0. Firstly, I have a weird perspective, so take that into account with my opinions ... I accept I am in many ways American, but I still fundamentally do not understand this country or its people...in large part because I didn't grow up in the US.
Now to the substance...
1. US society is schizoid ... and I think this mental break between what is said and what is done derives from several sources...
1a. The Revolution of the colonies was to make every material aspect (the press, the government, the local ordinances, the laws, the courts) the 'cup' of all of society's political disagreements. It deliberately distorts a given debate and accelerates divisions to reach a swifter conclusion.
1b. From the very beginning, there has been a crucial division between the rhetoric of the Revolution and its new government, and the reality of how people lived. Whether that is found in such conveniently-ignored inconsistencies like slavery, or in the strong anti-federalist efforts such as the Whiskey Rebellion.
1c. There is a habit in the US to orchestrate or otherwise wait for a situation to develop that regardless of political philosophy, the realities of a large continental country with vested interests forces a sole-choice action. I think Kerry's involvement and erstwhile support for efforts in Iraq, plus the Bush Team's arguments that dismay over going into Iraq at this point are all moot - exemplify this.
1d. All these structures promote monolithic/bloc thinking - and whilst one could get away with such laziness as recently as 1990, it is completely obsolete and dangerous to rely on that in today's world, especially by a remainder superpower like the US. Side-stepping the conspiratorial possibilities of this point for now, but ... Americans generally are busy or are kept busy to such a degree that simplified information is what they mostly seek. The market complies in supplying precisely that. Again, I think this is dangerous for a country as powerful as the US is.
1e. I would therefore suggest that simple universal values and an earnest quest for complex applications has to be the mad dance accepted and worked with - this isn't the case. Especially with the Bush Team.
2. For all the rhetoric of the Revolutionary leader whose going to bust things up and make things better ... Americans are actually more conservative than that. Most are doing well enough that there is no desire for radicals. In this regard, Bush is riding a very dangerous line, and is betraying many core Republican principles.
3. re: Kerry - Given that he's been in government all these years, he certainly cannot play the part of 'rebel outsider' - so naturally he is going to offer rhetorical support for the war in Iraq and other policies. I would translate this into a positive, since he is a known Washington commodity who can play with all the other babies in the sandbox.
4. Classic rule for understanding American politics: don't go by what is said, go by what is done - and follow the money trail. Money really does dominate action, whilst fear dominates the rhetoric.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
chiming
Well, speakin' "for my Peeps"...
Date: May 14th, 2004 10:08 am (UTC)From:Now to the substance...
1. US society is schizoid ... and I think this mental break between what is said and what is done derives from several sources...
1a. The Revolution of the colonies was to make every material aspect (the press, the government, the local ordinances, the laws, the courts) the 'cup' of all of society's political disagreements. It deliberately distorts a given debate and accelerates divisions to reach a swifter conclusion.
1b. From the very beginning, there has been a crucial division between the rhetoric of the Revolution and its new government, and the reality of how people lived. Whether that is found in such conveniently-ignored inconsistencies like slavery, or in the strong anti-federalist efforts such as the Whiskey Rebellion.
1c. There is a habit in the US to orchestrate or otherwise wait for a situation to develop that regardless of political philosophy, the realities of a large continental country with vested interests forces a sole-choice action. I think Kerry's involvement and erstwhile support for efforts in Iraq, plus the Bush Team's arguments that dismay over going into Iraq at this point are all moot - exemplify this.
1d. All these structures promote monolithic/bloc thinking - and whilst one could get away with such laziness as recently as 1990, it is completely obsolete and dangerous to rely on that in today's world, especially by a remainder superpower like the US. Side-stepping the conspiratorial possibilities of this point for now, but ... Americans generally are busy or are kept busy to such a degree that simplified information is what they mostly seek. The market complies in supplying precisely that. Again, I think this is dangerous for a country as powerful as the US is.
1e. I would therefore suggest that simple universal values and an earnest quest for complex applications has to be the mad dance accepted and worked with - this isn't the case. Especially with the Bush Team.
2. For all the rhetoric of the Revolutionary leader whose going to bust things up and make things better ... Americans are actually more conservative than that. Most are doing well enough that there is no desire for radicals. In this regard, Bush is riding a very dangerous line, and is betraying many core Republican principles.
3. re: Kerry - Given that he's been in government all these years, he certainly cannot play the part of 'rebel outsider' - so naturally he is going to offer rhetorical support for the war in Iraq and other policies. I would translate this into a positive, since he is a known Washington commodity who can play with all the other babies in the sandbox.
4. Classic rule for understanding American politics: don't go by what is said, go by what is done - and follow the money trail. Money really does dominate action, whilst fear dominates the rhetoric.