What happened to the US?

[tres borrachos]

Thank you so much.

It was a refreshing break from responding to the idiotic posts of someone from Oklahoma thinking he knows more about the NH House of Representatives than those of us who live here.

 

[woodsman]

Ok 2015 - 52 = 1963.

You were born in the year JFK was shot by Lee Harvey Oswald the former enlisted US Marine.

That was a really painful year for the whole nation.

In 1964 the USMC landed in Viet Nam on the beach. The CIA and some US Army units were already there.

That was was supported by 80% of the US population at first, but over the next 3 years went from bad to worse.

In 1968 the NVA attacked the Marines while the VC attacked the Army and civilian targets in South Viet Nam and both Westmoreland and LBJ were proved to be liars. The war in Viet Nam was not being won. It was slowly being lost. People were dying over there for nothing.

For the next 4 years until Nixon pulled out of Viet Nam there were riots and shootings everywhere in America (the lower 48).

So the first 10 years of you life were during really divisive and hard times.

When you were 11 then Nixon resigned, having been a part of a cover-up of the subversion of the 1972 Presidential elections. Nixon called it "dirty tricks politics" when he invented it, but apparently he had no common sense that it would be viewed as treason by the Congress and by the Supreme Court. He resigned to avoid impeachment and prosecution.

Ford who took over for him was a moron and also abandoned South Viet Nam to the Communist invasion from the north in early 1975. You were 12.

Carter was elected because he seemed like such a nice Christian/Protestant young man and the GOP was completely swept out of office across the board because of Nixon.

Same thing happened to the GOP right after GW Bush in 2008, by the way. Now after 7 years of BHO it has swung the other way and the GOP has been swept back into power across the board in Congress, just as an aside.

After Carter's one term during the late 1970's then Reagan dominated politics during the 1980's followed by GHW Bush. You were in your 20's.

OK NOW I SEE !!!

You are thinking back to the Reagan years.

Tip ONeill was the DEM Speaker Of The US House while Reagan was POTUS, and the two of them were able to work out compromises.

None of the Speakers of the House since then has been able to get the two major parties to agree.

So THAT'S what has happened which seems to you worse than before when you were "young" (please note: you are still very young -- 52 is young).

Thus from your own perspective we have simply had really crappy Speakers of the House and so no compromising has been accomplished.

That's what has gone wrong. Otherwise it has just been politics as usual.

Q.E.D.

I do enjoy the history and the considerable effort posting it, that said, we have some flaws but nothing to get into a twist about. Good for you even grasping and knowing this history.

 

[Riveroaks]

I do enjoy the history and the considerable effort posting it, that said, we have some flaws but nothing to get into a twist about. Good for you even grasping and knowing this history.

Hey, this was simply current events while I was growing up.

History to an old man like me was Truman and before.

I will never understand why he nuked Japan. There was no need to. I think power went to his head.

He killed 200,000 Japanese civilians with those 2 bombs.

I get why Wilson entered WW1 -- because the Germans started unrestricted submarine warfare and they were sinking a lot of American ships. No choice.

The Spanish American War and the Mexican War were just land grabs by the USA. I get that also. When they teach you about those in school they sure brainwash you about those wars.

I can't believe Robert E Lee went to fight for the Confederacy so they could continue to keep slaves. If Lee had gone to the North then the US Civil War would have been over fast.

That's history for me.

Everything more recent is simply current events.

 

[Riveroaks]

It was a refreshing break from responding to the idiotic posts of someone from Oklahoma thinking he knows more about the NH House of Representatives than those of us who live here.

Well all eyes will certainly be on NH in a short while.

 

[woodsman]

It was a refreshing break from responding to the idiotic posts of someone from Oklahoma thinking he knows more about the NH House of Representatives than those of us who live here.

Hahahaha...

 

[woodsman]

Hey, this was simply current events while I was growing up.

History to an old man like me was Truman and before.

I will never understand why he nuked Japan. There was no need to. I think power went to his head.

He killed 200,000 Japanese civilians with those 2 bombs.

I get why Wilson entered WW1 -- because the Germans started unrestricted submarine warfare and they were sinking a lot of American ships. No choice.

The Spanish American War and the Mexican War were just land grabs by the USA. I get that also. When they teach you about those in school they sure brainwash you about those wars.

I can't believe Robert E Lee went to fight for the Confederacy so they could continue to keep slaves. If Lee had gone to the North then the US Civil War would have been over fast.

That's history for me.

Everything more recent is simply current events.

I sure disagree with the Japan analogy, curious is there a place on this forum you and I can banter back and forth without disrupting posts?

 

[gdgyva]

Hey, this was simply current events while I was growing up.

History to an old man like me was Truman and before.

I will never understand why he nuked Japan. There was no need to. I think power went to his head.

He killed 200,000 Japanese civilians with those 2 bombs.

I get why Wilson entered WW1 -- because the Germans started unrestricted submarine warfare and they were sinking a lot of American ships. No choice.

The Spanish American War and the Mexican War were just land grabs by the USA. I get that also. When they teach you about those in school they sure brainwash you about those wars.

I can't believe Robert E Lee went to fight for the Confederacy so they could continue to keep slaves. If Lee had gone to the North then the US Civil War would have been over fast.

That's history for me.

Everything more recent is simply current events.

i agree with a lot of that

but not the Japan part

i dont believe Japan would have surrendered as easily

it may have cost upwards of a million men to launch a direct assault on the island

imo the bomb was his only option.....

but i am basing it on what i have read....which may or may not be the whole story

 

[Riveroaks]

i agree with a lot of that

but not the Japan part

i dont believe Japan would have surrendered as easily

it may have cost upwards of a million men to launch a direct assault on the island

imo the bomb was his only option.....

but i am basing it on what i have read....which may or may not be the whole story

There was no need to launch an invasion of Japan.

With Japan cut off on their islands, and nothing going into or coming out of Japan they would have easily been starved into submission.

Truman launched that myth about needing to invade them either to quell his own guilty conscience for murdering 200,000 Japanese civilians, or else he was power hungry and wanted to play god and that myth was his own rationalization.

 

[Thrilla]

Ok, I'm not one who buys into the notion of, "Gee, we used to be the good guys." IMO, the US has always been rather ruthless and heavily pragmatic, be it Indian removal or waiting until the last minute to fight Nazis. But, there is something here that I am sure has changed over the past 50 years. Our collective agreement on what and who we are has changed radically.

In short, I believe we are more divided now than ever. Even on the most basic American principles, we can no longer agree. And, the radicals, be they Left or Right, authoritarian or anarchist, are more the majority among us now than the exception.

When I was young, it seemed to me that most of us were, if not on the same page, at least reading from the same book. Today, we aren't even in the same library. Back then only the nuttiest of nuts denied the effectiveness of vaccines, refused to accept the basic tenets of evolution, thought the universe wasn't billions of years old, believed that the earth was not round and sphere-like, or considered the Bill of Rights to be more an obstacle than something to rally behind. Today, all those things are up for debate, and tens of millions of people buy into them, vigorously.

What the hell happened?

the internet happened....

 

[woodsman]

I ask you to close your eyes and listen to this song, I get this is not part of the debate protocol but damn, maybe we need a new way. Wake up you all…… Don’t listen to the hook of the song, listen to the background advice at the last 3rd of this song.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TDfPgd3Kyc

 

[bg85]

Ok, I'm not one who buys into the notion of, "Gee, we used to be the good guys." IMO, the US has always been rather ruthless and heavily pragmatic, be it Indian removal or waiting until the last minute to fight Nazis. But, there is something here that I am sure has changed over the past 50 years. Our collective agreement on what and who we are has changed radically.

In short, I believe we are more divided now than ever. Even on the most basic American principles, we can no longer agree. And, the radicals, be they Left or Right, authoritarian or anarchist, are more the majority among us now than the exception.

When I was young, it seemed to me that most of us were, if not on the same page, at least reading from the same book. Today, we aren't even in the same library. Back then only the nuttiest of nuts denied the effectiveness of vaccines, refused to accept the basic tenets of evolution, thought the universe wasn't billions of years old, believed that the earth was not round and sphere-like, or considered the Bill of Rights to be more an obstacle than something to rally behind. Today, all those things are up for debate, and tens of millions of people buy into them, vigorously.

What the hell happened?

the world is a lot smaller and much more complex than it was a generation or two ago. that means that folks are going to have more varied opinions on things and see a lot more gray where there used to only be black and white.

the same can be said of the fact that we are living in the information age. folks these days are a LOT less likely to just accept whatever the mainstream media, the government, or their family and friends tell them to believe. a lot more people think for themselves these days and naturally, that is going to cause more conflict and disagreement between folks.

my two cents, at least. I don't think it's just an American thing.

 

[D_NATURED]

I'm only going to address the 3 items I highlighted.

The first 2 are tenets of religion and here's my thoughts on them.

I'm in my 50's and when I went to school evolution was taught in public schools with very little fanfare, but there was 1 big differences compared to today. Back then discussion of religion was not considered a taboo subject as it is today, so when the conflict between religion and evolution came up, it was freely discussed between teachers and students and done so respecting religious faith. I specifically remember what my teacher said about it in grade school when a student breached the subject. She said that while archaeologists have found strong evidence that have lead them to believe that man evolved from apes, many religions disagree and believe that God created man as the bible states. She emphasized to students that even though she is teaching them evolution, they must respect those who believe in what their religion teaches them. That was it... She went on to teach evolution and the religious aspect was never brought up again.

The reason there is an issue today is because religion has been under attack and people of faith are being forced by the media to publicly defend their beliefs. When I was a kid people understood and accepted that religion was a big part of American society and respected a persons religious faith. People weren't publically ridiculed because they embraced religion like they are today, and they weren't put on the spot and forced to have to publically choose between religion and science.

The last thing I highlighted, that people didn't believe that "the earth was not round and sphere-like" is a bit of a mystery to me. I wasn't aware that there were people claiming that the earth was flat today? Could you please link me to examples of this?


.

You say that people openly discussed religion back then but, the truth is, the idea of giving automatic "respect" to another's religious beliefs is a dangerous idea of which we are currently suffering the consequences. I too remember religion getting a sort of automatic pass from the same scrutiny to which other, non religious, ideas were subjected. There was the assumption that a religious person, a passionately faithful person was MORE moral. We know today that there is no correlation between morality and religiosity. Religion was less threatened by the conversation, back then, and, thus, was allowed to go to its civil limit, which was to barely scratch the surface out of respect for another. That's not good enough any more. To respect human rights is more important than to avoid upsetting the religious establishment, made up of traditions that were often unkind to objective science, women, in general, and the future of our species.

With the internet, beliefs can be discussed absent the presumption of good that religion always relied on as a conversation stopper. The scandal in the Catholic church, violence against abortion providers and international conflict with a religious undertone all contribute to this evolving (pun intended) debate. In my opinion, the questions are the beginning of TRUE morality, which is a decision based upon facts, not a robotic display of scriptural adherence. Morality is situational, not written in stone.

It is the growing skepticism of the modern generation that I find most hope inspiring. It is the wind of change that our kind have turned our backs to for too long.

 

[Visbek]

i dont believe Japan would have surrendered as easily

Yeah, it's a tangent, I know

Japan would have surrendered even without the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The damage done by those A-Bombs was comparable to conventional bombing raids.

Japan surrendered because the USSR declared war on Japan.

The Bomb Didn’t Beat Japan… Stalin Did | Foreign Policy

This is not news, by the way. Many historians have known this for decades.

 

[calamity]

Yeah, it's a tangent, I know

Japan would have surrendered even without the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The damage done by those A-Bombs was comparable to conventional bombing raids.

Japan surrendered because the USSR declared war on Japan.

The Bomb Didn’t Beat Japan… Stalin Did | Foreign Policy

This is not news, by the way. Many historians have known this for decades.

When Japan found itself as the last country to still be at war against the US and then the USSR, they finally understood that surrender or total annihilation were the only options on the table. The A-Bomb was simply reinforcing the reality of what option "B" would be like.

 

[Visbek]

When Japan found itself as the last country to still be at war against the US and then the USSR, they finally understood that surrender or total annihilation were the only options on the table. The A-Bomb was simply reinforcing the reality of what option "B" would be like.

Or, the bombing of two medium-sized cities did not really stand out for the Japanese leaders, who weren't paying much attention to the bombing in the first place. The Supreme Council barely discussed the fate of cities.

It would have taken months for American troops to hit Japanese soil; the Soviets were poised to invade Hokkaido in 2 weeks or less.

While Americans might have reasonably believed that a US invasion would be required, and the atomic bombings pushed Japan to surrender, neither turns out to be true. Japan surrendered because of a completely different set of military and geopolitical concerns.

 

[calamity]

In the years our cities burned, 67 & 68, I was about 5. So, not much of that hate trickled down to me. I was busy learning to ride a bike.

In my memory, the years from about 1972 (maybe it began in 69 with the moon shot) through 1988, or so seemed like years we all sort of played from the same rule book. Lots of agrreement then: Nam was a lost cause, time to cut and run; Nixon was a sleeze, he's gotta go; Ford was a dingbat, lets replace him with this peanut; hostages; peanut is not so hot, try the cowboy--Yeay! Grenada and the miracle on ice---build up more tanks and nukes; "Tear down this wall" and bye bye USSR. The first Iraq war went well and ended even better.


After that it all went to ****.

 

[calamity]

Or, the bombing of two medium-sized cities did not really stand out for the Japanese leaders, who weren't paying much attention to the bombing in the first place. The Supreme Council barely discussed the fate of cities.

It would have taken months for American troops to hit Japanese soil; the Soviets were poised to invade Hokkaido in 2 weeks or less.

While Americans might have reasonably believed that a US invasion would be required, and the atomic bombings pushed Japan to surrender, neither turns out to be true. Japan surrendered because of a completely different set of military and geopolitical concerns.

From what I read, Japan was toast. Their military, decimated. They had no resources like steel or oil and getting it without a functional navy was not in the cards. All they had left was a suicidal last stand.

 

[Lovebug]

You have asked a very loaded question.
Perhaps we should start by defining "different"? Sure, we didn't have constant media coverage. That may be a good thing. May be not. The fear mongering and constant hand wringing of today, along with the right to know vs being pretty much partially informed, if at all. So media is certainly a key point. Internet, instant everything, however true the information we receive may be.
The home. How has it changed.
Curriculum. Let me just throw this out there for good measure.
Church influence.
National pride...good or bad? How can we take pride in our nation when we are constantly being told how evil we are?
Or, can we find common ground if we can't agree on who/what we are?
That brings me to "united". Are we still the united states, or are we disassociated groups of opportunist, drifting further apart at every chance?

 

[joG]

Ok, I'm not one who buys into the notion of, "Gee, we used to be the good guys." IMO, the US has always been rather ruthless and heavily pragmatic, be it Indian removal or waiting until the last minute to fight Nazis. But, there is something here that I am sure has changed over the past 50 years. Our collective agreement on what and who we are has changed radically.

In short, I believe we are more divided now than ever. Even on the most basic American principles, we can no longer agree. And, the radicals, be they Left or Right, authoritarian or anarchist, are more the majority among us now than the exception.

When I was young, it seemed to me that most of us were, if not on the same page, at least reading from the same book. Today, we aren't even in the same library. Back then only the nuttiest of nuts denied the effectiveness of vaccines, refused to accept the basic tenets of evolution, thought the universe wasn't billions of years old, believed that the earth was not round and sphere-like, or considered the Bill of Rights to be more an obstacle than something to rally behind. Today, all those things are up for debate, and tens of millions of people buy into them, vigorously.

What the hell happened?

I think that a lot of the new of view is that the all overshadowing deadly enemy having got lost. The US at first had no enemies of any real importance and so the crass relief of for and against us gave way to a panorama of different shades. The terrorists were then styled as real enemies, but they are in no way as ominous as was the soviet treat. As a multipolar world emerges the focus jumps from adversary to adversary much as it did in the 19th century and earlier, though, the speed has increased and the foes are more widely spread. In such a panel of shifting alliances and dangers the values thing is no longer as certain and propaganda is everywhere. People start calling things torture that would have been laughed at in earlier times but confuse issues in the minds of those that do not look very exactly at the evidence and theory. This happens in many areas and at different levels disconcerting or riling populations the world over.

 

[calamity]

I think that a lot of the new of view is that the all overshadowing deadly enemy having got lost. The US at first had no enemies of any real importance and so the crass relief of for and against us gave way to a panorama of different shades. The terrorists were then styled as real enemies, but they are in no way as ominous as was the soviet treat. As a multipolar world emerges the focus jumps from adversary to adversary much as it did in the 19th century and earlier, though, the speed has increased and the foes are more widely spread. In such a panel of shifting alliances and dangers the values thing is no longer as certain and propaganda is everywhere. People start calling things torture that would have been laughed at in earlier times but confuse issues in the minds of those that do not look very exactly at the evidence and theory. This happens in many areas and at different levels disconcerting or riling populations the world over.

One thing I see today that I did not see back in the 70's and 80's is that today Clinton, Bush II and now Obama have all been rallying cries for hate. Before then, few Americans considered those who voted for the "other guy" complete idiots. Today, the Right views people voting for the Democrat as traitors, socialists and baby killers, while the Left sees those voting against their candidate as racists, fascists and psychotic.

 

[Riveroaks]

One thing I see today that I did not see back in the 70's and 80's is that today Clinton, Bush II and now Obama have all been rallying cries for hate. Before then, few Americans considered those who voted for the "other guy" complete idiots. Today, the Right views people voting for the Democrat as traitors, socialists and baby killers, while the Left sees those voting against their candidate as racists, fascists and psychotic.

Good summary.

Whenever compromise breaks down that's when name calling (ad hominem's) begins in earnest.

 

[joG]

One thing I see today that I did not see back in the 70's and 80's is that today Clinton, Bush II and now Obama have all been rallying cries for hate. Before then, few Americans considered those who voted for the "other guy" complete idiots. Today, the Right views people voting for the Democrat as traitors, socialists and baby killers, while the Left sees those voting against their candidate as racists, fascists and psychotic.

One would expect that, when the perceived dangers and goals become less overriding and thus individual preferences can take command of domestic groups. If you are afraid that society might go down, if the national front brakes, other goals do not seem so important. Now there is no danger perceived by a majority to be all-important. Most people see only issues that affect them or anger their sensibilities. So we find a situation of many domestic battlefields.

 

[calamity]

You have asked a very loaded question.
Perhaps we should start by defining "different"? Sure, we didn't have constant media coverage. That may be a good thing. May be not. The fear mongering and constant hand wringing of today, along with the right to know vs being pretty much partially informed, if at all. So media is certainly a key point. Internet, instant everything, however true the information we receive may be.
The home. How has it changed.
Curriculum. Let me just throw this out there for good measure.
Church influence.
National pride...good or bad? How can we take pride in our nation when we are constantly being told how evil we are?
Or, can we find common ground if we can't agree on who/what we are?
That brings me to "united". Are we still the united states, or are we disassociated groups of opportunist, drifting further apart at every chance?

Sure. Case in point, the latest hand wringing/fear mongering issue seems to be that New York is planning to require sodium warnings on food labels. I'm not sure of the details, it just popped up on my radar this morning. But...if you think about it, we are about to quibble over salt. :shock:

 

[Visbek]

One thing I see today that I did not see back in the 70's and 80's is that today Clinton, Bush II and now Obama have all been rallying cries for hate. Before then, few Americans considered those who voted for the "other guy" complete idiots. Today, the Right views people voting for the Democrat as traitors, socialists and baby killers, while the Left sees those voting against their candidate as racists, fascists and psychotic.

I don't see it that way. A lot of people "strongly disliked" Carter, Reagan, Bush 41, Tip O'Neil, etc. The Iran-Contra scandal certainly had partisan elements. Anti-abortion activists were just as... strident then as today, perhaps more so. Feminists were also not exactly thrilled with Reagan-Bush. The list goes on.

I don't think those sentiments were as obvious, because the media was much more uniform. 3 big commercial TV networks plus PBS, all trying to be neutral, did not leave lots of room to express partisan vitriol.

The rise of talk radio and then the Internet made it easier to express more extreme views, and were cheap enough that a relatively small audience could keep them going. Republicans also swung very hard to the right, and became more extreme, which made it harder to compromise. Both sides have become more hardened, but the Dems have largely moved to the center (Clinton's infamous "Triangulation") -- and Republicans have moved so far to the right (relative to their previous positions) that they now look at centrists as though they are "socialists." Several Republican leaders (notably Gingrich) made a big stink about a refusal to compromise, and we were off to the races. Other factors followed, including gerrymandering, people voluntarily sorting into more partisan living patterns, and so forth.

This analysis may sound a bit partisan (these days, what doesn't? ) but the bits about Gingrich etc are actually from a pair of bipartisan analysts. They also point out how the rise of false equivalency has facilitated the Republican's move to the right.

It's Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided With the New Politics of Extremism - Kindle edition by Thomas E. Mann, Norman J. Ornstein. Politics & Social Sciences Kindle eBooks @ Amazon.com.

It doesn't help, by the way, that our system was designed to be slow, and to grind to a halt with almost no effort. While Americans are typically brainwashed into adoring checks and balances, Fukuyama points out how in Political Order and Political Decay that many cases, it's an inefficient form of government. For example, the US went through decades of patronage and clientelism before it built a professional merit-based civil service, whereas the more powerful central governments of the UK and Germany were able to set up professional institutions much faster, and largely skipped those phases.

 

[Sherman123]

Ok, I'm not one who buys into the notion of, "Gee, we used to be the good guys." IMO, the US has always been rather ruthless and heavily pragmatic, be it Indian removal or waiting until the last minute to fight Nazis. But, there is something here that I am sure has changed over the past 50 years. Our collective agreement on what and who we are has changed radically.

In short, I believe we are more divided now than ever. Even on the most basic American principles, we can no longer agree. And, the radicals, be they Left or Right, authoritarian or anarchist, are more the majority among us now than the exception.

When I was young, it seemed to me that most of us were, if not on the same page, at least reading from the same book. Today, we aren't even in the same library. Back then only the nuttiest of nuts denied the effectiveness of vaccines, refused to accept the basic tenets of evolution, thought the universe wasn't billions of years old, believed that the earth was not round and sphere-like, or considered the Bill of Rights to be more an obstacle than something to rally behind. Today, all those things are up for debate, and tens of millions of people buy into them, vigorously.

What the hell happened?

We've become a degenerate society of relativists worshiping at the altar of ambiguity. Every viewpoint must contain a kernel of validity, every perspective is valuable, and everyone is entitled to have their own unassailed opinion. People aren't comfortable believing decisively in something unless it's cynical or it's a commitment to ambiguity.