If the U.S. has another civil war?

[John W. Hamm]

I am a bit curious of others that live in the U.S. and would like to know what they would do if the U.S. went into civil war again.

The scenario;

The federal government passes laws that interfere with the sovereignty of States rights to govern their own people as a result several states feel the federal government has over stepped it boundaries too many times and secede from the Union.

In this process the federal government deems each state must accept any laws it passes down rather it is acceptable to the people of the state or not. It also decrees that no State has the right to secede from the union

In making this decision the federal government uses military action to regain control of all states and people that decide to take up secession

The question;

You live in a State that has seceded from the Union, Would you feel your loyalty was with the Federal Government and the primary responsibility was was to preserve the Union, or would you take the side of the State that.

[August]

I am a bit curious of others that live in the U.S. and would like to know what they would do if the U.S. went into civil war again.

The scenario;

The federal government passes laws that interfere with the sovereignty of States rights to govern their own people as a result several states feel the federal government has over stepped it boundaries too many times and secede from the Union.

In this process the federal government deems each state must accept any laws it passes down rather it is acceptable to the people of the state or not. It also decrees that no State has the right to secede from the union

In making this decision the federal government uses military action to regain control of all states and people that decide to take up secession

The question;

You live in a State that has seceded from the Union, Would you feel your loyalty was with the Federal Government and the primary responsibility was was to preserve the Union, or would you take the side of the State that.

Depends on the reason for secession, but I would not likely want to fight my neighbors.

[Growler]

From a letter written by Thos. Jefferson to James Madison:
I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government.

I can't tell you what side I'd fight for; with family in Federal Uniform, and having worn the uniform myself, I don't know how I could stand against my brothers. With no strong affiliation to party politics or the area where I currently reside, I don't know that I wouldn't join the Federals.

All that aside, Americans can't even organize enough to make any lasting changes in government peacefully. A Second American Civil War would be a bloodbath in which every American would lose.

[Armistead]

Never gonna happen. Any state that left the union would go broke in a week. Most states have about the equal number of people liberal and conservative.

I think what may be possible is general chaos against the government, not from state leaders, but as we turn more into a two class system.

A revolution from the people at some level, possible, like the mass riots we see in europe, civil war...nah. You may see the poor going after the rich in mass crime.

Sure we would all love to line congress up like a bunch of ducks in a shooting gallery

[TLAM Strike]

I think most Americans are too lazy to give a damn. Cut of their TV and MacDonalds for a week and they will surrender.

Personally I don't think there is much Sovereignty in NY worth preserving. Albany is worse than Washington.

EDIT: If it did happen, I would buy a one way ticket to Canada. I don't see the State or Federal governments worth fighting to defend. They both suck.

[onelifecrisis]

I think most Americans are too content to give a damn.

Fixed. :up:

[FIREWALL]

:har::rotfl2::rotfl2::rotfl2::har:

[mookiemookie]

It also decrees that no State has the right to secede from the union.

That decree is nothing new. The Civil War settled it as well as the Supreme Court case Texas vs. White in 1869 ruled that unilateral secession is not allowed. The Union is permanent.

I'd leave the country before taking part in any foolishness like a civil war.

[August]

Yeah but the next civil war probably won't be fought along state boundaries. We're way too intermixed for much of that.

Like Growler says it would be a blood bath.

[Oberon]

We'll probably have had our third civil war...no...wait...sorry, fourth civil war (technically the first one was split into three parts), over and done with before then, so we'll let you know how it goes on.
Don't quite know what the battle-lines will be on this one, but not Royalists vs Parliamentarians again, that's already been done. We'll find something. :yep:

[yubba]

I sugguest you bone up on your Mad Max and Red Dawn. I don't know how the Fed thinks they are going to regulate all this junk with, no money to enforce. Remember tomorrows currency might be Beans and Bullets.

[TLAM Strike]

I think if there was a civil war it would be over so fast most would be wonder what the heck just happened.

And it not going to be fought by a bunch of country yokels with their 30-06s. Its going to be fought by geeks with laptops. Its going to be an digital and information war; Tweets are bullets, thumb drives are smart bombs. Look at Iran this year, the contested elections a bunch of students with camera phones turned the world's attention to their governments abuses. No matter how their government tried to shut them down they found a link to the outside world, and what they filmed became headline news. Second the Suxnet virus, a few lines of code potentially crippled a nuclear weapons program, imagine what something like that could do to a power grid or air traffic control system.

[Rilder]

I wouldn't fight I'd grab my girl and take off to Europe or something. Just because I live in amerika doesn't mean I'm loyal to it.

[CaptainHaplo]

It won't happen - for one reason. Who is going to fight it?

From the scenario you gave, the federal gov't. is going to use military force against the states. It would find the military would not be amendable to firing on civilians en masse to pacify the states. Nor does the political will by the people in any region exist that would allow for such a thing.

In the US Civil war, there were significant economic reasons behind the north wanting to invade the south. By conquering the south, the Northern rich could purchase through the spoils of war property in the south that, upon rebuilding - would bring them significant profit.

There is no such economic factor in place. Thus, there is no political will. Without this, the government would face revolt without geographic boundaries, and a revolt by the people at that level would bring the gov't to its knees, because its funding comes from the people.

[August]

I wouldn't fight I'd grab my girl and take off to Europe or something. Just because I live in amerika doesn't mean I'm loyal to it.

And what country would take a person whose only loyalty is to himself?

[Tribesman]

And what country would take a person whose only loyalty is to himself?
Most countries.

[joegrundman]

And what country would take a person whose only loyalty is to himself?

you americans took in rupert murdoch:DL

[joegrundman]

It won't happen - for one reason. Who is going to fight it?

From the scenario you gave, the federal gov't. is going to use military force against the states. It would find the military would not be amendable to firing on civilians en masse to pacify the states. Nor does the political will by the people in any region exist that would allow for such a thing.

In the US Civil war, there were significant economic reasons behind the north wanting to invade the south. By conquering the south, the Northern rich could purchase through the spoils of war property in the south that, upon rebuilding - would bring them significant profit.

There is no such economic factor in place. Thus, there is no political will. Without this, the government would face revolt without geographic boundaries, and a revolt by the people at that level would bring the gov't to its knees, because its funding comes from the people.

that would be a...err.. revisionist interpretation?

Anyway as a loyal Briton, I feel sure that we British should seek to arm the rebels in the case of a US Civil War, and this time succeed.

[TLAM Strike]

And what country would take a person whose only loyalty is to himself? Try asking that of any Iranians that came over here after 1979. Or the Vietnamese and Hmong who came here in the early 70s. The list of groups taken in by the US because their country is in a civil war is huge, in fact they are given priority by immigration to live here.

that would be a...err.. revisionist interpretation? I agree. I really doubt that when Lincoln heard that Fort Sumner was being bombed he immediately thought: "Wow this could be a hell of a business opportunity".

Anyway as a loyal Briton, I feel sure that we British should seek to arm the rebels in the case of a US Civil War, and this time succeed. We already have a arms suppler, its called WalMart. :O:

[Takeda Shingen]

that would be a...err.. revisionist interpretation?

It is. The road to the American Civil War was long and complicated, but the Clff's Notes version is that the southern states (mostly southeastern in the modern US) had a largely agricultural economy. The bulk of the southern wealth was in cotton, which, traditionally, was man-intensive to grow and harvest. With a much lower population than the north, the south relied on African slaves to perform much of the labor. Slavery, of course, was opposed by a number of mostly northern abolitionist politicians. Given the numerical divisions between free and slave-holding states, that opposition could not amount to much, making the situtation one of stasis.

As westward expansion accelerated, prompted by the federal government's efforts to have people 'go west, young man', new states came into the union, which threatened to upset the balance of power. After a series of compromises that, in retrospect, only seemed to exacerbate the problem, Abraham Lincoln was elected as President. Fearful that his adminstration would permanently swing the pendulum in favor of the abolitionists, resulting in the end of slavery and threatening the south's economic system, the southern states undertook the treasonous act of succession.

I have no intention of continuing the argument that will likely follow this post, as we have had it many, many times. Simply stated, Confederate apologists prefer to revise history so that it reads that it was the evil northerners who invaded the peace-loving south in order to plunder it's riches. This is not true, but I am resigned to the fact that attempting to dissuade them of it is a pointless endeavor. It only bears noting that some of the same individuals portray the south's treason in a favorable and heroic light are the same that, in another thread, damn another's treason for an act that can also be seen has heroic.

[Armistead]

The only war we're likely to have is against our government. Really, most the reasons the revolution took place exist now.

Government is at war with the people, they just do it so slowly and count on our stupidity not to do anything about it.

I think as we eventually move into a two class system, you'll see more people doing acts of violence against what they feel is unfair. You'll see more people walking into meetings with guns and shooting away. Some will make heroes out of them, some will call them terrorist.

chaos maybe, no civil war....in the end the strong will weed out the weak so the herd can survive....that's the way it's always been.

[Rockstar]

that would be a...err.. revisionist interpretation?

Anyway as a loyal Briton, I feel sure that we British should seek to arm the rebels in the case of a US Civil War, and this time succeed.

"Who are the Britons?"

[krashkart]

The question;

You live in a State that has seceded from the Union, Would you feel your loyalty was with the Federal Government and the primary responsibility was was to preserve the Union, or would you take the side of the State that.

Neither. If it really came down to that, neither side would garner my sympathies.

[CaptainHaplo]

It is. The road to the American Civil War was long and complicated, but the Clff's Notes version is that the southern states (mostly southeastern in the modern US) had a largely agricultural economy. The bulk of the southern wealth was in cotton, which, traditionally, was man-intensive to grow and harvest. With a much lower population than the north, the south relied on African slaves to perform much of the labor. Slavery, of course, was opposed by a number of mostly northern abolitionist politicians. Given the numerical divisions between free and slave-holding states, that opposition could not amount to much, making the situtation one of stasis.

As westward expansion accelerated, prompted by the federal government's efforts to have people 'go west, young man', new states came into the union, which threatened to upset the balance of power. After a series of compromises that, in retrospect, only seemed to exacerbate the problem, Abraham Lincoln was elected as President. Fearful that his adminstration would permanently swing the pendulum in favor of the abolitionists, resulting in the end of slavery and threatening the south's economic system, the southern states undertook the treasonous act of succession.

I have no intention of continuing the argument that will likely follow this post, as we have had it many, many times. Simply stated, Confederate apologists prefer to revise history so that it reads that it was the evil northerners who invaded the peace-loving south in order to plunder it's riches. This is not true, but I am resigned to the fact that attempting to dissuade them of it is a pointless endeavor. It only bears noting that some of the same individuals portray the south's treason in a favorable and heroic light are the same that, in another thread, damn another's treason for an act that can also be seen has heroic.

We are not going to rehash that issue again Takeda, no worries.
Wars are about economics. They are about who controls what, land, power, government or whatever. Show me a war that isn't and I will revise my opinion.

I am not saying that slavery was not an issue in the civil war. However, remember that history is written by the "victor", and a close study will show that there were more factors than just slavery involved. Slavery was an economic engine at the time, so by definition it had to be in part about slavery.

The key in the original post question however remains the same - there is no economic reason to support a federal government that goes to war against its people en masse when such a conflict has no geographical boundaries.

[CaptainHaplo]

And what country would take a person whose only loyalty is to himself?

What kind of girl would take a person whose only loyalty is to himself????

[TLAM Strike]

What kind of girl would take a person whose only loyalty is to himself????

Depends on if the guy has money and or looks... :03:

[joegrundman]

"Who are the Britons?"
Is that a trick question?

[Schöneboom]

I consider the State vs. Federal civil war scenario implausible, given the way people seem to be nowadays: dumbed-down, politically fragmented or apathetic, and self-centered.

If the masses are not driven by traditional state loyalties or ideological movements (as in, say, the 1930s), this is something we might be thankful for. No sane person would want to take part in something like the Spanish Civil War, in which vast numbers of people slaughtered each other with the righteousness of True Believers.

What is more likely in our case: a failed state scenario, in which the masses clamor for immediate relief (jobs, money, food), government at every level can barely maintain order and basic services, and violent fanatical fringe groups create havoc without popular support.

Sorry, not exactly a cheerful Christmas Eve message. :hmmm:

[John W. Hamm]

Thank you all so much for replying, There are so many great opinions here! and I knew that this community would have some of the most thought out ones that I could hope for.

To this point in the last 6 years several states have sent to the federal congress and affirmation of States sovereignty, ranging from a plethora of positions... But in general saying that they would not recognize certain laws (not all of these states necessarily making the exact same statements) if the federal gov't tried to inact them or if they tried to implement certain laws...

Given these affirmations that were sent by the States to the fed it made me curious as to how the individuals felt rather than just the politicians...

It is my personal belief that the State should and does have the sovereign right to make all laws concerning the people in that state...

It is my understanding that is how our forefathers felt as well... Case in point... There is no federal law against murder... (except for government employees).

From what I remember in Government classes is that the fed is responsible for regulating national and international trade... as well as international affairs... oh and lets not forget the enforcement of the constitution, but aside from that all other aspects of government that deal with the populace should be dealt with on a State level... one main reason for that is birds of a feather flock together...

I live in Oklahoma and I know for a fact that there are several laws enacted in California that no one I know that lives here would ever want to live by... and vice versa...

I myself do not think there would be a civil war per say... but if these states that have sent a notice of sovereignty to the fed actually follow up with perseverance and refuse to enforce federal laws that they feel overstep the feds boundaries... well I have no idea how it would turn out .... but i thank you all for giving your opinions they have been helpful.

[nikimcbee]

I could see the West suceding (sp?), NOT including Kali- oregon, and Washington. Althought I clould see Eastern WA and OR splitting off to form their own state.

Interesting topic though. I think we are too lazy to do anything about, except for TX. Ore-gone wouldn't leave the union, because they like their timber welfare too much.

Utah could make Kali-fornia collapse within a week by shutting of the power and water.

I could see the South formining the Evangelical States of America:haha:.

[nikimcbee]

I am not saying that slavery was not an issue in the civil war. However, remember that history is written by the "victor", and a close study will show that there were more factors than just slavery involved. Slavery was an economic engine at the time, so by definition it had to be in part about slavery.


You are correct. Everybody needs to read "Battle Cry Of Freedom." The politics in the country from the 1840s thru 1861 are really intersting. Slavery is a big issue, but it's not the only one driving things.

[Sailor Steve]

You are correct. Everybody needs to read "Battle Cry Of Freedom." The politics in the country from the 1840s thru 1861 are really intersting. Slavery is a big issue, but it's not the only one driving things.
The problem has never been northerners who insist that slavery was the only issue. I've never met one yet. The problem stems from southerners who keep insisting that it was not an issue at all. Haplo is not one of those, but most you run into in these arguments are.

[Schöneboom]

One of the more fanciful alternative maps of N. America, from "Crimson Skies":

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/84/Crimson_skies_map.png/800px-Crimson_skies_map.png

Hmm, looks like the Republic of Texas annexed Oklahoma. Hope that's OK with you, John. :o

I think the first state that deserves independence is Hawaii, because of its unique status as a sovereign nation, overthrown by the U.S. in 1893. There are, of course, serious hurdles to be overcome in this case, rather like a messy divorce.

Regarding the U.S. position, there's the little matter of what to do with Pearl Harbor. I'm sure even the various sovereignty advocates don't all agree on whether to evict the Navy, charge rent for continued use of Pearl, or some other arrangement. Indeed, they are not in agreement on whether to restore the Monarchy, if it's even feasible.

If the U.S. were broke enough to allow Hawaiian independence, it might also be willing to sell off its older military equipment to form the basis of a Hawaiian Defense Force. That would assume sufficiently friendly relations between the two nations to maintain such equipment. Present-day demographics of Hawaii would tend to favor an amicable separation (they could have full custody of Obama, too).

[Raptor1]

Hmm, looks like the Republic of Texas annexed Oklahoma. Hope that's OK with you, John. :o


The map is incorrect, Oklahoma is a 'protectorate' of Texas in the same way that the Outer Banks are a protectorate of Dixie. Not that that means too much :O:.

[nikimcbee]

The problem has never been northerners who insist that slavery was the only issue. I've never met one yet. The problem stems from southerners who keep insisting that it was not an issue at all. Haplo is not one of those, but most you run into in these arguments are.

:|\\ It seems like every 6 months or so, we have this discussion. I have no personal/emotional attachment to either side, as my family was "out West" or not in the country yet. So my family missed out on the fun. I do find the Southern view of the War intreging (sans slavery issue).

[gimpy117]

highly doubtful. the idea of "sate identity" is not as defined as it was in 1861. Furthermore the idea of the "states being outraged" is an attempt by the GOP to cook up outrage

[CaptainHaplo]

One of the more fanciful alternative maps of N. America, from "Crimson Skies":

Oh man - I loved that game. I even hex edited my custom planes to make em nearly invincible just for fun once!

[Rockstar]

I think the first state that deserves independence is Hawaii, because of its unique status as a sovereign nation, overthrown by the U.S. in 1893. There are, of course, serious hurdles to be overcome in this case, rather like a messy divorce.

One serious hurdle to jump would be to figure out who exactly would you turn these island over too, the dominate population is Anglo-Europeans, Japanese, Chinese and Korean. There are no true 'Hawaiians' left, they have been killed off or bred out of existence long ago.

[nikimcbee]

Well, now, wait a minute... Here's a real world situation.
Take the gov't action at Waco, TX and escalate the violence. What if a militia group intervened to aid the Branch Dividians? (sp?):hmmm:

[Madox58]

Well I Damned well wouldn't post what I'd do on this
Top Secret Internet thing!
Whatever side I go with?
I'll be reading posts like this and doing my Hunting from there.
:nope:

[nikimcbee]

Well I Damned well wouldn't post what I'd do on this
Top Secret Internet thing!
Whatever side I go with?
I'll be reading posts like this and doing my Hunting from there.
:nope:

Flee to Canada?:haha:

[Cohaagen]

One of the reasons why a right-wing uprising will never occur amongst the masses in the US is because the Tea Baggers, wingnuts, and assorted reactionary fellow travellers are, almost to a man, dedicated cop lovers and soldier worshippers - precisely the two groups who would be tasked with enforcing any proscriptive police-state legislation in such a scenario. That's why the militias and people like Alex Jones cook up these preposterous fantasies about the jackbooted, blue-bereted United Nations stormtroopers falling upon a sleeping America in their helicopters and armoured cars, performing door-to-door gun confiscations and taking the men off to WHO internment camps (fantasies the nuts find perversely satisfying and seem, perhaps, to even secretly wish for)

In this scenario, an organisation which can't even find consensus nor intervene in minor African territorial wars, and that the United States is dismissively contemptuous of 90% of the time, is somehow supposed defeat the richest, most powerful military force in the world, and then occupy its enormous home country. What bollocks.

Moreover, the ease - indeed, popular support - with which things like the PATRIOT Act were passed put lie to the whole idea of the armed US citizenry being an effective safeguard against tyranny. People weaned on the cosy myths of a Revolution won solely by wily mountain men and their Pennsylvania Rifles (the cowardly French armies and Navy and irrelevant Dutch and Spanish now written out of the popular record) would likely find a few problems going up against Abrams with a tricked-out AR-15, as many Iraqis have discovered.

[Sailor Steve]

Spoken like a true Brit.

[August]

Spoken like a true Brit.

Yeah 20 years behind the times and unrealistic as Operation Market Garden.:DL

[Cohaagen]

Yeah 20 years behind the times and unrealistic as Operation Market Garden.:DL

Wow. With zingers like that I take it you're a subscriber to MAD magazine.

Spoken like a true Brit.

It certainly couldn't have come from an American. Uncomfortable home truths are difficult to voice when you've been raised in a culture that promotes national exceptionalism as a prime virtue and incontrovertible fact, and regards the Constitution as infallible as Rome. The fact that an armed populace failed to prevent the formation of a standing army, the FBI, BATF, PATRIOT Act, etc. - while allowing them to murder schoolchildren and co-workers with alarming frequency - is pretty obvious to an outsider, if not large numbers of Americans. A look at the MOVE siege and Waco should give a good idea of what happens to dissenters who take on the US government.

That both your responses ignore these points and instead make vague insults based on nationality - including a tasteful reference to a bloody WWII battle, nice one August - gives an idea of the level of self-reflection on offer. Still, it must have been an effort to avoid the inevitable tea-based "I know you are, but what am I?" witticism.

[August]

That both your responses ignore these points and instead make vague insults based on nationality - including a tasteful reference to a bloody WWII battle, nice one August - gives an idea of the level of self-reflection on offer. Still, it must have been an effort to avoid the inevitable tea-based "I know you are, but what am I?" witticism.

Well when you use terms like "teabaggers" "reactionaries" and "wingnuts" in your opening paragraph it kind of sets a tone for the rest of your post, don't you think?

And you may not believe this but both of us were actually being nice to the ignorant foreigner by trying to make a joke of such a rude and inaccurate assessment.

FYI the hoopla over black helicopters and UN stormtroopers, which BTW was never nearly as extensive as the foreign media (and some domestic media too) made it out to be, did indeed go out of style 20 years ago. I don't think anyone here still actually thinks that the UN could fight it's way into a wet paper bag let alone successfully invade our country especially filled as it is presently with war veterans. I'm also sure that few if any of my younger students would have even heard of black helicopters let alone be able to describe their significance so yeah you are indeed behind the times.

In fact just about everything you wrote in that post shows a marked lack of understanding about my country and the mood of it's people which I was not really inclined to spend all that much effort in correcting so I made a quick joke and moved on.

But i'm not wrong about Market Garden either. Montgomery's plan to rely on a single road for the offensive was just as unrealistic as your post was.

But hey, if it upsets you then how about substituting the Charge of the Light Brigade instead? The whole Crimean war? Burgoyne's strategy to split the colonies? Henry Clintons belief that sitting in New York and not supporting Cornwallis was a good strategic move? Withholding parachutes from British pilots in WW1 to keep them from "needlessly" abandoning their burning aircraft? Harold thinking the Normans would just break themselves mindlessly against the English line at Hastings? What?

I'm totally flexible with my disparaging analogies! :DL

[joegrundman]

go easy august, it's not just cohaagen you are slurring here, and it's not's like the good ol' USA has shown itself to be a fount of foresight and wisdom over the last, say, 10 years. is it?

[Sailor Steve]

Actually it is just Cohaagen he's slurring. The man made a simple unwarranted attack for no good reason, and he got what he deserved.

You don't see August using that kind of language against Jimbuna, Steed or Reece.

Cohaagen's points and opinions are as valid as anyone's, but his style is nothing short of arrogant, dismissive and rude.

[nikimcbee]

I thought this was supposed to be a theoretical argument? Where'd all the trolls come from? (not you August)

[Gammelpreusse]

Hm, Cohaagen's tone and points were unwarranted for. But he has a point insofar that it appears (<- not saying it is that way) as if Americans these days are a rather paranoid and freighted folks, seeing bogeyman all over the place in various forms, be it fascism, communism, terrorism etc, so entrenched in their political positions that it makes any kind of democratic politics near impossible.

Democracy is utterly reliant on compromise and understanding. But those two points, again, appear to be utterly discredited in the US these days.
It also appears that a lot of intellect in American politics is replaced by gut feeling. But if the basics of democratic discourse are removed, what then is left?

All this from an outsiders POV, so I may be completely wrong in that picture. Also, if you prefer outsiders stay out of US domestic affairs, just say so. Do not want to be disrespectful.

[nikimcbee]

Hm, Cohaagen's tone and points were unwarranted for. But he has a point insofar that it appears (<- not saying it is that way) as if Americans these days are a rather paranoid and freighted folks, seeing bogeyman all over the place in various forms, be it fascism, communism, terrorism etc, so entrenched in their political positions that it makes any kind of democratic politics near impossible.

Democracy is utterly reliant on compromise and understanding. But those two points, again, appear to be utterly discredited in the US these days.
It also appears that a lot of intellect in American politics is replaced by gut feeling. But if the basics of democratic discourse are removed, what then is left?

All this from an outsiders POV, so I may be completely wrong in that picture. Also, if you prefer outsiders stay out of US domestic affairs, just say so. Do not want to be disrespectful.

We're not democratic, we're represenative republic. I think the big problem with US politics, is that the elected reps do what's in the party's interest first. The US has always had nasty, partisan politics, but that is the great beauty of the US, we are able to have this debate between ideas.

The other problem with the US, is that everybody wants the goodies, but nobody wants to pay for them.


Oh, and thanks for the opinion. I always find non-US opinions interesting. It's the flame-trolls that ruin it for everyone. What country are you from?

[Gammelpreusse]

We're not democratic, we're represenative republic.

Where is the contradiction in that?


I think the big problem with US politics, is that the elected reps do what's in the party's interest first. The US has always had nasty, partisan politics, but that is the great beauty of the US, we are able to have this debate between ideas.But is there a real debate? Do not want to be provocative, but it looks less then a debate but more like an opinion war these days. I've been following US politics quite a while, but since Bush took office the fights appear to have reached a new quality, so much that the US almost makes a dysfunctional impression, especially in the face of the many urgent matters faced today in international politics and the economy. Are people more loyal to their party or their country? (country->including all people and opinions)


The other problem with the US, is that everybody wants the goodies, but nobody wants to pay for them.Well ok, that much is true for almost any country and people.


Oh, and thanks for the opinion. I always find non-US opinions interesting. It's the flame-trolls that ruin it for everyone. What country are you from? Germany. Which makes nowadays US politics highly interesting, as many parallels can be drawn to Weimar and Imperial Germany (obsession with the military/huge military potential, radical political opinions and radicalization in general , strained international relations, economic problems etc.). This may read odd, but the US today helps me in understanding my own countries past in some ways. It is more an academic interest then an emotional one.

Something I seriously miss in American politics these days is a clear picture of how the US should look like by all parties involved. You hear a lot of individual opinions, but is there is a broader consensus amongst people? Most of the times people only state what they don't want. May I ask what political direction you are following? In your views, what should the US look like, based on what ideals/ideologies and why?

Once again, this is all based on what news come over here and what is presented in American TV that found it's way to the internet, so it may all be based on wrong impressions. Please take this into account towards everything I write here.

[Sailor Steve]

Democracy is utterly reliant on compromise and understanding. But those two points, again, appear to be utterly discredited in the US these days.
It also appears that a lot of intellect in American politics is replaced by gut feeling. But if the basics of democratic discourse are removed, what then is left?
The only disagreement I would have with that is the "today" part. American politics have always been vicious, going right back to the battles between the first Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson, and the first Secretary of The Treasury, Alexander Hamilton.

All this from an outsiders POV, so I may be completely wrong in that picture. Also, if you prefer outsiders stay out of US domestic affairs, just say so. Do not want to be disrespectful.
No, you're not wrong at all. Sometimes someone will try to dismiss a comment by suggesting that an outsider is incapable of correct observation. While true to a point, I don't think this is the case here. Yes, our politics can be downright nasty. On the other hand, we're not alone in that.

We're not democratic, we're represenative republic.
While true, that is also a nit-pick usually bandied about by the hard-core right-wingers, and I don't think it has any real relevance here. While we are indeed a representative republic, our operating system is indeed correctly called the democratic process.

Other than that, I think your comments are spot-on.

[Growler]

...insofar that it appears (<- not saying it is that way) as if Americans these days are a rather paranoid and freighted folks, seeing bogeyman all over the place in various forms, be it fascism, communism, terrorism etc, so entrenched in their political positions that it makes any kind of democratic politics near impossible.

Partly due to the fact the American media is, by and large, VERY factionalized, presenting each sides' arguments in absolute extremes - there really is no "moderate" American media, and so, what gets out to the world at large in a globally-connected society is that divisiveness, rather than the places of unity.

Democracy is utterly reliant on compromise and understanding. But those two points, again, appear to be utterly discredited in the US these days.
It also appears that a lot of intellect in American politics is replaced by gut feeling. But if the basics of democratic discourse are removed, what then is left?


At the Federal scale, this is very true. The two sides are incapable of working together, and seem to draw pride from that very fact. That said, on the smaller community scale, I've never seen someone turned away from a business here in town because they voted in opposition to the community's prevailing political theory.

Where all the political division arguments fall apart is at the level of communities. At the global scale, America appears quite dysfunctional. But down here on the streets, most of us can differ in opinion and get along quite famously.

[Takeda Shingen]

While true, that is also a nit-pick usually bandied about by the hard-core right-wingers, and I don't think it has any real relevance here. While we are indeed a representative republic, our operating system is indeed correctly called the democratic process.

I was going to say something along those lines as well. There are numerous forms of democractic governance, with a reperesentative [democractic] republic being one of them. To simplify by stating that the United States is a democracy would not be inaccurate. Technically, we are a western liberal democractic republic, as we elect represetatives to serve our interests in running the nation, in which civil liberties are protected. Modern polispeak has rendered some of those terms so that they are associated differently than their classical definitions.

[Gammelpreusse]

Thanks guys for the answers guys, that was enlightening.


Where all the political division arguments fall apart is at the level of communities. At the global scale, America appears quite dysfunctional. But down here on the streets, most of us can differ in opinion and get along quite famously.

I think this is noteworthy, I will keep that in mind. So folks from different parties are capable to have a beer and discuss politics without going at their throats? I think that is an important bit of information, as most news coming out of the US is indeed based on the federal level.

[Takeda Shingen]

Thanks guys for the answers guys, that was enlightening.


Where all the political division arguments fall apart is at the level of communities. At the global scale, America appears quite dysfunctional. But down here on the streets, most of us can differ in opinion and get along quite famously.

I think this is noteworthy, I will keep that in mind. So folks from different parties are capable to have a beer and discuss politics without going at their throats? I think that is an important bit of information, as most news coming out of the US is indeed based on the federal level.

Ooo. That's very true and you have, by the starting of this thread, made a very good point of it. I didn't see that coming; you suprised me and I don't get suprised around here very often. :up:

EDIT: Cool sig.

[razark]

So folks from different parties are capable to have a beer and discuss politics without going at their throats?
That really depends on the two people. There are those who hold opposite views, but are able to discuss their ideas, and then there are those who feel the need to turn the discussion into a fight at every opportunity.

[Gammelpreusse]

Ooo. That's very true and you have, by the starting of this thread, made a very good point of it. I didn't see that coming; you suprised me and I don't get suprised around here very often. :up:

EDIT: Cool sig.

No idea what exactly I did, but a pleasure :DL

About the Sig, want one, too? 10 minute editing job if you find a good picture to work with.

That really depends on the two people. There are those who hold opposite views, but are able to discuss their ideas, and then there are those who feel the need to turn the discussion into a fight at every opportunity.

Granted, but that is also true to most nations/people/groups. It's all a question of what kind of people are in the majority.

[August]

So folks from different parties are capable to have a beer and discuss politics without going at their throats?

Most definitely.

I know that our media would have everyone (including us) believe that we're on the verge of going after each other but that just isn't the way it is in reality. Politics are almost never a factor in anything that goes beyond a bit of spirited debate.

[Gammelpreusse]

Most definitely.

I know that our media would have everyone (including us) believe that we're on the verge of going after each other but that just isn't the way it is in reality. Politics are almost never a factor in anything that goes beyond a bit of spirited debate.

So why then is there such a huge gap between normal folks and federal politics? Where does it go apart and why?

[August]

So why then is there such a huge gap between normal folks and federal politics? Where does it go apart and why?

I'm not sure I get what you mean by this.

Politics is politics whether it is at the federal, state or local level. We Americans like to argue over them (incessantly) but they rarely matter all that much when it comes to our interpersonal relations. Everyone sees themselves as Americans first and that tends to put these debates in perspective.

[Gammelpreusse]

I'm not sure I get what you mean by this.

Politics is politics whether it is at the federal, state or local level. We Americans like to argue over them (incessantly) but they rarely matter all that much when it comes to our interpersonal relations. Everyone sees themselves as Americans first and that tends to put these debates in perspective.

You sure about that? Once again, I may be wrong here, but the impression comes over that, coming to the federal level, politics are much more hostile then compared to other countries, the closest comparisons being the UK, which also has a two party system. A certain hostility is to be expected, but the amount of animosity between the Republicans and Democrats in the US appear to be particularly noteworthy on the federal level. This goes hand in hand with the image of a big entertainment show presented by the likes of Maher, Beck, O'Reilly, Steward, Palin, Colbert and the likes, where it appears the boundaries between politics and entertainment is starting to evaporate.

I am relatively sure this same behavior does not translate to the normal political active people on the street, and I'd be interested how this came into being, IF this observation holds true. I have a hard time thinking this has been the case from the very beginning of the US.

[August]

You sure about that?

Yeah I am.

I have a hard time thinking this has been the case from the very beginning of the US.

Actually if anything it's a bit more civil nowadays than back then.

Here are some instances that I dug up as examples:

During John Adam's presidential campaign, editorials were routinely published in the local papers making fun of him by calling him fat, bald, stupid, and toothless, and accusing him of wanting to overthrow the American democracy and install a new monarchy with himself as king and his son John Quincy as crown prince. Jefferson even hired a writer named James Callender to attack President Adams. He wrote that John Adams is "a repulsive pedant," a "gross hypocrite," and "a hideous hermaphroditical character which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman.

Andrew Jackson's political opponents accused him of murder, gambling, slave trading and treason. They called him a 'military chieftain,' and said his mother was a prostitute, his father a mulatto man, and his wife a bigamist. Mrs. Jackson once found her husband in tears pointing to a paragraph reflecting on his mother and said, "Myself I can defend; you I can defend; but now they have assailed even the memory of my mother."

The opponents of Rutherford B. Hayes spread around a rumor that he had shot his own mother in a fit of rage.

A Democratic newspaper told voters that Lincoln should not be elected president because he only changed his socks once every 10 days.

Democrats called Whig candidate Henry Clay on his "supposed baggage train of gambling, dueling, womanizing and "By the Eternal!" swearing." Clay lost.

Congressman Davy Crockett once accused candidate Martin Van Buren of secretly wearing women’s clothing: “He is laced up in corsets!”

So you see this apparent acrimony is nothing new for us.

[Gammelpreusse]

Yeah I am.



Actually if anything it's a bit more civil nowadays than back then.

Here are some instances that I dug up as examples:



So you see this apparent acrimony is nothing new for us.

Hm, I see what you mean. Though, were those isolated instances or was it as widespread and "everyday" as in the present? Sorry if I bug with all these questions, but I want to get as a widespread picture as possible.

[Takeda Shingen]

Hm, I see what you mean. Though, were those isolated instances or was it as widespread and "everyday" as in the present? Sorry if I bug with all these questions, but I want to get as a widespread picture as possible.

Along those lines, you can't take temperment on an internet forum as being representative of society at large. The mask of anonymity enables people to act in a very different manner than they would elsewhere. I can guarantee that most of the heated and disrespectful discourse that you can see here would not happen if people were sitting across from each other.

[Gammelpreusse]

Along those lines, you can't take temperment on an internet forum as being representative of society at large. The mask of anonymity enables people to act in a very different manner than they would elsewhere. I can guarantee that most of the heated and disrespectful discourse that you can see here would not happen if people were sitting across from each other.

Undoubtedly, I am aware of that myself. However, my question was aimed at the public level, medias, newspapers, pamphlets, open debates etc. August stated that this kind of behavior obvious today has a long history, and I am inclined to believe him, given his examples.

[nikimcbee]

The only disagreement I would have with that is the "today" part. American politics have always been vicious, going right back to the battles between the first Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson, and the first Secretary of The Treasury, Alexander Hamilton.


No, you're not wrong at all. Sometimes someone will try to dismiss a comment by suggesting that an outsider is incapable of correct observation. While true to a point, I don't think this is the case here. Yes, our politics can be downright nasty. On the other hand, we're not alone in that.


While true, that is also a nit-pick usually bandied about by the hard-core right-wingers, and I don't think it has any real relevance here. While we are indeed a representative republic, our operating system is indeed correctly called the democratic process.

Other than that, I think your comments are spot-on.

:haha: I was going to say I was nit-picking, but didn't:up:. I think the term "democratic" or democracy is so overused anway. North Korea is a democracy, right? Democratic People's Republic of Korea .

[nikimcbee]

@Gammelpreusse. If you're interested in venom in US politics, I suggest you study the politics leading up to the Civil War.

If you don't mind a dry read, read "Battle Cry of Freedom" by McPherson. It goes into great detail:dead: of everything leading upto the War.

The scary part is, the economic situation from the (1850's) if I remember correctly is very similar to today's situation.

[August]

I can guarantee that most of the heated and disrespectful discourse that you can see here would not happen if people were sitting across from each other.

Or at least 99% of the discourse would not be mistaken as heated and disrespectful in the first place.

What would be averted by a mere grin in a face to face conversation the impersonal anonymity of the internet morphs into deadly insult.

[Sailor Steve]

During John Adam's presidential campaign, editorials were routinely published in the local papers making fun of him by calling him fat, bald, stupid, and toothless, and accusing him of wanting to overthrow the American democracy and install a new monarchy with himself as king and his son John Quincy as crown prince. Jefferson even hired a writer named James Callender to attack President Adams. He wrote that John Adams is "a repulsive pedant," a "gross hypocrite," and "a hideous hermaphroditical character which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman.
What's missing from that is the opposite side. An Adams-friendly paper (the Boston Currant) actually had a headline that read "If Jefferson is elected, murder, robbery, rape, adultery, and incest will be openly taught and practiced."

Gammelpreusse. If you're interested in venom in US politics, I suggest you study the politics leading up to the Civil War.
You mean like when Preston Brooks beat Charles Sumner half to death with his cane...on the Senate floor??

[Takeda Shingen]

Or at least 99% of the discourse would not be mistaken as heated and disrespectful in the first place.

What would be averted by a mere grin in a face to face conversation the impersonal anonymity of the internet morphs into deadly insult.

Yes. You and I have a couple of those type of things in the past. I remember really misinterpreting something that you wrote a few months ago. Still rather embarrased about it. :oops:

[August]

Hm, I see what you mean. Though, were those isolated instances or was it as widespread and "everyday" as in the present? Sorry if I bug with all these questions, but I want to get as a widespread picture as possible.

No it's been pretty much a staple of American politics since like forever. It's just that now you folks over there are much more exposed to it than in the days before electronic media.

[mookiemookie]

Or at least 99% of the discourse would not be mistaken as heated and disrespectful in the first place.

What would be averted by a mere grin in a face to face conversation the impersonal anonymity of the internet morphs into deadly insult.

Very true.

[August]

Yes. You and I have a couple of those type of things in the past. I remember really misinterpreting something that you wrote a few months ago. Still rather embarrased about it. :oops:

Well I can't even remember what it was nor do I want to. Water under the bridge.

[Gammelpreusse]

@Gammelpreusse. If you're interested in venom in US politics, I suggest you study the politics leading up to the Civil War.

If you don't mind a dry read, read "Battle Cry of Freedom" by McPherson. It goes into great detail:dead: of everything leading upto the War.

The scary part is, the economic situation from the (1850's) if I remember correctly is very similar to today's situation.

just ordered it :salute:

Thanks guys! I'll stop bugging with questions now =)

[August]

just ordered it :salute:

Thanks guys! I'll stop bugging with questions now =)

Feel free to continue asking questions if you still have them. One thing we have plenty of around here is people eager to give their opinions. :DL

[Gammelpreusse]

Feel free to continue asking questions if you still have them. One thing we have plenty of around here is people eager to give their opinions. :DL

I take you by your word ; )

Ok, questions left, that is regarding the two party system. Do you you think having the choice of only two parties presents enough choice in an ever more diverse world and as such opinions and options? And if so, why?

And related to that, do you think the founding fathers took into account the developments, socially, demographically, ethnically and economically so that their views still hold true today in every single regard? I say that because I see references to them all over the place, and mostly in a very rigid sense. In a way it reminds me of a holy book, where the words are taken as Dogma, yet open to various interpretations depending on personal world views. And if that is the case, do you think the founding fathers intended that?

I ask that because, on the one hand, I see the benefits of something to hold onto, as unifying element in politics giving direction and security in an ever changing world. And one can't argue about the ideals behind these people, the basics of I deeply support. On the other hand it prevents adjusting to present day realities, It's close to 300 years old, after all, ancient in many ways. Gun ownership being a prime and very obvious example (yes, I know, hot topic), which in my opinion does a lot of harm in reality (lots of guns available to criminals due to the liberal civilian market -> huge black market, accidents etc.) opposed to theoretical benefits (fight against oppression).

Another example, also related to the founding fathers, the american dream. Again a theory vs. praxis debate, the idea being everybody able to become rich by enough hard work opposed to millions of people working hard every day without making any ground. May have a lot do with with the ever degrading "worth" of work in an age of robots taking over and globalisation. What are the consequences of that development and how do people see it? This may have also to do with the development of mega corporations, which the founding fathers may have not foreseen. But then again I may have missed something in this.

[August]

I take you by your word ; )

Ok, questions left, that is regarding the two party system. Do you you think having the choice of only two parties presents enough choice in an ever more diverse world and as such opinions and options? And if so, why?

Well one thing a two party system does is make sure a majority of people voted for the winning candidate. In a multi-party system you have candidates winning elections with much smaller percentages. I for one don't want our president elected by only 10% of the vote.

A little ways below this you talk about theory vs reality. Theoretically multiple parties sounds nice but how well does it work in reality? Does having more choices improve, say, the Italian governments ability to accomplish the peoples business?

And related to that, do you think the founding fathers took into account the developments, socially, demographically, ethnically and economically so that their views still hold true today in every single regard? I say that because I see references to them all over the place, and mostly in a very rigid sense. In a way it reminds me of a holy book, where the words are taken as Dogma, yet open to various interpretations depending on personal world views. And if that is the case, do you think the founding fathers intended that?The founding fathers did indeed foresee a changing world which is why they instituted the constitutional amendment system. Take the 24th Amendment for example. When the consitution was written the founding fathers didn't know that later on someone would institute a poll tax as a way of abrogating minority voting rights. It took awhile but eventually an amendment was created and passed to deal with it.

Gun ownership being a prime and very obvious example (yes, I know, hot topic), which in my opinion does a lot of harm in reality (lots of guns available to criminals due to the liberal civilian market -> huge black market, accidents etc.) opposed to theoretical benefits (fight against oppression).Without getting into the details of the RKBA debate, suffice to say that a large majority of the US population disagrees with your assessment of societal harm, which is why you haven't seen a new amendment repealing the 2nd.

Another example, also related to the founding fathers, the american dream. Again a theory vs. praxis debate, the idea being everybody able to become rich by enough hard work opposed to millions of people working hard every day without making any ground. May have a lot do with with the ever degrading "worth" of work in an age of robots taking over and globalisation. What are the consequences of that development and how do people see it? This may have also to do with the development of mega corporations, which the founding fathers may have not foreseen. But then again I may have missed something in this.What constitutional amendment would you propose to deal with this problem? If you can answer that question in a manner that 2/3rds of the states would accept you'd quickly see an amendment proposed and ratified.

You see our founding fathers did try to plan for the future without making it too easy for someone to screw things up. It's worked pretty good for over 200 years which says something about the job they did.

[Armistead]

What we need is term limits for congress. These life long congressmen have become so powerful due to the money of corporations and special interest. You can hardly vote them out and when you can they're usually replaced by a previous benchwarmer. Hard for good people to run and win with a life long congressman has millions coming in by outside groups.

We've become a dumb nation. One can only study how this came about and see government played a big role.

Congress no longer represents the people, they represent special interest.
This nation was founded on no taxation without representation, we went to war on it. Course the king called us terrorist and traitors. We've given up so many rights and accepted a government that has ruined this nation. Most didn't pay attention as they passed laws to do it slowly.

People no longer get a fair shake, the field is totally tilted towards corporations and special interest via poor regulation, tax code, trade, ect.

[mookiemookie]

People no longer get a fair shake, the field is totally tilted towards corporations and special interest via poor regulation, tax code, trade, ect.

Indeed. They need to take a cue from NASCAR and put their sponsors on their suits:
http://cdn.crooksandliars.com/files/uploads/2010/04/mcconnell_7cbae.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_D3oNcBU9vJw/SHLwSUejYCI/AAAAAAAAAfk/EPNgJuCpTbs/s320/obama+in+jacket.jpg

[Gammelpreusse]

Well one thing a two party system does is make sure a majority of people voted for the winning candidate. In a multi-party system you have candidates winning elections with much smaller percentages. I for one don't want our president elected by only 10% of the vote.

A little ways below this you talk about theory vs reality. Theoretically multiple parties sounds nice but how well does it work in reality? Does having more choices improve, say, the Italian governments ability to accomplish the peoples business?

I suppose that depends on what ppl make of their respective system. As far as I can observe this, pretty much every system is workable, it depends in what spirit those in charge act. That also has a lot to do with acceptance, willingness to compromise and if you follow the letters or the spirit of any given government construction. You took Italy as a valid example of a dysfunctional government body, but then again you also have northern European countries where this works quite well.


The founding fathers did indeed foresee a changing world which is why they instituted the constitutional amendment system. Take the 24th Amendment for example. When the constitution was written the founding fathers didn't know that later on someone would institute a poll tax as a way of abrogating minority voting rights. It took awhile but eventually an amendment was created and passed to deal with it.

*nods* so the system is adjustable to newly developed realities


Without getting into the details of the RKBA debate, suffice to say that a large majority of the US population disagrees with your assessment of societal harm, which is why you haven't seen a new amendment repealing the 2nd.

But do you agree with that? There are lots of examples were a majority of a country had certain believes in regards to an issue. That does not necessarily make it the correct one when going at it with common sense. Not saying this is the case here in regards to gun ownership (that being wrong policy), just that I do not think a majority alone is the major criteria when analyzing problems. As my mother used to tell me when I wanted something based on others having the same, you do not jump from the bridge when others do it, either.


What constitutional amendment would you propose to deal with this problem? If you can answer that question in a manner that 2/3rds of the states would accept you'd quickly see an amendment proposed and ratified.

I have no idea, I am only superficially aware of the problem, not in depths, so I seriously can't judge. That is why I am asking, after all =) Again, what is your take on this?


You see our founding fathers did try to plan for the future without making it too easy for someone to screw things up. It's worked pretty good for over 200 years which says something about the job they did.

Undoubtedly, I am not denying this in the slightest. But pretty good is a relative assessment. Good enough and fitting to today's realities, that is the question? Btw, I am saying this completly aware that others countries do much worse and the US is hardly alone in this problem. But most guys here are American, so it's the obvious country to ask questions over =)

[nikimcbee]

just ordered it :salute:

Thanks guys! I'll stop bugging with questions now =)

:up: I think you enjoy the book. I've read it twice. Once for a Univeristy class, and 2 years ago before I went on my trip to Gettysburg.

[Gammelpreusse]

:up: I think you enjoy the book. I've read it twice. Once for a Univeristy class, and 2 years ago before I went on my trip to Gettysburg.

I consider the civil war a highly fascinating topic, as such thanks for the recommendations, really looking forward to it =)

[nikimcbee]

I consider the civil war a highly fascinating topic, as such thanks for the recommendations, really looking forward to it =)

Prost! If you ever get a chance to travel to the US, you must go to the Gettysburg Battlefield. ...And if you go, spend ATLEAST 3 days there:up:. I budgeted for 2 two days when I was there, and there were still many things to see. (and go in spring or fall)


If I remember, I'll repost my trip pictures for you.:D

[The Third Man]

Knowing this is a specular post it is interesting how the allies of and enemies of the US would react? In the 1860's France and Britain would have sided and did side with the states in rebellion.

In a world already seen to reject American power, how would the world scene play out without the stabalizing force the US represents?

[Gammelpreusse]

Prost! If you ever get a chance to travel to the US, you must go to the Gettysburg Battlefield. ...And if you go, spend ATLEAST 3 days there:up:. I budgeted for 2 two days when I was there, and there were still many things to see. (and go in spring or fall)


If I remember, I'll repost my trip pictures for you.:D

I've been close to that place two times already, but back then simply lacked the idea of going there. Shame on me, but I was quite a bit younger and had other things in mind :shucks:

And yes, those pics would be highly appreciated, though I have to admit that I always found the politics and social developments before and during the war much more fascinating then the war itself. It teaches you a lot about the human state of mind, and how noble and vile motivations and ideals can intermix to a degree that differentiating between them becomes near impossible.

[August]

I just that I do not think a majority alone is the major criteria when analyzing problems.

Well I agree with that but you misunderstood me. I was not talking about the validity of RKBA in the modern world. That is a debate worthy of it's own thread (there are several floating around here already). I was only talking about what it takes to create a Constitutional Amendment.

Unlike regular laws which are based on a constitution and draw their authority from same, changing the constitution itself should always require the support of a significant majority of the nation, and then it still shouldn't be able to be changed too quickly. Such weighty and potentially dangerous actions must be given enough time to be fully digested and understood before we go leaping into the frying pan.

I have no idea, I am only superficially aware of the problem, not in depths, so I seriously can't judge. That is why I am asking, after all =) Again, what is your take on this?

Actually I wasn't expecting an answer from you. My take is that a good enough replacement for the present system has not yet emerged.

Undoubtedly, I am not denying this in the slightest. But pretty good is a relative assessment. Good enough and fitting to today's realities, that is the question?Then the answer would be "most definitely". In the absence of a proven better system I would oppose risking the destruction of our "pretty good" system because history is filled with examples of imperfect but workable systems that ended up being replaced by ones that are far worse.

[August]

Indeed. They need to take a cue from NASCAR and put their sponsors on their suits:
http://cdn.crooksandliars.com/files/uploads/2010/04/mcconnell_7cbae.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_D3oNcBU9vJw/SHLwSUejYCI/AAAAAAAAAfk/EPNgJuCpTbs/s320/obama+in+jacket.jpg

I have to show this to my wife. She has advocated this very thing for years. BTW, are the they accurate? Is Marlboro really a contributor to the Obama political war chest?

[Takeda Shingen]

Prost! If you ever get a chance to travel to the US, you must go to the Gettysburg Battlefield. ...And if you go, spend ATLEAST 3 days there:up:. I budgeted for 2 two days when I was there, and there were still many things to see. (and go in spring or fall)


If I remember, I'll repost my trip pictures for you.:D

Been there many times myself, being very close by. Yes, you need to dedicate a few days to the experience. I reccomend the fall over the sping; the area gets a bit soggy in springtime and there is a fair bit of off-roading to do. I did a trailbike tour the last time that I was there, and it was wonderful.

[mookiemookie]

I have to show this to my wife. She has advocated this very thing for years. BTW, are the they accurate? Is Marlboro really a contributor to the Obama political war chest?

I don't think these are accurate.

Here's Obama's top contributors to his 08 campaign: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=n00009638

[Penguin]

@Gammel: here is the scientific explanation about the American two-party-system:
http://www.andgoodis.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/political_spectrum1-e1288752075780.png

http://www.andgoodis.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/two_party-e1288751971835.png


This is why Americans must seem bipolar to Germans, voting in Bush, then Clinton, then Bush, then Obama. To Germans this seems like going from completely wrong, to completely right, to completely wrong, and then back to completely right. To Americans though, it is just wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

:D
source: http://www.andgoodis.com/2010/11/03/why-germans-either-love-or-hate-the-american-president-while-americans-dont-ever-care-as-much/

copied from the great blog "and good is" - this is from an American who lived for a while in Germany, so he has a kind of a "Bill Brysonesk" view.
He also has a great blog about Germany, playing with many sterotypes about both nations: http://nothingforungood.com/


Personally I think that the Americans have quite a pragmatic attitude when voting on the state/local level. They seem less partisan than in the federal election and consider the candidate and his issues more than the name of his party. So outsiders/independents have more chances than for example in Germany, where the candidates get appointed by the parties. A disadvantage is that the candidates have to get the resources required for a campaign by themselves.

[Gammelpreusse]

Well I agree with that but you misunderstood me. I was not talking about the validity of RKBA in the modern world. That is a debate worthy of it's own thread (there are several floating around here already). I was only talking about what it takes to create a Constitutional Amendment.

Indeed, and I did not want to start a debate over this. It merely served as an example where the conditions may have changed from the days 300 years ago to the presence.


Unlike regular laws which are based on a constitution and draw their authority from same, changing the constitution itself should always require the support of a significant majority of the nation, and then it still shouldn't be able to be changed too quickly. Such weighty and potentially dangerous actions must be given enough time to be fully digested and understood before we go leaping into the frying pan.

Again, fully agreed. However, I do not see that as a contradiction to what I wrote. That a careful analyzis and lots of intelligent debate has to go before any changes to a constitution is a given. And I did not even say that needs to be done in the first place, I merely wanted to know if the present system is still good as it is and does not require any kind of improvement. Based on my observation that may be warranted, but these may be flawed and I merely liked to know your take on it to get a broader picture without making any suggestions before that.



Actually I wasn't expecting an answer from you. My take is that a good enough replacement for the present system has not yet emerged.

*nods* I'll keep that in mind.


Then the answer would be "most definitely". In the absence of a proven better system I would oppose risking the destruction of our "pretty good" system because history is filled with examples of imperfect but workable systems that ended up being replaced by ones that are far worse.

Hm, one problem I see with that is...how can you prove a system working without trying it in the first place? Because history is also filled with examples of systems that actually did work better then the ones before. It requires boldness, idealism and a certain bravery, however, to bring that in place. Actually, the American revolution itself is living prove of that, but that was 300 years ago and I have a hard time thinking that civilization reached it's apex at that time and nothing can be improved from then on. That would be a sad state of affair for today's generations.

[Gammelpreusse]

@Gammel: here is the scientific explanation about the American two-party-system:
http://www.andgoodis.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/political_spectrum1-e1288752075780.png

http://www.andgoodis.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/two_party-e1288751971835.png


:D
source: http://www.andgoodis.com/2010/11/03/why-germans-either-love-or-hate-the-american-president-while-americans-dont-ever-care-as-much/

copied from the great blog "and good is" - this is from an American who lived for a while in Germany, so he has a kind of a "Bill Brysonesk" view.
He also has a great blog about Germany, playing with many sterotypes about both nations: http://nothingforungood.com/


Personally I think that the Americans have quite a pragmatic attitude when voting on the state/local level. They seem less partisan than in the federal election and consider the candidate and his issues more than the name of his party. So outsiders/independents have more chances than for example in Germany, where the candidates get appointed by the parties. A disadvantage is that the candidates have to get the resources required for a campaign by themselves.

LOL!!!
I take that one in good humor. I have to admit those graphs mirror impressions of the American parties from a German POV a bit, even though even the democratic party is more right wing in purely political terms then the CDU/FDP. But I do not think that does America justice, as the societies these two parties operate in are fundamentally different then, for example, Saudi Arabia. The US is not the Bible Belt alone, after all.

[August]

@Gammel: here is the scientific explanation about the American two-party-system:

Unfortunately it's not very accurate. For example:

...which we call “primaries”. Here only Republicans vote to determine their candidate, and Democrats vote separately to determine their candidate.

In most states anyone can register as a Republican or Democrat and vote in their primary then turn right around and vote for the opposition candidate in the general election.

As a matter of fact in such states as Massachusetts and Rhode Island I have seen organized attempts to influence primary outcomes by having large numbers of ones own supporters vote in the opponents primary for the weakest, most easily beatable candidate. They're pretty successful too.

[Growler]

Lads & lasses, if anyone is going to be in Gettysburg, we must totally arrange a SubSim Meet (LITE). I know I'm less than an hour from the battlefield, and I think others may be fairly close as well.

Do it on Jul 4, and get an added bonus - the roar of cannon fire and musketry. :D

(Though, in truth, is can be dreadfully, belligerently, inhumanly, beastly hot in July in Gettysburg - makes you appreciate the lads fighting in woolen uniforms without an air-conditioned car or hotel waiting their return.

[August]

Hm, one problem I see with that is...how can you prove a system working without trying it in the first place? Because history is also filled with examples of systems that actually did work better then the ones before. It requires boldness, idealism and a certain bravery, however, to bring that in place. Actually, the American revolution itself is living prove of that, but that was 300 years ago and I have a hard time thinking that civilization reached it's apex at that time and nothing can be improved from then on.

There has to be a real need for change first. Tearing down a working system just to see if perhaps it could be improved is foolish.

Because every time you change a societies system of government you risk it's fragmentation and destruction, and the greater the change the greater the risk. Now I think this holds much truer for a large multi-cultural society like the US than it might in a more homogeneous society such as your average European country, but be that as it may I would not favor risking loosing what has worked for us for over two centuries without being pretty darn sure about what we're getting into. So far such a system worth that risk has not emerged from what I can see.

That would be a sad state of affair for today's generations

[old man rant]Too bad for them. Today's generations are mostly pampered whiners who grew up over indulged and over coddled, never learning the important things in life like self discipline and community spirit. There are exceptions of course but by and large the young adults of today are the last people I'd want to see implementing such major societal changes until they finally grow up (if that ever happens), lest they ruin for future generations what is to all accounts a pretty darn good thing we have going here. [/old man rant]

[Growler]

[old man rant]Today's generations are mostly pampered whiners who grew up over indulged and over coddled, never learning the important things in life like self discipline and community spirit. There are exceptions of course but by and large the young adults of today are the last people I'd want to see implementing such major societal changes until they finally grow up (if that ever happens), lest they ruin for future generations what is to all accounts a pretty darn good thing we have going here. [/old man rant]

You need to meet my wife's youngest son - I think you'd be proud to know that he does the uniform, the service, and his own morality proud. He is a damned fine soldier with both the willingness to wear the uniform and the testicular fortitude (witnessed by me) to tell his unit's sar-major what's what. He's also called BS on his S-3 and S-4 (separate occasions at his last station, different unit) and wasn't hauled off for it because he was right and had fostered a relationship with the brass based on his professionalism and maturity.

It doesn't hurt that he's in a critical MOS at this point in time; an MOS that took him twice already to Iraq, but within which he has excelled - E-7 in seven years. He's the kind of troop I wish I had been smart enough to be when I was in.

No, not all of our youth are callow fools.

[Gammelpreusse]

There has to be a real need for change first. Tearing down a working system just to see if perhaps it could be improved is foolish.

Because every time you change a societies system of government you risk it's fragmentation and destruction, and the greater the change the greater the risk. Now I think this holds much truer for a large multi-cultural society like the US than it might in a more homogeneous society such as your average European country, but be that as it may I would not favor risking loosing what has worked for us for over two centuries without being pretty darn sure about what we're getting into. So far such a system worth that risk has not emerged from what I can see.


That sounds rather pessimistic for a country that is renowned for optimism. I dunno, I think any country that goes from an attitude of "let's try to go forward and improve" to "let's try to preserve what we have and call it a day" has lost it's fire and is bound to fall back. That is a very personal opinion with no claim to universality, but worth pondering nevertheless.


[old man rant]Too bad for them. Today's generations are mostly pampered whiners who grew up over indulged and over coddled, never learning the important things in life like self discipline and community spirit. There are exceptions of course but by and large the young adults of today are the last people I'd want to see implementing such major societal changes until they finally grow up (if that ever happens), lest they ruin for future generations what is to all accounts a pretty darn good thing we have going here. [/old man rant]

I have a lot of respect for the old and their life experiences. But don't you think that is a bit too much cynicism? Maybe exactly that attitude is part of the problems today? I mean I do not know your story and your life experiences, but to be honest, we have such people thinking in these ways as well, and I vowed to myself to always try to keep the idealism that I acquired in my youth, no matter what life throws at me. The world becomes a sad place to live in otherwise and it really is about personal attitude. I should stress I do not mean that as an attack, as I am very sure you have very real reasons for your stance here, but if you lose your hope for a better future, then what do you have left?

I recon this may be a bit too philosophical for the topic of this thread.

[Takeda Shingen]

I usually counter the disdain from the baby boomer generation by gently reminding them that they were the ones driving the bus for the last 20 years. I then sarcastically tell them that I hope they are enjoying their social security and standard of living.

[Penguin]

LOL!!!
I take that one in good humor. I have to admit those graphs mirror impressions of the American parties from a German POV a bit, even though even the democratic party is more right wing in purely political terms then the CDU/FDP. But I do not think that does America justice, as the societies these two parties operate in are fundamentally different then, for example, Saudi Arabia. The US is not the Bible Belt alone, after all.

Yes, that's why i put a huge smiley under the quote. But as in every satire there is some truth in it. Here is a german blog, by an American who explains many stuff very detailed - but also still has a humorous attitude. http://usaerklaert.wordpress.com/ Especially the stuff about elections & the political system is very interesting, he tries to clear out many misconceptions people have about the USA.

The american party system is not 100% comparible to ours. For example if you take a look who voted for the desegregation in the 60's you'll find ouit that this was supported by a majority of the Republicans, while many Democrats were against it - you may want to look up "Southern Democrats". There we have a connection to the original theme of this thread again ;)


Unfortunately it's not very accurate. For example:

In most states anyone can register as a Republican or Democrat and vote in their primary then turn right around and vote for the opposition candidate in the general election.

As a matter of fact in such states as Massachusetts and Rhode Island I have seen organized attempts to influence primary outcomes by having large numbers of ones own supporters vote in the opponents primary for the weakest, most easily beatable candidate. They're pretty successful too.

Yes, maybe the writer didn't make it clear that the registration is only for the party primaries - but I think he assumes that even us from the Old World know that the general elections are free. ;)

Isn't it that in the majority of states you are only allowed to vote in the party elections when you are registered for them? So RI and MA would be an exception.

But this raises another question about the states where you have to be registered: Do the parties check if you are already registered for another party? If not, you would have the same chance to influence the primaries like in your examples.


slight OT, but it was mentioned before: a gun debate thread would be interesting (haven't seen one since I am here)
<-- pro-gun leftie :up:

[TheDarkWraith]

slight OT, but it was mentioned before: a gun debate thread would be interesting (haven't seen one since I am here)
<-- pro-gun leftie :up:

there's only one thing that needs to be said about guns - if goverment tries to take them away prepare for civil war unlike any you've ever seen :sunny:

[August]

... if you lose your hope for a better future, then what do you have left?

Well to put it simply I just don't buy the theory that we must dismantle our system of government in order to improve our future. In fact to me it sounds like a sure way of threatening that future. The way to improve peoples lives then make the system we have work like it is supposed to work.

[TheDarkWraith]

The way to improve peoples lives then make the system we have work like it is supposed to work.

and that's never going to happen until we remove every senate and house member from capitol hill and replace them with people that aren't in it for money but rather for the people. The Supreme court bench needs an overhaul also.
Supreme court decisions letting corporations be 'people' and yet not held responsible for their actions and unlimited campaign finance contributions from corporations to politicians gets us nowhere better (in fact it just makes things worse).

[August]

Do the parties check if you are already registered for another party? If not, you would have the same chance to influence the primaries like in your examples.

No you have to be registered in Mass and RI too. This tactic is mainly used when the one party has a clear primary front runner and their supporters can have a greater effect on his election by voting for the weakest opposition candidate. It's not illegal, just dirty.

[August]

I usually counter the disdain from the baby boomer generation by gently reminding them that they were the ones driving the bus for the last 20 years.

Actually that just shows that your generation isn't ready to start driving the bus yet if you actually think that only one generation drives at a time. Welcome to the next 20 years when we get to be your elder statesmen! :D

I then sarcastically tell them that I hope they are enjoying their social security and standard of living.

Well you will then excuse me if I indeed enjoy the standard of living that I have worked for and the Social Security that I have paid for ever since the age of 11 (and will continue to work for the next 20 years).

[Takeda Shingen]

Actually that just shows that your generation isn't ready to start driving the bus yet if you actually think that only one generation drives at a time. Welcome to the next 20 years when we get to be your elder statesmen! :D

That's okay. If there is one thing that we've learned from you it is that nursing homes and sedatives do wonders for dealing with the previous generation's elder statesmen. :O:

[August]

That's okay. If there is one thing that we've learned from you it is that nursing homes and sedatives do wonders for dealing with the previous generation's elder statesmen. :O:

:DL

Hey we're all destined for nursing homes and sedatives eventually.

You just better hope that the generation which comes after you doesn't decide to set you all out on an ice flow for screwing up what we used to have! :O: