywhere. Its members remain where they always have, albeit with quieter voices and less public faces. That suits the Establishment fine for its members' place in society faces no more jeopardy now than it ever has. The Old Guard isn't gone, I dare say it's weary, or perhaps apathetic. America has been right to disabuse itself of the discrimination and other downsides of old Establishment thinking, but in doing so, it's discarded both the "baby" and the "bathwater." The question, then, is who be worse for it? I assure you, it won't be the Establishment.

The Age of Chivalry is gone. That of sophisters, economists, and calculators has succeeded; and the glory of Europe is extinguished for ever. Never, never more, shall we behold the generous loyalty to rank and sex, that proud submission, that dignified obedience, that subordination of the heart, which kept alive, even in servitude itself, the spirit of an exalted freedom. The unbought grace of life, the cheap defence of nations, the nurse of manly sentiment and heroic enterprize is gone!
-- Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France​

And now its been replaced by multicultural rabble. IOW, with nothing of substance but belief in their own infallibility.

 

[Hawkeye10]

We're not the ones lying to ourselves, or at least not about the same things.

I was thinking of some in power lying to themselves that it was all working despite indications, because they were comfortable.

Look at all the people on DP who are glued to their fantasies, who clearly have near zero interest in finding the truth, and these people are better than average.

You are not paying attention.

 

[The Mark]

Look at all the people on DP who are glued to their fantasies, who clearly have near zero interest in finding the truth, and these people are better than average.

You are not paying attention.

The illusion that America is a "nation of laws" is dissipating.

If the laws were ever applied equally, it's been awhile.

 

[Hawkeye10]

The illusion that America is a "nation of laws" is dissipating.

If the laws were ever applied equally, it's been awhile.

America has become unglued after so many decades of almost no one caring about the social glue that was clearly becoming weaker. We are not a nation anymore, there is no longer any shared beliefs or shared experience....that is what you are looking at.

 

[The Mark]

America has become unglued after so many decades of almost no one caring about the social glue that was clearly becoming weaker. We are not a nation anymore, there is no longer any shared beliefs or shared experience....that is what you are looking at.

I'm not so sure that's the issue, but it may be part of the equation.

 

[Hawkeye10]

I'm not so sure that's the issue, but it may be part of the equation.

When you know that we could not get the current Constitution passed in anything near current form and yet we can not either get it changed then you must I think agree that I am right.

At look at how we are at each others throats, look at how willing we are to abuse each other.

 

[Xelor]

And now its been replaced by multicultural rabble. IOW, with nothing of substance but belief in their own infallibility.

"Infallibility?" No, nobody holds such belief, hough you obviously think some do. "Preponderant probity" is what I've observed as the belief.

To wit, who who actually is a member of the Establishment do you see facing disreputable accusations yet are no more decorous than to, by responding to it in public settings, dignify the "BS" others air about them? Though there may be some exceptions, people having the breeding attendant to being a member of the Establishment simply disregard that foolishness because they know it is foolishness and that anyone of any integrity who actually puts in the effort to find out the details will know so too.

It ain't what they call you, it's what you answer to.
-- W.C. Fields​

Only when one actually is "guilty," or when the accusations have a reasonably measure of merit, does one substantively respond to them. The reason for the response being that one knows the accusations have merit just as does their makers know there's "there" there. Respond to "stuff" and it'll have a good chance of "sticking," at least with regard to one's reputation; ignore it and it'll eventually go away. Put another way, there's just nothing good to come of being an offensive or defensive bully. The truth will out either way, so why bother interfering when one has other and better things to do and say?

The above is an example of the virtue Establishment folks exhibit, and one's wealth, power or social status has no bearing on one's ability and willingness to do so. The above quality of temperamental restraint seems an "endangered species," as it were.

 

[The Mark]

When you know that we could not get the current Constitution passed in anything near current form and yet we can not either get it changed then you must I think agree that I am right.

At look at how we are at each others throats, look at how willing we are to abuse each other.

Is the abuse warranted?

By that I mean, is it justly leveled against them?


I think part of the problem is an unwillingness amongst the powerful to punish those among them who do wrong, and that "civility" is one way they avoid even calling each other on their bull****.



The problem, in short, is a lack of accountability among those with power.

 

[jnug]

The problem, in short, is a lack of accountability among those with power.

To easy I think. We are all of us to blame.

The Founders created a system requiring responsible citizenship. We all at least in their original construct had to make the effort to be able to send "representatives" on to make decisions about who would lead the country and how it would be led. Now its down to an alarming number of Americans that do not even vote, and a Congress that for decades has been throwing its Legislative responsibilities over the wall to the Executive in an almost unbroken string regardless of party affiliation. The Congress is the one branch of the three that is closest to its citizenry and yet it has insisted on tossing its Legislative Responsibilities over the wall to the Executive just as WE refuse to even vote. Worse than that, while many of us won't vote, there is this absurd and ongoing effort to rob away, to suppress the voting rights of people we have contracted to provide voting rights by simple right of citizenry.

What did the Colonists and Founders have going for them that we don't have? Well for one thing, they were not the cream of the crop of Europe but were instead dissidents, heretics, criminals, slavers, oppressed peoples, almost all of them escaping something. They were gone from Europe and Europe was happy to have them gone. The Colonists thus had two things going for them that we don't have. They truly understood the ruthless tyranny and injustice of Royalty having lived under the heel of its boot and they had just put an entire 16th Century Ocean of distance between themselves and the Royalty of Europe and most specifically between themselves and English Royalty.

Every mile put in their rear view and every minute they spent here expanded their thinking about the tyranny and injustice of Royalty and expanded their thinking about the "inalienable rights of man".

Frankly I am pleased that we are now getting farther away from the likelihood of a Constitutional Convention as opposed to closer to one. What conclusions would our more recent irresponsibility lead us to today were we to have a Constitutional Convention?

Those most desirous of a Constitutional Convention are also most critical of Bureaucrats, have utterly lost touch with the term "Public Servants". We would most certainly throw even more power at the Executive creating an almost if not in fact Imperial Executive all the while detesting the people (Public Servants) that in the main serve that Executive. The term limit for Presidents would likely be one of the first things thrown overboard. We would most certainly remove even more power from the Legislative Branch utterly lost in our own desire to be lead as opposed to choose for ourselves, to sit with our remotes and our popcorn and watch the show as opposed to deal with the responsibility bequeathed us by the Founders.

To add to the confusion we would very likely not just invest more power in the Executive at the Federal Level. We would also invest more power in Governors as well in a wild stab at limiting the scope of Federal Government having just created an Imperial Executive.

In short, we would not have a snowball's chance in hell on improving on what has been bequeathed to us by the Founders. Our perspective is entirely screwed up particularly at this point in the history of this place. There is no quick and dirty solution, no one man nor one function of government, State or Federal that will save us. We have to live up to the responsibility bequeathed to us by the Founders. In amongst doing the laundry and paying the bills and checking email and watching the kids we must finally live up to the responsibility we have to those Founders and to ourselves and that means all of us, those that are natural born citizens and those that we have contracted to citizenry and we must do it regardless of the color of their skin, their religious persuasion, their genders or even their multiple genders.

As to how twitchy we have become, I will admit we are the most overmedicated bunch in the history of the country and its not even close. While the colonists and founders imbibed more freely than we do, we have substituted a whole host of more dangerous and impactful drugs dispensed by Doctor for the simple warmth of alcohol dispensed by Inn-keep or bootlegger. Not sure that trade off has at all worked out as intended.

I am left with one conclusion. We must find our civic duty. We must finally find it, understand it and live up to it. We must finally understand what the Founders actually created and stop trying to interpret it as something it is not and was not. We must finally understand that they were not perfect people but their aspirations to a better life and a better outlook and a more just perspective was embedded in the founding documents. They did not intend us to repeat and institutionalize THEIR FAILINGS!

 

[Xelor]

Is the abuse warranted?

By that I mean, is it justly leveled against them?


I think part of the problem is an unwillingness amongst the powerful to punish those among them who do wrong, and that "civility" is one way they avoid even calling each other on their bull****.

The problem, in short, is a lack of accountability among those with power.

Red:
No. Abuse is, by definition, never warranted. If it were, it wouldn't be called abuse.

Blue:
That is most certainly a problem; however, people in power aren't the only ones who must and deserve to be held to account for their behavior. That needs to be universal within our society.

 

[Xelor]

I see quite a few remarks about reactive changes members feel due. That's all well and good, but it seems to me the root issue is that too many people aren't raised and/or raising their kids to behave in honorable ways to begin with. Indeed, I think the problems are social not jurisprudential.

We have plenty of laws, good ones for the most part, and, in general, we also enforce them. What we don't "enforce" is personal responsibility, self-respecting behavior, and other mores that, when inculcated and reinforced throughout one's youth, are second nature in adulthood and proactively dissuade folks from crossing, or even approaching, the line of the law. For example:

• When as a child one isn't allowed to get away with lying, one gives up on it by the time one is grown.
• When parents punish their kids for "going low" when other kids "go low," kids grow up knowing how and when to "go high."

The "enforcement" I'm talking about is the kind the law doesn't and cannot perform. The problem is that the people who used to have died or retired from public life, and the people who today should and can don't.

 

[BrainNebula]

Profit should never come at the cost of human blood. Any government that places profit before people is pure evil.”
-- Suzy Kassem, Rise Up and Salute the Sun: The Writings of Suzy Kassem
​

People like my folks, their parents, as well as myself and my siblings, as Ross Douthat writes in "Why We Miss WASPs," were "hardened in the cold of New England boarding schools, acculturated by the late-night rituals of Skull and Bones, [and] sent off to the world with a sense of noblesse oblige." Such folks formed America's Establishment; however, while circumstances and trappings distinguished the Establishment from everyone else, common to all were the virtues the Establishment embraced, those qualities thus enshrined as moral mores that formed the core of American culture.

Last week's abundance of reflections on George H.W. Bush's life revealed poignantly that sometime between 1960 and 1990, a hell of a lot of people "dropped the ball" as go cultural and personal ethics. Many of these folks shall, like most old guarders, to most remain nameless even as we daily encounter them. Others, most notably our current president, will go down as the architects and heirs of the cultural catastrophe coursing our cathedrals, colleges and countrysides.

Mind, there's plenty to revile regarding the rule of the WASPs. The Establishment presided over an America that, existentially even if not prepensely, denied to nearly all but white Anglo-Saxon Protestant males the promise, pursuit and fruition of the American Dream. That's nothing of which to be proud; however, the old American WASP aristocracy, the Establishment, for all its faults gets one thing right: it has an abundance of, thus shared liberally, modesty, humility, restraint and, most importantly, public esprit de corps. As public leaders and policy makers, late 20th century Establishment members, George H.W. Bush most notably but also being the only one to obtain the presidency, exhibited unassailable will and capacity to do the right thing, to act virtuously, when it'd have been far easier to cave to public opinion. Of course, one didn't need to be a WASP to behave so; that only took the will to do so.

So where have the WASPs gone? Well, the Establishment hasn't gone anywhere. Its members remain where they always have, albeit with quieter voices and less public faces. That suits the Establishment fine for its members' place in society faces no more jeopardy now than it ever has. The Old Guard isn't gone, I dare say it's weary, or perhaps apathetic. America has been right to disabuse itself of the discrimination and other downsides of old Establishment thinking, but in doing so, it's discarded both the "baby" and the "bathwater." The question, then, is who be worse for it? I assure you, it won't be the Establishment.

The Age of Chivalry is gone. That of sophisters, economists, and calculators has succeeded; and the glory of Europe is extinguished for ever. Never, never more, shall we behold the generous loyalty to rank and sex, that proud submission, that dignified obedience, that subordination of the heart, which kept alive, even in servitude itself, the spirit of an exalted freedom. The unbought grace of life, the cheap defence of nations, the nurse of manly sentiment and heroic enterprize is gone!
-- Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France​

So Elon Musk is evil because he places the profit of SpaceX above the blood of others. Imagine if he had spent all of that SpaceX money into feeding the needy.

 

[DiAnna]

...I think a large part is the ability of money to influence politics.
When corporations know they can buy laws that benefit them, it breaks down both democracy and the supposedly "free market" system.

This.

The market isn't free if the laws aren't equally applied, and democracy can't survive if the playing field isn't level.

We've failed to protect the systems that were our core strengths, and unless we repair those failures and if necessary forcibly take those systems back, this won't get better.

And this.

Corporations and other nations are using the cracks in our democratic armor to give themselves temporary advantage, at the expense of the system as a whole in the long term.

And this.

Thus far the solutions to this, as I can see them, are:
To completely and utterly remove the unequal influence money allows in democracy.

And finally, this. As long as SCOTUS supports the concept that "corporations are people" and "dark money flowing into the coffers of our congressional representatives" is A-Okay, this country will continue to be run not by our elected officials, but by those who have paid for and own those elected officials.

The system is corrupt; those with the deepest pockets and flushest wallets can buy the legislation they want, and the average American citizen is simply trampled beneath the feet of the rich, the powerful, and the greedy.

God, if there is one, help us all.

 

[Xelor]

Off-Topic:

I'm not entirely sure what is at fault.

I think a large part is the ability of money to influence politics.
When corporations know they can buy laws that benefit them, it breaks down both democracy and the supposedly "free market" system.

The market isn't free if the laws aren't equally applied, and democracy can't survive if the playing field isn't level.

We've failed to protect the systems that were our core strengths, and unless we repair those failures and if necessary forcibly take those systems back, this won't get better.


Corporations and other nations are using the cracks in our democratic armor to give themselves temporary advantage, at the expense of the system as a whole in the long term.


Thus far the solutions to this, as I can see them, are:
To completely and utterly remove the unequal influence money allows in democracy.

Efforts like the measures Elizabeth Warren has suggested are a start, but they may not go far enough, even if they had a chance of being enacted.

The concept of "conflicts of interest" must be applied in all respects to our democracy.

Red:​

• 
  [*=1]Money's influence on politics isn't a problem. Private money's influence on electioneering is a problem.
  • 
    [*=1]Solution idea:
    • 
      [*=1]Create a common pool into which all federal political campaign donations go, save those of the candidates themselves, and from which monies are then allocated evenly in proportion to the nature of the office -- X% of the pool to presidential candidates, Y% to Senate candidates and Z% to House candidates. Donors freedom of expression is maintained by their indicating with their donation, what politician inspired them to contribute to funding the electoral process; thus allowing it to be known the ratio of zeal the respective candidates generate.
      [*=1]Require media outlets to perform the public service of allocating "X amount" of time/space to the messages candidates for public office care to deliver.

• 
  [*=1]The free market system is working exactly the way its supposed/predicted to; it's not at all broken, other than by barriers to trade and other "shackles" on the "invisible hands." That the electoral process, obtaining public office, is, in a manner of speaking, among the "products" offered in the the market is the problem.

Green:
Can you summarize the nature of the specific genre(s) of laws that you see as being unequally applied and by their unequal application make the market be not free?

Blue:
Democracy's "armor" are the institutions and mechanisms that aid and abet the dissemination of information. The more "perfect"/symmetric the information electorates have, the more robust the democracy and the more perfectly competitive the market. The electoral process is unavoidably monopolistically competitive -- it's not possible to have every piece of information about a given candidate, and candidates skills, abilities and ideas/ideologies differ -- however, one can structure it to attenuate the gains realized from pecuniarily-caused information asymmetry.

Pink:
TY for offering solution ideas along with your discussion of what's wrong.

Tan:
What specific measures are they? Maybe you have a link to them? I've linked to what I know about, but I don't know if those ideas are the ones you have in mind.

Teal:
I agree in general. It's probably impossible to remove every conflict of interest; however, it is possible to perfect the information the electorate receives so that extant conflicts are fully disclosed. Voters can, as they see fit, incorporate that information into the calculus of assessing public office holders and the policy decisions they support/reject.​

 

[The Mark]

Off-Topic:

Red:​

• 
  [*=1]Money's influence on politics isn't a problem. Private money's influence on electioneering is a problem.
  • 
    [*=1]Solution idea:
    • 
      [*=1]Create a common pool into which all federal political campaign donations go, save those of the candidates themselves, and from which monies are then allocated evenly in proportion to the nature of the office -- X% of the pool to presidential candidates, Y% to Senate candidates and Z% to House candidates. Donors freedom of expression is maintained by their indicating with their donation, what politician inspired them to contribute to funding the electoral process; thus allowing it to be known the ratio of zeal the respective candidates generate.
      [*=1]Require media outlets to perform the public service of allocating "X amount" of time/space to the messages candidates for public office care to deliver.

• 
  [*=1]The free market system is working exactly the way its supposed/predicted to; it's not at all broken, other than by barriers to trade and other "shackles" on the "invisible hands." That the electoral process, obtaining public office, is, in a manner of speaking, among the "products" offered in the the market is the problem.

​

I'd agree to your points on private money influence

I partially agree with your point about the free market, but I'm of the opinion that the free market is impossible - if allowed to be completely free, it will destroy us, but perhaps if sufficiently restrained and directed it will serve us.

Green:
Can you summarize the nature of the specific genre(s) of laws that you see as being unequally applied and by their unequal application make the market be not free?

I was thinking of corporations pushing laws/regulations that benefit their specific company.
It was a continuation of my prior point.
By tailoring the laws and rules to their business, they reduce the possibility of competition, which is completely the opposite of a free market.
In my mind a "free market" means "everyone plays by the same rules".

Blue:
Democracy's "armor" are the institutions and mechanisms that aid and abet the dissemination of information. The more "perfect"/symmetric the information electorates have, the more robust the democracy and the more perfectly competitive the market. The electoral process is unavoidably monopolistically competitive -- it's not possible to have every piece of information about a given candidate, and candidates skills, abilities and ideas/ideologies differ -- however, one can structure it to attenuate the gains realized from pecuniarily-caused information asymmetry.

I'm not entirely sure what you're talking about, but in broad terms I think ideas like ranked-choice voting may address some of the issues with our current system.
That, and automatic voter registration, although that raises other issues while solving some we currently have.
Certainly I support ideas like independent redistricting bodies, to eliminate current and prevent future partisan gerrymandering.
I don't know how exactly you'd go about it, but we need to also address things like those which have happened/are happening in Wisconsin.

Tan:
What specific measures are they? Maybe you have a link to them? I've linked to what I know about, but I don't know if those ideas are the ones you have in mind.

I was thinking of her Anti-Corruption and Public Integrity Act.
https://www.warren.senate.gov/download/master-summary-of-anti-corruption-act_-final

All of those, probably.
And further may be necessary, I don't recall them in detail.

Teal:
I agree in general. It's probably impossible to remove every conflict of interest; however, it is possible to perfect the information the electorate receives so that extant conflicts are fully disclosed. Voters can, as they see fit, incorporate that information into the calculus of assessing public office holders and the policy decisions they support/reject.

First and foremost, the conflicts of interest that financially benefit politicians must be prevented and removed.

 

[Xelor]

I was thinking of corporations pushing laws/regulations that benefit their specific company.
It was a continuation of my prior point.
By tailoring the laws and rules to their business, they reduce the possibility of competition, which is completely the opposite of a free market.
In my mind a "free market" means "everyone plays by the same rules".

TY for the clarification.

Red:
We already have that. Some people, myself among them, think the "rules of the game" we have are are so-so and others think they are awful in every imaginable way, and there are folks whose position is somewhere between those two endpoints. It's been my observation that the folks who have a materially-less-than-so-so view of our current rules are generally the same folks who, for one reason or another, have been largely unsuccessful at crafting their "gameplay" to take advantage of the rules as they are written. Some of the reasons I've heard are justified and some are not. I don't think anyone is of the mind that the "rules" are ideal or very-nearly so.

I'm not entirely sure what you're talking about, but in broad terms I think ideas like ranked-choice voting may address some of the issues with our current system.
That, and automatic voter registration, although that raises other issues while solving some we currently have.
Certainly I support ideas like independent redistricting bodies, to eliminate current and prevent future partisan gerrymandering.
I don't know how exactly you'd go about it, but we need to also address things like those which have happened/are happening in Wisconsin.

FWIW, I elsewhere on DP offered two basic strategies, one having three distinct tactical approaches, to overcome gerrymandering: How would you propose that we end gerrymandering?

I was thinking of her Anti-Corruption and Public Integrity Act.
https://www.warren.senate.gov/download/master-summary-of-anti-corruption-act_-final

All of those, probably.
And further may be necessary, I don't recall them in detail.

TY. I'll read it at some point and see what I think of it.

First and foremost, the conflicts of interest that financially benefit politicians must be prevented and removed.

I think that goal is unrealizable. I think a more modest goal -- establishing degrees of transparency (information near-perfection) that allow the electorate and a formal body of arbiters to compel politicians' abstinence from making policy or casting legislature votes when they have a conflict of interest -- is achievable.

 

[The Mark]

I think that goal is unrealizable. I think a more modest goal -- establishing degrees of transparency (information near-perfection) that allow the electorate and a formal body of arbiters to compel politicians' abstinence from making policy or casting legislature votes when they have a conflict of interest -- is achievable.

Well then at least the major ones.

Persons wishing to run for office must, upon declaring their candidacy, divest themselves of all stocks, capital assets, and so forth until 5 years after leaving office, or 1 year after ending their candidacy.

 

[Xelor]

Well then at least the major ones.

Persons wishing to run for office must, upon declaring their candidacy, divest themselves of all stocks, capital assets, and so forth until 5 years after leaving office, or 1 year after ending their candidacy.

That's one way to do it. I think it draconian, but others may not.

 

[The Mark]

That's one way to do it. I think it draconian, but others may not.

I'm of the opinion that it is necessary.

I agree it's unlikely to occur anytime soon, if ever.