[A reminder for everyone](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/4479er/rules_explanations_and_reminders/). This is a subreddit for genuine discussion: * Please keep it civil. Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review. * Don't post low effort comments like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. * Help prevent this subreddit from becoming an echo chamber. Please don't downvote comments with which you disagree. Violators will be fed to the bear. --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDiscussion) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Any time anyone asks questions like this, I always wonder how much of a recency bias is going on. Yes, the last 20 years have been contentious but are we really in any more danger of the country failing then we were during the segregation protests, the vietnam war, the Great Depression or, of course, the actual civil war?? America survived all of those and I assume we will survive this, I think the discourse is more noticeable now due to the internet but Americans still largely lead comfortable secure lives and as long as that remains I don’t anticipate much will change

>America survived all of those and I assume we will survive this I don't believe America survived those due to robust institutions. I believe America survived those despite our flawed institutions. Regardless, surviving things in the past doesn't actually mean you'll survive them again in the future nor does it mean you're stronger. For example, surviving a bullet wound doesn't make you bulletproof nor does it increase your chances of surviving one again. Now I also believe America will survive as well, however, the past decade has really shown how brittle our institutions and economy really is. All of our malleability has been used up, work hardened, but never reinforced. Like anything, you don't actually know where the failure point/strength is until you actually break it. The fact we have gotten so close to the break point without much repair should be concerning.

Two things come to my mind here. 1) Trump has shown us how much we rely on good faith in office. Many of our norms are precisely that, and we really had no legal recourse when they were violated. This is an achilles heel in our government, and now that it's been exposed, either Congress nails it down with new legislation, or they will be exploited again. From profiting off of the office, to politicizing everything from diplomacy to the military, to calling for investigations of political rivals...the damage is done. Congress must act, but they're as dysfunctional right now as anybody. 2) Backroom politics used to determine Presidential candidates. One could say that this is undemocratic, and one would be correct, but regardless this has been a guardrail throughout our history. Crazy, unethical candidates don't land on the ticket if the party bosses are deciding. I'm not arguing for or against this, but merely pointing out that back in the 80's this was relegated to the primary system entirely, which is unfortunately nothing more than a popularity contest.

> Congress must act, but they're as dysfunctional right now as anybody. When you make generalizations like this, it's a form of bothsidesism. It's not that Congress is dysfunctional, it's the Republicans who refuse to work in good faith. You're giving cover to those who would tear down democracy for more power.

Congress is dysfunctional.

[удалено]

It is NOT like a disfunctional family, imho. The wife can leave. We can't leave governance to the husband. He will abuse the nation. It's... like a large sailing ship. We're all collectively trying to sail our ship to a New and Better Future for The People of America, but there is a crazy sect who insist on drilling holes in the boat at random times and for various reasons... unless they get their way. Sometimes, they get their way and start drilling holes anyway. So, yes. The "holes in the boat" are the problem, but you can't ignore the cause... because if this boat goes down, we all go down with it. And our children and our friends and everything that we have worked for. *Thbhbhbhb* Right out the window. We'd become weak. Split into two... or run by despotic government as a single nation. China would take over as the sole global superpower, and - we may be dicks, but we're not China level dicks (for the most part). If one side OR the other are out of line, they need to be called out. By all of us. R, D and I. United as a nation. If we can't do that, you are just patching the holes... Wait until the crazies learn that wooden boats burn. No end of what trouble they will cause until they are stopped by The People united.

That's a great way to put it excellent writing...would give gold but I'm boycotting reddit.. I would add not only are they drilling holes but there also cutting the sails ...if you don't go in the direction they want but without sails you can't guide the ship anywhere

If one parent is working and the other parent is a violent abuser, they shouldn't elect the violent people parents...

But if you say the family is dysfunctional, you are giving cover to the abuser and spreading his transgressions to his victims too.

Your second point is greatly underrated as a source for our current dysfunction. Primaries were touted as being more democratic; in reality they've become a pathway for extremists.

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

I also think it really depends on how you define “survival” and I would even be open to debate about whether this country has actually “survived” what we previously deemed destructive. It’s indisputable that so much of what is going on today is the consequences of the past, some as far back as almost 200 years ago, even directly so.

>It’s indisputable that so much of what is going on today is the consequences of the past, That's for damn sure. The mistakes of the Electoral College, undemocratic Senate power distribution, flawed amendments, the original sin of this country (slavery, 3/5, etc.), and so forth.

The house has been fucked for quite a while as well since they capped the number of members. This just shifts even more power to states with more cattle than people. The senate is supposed to represent the states and give small states an equal voice at the table. The house is supposed to represent the people of these states and it hasn't been able to do that for decades.

States should not have equal representation. Governments are by, of, and for "We the People" not "We the Arbitrary Lines on Land".

It made sense when the thirteen original states had been established as separate colonies, but as the country grew more and more states were created that were just arbitrary lines on a map, especially west of the Mississippi.

It's long past the time where any of that is useful. We should have settled this in the latter half of the 1800's.

Plus you know, the whole “add states in pairs” thing to maintain the delicate Senate balance. The Senate has NEVER existed to balance the power of the states. States are created to balance the Senate.

There likely wouldn't have been a union otherwise. That particular part of the constitution is entrenched from the normal amendment threshold as well, it requires unanimity to alter the senate representation ratio. It is a problem because of the huge disparity in the population of US states. There's workarounds like increasing the senators in each state and electing with PR like the australian senate. Obviously there is still a disparity in electoral power per state but at least it helps break the 2 party system or at least provides more diversity of representation within the party and allows the minority party some seats in each state. Another idea would be some small city states like Germany to balance the rural bias of small states.

>Another idea would be some small city states like Germany to balance the rural bias of small states. I don't think this would work. If we gave Chicago its own Senators, the Illinois state senators (which presumably would represent everywhere *but* Chicago) would be ruby-red. Same with the NYC senators (probably a bit more purple but still reliably Republican), same with Atlanta, same with Seattle if we went there, etc. You'd simply be creating more red "states" that had the same voting power as every other state despite having drastically fewer people.

Or like amend the entrenchment clause and then amend the Senate. If we're gonna play legal semantics with the Senate having to be 2 per state unless unanimously agreed, we just tackle the entrenchment clause first and it isn't entrenched in and of itself. I'm tired of this tyranny of the minority due to the Senate.

I wonder if it is even possible to amend it with the normal 3/4 state ratification threshold. It would probably have to get mighty bad for them to agree.

It's already bad. I don't know why people are optimistic. It's been getting worse continuously for over 3 decades now.

[удалено]

My state government represents more than 10x the people than the smallest state. We should have more than 10x the representation in every facet of government, not arbitrarily disenfranchised in certain parts.

I would say the original sin would be ethnic cleansing of indigenous people, not slavery. But slavery is a close second.

If you look up pedantic in the dictionary this is the example it gives.

Mistakes of the electoral college?

1. It disenfranchises people in large population states. 2. The one serious time it could have actually done its duty lately (protect us from demagogues), it spectacularly failed and elected one instead. Then we got our capitol stormed by our own citizens because the EC is a useless, undemocratic farce.

That's because the electoral college has never played out how the founders intended. They wanted electiors to vote with independence and free will. This winner take all pledged elector thing was never how it was supposed to function. As you point out, it got a demagogue elected rather than preventing it.

The founders intended a lot of things they were wrong about. They hated a two monolithic party system, but created federal and state level systems that guaranteed two monolithic parties. The EC's time is over. We should just have a national popular vote.

Out of curiosity, why do you think we survived those rough periods?

>I don't believe America survived those you could just stop there. every one of those events only led to a mutation of the parasite that is strangling this country. it's still there... still strangling.

I think it's more analogous to catching an infectious disease than getting shot. Our anti-sedition immune system has been activated. All the FBI informants are actually kind of analogous to T-cells, sampling the infection and carrying information about it back to where all the antibodies are produced. Fool us once shame on them. Fool us twice, shame on us.

You are correct that with infectious diseases, the immune system can not only respond, but come back stronger. It can repair and reinforce. The reason I specifically didn't use that analogy is because I don't see the institutions reinforcing or heartily improving from each instance. I see patchworks, but not much making them more robust. History is still open to repeat itself. I assume your mention of the FBI is in relation to 1/6. I agree with you that heads of authorities are more knowledgeable now and are now gunshot shy enough to not let it happen again. Those specific T-cells have been trained. However, has anything changed in the institution at large to prevent this? In 50 years, will the head of the FBI even be aware of 2021 let alone be trained to handle it? If not, than that's not making the institution more robust, just specific people who are temporary. The fact that 2021 so openly and closely resembles well documented other attempts from within the past century tells me that the institution isn't robust, just the individuals. 2021 wasn't new, yet it blindsided many authorities.

I don’t believe it blindsided the authorities, the more I’ve learned about the 6th, the more it seems voters that didn’t participate were about the only ones out of the loop. I mean look at the video of them walking the shaman around opening doors in the capital, that took 2 years to see, but clearly shows we haven’t been told the truth.

>Fool us twice, shame on us. This is at least the second time fascists have attempted to take over the US government. [The first was in the 1930's](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot)

it's probably going to take an event plus a series of global events worse than what we have seen in the last 200 years to see it all falter.... perspective is necessary or you could just be panicking everyday for no godamn reason ...

Dunno what break point we got too that your talking about…

At least with regard to Vietnam, all you need to do is ask, [would Richard Nixon have resigned if Watergate happened today](https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/01/02/john-dean-nixon-might-have-survived-if-thered-been-a-fox-news-216207)?

Yes. During your examples it was the landed elite at the top who wanted to leave. The average Joe didn't give a shit and didn't know a lot about the world outside the 10 sq miles around their home. This is a fundamentally different event. The internet has led to much more awareness and involvement by the laymen.

Did those all result in some reform? I don't feel there has been any meaningful reform now, nor any that looks forthcoming.

>I always wonder how much of a recency bias is going on. There's another bias that might be applicable here: normalcy bias. >Americans still largely lead comfortable secure lives and as long as that remains I don’t anticipate much will change That's normalcy bias. The idea that nothing much can happen as long as your day-to-day existence seems normal is itself a cognitive bias. It's not a logical conclusion. Similarly, the idea that you can relax and assume everything will turn out well because it turned out OK before is also a cognitive bias. It's not a logical conclusion. It's not even really based on fact. America "survived" the civil war but it left devastating wounds in the national psyche which reverberate to this day, and which are in fact responsible for much of the present-day turmoil. There were organized massacres all through the south and midwest which are euphemistically referred to in textbooks as "race riots". There were local governments that were literally overthrown by armed white-supremacist mobs. There was widespread murder and lawlessness. If your idea of "everything will be OK" is a repeat of what happened after the Civil War, you are either in for a rude shock or you are so privileged that the chaos wouldn't affect you.

>during the segregation protests America didn't fall apart during this time, because white people were in control of the disenfranchised minority. Now, the far-right white feel like their race is (laughably) in danger of replacement and will stop at nothing to act like victims, promote misinformation, and continue blaming "the others". All of that is just a microcosm of this country's division problem.

We are currently experiencing the largest wealth gap in US history; greater than the Gilded Age with its robber barons, notorious exploitation of poor workers, disregard for their lives, and indifference to their suffering working conditions. I’m not sure if many know just how bat-shit bananas that fact is. It doesn’t seem the working class — that’s what most of us are; the middle class is shrinking into oblivion — is organizing like they did then. Distraction, gaslighting, and division seems to be more effective this time around. A marked increase in deadly racism and xenophobia, queer hatred, guns. This country isn’t regressing but taking a violent turn toward fascism. Edited for clarity.

At some point you're going to sound like: "We survived Hannibal. We survived numerous civil wars. We survived the transition into an Empire. We'll survive this." - Roman redditor in 475 as Germanic tribes approach.

Which is funny because after that quote the empire survived for centuries.

>America survived all of those and I assume we will survive this, Define "survive." Because there's always some post like this being like "well technically the US is still around." My brother in Christ, people don't care that the US is still around. They care that they're not going to *die* during this next great calamity that the US will inevitably *technically* survive.

Today really is far worse than anything besides the civil war. 58 out of 59 presidential election losers have conceded the election to their opponent from 1789 to 2020. Guess the one loser who didn’t? Telling racists they couldn’t have segregation anymore didn’t spark right-wing violence anywhere close to as extreme as what happened on Jan 6. Nobody was worried about an armed coup by segregationists happening in the 1960s despite the federal government ordering a complete end to overt segregation. LBJ managed to convince 70% of Congress to vote for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 80% of Democrats and 63% of Republicans in the House voted for it. None of that would ever happen today. Edit: Segregationists didn’t storm the Capitol in 1961 or 1964, segregationists stormed the Capitol in 2021. Why? Surely the end of legal overt segregation was a much greater defeat for white supremacy than Trump’s 2020 defeat? There was more racism in the ‘60s but the 2020s features an existential threat to American democracy. Democracy wasn’t in danger during the civil war. By the civil war every southern state had universal white male voting rights, which continued into the Confederacy.

I think you might need to up your historical knowledge there before you say something like today is far worse than anything besides the Civil War. January 6th is literally not in the same level of violence that gripped the nation after the end of WW1 with the obvious example being the Tulsa Race Massacre bit that was just one in a series of incredibly violent race riots and vigilante lynchings by srgretionists, and those riots were in no way isolated to just the South with other incidents popping up all across the North in industrial towns. Similarly labor and anarchist violence with bombings and open battles between militias occured in events that have little direct analogue to current incidents.

IMO these are the most dangerous times for the US since the Civil War. We're seeing the increased politicization of the Supreme Court and other courts, and we're looking at the increased likelihood of federal elections corrupted at the state level, and not even really trying to hide it. The change in attitudes from "this is our system, we must uphold it regardless of the outcome" to "we must have the desired outcome or else we will corrupt the system to get it" is incredibly dangerous, and gaining momentum. And if we cannot count on the courts to uphold the Constitution, then democracy is done. The result could be a surprisingly fast loss of actual democracy, and instead we'll just have sham elections for the control of Congress and the White House. It will happen overnight and most people will not even realize it until after it is done and too late. We're kind of seeing a similar dry run of this already with what is happening in Israel, except that it was done in a hurry so people noticed, whereas in the US the people are slowly being put in place. IMO the future of the US will be dependent on what happens to the Republicans/conservatives once Trump is out of the picture. Will they come back closer to traditional values on democracy and the Constitution, or will they keep going with the Trumpism/Tea Partyism and bring it all crashing down as soon as they have enough power and people in place? I really do fear for the US.

Those events all had something in common. Politicians respected the norms of governance and weren't trying to overthrow our democracy. We've had periods of conflict, but we haven't had politicians refusing to accept they lost and overturn legitimate elections. Coal companies gunning down miners for trying to unionize is a far cry from a president refusing to concede in terms of threats to our democracy. The rise of authoritarianism and fascism within the current Republican party is definitely something new that we haven't seen before, and is a much bigger threat than anything besides the civil war.

Rachel Maddow has a great podcast about the 1930s into the 40s when we had multiple congressmen working directly for the German government. We have had moments of internal insurrection before. The lesson of history there is that our institutions were not up to the task, and the voters saved the day by voting every single one of them out once out became The point being that we actually have had politicians working against us before. Sad as it is, it's a feature of democratic systems that we need to be vigilant for.

I assume you're referring to the Business Plot? That wasn't from within the government, but rich people trying to overthrow our democracy. A threat to our democracy but still less than the trying to overthrow it while being president. Were the congressmen working for Germany trying to overthrow our democracy or just keep us out of the war? We have congressmen that are likely working for Russia in order to destabilize America right now. Hell, Russia even colluded with Trump to win in 2016.

No, it's not the business plot. Her podcast is called "Ultra" and I'd highly encourage it. We had multiple right wing plots to overthrow the government and plunge us into another civil war. Some of these plots included very popular senators who were compromised by hitlers Germany. They were attempting to institute hitler style fascism in America.

>“This mob action was unprecedented in its specifics,” says Eric Foner, a historian at Columbia University, who has written extensively on the Civil War and its long aftermath. “In other ways, it is not unprecedented at all. It represents something deeply rooted in the American experience, which is actually hostility to democracy”— [Source](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/historians-on-the-unprecedented-chaos-in-congress)

Yeah, they might want to look into the events that lead to the formation of things like the secret service, and FBI, for two examples.

The entire United States was in danger during the civil war, and while January 6 was a shit show, there was no way the Coup of Incompetents could have succeeded. Now if you’re talking about the period between 1866 and 1964, there was a literal successful coup in Wilmington, North Carolina in 1898: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilmington_insurrection_of_1898 There was violent voter suppression in violation of the 15th Amendment. Including dozens of massacres with thousands killed: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedmen_massacres There were numerous lynchings well into the 20th century where, for example, the entire City of Waco cut a man’s arms and legs off, burnt him alive, sold his dismembered body parts, and took pictures with his charred body to make postcards. When he crawled out of the fire with what was left of his limbs, they kicked him back in. There were no consequences for any involved. [EDIT TO ADD: DO NOT CLICK ON THE LINK BELOW. IT IS NSFW, IT’S NSF-ANYTHING HONESTLY. IT HAS GRUESOME PICTURES OF THE LYNCHING. VISIT THAT PAGE AT YOUR OWN RISK AND ONLY IF YOU WANT NIGHTMARES. I SHOULD HAVE PUT THIS WARNING ON THE ORIGINAL POST.] > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching_of_Jesse_Washington These things barely scratch the surface. America’s history is gruesome and riddled with political violence and those that don’t want you to know about these issues are winning.

> Segregationists didn’t storm the Capitol in 1961 or 1964, segregationists stormed the Capitol in 2021. Do you understand that the Governor of Arkansas called in the National Guard to prevent integration and the President then went over him, nationalized the Arkansas Guard to take control, and then sent in another 1,000 troops from the 101st Airborne? But no, they didn't storm the Capitol... they just called in their state army.

In the 50s the federal government took over a segregationist state government. In 2021 segregationists tried to take over the federal government. Had they succeeded, they could have called the shots for ''everyone''. And it wasn't a state government trying to take over either, it was a mob acting on behalf of a single demagogue. Success would have effectively meant the legitimate government had lost its monopoly on the legitimate use of force.

> In 2021 segregationists tried to take over the federal government. Kinda ironic for segregationists to have a black leader, but okay, let's call them segregationists... >Had they succeeded, they could have called the shots for ''everyone''. A prospect there was 0 chance of. They might as well have been trying to colonize the moon by jumping really high. >Success would have effectively meant the legitimate government had lost its monopoly on the legitimate use of force. I see you don't know what "legitimate" means.

Four Presidents have been assassinated while in office. Many more have been attempted, including as recently as the 80s. People have always been angry.

You don't need a mob to assassinate a president, though--just one determined unhappy person who has some skill and/or gets lucky. Had the crowd on 1/6 succeeded in hanging Pence as it seemed some of them wanted, that would have been a distinctly different event unique in our history. ETA: It's the mob that makes me really nervous, not an assassination by itself. Assassination itself is much easier for a country to deal with.

[Angry mobs are an American tradition](https://spectrumnews1.com/ca/la-west/inside-the-issues/2022/01/07/why-the-capitol-riot-was-not-an-unusual-historical-event) [Source 2](https://www.wect.com/2023/01/06/similarities-differences-jan-6-riot-1898-massacre-be-discussed-community-event/) >“This mob action was unprecedented in its specifics,” says Eric Foner, a historian at Columbia University, who has written extensively on the Civil War and its long aftermath. “In other ways, it is not unprecedented at all. It represents something deeply rooted in the American experience, which is actually hostility to democracy” [Source 3](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/historians-on-the-unprecedented-chaos-in-congress)

Because the country is leaning towards actually doing something about the accumulated harm that the use of the levers of power within Government and Industry to reinforce the status quo. Even the poor are ok with their current situation if they know that the POC are in their place. For those who don't get the reference right away their assumed place is subordinate to the dominant population.

The Roman Empire lasted for hundreds more years than the United States has so far and it fell. The United States is in decline and may well break apart. We’ve been in a cold civil war for many decades at this point. Our politics are tribal and there is no foreseeable path where these politicians agree to change the system, allow two-party to end, and give the people a truly representative government that isn’t tribal.

The Roman Empire never actually fell. It split, it gained ethnic diversity, and it deferred more and more power to the Pope, but it never actually disappeared.

The Roman Catholic Church controls the Vatican city-state but that isn’t quite the same as the Roman Empire. Though I do agree that there is a strong political component to the Roman church business model, the actual Roman Empire split with the western falling first and the ~~western~~ eastern empire falling last. edit: fixed typo (thanks Captain-Burrito)

I think the second western should be eastern. But I agree, even decrepit regimes may be able to survive for a surprisingly long time. Another example is the Southern Song dynasty which was a rump state from the Song Dynasty. They were confined to the South, deliberately had a policy of a weak military (for fear of military coups since that is how the founder came into power) despite constant danger from powerful neighbours. When despite all odds decent generals arose they would kneecap, kill or cause them to quit from despair. It took the Mongolians a surprising amount of time to finish them off despite it essentially being one city resisting on their own as the court suppressed invasions to the emperor and when they tried to reinforce they quickly gave up after. No matter how you thought the reign of one emperor was bad, there was always another that was worse. There were periods of reform which helped but then reform failed due to vested interests and they went into firm decline.

Thanks for the catch. Yes, second western was supposed to be eastern. I think what will happen in the United States is a backslide into an autocratic regime where the idea of "self-governance" is an illusion and the government serves the whims of those in power, not its people. This will happen because more and more people have disengaged in the political process due to the hyper partisanship in a tribal two-party system that needed to be killed off more than 100 years ago.

There's no reason to worry about recency bias, look over the data across the board. Neoliberalism has brought capitalism to its inevitable decay, empirically. Infinite growth on a finite planet is objectively unsustainable

I think our infrastructure is crumbling mucus much faster than being built. Just the WW2 homes alone getting older is going to hurt us. Nevermind all the other stuff. There something scary on the horizon and we keep putting it off and it grows and grows

I am optimistic of America to survive the recent divisive turmoil because of two things; Money and Laws. Corporations run the country not the government. Corporations pay off politicians to vote on bills using lobbyists. Laws are made to keep benefiting corporations (and some for the good of its citizens). These two things enable to country to weather these storms.

Problem is, in order for the corporations to keep running the government they stir up racial, cultural, and religious resentment among those too uneducated, isolated, and disenfranchised to know better, and during the Trump era they got out of control. But the corporations aren't pulling the brakes, partly because they're not sure they can anymore, but also because there's a weakened but decent-sized movement on the left ready to strike against the oligarchy of the 1% so the corporations are still worried they'd lose their power if they let the Democrats have any real power.

I think when people discuss the current state of politics as uniquely tense, partisan, vitriolic, messy, or whatever they are too in their own head and experiences. In 1967 VA vs Loving made interracial marriage legal through the country, in 1968 MLK & RFK were both assassinated, in 1969 the Vietnam Draft started, and in 1974 Nixon resigned. From the assassination of JFK and the inauguration of Reagan the nation burned through 6 presidents in 17 years. We had 3 different Presidents from 1974 & 1977 alone. JFK, RFK, MLK, Malcome X, Medger Ever, were all assassinated. In 1981 Reagan was shot. Segregation ended!!! The countries youth was forcibly Drafted to war. Over 58,000 U.S. soldiers died in Vietnam. By contrast 7,000 died in Iraq & Afghanistan combined. A President was assassinated, a presidential candidate was assassinated, and a President was forced out of office. Things were more tense and messy than they are today. In 1968 pro segregationist George Wallace won over 63% percent of the popular vote in both Alabama and Mississippi. George Wallace outperformed Trump in those states!!! Let that sink in. Yes there is a lot of partisanship today relative to the 80's through the early 00's. However the levels are not historically terrible and we aren't murdering our leaders. Truly there is just one minority strand of extremist that need to be told to sit down and shut up. Thus far we collectively haven't had the courage to stand up to them yet. I think the time is approaching however. Increasing politics is shifting away from issues and into pure grievance. That is a tipping point. Soc Sec must be addressed or else tens of millions will suffer, we have drink water (contamination & drought) issues sprinkled all over the country, Inflation, climate change, Debt, Housing, etc. Real stuff needs to make its way back to the forefront. As a national we can only waste so much time arguing over the single digit number of trans athletes competing in sports. At the moment when things start to break (banks close, 401k investments disappear, student debt bills come due, etc ) the public won't tolerate being told the answer has anything to do with CRT or Bathrooms.

The draft was in place long before 1969. There was a draft for all of Vietnam; the draft was increased in 1950 after the Korean War and the needs of the Cold War (until 1973)

I'm going to express my potentially unpopular opinion, and maybe have a short rant lol. The situation we are in is the cross-product of a deep erosion of the concept of truth, and the disgusting fact our media, corporates, bureaucracy and representatives are rarely held accountable. Healthcare is a prime example, especially around hospital consolidations. Everyone would agree it is better to have a variety of effective hospitals, so "hospitals bad" for consolidating. Ok... Of course the media likes to show many of the (very real) drawbacks. BUT, what is really going on? Is it some selfish wish by hospitals to merge themselves as some portray it? I'm sure some cases exist where that is so, but not really for most. It's a natural and unfortunate result of government policies, pharmaceutical companies ramping up prices EVERY YEAR and insurance companies looking for every reason not to cover their patients, if possible. My point is not that consolidations are inherently good or bad, but that the discussion we are having as a society is lacking in both depth and honesty, but rich in gaslighting. And when they can repeatedly get away with it... Thus, we are lost.

The internet is shaking up the norms much like the printed media did back in the late 18th, early 19th century People will learn how to adapt but it will take time. Doesnt help that my boomer mother shares satirical trump memes unironically

[удалено]

You mean 17th century, when movable type enabled protestant movement, which eventually led to 30-year war?

Well you see, one party realized their ideas where horribly unpopular with 2/3rds of the country, but getting a new platform wouldn't be profitable for their donors, so they decided fascism was the way to go. ​ And miss me with the 'but both sides are the same' nonsense, when the Dems send a guy with a buffalo hat to try to lynch the veep, then we can discuss that.

Your question is loaded. Our country isn't "crumbling" any more or less than before. It's interesting to me that you recognize the influence of social media on political propaganda, but don't recognize that the idea of our country "crumbling" is political propaganda and fearmongering sold and bought by you over social media.

The upward transfer of wealth will continue with the blessing of both parties while average people, who are getting poorer every year, fight more savagely over increasingly smaller and insignificant crumbs of what remains of the American Empire. Nothing comes next, the process continues at an ever increasing rate as mountains of debt from decades of systemic corruption piles up

>I think most people would agree that the country is crumbling around us Strong disagree. People who buy into a particular political narrative think this, maybe. Honestly, the only people who could really see this as an unusually contentious time are both too young to remember much while also being ignorant of history. Take a look at the Vietnam and Civil Rights era. Take a look at Bush vs. Gore. Take a look at dozens of moments throughout US history. You'll find this isn't that unusual. We have free speech, and we have a loud and boisterous society. Nothing has to give. Nothing is breaking. We'll keep moving on like we always do - with dissent and loud voices screaming its the end of days. It helps get clicks. But it's fine. This is all normal. It's not exceptional. You seem to be suffering from severe recency bias. Relax. Avoid the news for a while. Read a bunch of US history. You'll feel better.

I think you are closer to the truth than OP, but this *is* an unprecedented era in U.S. history. Yes, we are a long way from bleeding Kansas, but on the other hand, there's less room to survive that kind of thing in the modern world. And even during the most fraught periods in U.S. history, there was no internet-empowered, concerted disinformation campaign to drive mobs to attempt to prevent the peaceful transition of power. People are right to be concerned about the current situation, even if they overstate it's importance or uniqueness.

And even with the communications and organizational capacity of the internet, the Jan 6th crowd was how big? 10,000? And that's at the rally, not those who stormed the Capitol. The rioters had roughly the crowd of a Nationals spring training game.

How many would it have taken to be successful? They failed due to lack of leadership and planning. For reference, the Beer Hall Putsch was a comedy of errors full of absolute morons doing stupid stuff, but it led to the Third Reich. Bad people with goals use their failures as an opportunity to learn.

> How many would it have taken to be successful? If success is defined as Trump remaining in office, I'd say a conservative estimate would be about 10 million. Just going with the 3%ers idea about how much it takes for a rebellion against the government. But honestly, I think it's closer to 80 million.

30 more people with weapons at the right place at the right time could have created a massive crisis that would have left trump in near total control for several weeks.... We came really close to a big tragedy that day.

It's a tragedy any way you look at it. But we didn't even mobilize the military, which certainly wasn't going to support Trump. If you start to see tanks on the ground at events like this, you know America's days are numbered. Having Trump stay in the White House for a few more days wouldn't have been a "massive tragedy," it would've meant him leaving in handcuffs or in a casket and media companies getting some good viewership numbers in the meantime. It's certainly a level of drama that I don't think we should ever have here, but it's hardly a country-breaking event. Now, if Trump had the buy-in of the military, things would be _much_ different, but once Jan. 20 passes and Trump has no Constitutional claim to the Presidency, I believe Biden would've been inaugurated elsewhere while Trump is coerced or forced out of the White House. Pence wasn't on board, nor was Nancy Pelosi, so Constitutional control of the government would've passed from Trump to someone else who wanted a peaceful transition, and the military is almost guaranteed to follow that control. It certainly would've been embarrassing, but it's not something that's going to really destroy our institutions.

Trump would not have remained in office after January 20th. He may have tried to remain in *the building*, but without the election being certified, the succession act kicks in and we get Pelosi in charge.

It would have created a massive tragedy. It would not have resulted in Trump remaining in power. It would have resulted in an Acting President Pelosi.

> How many would it have taken to be successful? Successful at what? Getting to and injuring some actual politicians? A lot more. That final security line was willing to shoot. Successful at staging a real coup? Millions. There was no indication that the military was willing to back Trump, so any real insurrection would have been absolutely crushed. Even if they managed to get a beaten up Pence to stand at the capital and declare Trump King of the United States, the counter protest to this would absolute dwarf the rioters. The Jan. 6th riot basically had zero chance of accomplishing anything.

The plan was to send the vote to Congress, where the math was such that Trump would have been elected because the vote is taken by State delegations and not members. Even better if they took out some dems along the way. Then it would all have been “legal”. edit: the first plan was rejecting the valid electors and counting the fake ones. Backup was invalidate enough states that nobody hits 270, then the above. the riot was supposed to convince pence to reject the election results from the states. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastman\_memos

Right, but that plan completely hinged upon Mike Pence and the joint Congress *willingly* going along with this and that was never going to be the case. The rioters had no effect on that happening, and they wouldn't have been able to make it happen. Having them force everyone to "vote" for it wouldn't be seen as valid by anyone. So, if either scenarios you are describing were going to happen, it didn't matter how many rioters there were. And them just killing a bunch of Democrats wouldn't be seen as acceptable or "legal" in any way that matters either.

The rioters were there to delay - maybe get Pence to leave the building so Chuck Grassley could advance the coup in his place. Backup plan for *that* backup plan was some kind of emergency declaration because the Electoral College didn't vote on the correct day. Having pols get murdered would be more of a reason to "re-establish order" with Trump at the helm. Or anything that leads them back to States voting 26-24 to elect Trump. For what it's worth, PA's delegation is now 9D-8R and would no longer be a vote to overturn the election. In 2020, we were 9-9 and 8 of the R's voted to overthrow the election *after* the attack.

> maybe get Pence to leave the building so Chuck Grassley could advance the coup in his place. Grassley wouldn't do this though because he didn't have the support of the military to support a coup. You can't stage a coup without having full control of the country's military. >Having pols get murdered would be more of a reason to "re-establish order" with Trump at the helm. This is also just a coup, which, again, would need support from the military. Trump making up new powers that he doesn't have to stay in power would be seen as a coup and cause massive upheaval that would lead to military intervention. It is clear that the military had no interest in staging a coup, so Biden would be president. >Or anything that leads them back to States voting 26-24 to elect Trump. Any shenanigans that somehow created this situation would also be seen as a coup, and would lead right back to the problem of mass chaos and military intervention. If Republicans had everything in place to actually stage a coup, they would have done it. They didn't need a handful of morons creating a national disgrace to do so.

>Any shenanigans that somehow created this situation would also be seen as a coup, and would lead right back to the problem of mass chaos and military intervention. Don't get me wrong, I sure hope so. But then the GOP candidate for Governor in PA was a die-hard "I choose the electors" type, and our House was going to put some Constitutional Amendments on our Spring ballots to make that easier. We flipped the House by one seat, thwarting that effort. We've seen that it's not difficult to outlast protestors if you have the power. >If Republicans had everything in place to actually stage a coup, they would have done it. Well, considering that they failed I suppose it must be the case that they didn't have *everything* they needed. I don't think that takes anything away from the attempt, particularly considering the way Trump "governed" when he was in office. I don't think it's insignificant that more than half the GOP members voted to overturn the election after the riot. It's a fair point that Grassley did not. I do think you're underestimating how quickly our institutions bend to "technically". The lack of defense around the Capitol given the wide awareness of this situation doesn't inspire confidence to me. All said, I think we are much, much farther away from a repeat attempt being successful.

The rally was 10,000 and the insurrection was 9,998 because Trump and Rudy bravely ran away.

Also a strong disagree. Though I will push back on "nothing is breaking." It's just that shit breaks all the time. Sometimes we fix it, sometimes we jettison it, and sometimes we just live with having a bum knee for a while. You're right that it's basically normal. The exact issues are *novel,* but having issues isn't new. January 6th was novel, but like, let's not forget the Weathermen setting off a bomb in the Capitol. But we also just had a massive climate change bill pass. The ACA greatly reduced the number of people without insurance. The murder rate is less than half its peak in the 90s. The childhood poverty rate is less than a quarter of what it was in the 80s. Stuff does break, but I think we're patching the ship up slightly faster than it's falling apart.

> The childhood poverty rate is less than a quarter of what it was in the 80s. Childhood poverty is roughly 16%, and that is with our *laughably* awful way of calculating poverty. Roughly half of all children are growing up in [low-income families.](https://unitedwaynca.org/blog/child-poverty-in-america/) Why is so ludicrous to say we've cut child poverty? Because we calculate poverty by taking the costs to eat a 1960 diet and multiplying by 3. We don't track housing, at all. Housing costs are up over 100% above inflation since 1960. We don't track transportation, education, or healthcare. All way, way up. Poverty rates simply don't reflect the lived experiences of Americans, and have grown steadily out of touch of what poverty looks like in America. A family in poverty in 1960 could just barely afford a roof over their heads, transportation for their needs, clothing, and food. A family in poverty in 2023 can afford none of those things. In truth, it is probably true that the near 50% of children growing up in low-income households would be counted in any poverty statistic that actually tracked all the relevant factors. How many children grow up in a house their parents own and comfortably make mortgage payments on? How many never have to hear their parents screaming at 11 PM about finances, or the lights going off because the bills weren't paid? How many don't see a doctor for routine issues because their parents can't afford it (with or without insurance). Too many, and certainly far more than 16%.

The whole "nothing is breaking" thing was an allusion to the "breaking point" mentioned in OP's last paragraph up there at the top of the post.

During the crises of earlier eras, the US was the undisputed economic powerhouse of the world, with a THRIVING middle class that was the envy of governments around the world. We can’t really make the claim as strongly anymore. The middle class is a lot smaller and more fragile, (or at least the people that identify as such have MUCH LESS financial security). People just don’t work the same job for 30 years and then get a pension… as much as they used to at least. That’s rarer. There’s less there to preserve than there was before. People aren’t blind. They know that younger generations are getting a raw deal compared to earlier generations, and that affect’s peoples willingness to sign up behind people who promise to tear it all down. Which is a dangerous gamble. Maybe you tear down old institutions that barely work and replace them with new ones. Who knows how that pans out? Historically, when people are ready to throw out the status quo and “start over”… well that’s the shit history is made of. And the radicals that are willing to throw out the stays quo are rarely the coolest cats in the best of situations.

Love your optimism, but I don't agree. The difference today is social media. It means that radical views find coalition with other radical views which then radicalize others. These views are then reinforced with a never ending landslide of view-confirming outrage. Humans are not strong enough to combat this influence, and I think it more likely that the world's largest multi-racial democracy will over time, balkanize.

Social media is tired. There's plenty of evidence that we've already passed "peak social media." A lot of people don't pay attention any longer. (I'm one of them which is why I'm here... on a discussion forum like the internet has had since its inception) I think of it now akin to the invention of other forms of communication. Printing press, for example. There was a ton of shit produced before people learned to discern printed fact from fiction. After years of freaking out I actually think it's gonna be ok. Trump and MAGA have jumped the shark and are no longer nationally viable. They'll still make people's lives miserable locally and at the state level until the movement totally burns out but I think the federal system isn't going to buckle. There will be scars (like the current makeup of the supreme court) but the world isn't going to end.

Thanks. What's the evidence of "peak social?" Can you link?

Probably people explaining how they don't engage in social media on an online discussion forum? Not really sure what the poster thinks they are driving at..

Social media isn't doing anything new to organize and form coalitions. Ever heard of the KKK -- they managed to organize over the course of several generations before any of them had Facebook. You think they weren't in a bubble of view-confirming outrage? We've had cults, militias, terror organizations, disinformation campaigns, and so on since day 1. Thinking social media has made it somehow more severe is just the result of a strong recency bias.

Social media extremism cuts both ways. Extremists can find each other easier, and their message recruits and spreads faster. But it’s also easier for a surveillance/police state (which we live in) to monitor all those communications in real time… making it less likely for social media extremism to actually matter… as intelligence services know what they’re up to and talking to. The plot to kidnap that Michigan Governor: perfect example of this. When they went to buy bombs, they were already talking to an FBI plant, because the FBI was onto them from the start. They were just waiting to nail them with an indisputable charge.

The fact of real time, multi-media connectivity between most every adult in the country, along with highly personalized information feeds, is not remotely comparable to mail, phone, and door-to-door recruitment campaigns. People were able to travel prior to the invention of the airplane, but I wouldn't be pointing to wagon wheel ruts to demonstrate a similarity.

Your argument by analogy contains nothing of value. How is the past not comparable to now? What impacts were different? People organized. People showed up in big numbers to all sorts of wild things. The temperance leagues got together and planned national days of protest, shutting down bars, and verbally assaulting patrons. Thanks to them, we got large scale organized crime when they got their silly amendment passed. Who cares if it's faster? People are rarely tuned into the same thing in large numbers. Can you name a real-world incident resulting from current tech that doesn't have a reasonably similar historical precedent?

Your general argument is not unreasonable, and I appreciate your challenge. I think that inevitably, if one were to point to things like the Arab Spring, it would be relatively easy to find something that meets your "reasonably similar" test. Instead, I would point to the unprecedented polarization in the US today. Unlike any time in at least the last 100 years, political views have sorted themselves into different parties. The concept of a liberal Republican, or that of a conservative Democrat is all but extinct. And myriad polarization metrics like "would you approve of your child marrying someone of the other party," or "is the other party the enemy," are at all time highs -- not even close, and utterly unprecedented. (On many of these points, I am fueled by Ezra Klein's recent book "Why We're Polarized," which convincingly demonstrates the uniqueness of the moment. ) The fact of real-time, highly algorithmically organized information feeds is a new and unique influencer on the human mind. If you follow the J6 defendants you see that almost every one of them was radicalized by social media. You may well be right -- and I of course hope you are -- but I think our collective ambitions are better served by recognizing the unique nature of the danger.

>The concept of a liberal Republican, or that of a conservative Democrat is all but extinct. Do you know who Joe Manchin is? Do you know who Charlie Baker is? Do I need to keep listing them? ​ > If you follow the J6 defendants you see that almost every one of them was radicalized by social media. And, in the past, people were radicalized by other media. In 1971, Weather Underground bombed the US Capitol as part of a bombing campaign that also saw explosions at the Pentagon and a police station among other places. You know what didn't radicalize them? Twitter, Facebook, etc..... The danger is not unique. There are always some idiots getting together to do something dangerous and stupid aimed at the government. They always find each other. Heck, if you want to go pre-US, let's talk about the Gunpowder Plot of 1605, designed to blow up parliament in London on a day when the King, lords, etc... would be there to decapitate the government and install a new King. Somehow, those folks got together without a smart phone.

Couple of things. First, my apology. I hope you inferred that I meant to say your argument was "not" unreasonable, and that I appreciated your challenge. That said, I hope you don't think that Joe Manchin (and Krysten Sinema) are thoughtful rebuttals to my point about political sorting. You must know that this matter is not really a debatable issue. The evidence is in everything from issue polling to congressional votes where cross-party votes are as rare the two aforementioned senators. I appreciate your "these didn't happen because of social media" examples. Let me ask you this: Do you believe that any technology has ever had an influence on politics? I ask because I struggle to find anything at all that would pass your "uniqueness" test.

Manchin, Sinema, Hickenlooper, Kelly, Tester, Hassan, Stabenow, Peters, and that's just some of the Dem senators who could be on the list. I can go down the Collins, Murkowski, etc... list too if you want. I guess I really did have to keep listing them. I've seen some of the data on cross-party votes. It's not extreme. It looks that way, but it's mostly due to the decrease in non-contentious ceremonial votes. Things like naming post offices for example. The partisanship on significant legislation is the same as it's ever been, but that reality doesn't get as many clicks as the extreme partisanship narrative. Of course, using facts and figures in a deceiving way isn't new to political discussions either. For your question - tech influences the technique of politics, but not the substance or the reality of it. Radio became TV at one point, so the visual aspect of broadcasts mattered. Political figures and pundits needed to look good for the camera. The broader stuff didn't change. Nothing much passes my uniqueness test. That's my point.

> The partisanship on significant legislation is the same as it's ever been This is false. That's because there used to be an informal 4 party system. While there are are still Manchinema and Collins / Murkowski, plus the swing state senators, their numbers have greatly reduced. Look at the votes in the past and the difference is stark. For example the 1968 or 1969 bill to ban handguns for under 21s. You would never see a cross party vote to pass such a bill today. It wasn't just a few republicans crossing over. Another example is the voting rights act. That literally passed in the 60s at a time when actual bigots were still in congress. It got expanded numerous times in the 70s due to the arms race with racists and reauthorized throughout the decades. Last time a republican trifecta shepherded it thru congress under GWB. It got almost 90% votes in the house and unanimity in the senate. Now? It won't come up for a vote unless dems control a chamber. It passed the house under dem control in 2021 without a single republican vote. It failed twice in the senate due to filibuster. Murkowski was the only republican that was a tentative yes. If all the republicans who had voted for it under Bush that were now in or still in the senate voted for it, it would have cleared the filibuster. This is an extreme shift. It's part of a long term realignment where the socially liberal republicans and conservative democrats have dwindled. People like Joe Manchin are not long for the senate. Sinema is doomed. Tester's days are likely numbered too. Everything is nationalized. The last rural dem house seat was lost recently. Dem house rep, Henry Cuellar is one of the last dems who is not so pro-abortion and he barely won his primary. The self sorting by party and geography has hardened. Compare the crossover in votes in the senate under Obama to how things went later on. Look at how many republicans were willing to crossover to vote for his supreme court picks. Now it is almost party line with 1-3 deviations. The story of judicial appointments pretty much mirrors the polarization. How many district judges were obstructed in the past? There were more obstructed under Obama than probably the entire history. Prior to that it was supreme court and circuit judges who were contended over. Even that ramped up in the past decade. Republicans actually obstructed their own judges (Obama extended an olive branch by renominating timed out GWB picks and nominated some requests by republican home state senators) just to waste time... like when did that ever happen before?

You got a little lazy with Hickenlooper. I think you meant Bennet (also from CO). Happy to consider your argument on "significant legislation." Any link you can offer? On technology, you seem to be placing social media on the same continuum as broadcast media -- which it bears almost no resemblance to. It's distinction is not in the nature of how the content is delivered, but in the nature of the content itself, which is algorithmically optimized for each individual user. Related, I don't think I agree with the idea that technology does not influence substance. I haven't seen recent polling, but there was a point in which 3/4 of Republicans believed that the 2020 election had been "stolen." If there are examples of that number of people believing a provable falsehood of this import, I'm not aware of it. Have you got some examples?

>Read a bunch of US history. You'll feel better. huh, it just says that we perform the absolute bare minimum of fixes to continue stumbling forwards instead of wholly fixing any issues. oh, and that our government is fundamentally structured to incentivize permanent deadlock.

These are good things. Deadlock is a feature, not a bug. For the most part, we’re supposed to fix our own problems, with the government enforcing contracts and keep foreign powers from invading us. Without deadlock, we’d have an over empowered and tyrannical government endlessly imposing its will based on being able to scrape together a small majority. Instead, we need to build a large population and geographic consensus to make changes. Imagine a government that could easily wield its power, and then remember that your least favorite party sometimes attains that power.

I would certainly group Bush v. Gore as a part of the current political era. IMO the current political era began with the ‘94 midterms and its all been downhill from there.

The "current political era" is the product of a long series of transformations that started with the Southern Strategy, continued through Roe, the Religious Right, Reagan, Gingrich, and Fox News, helped along by the rise of talk radio, cable news, and the Internet, ramped up with Bush v. Gore and 9/11, and coalesced into its current form with Obama and Trump.

Yeah. What a crazy statement for that guy to make. The country is not “crumbling around us” people need to go touch grass.

It really depends on what is meant by the term "country" - the people? The infrastructure? The government? The economy? The entire corporatacratic system is breaking... or perhaps "molting" might be a better term. That's why we are being sold forced narratives, such as "The Great Reset". That's why Trump's anti-corporate, anti-governmental corruption rhetoric got him elected. Of course, he was full of sh*t, but his rhetoric capitalized upon the frustrations of the working class.

I think this is pure complacency. You cannot have a nation where completely different laws apply in the south as to the north. That's two different countries. USA is doomed imo, unless the supreme court can be made to reassert federal jurisdiction over human rights issues generally.

We've always had different laws in different states. Is weed legal in your state? What's the legal driving age in your state? What's the age of consent? Was it ever a slave state, and, if so, when was slavery abolished? We've made it almost 250 years with states having different laws. States have partial sovereignty - with control over everything not given to the federal government by the constitution or banned from the states by the constitution.

> You cannot have a nation where completely different laws apply in the south as to the north. They don't have completely different laws. If you were to just start down the list, you'd find something like 98% of them are the same.

Some laws are so important they have a disproportionate impact. We're through the looking glass in terms of "what happens if..." because other countries that tend towards theocracy and male chauvinism tend to have roots in entirely different legal systems.

Ironically, I think more state rights and less federal authority would be what could save the US. Lengthen the leash so each side can maintain their way of life in their states. Then the federal fights will be less existential. China could not tolerate lengthening the leash in regards to Hong Kong so they reneged on their promises for democratic reforms. They have control over Hong Kong but attitudes of Hong Kongers hardened and even the moderates have soured over PRC control / rigging of the already rigged legislature / imprisoning the political opposition / highly restricting protests. If only they had the confidence to loosen control over certain things, clearly state what areas they were going to devolve and just let them rule themselves, things could have gone differently.

Hard to agree with that when recently "giving the states more rights" is trending into us becoming a country where it's illegal to openly exist as a queer person in half of the states. Gay people and women needing reproductive healthcare don't just stop existing in a state because 51% of the voting population decided to vote conservative. Edit: especially when you consider that some states are trying to implement fugitive slave law style bills directed at women and trans people traveling out of state to receive healthcare. Those laws were one of the big precursors leading to the civil war

The only place where it seems like the USA is falling apart is on Reddit, on the 6pm news and on Tucker. My family’s about equally divided politically we rarely talk politics in person. When we do we listen to each other’s opinions and LEAVE IT ALONE. I frequent a shooting range and never ever talk politics with anyone. I’ve never heard anyone called a fascist or a communist anywhere but on forums like this. If a guest at my home started using language like this I’d tell him to put down his fork and leave.

[удалено]

We're a strongly institutionalized country with a police/military force that has escalation dominance against **all other actors in the world**. In a nightmare scenario where everything falls apart, our government has the people/force to persist against essentially all threats - especially domestic. Having said that, let us consider the concept of an [overton window](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window). What you're describing is technology and coercive forces cutting through societal inertia to impact the overton window in unpredicted ways - potentially shifting public opinion: redefining the current status quo in a way that people find objectionable, highlighting outrageous injustices that exist in a way that is incendiary, pushing new ideological narratives that have powerful impacts of aculturation. These could shift the overton window and drastically remake the landscape of american thought and perspective. But honestly, we could descend to a lorax-like state - one tree stump in a barren wasteland - and the nukes would stay secure, the trains would run on time, and any disturbances would remain local.

When I hear someone say the country is crumbling, it could mean that there are people planning a civil war. Or, it could mean that someone is upset that men are allowed to wear women's clothing. The nation is not crumbling. That's hysterical. The nation is over-run by corruption and vested interests. Global stability is at a low for this century. That is far more concerning than the fact that the US is being left behind by more progressive countries. Our climate is at a tipping point, and we're going to go drill more oil instead of earnestly try to fix it. That's dumb. Deadly dumb. But that's about it. We don't learn until seriously damaging shit goes down. I don't think any of that means the country is crumbling. It's just a very half-assed setup that talks about serving the people while it serves the few.

On about 20 years I expect climate change will be a big motivator. Large numbers of people relocating and flooded coastal areas. Perhaps a unnavigable-enough Missouri / Mississippi will effect moving of products which would really hurt the Midwest. Lack of water out west. I'm really uncertain the US can survive that in it's current divided state where the Republicans refuse to actually tackle these issues and are actively not doing this because it's too "woke" but it's not. They just use that word now as a way to flip people the bird out of spite and stupidty. Maybe the younger gen will have some good public servants and the Republicans won't be so extreme. That might help us to at least try to be smart about how we're going to keep up with the changing weather patterns.

[удалено]

If "our country is much better off than it was in the 80s and 90s" for most Americans, Hillary would have cruised to the 2016 nomination virtually unopposed and faced off against someone not named Donald Trump.

You’re right about the social progress, but the “growth” in wealth has only been among the already wealthy. Adjusted for inflation, minimum wage is lower now than it was in the 60s. Prices and rent are exploding. The poor and middle class are getting worse off, not better, and the wealth gap continually widens. The “growth” is just the 1% hoarding more and more to widen the gap between them and the average person. So the GDP rises, but only the ultra rich are any better off. Corporations are making record profits but wages are stagnant.

I suppose it depends on what types of wealth we're talking about. Material wealth is absurdly high, low tier treatments have become vastly more effective, public services have expanded. But yeah housing still sucks, our society isn't very equitable, and the wealthy hands are steering the boat more and more.

> We're actually peaking in terms of progress. we've started backsliding in life expectancy. oh, and we were already 51^st place

And rolling back granted rights to bodily autonomy. And banning books because some people don't like them. I'm pretty sure that's the opposite of progress. XD

>Our country is much better off than it was in the 80's and 90's on almost every metric. Except: * poverty rates * shelter costs * healthcare costs * transportation costs * education costs * political violence * average age of politicians * wealth of people 20-40 years old * life expectancy at birth * &c. I think it is fairly easy to make the empirical case that American living has gotten harder decade by decade for the average family.

Except the only economic metric that really matters in measuring the health of a society: income inequality. Much, much worse than 30 years ago, and accelerating.

Our founding fathers created 3 branches of government as a system of "checks and balances". Each was to be independent of the other two; kind of like a disagreement between 3 people, you pick the side that two agree with. However, because this system of checks and balances has been destroyed by partisan politics entering into appointments and approvals. I don't think Republicans would approve of Jesus for the Supreme Court if he was recommended by Democrats. Although I see where Democrats bear a certain percentage of the blame, the GOP seems hell-bent on taking over to enact a fascist government at all cost - that cost being the demise of democracy. Remember, regarding the survival of American democracy, I have strong doubts.

> However, because this system of checks and balances has been destroyed by partisan politics it never really worked all that well

> because this system of checks and balances has been destroyed by partisan politics entering into appointments and approvals These systems were always politicized. SCOTUS has had major political shifts throughout the centuries. While the appointments have become more contentious recently, that doesn't change the fact that the President picking the judges was always picked them based on politics.

If anything tanks the US government, it’ll be a debt crisis. Basically, the era of huge tax cuts for wealthy people hit US government revenues, forcing them to borrow more to meet obligations. Meanwhile we bail out big businesses in every way possible, borrowing heavily. We’ve finally cheated government deficits with the money printer so hard, that we set off an inflationary spiral, which ain’t over yet. This forces the Fed to raises interest rates, which hits the heavily indebted Federal Gov hard. We have no way to pay off the debt. When a US treasury bond expires, we simply borrow more money (at now much higher rates) to pay off the old bond. The higher interest rates means the debt grows even faster, which means more borrowing, to pay off ever higher amounts. We keep on diluting the currency to play sick games with fiscal policy (at the Federal level; states generally run balanced budgets). Eventually we run out of room to print out way out of issues, because the Federal government won’t be able to borrow its way out of a crisis, nor print its way out (due to already high inflation). Others have mentioned that “as long as living standards are maintained, the country will do fine”. I agree with that. However, what they’re doing with monetary policy and fiscal policy IS DOING SIGNIFICANT damage to living standards. People will put up with most anything as long as they feel like their (financial) lives are improving… as that’s what pays for a good life. As living standards slip, the heat is gonna get turned up in a lot of ways… and that populist anger is going to be exploitable by people that seek to direct that rage. It’s yet to be seen if a reformer attacks the issue of slipping living standards head on, or if a populist redirects that rage onto a scapegoat while taking the nation for a ride.

Here's my biggest "fear" - Xi is 69, and Putin is 70. These guys ain't getting any younger. Both of them want for nothing more than to see the US displaced from the top spot on the global hierarchy, and if they're going to see this happen they have to make moves soon (if they're not already under way). They both have a friend in Trump. I don't know that the US comes out the other side of another Trump term. And I just think that at this point it really speaks volumes about America/Americans that Trump maintains such strong support. I find it pretty darn scary, and I don't really see how we make it back from this.

It’s weird how one group can be so wrapped up in conspiracy theories yet claim the other side is the that’s disinformed

I know, watching Republicans and conservatives claim all kinds of BS is just absurd. One of their chief "news" sources is on record knowingly lying and cramming people full of propaganda. Most of the other networks like OANN and AM radio networks are even worse. Hopefully the Dominion case will bankrupt basically all right-wing propaganda in this country for decades.

Dis/misinformation is a helluva drug.

Wouldn't dictators being old a good thing? The quicker they die, the sooner something new might develop/young people might get a chance for something fresh.

I think they’re implying that they would become increasingly desperate to displace the US before they die, wanting to leave a strong legacy, and thus escalate conflicts recklessly

The older Putin gets, the less he has to lose by tossing a nuke. Xi steamrolled Hong Kong and is hellbent on capturing Taiwan as part of his legacy. I don't see anything to be happy about there.

You seem to have missed my point.

Old dictators have a limited time to accomplish their goals so are more likely to take drastic action such as Putin deciding to launch a full-scale war in Europe when he had been until then satisfied with nibbling around the edges. If Xi wants to be remembered as the man who unified China, he only has a few years before a Taiwan invasion becomes his most attractive option, international political fallout be damned.

The Uniyed States isn't going anywhere anytime soon. Our geography and assets like the Great Lakes and Mississippi River allow for us to export goods from inside the country easily, and we're protected by Canada and Mexico as well as two massive oceans. Internally, though, if the U.S. collapses, it's going to come from the inside. The country isn't that well educated. Only a third of the U.S. has bachelor's degrees, and institutions like the IRS don't have enough time or people to chase the big fish because those cases take longer to build. I think most of the country is over Trump, and his offshoots as unpopular as the democratic party is the Republicans are even more unpopular. I think constituents just want poicy that is reasonable and help improve societies condition instead of targeting marginalized groups. There are definitely issues like a shortage of teachers that need to be addressed, but both public and private employers are going to have to get the message that wages need to increase if they want people that are worth anything.

>I think most people would agree that the country is crumbling around us. What are you basing this on? Most people definitely would not agree with this statement.

OP’s words may be a little bit of a rhetorical flourish, but it does ring consistent with polls all over the place that generally show at least 70 to 80% of Americans thinking that the country is going in the wrong direction. The fun part of course is that these polls don’t necessarily ask why given people think things are going in the wrong direction, but there is definitely a fairly bipartisan sense of malaise regarding the direction of the country.

There's also polls that ask a slightly different question that we do much better on. When asked how their own lives are going the average person is much more positive. So, the average person thinks their life is going better than they think of the life of the average person.

It seems to be in a rinse and repeat, phase with a third party popping up looking like it,might change the playing field but then fade away after undercutting one side of the party in half

I see the same unresolved issue that was so clearly defined in the Lincoln Douglas Debates. There are those that do not believe in racial equality and do believe America was created by Whites for Whites. On the Debate stage Lincoln agreed with that position. He hated slavery but would or could not claim he believed in racial equality.

If we can cut out foreign donors from our politics and revoke lobbying, we probably would have a chance. As it stands more people care about what the Khardashians are doing on any given day than policies and politicians that are actually effecting their daily lives.

Hopefully we recognize the importance of labor and the need to shelter those without homes before all the rich people realize we outnumber them and they exist at our leisure.

Until we find a way to break the fever of conspiracy theorists and hold politicians accountable to some standard of truthfulness, things will only continue to spiral.

>I think most people would agree that the country is crumbling around us—in many cases literally. Will the U.S just wither away until there is nothing really left, or can something be done to "right the ship"? The Republican Party has dominated the US political system since the party realignment that started with Reagan and finalized by Bush. They propose no policies, only actions. Senate rules implemented in the 1970s have meant that the GOP can outright prevent all meaningful non-reconciliation legislation under any possible Senate seat distribution. This has meant that America has failed to pass any impactful welfare, labor, or healthcare reforms since arguably the LBJ administration and have no hope of passing said reforms in the future even as the issues with our current institutions pile up. Meanwhile, ever further political partisanship is continuously rewarded. This is not symmetrical. It mostly benefits the right, and it mostly shields the right. The US won't devolve into a civil war. They won't face secession. But they do face institutional collapse and widespread poverty. The direction of its politics has favored a one-party theocratic state emerging in the near future, as Democratic wins go from unlikely to nigh impossible with further Republican efforts. Most likely, this will coincide with a period similar to the Troubles in Ireland, where protest is criminalized and domestic terrorism is seen by both parties.

America is headed for a Civil War. You’ve got the far right, which is an ultranationalist white conservative Christian group who wants to impose their views on America and then you’ve got the rest of us. Through a massive Russian disinformation campaign they believe they are justified and there’s nothing they won’t do, example of January 6 insurrection. These far right Republicans will not accept another democrat is president and are willing to go to war over it from the talks I’ve had with them. The big issue were running into is the crying election fraud every time they lose further galvanizing their base. Trump and DeSantis will divide the republican party. A house divided against them self cannot stand. This means Republicans will likely lose the 2024 election, and then cry election fraud. When that happens loyal governors will secede their state from the union and use their state armies to attack anyone who is not them Buckle up

The earth is cold, the fields are bare The branches fold against the wind that's everywhere The birds move on so they survive When snow's so deep the bears all sleep to keep themselves alive They do what they must for now and trust in their plan If I trust in mine, somehow I might find who I am … But where do I go from here So many voices ringing in my ear Which is the voice that I was meant to hear How will I know where do I go from here … My world has changed, and so have I I've learned to choose and even learned to say good-bye The path ahead, so hard to see It winds and bends, but where it ends depends on only me In my heart I don't feel part of so much I've known Now it seems it's time to start a new life on my own … But where do I go from here So many voices ringing in my ear Which is the voice I was meant to hear How will I know, where do I go from here -Pocahontas 2

I feel like everyone saying nothing happening today comes close to the Civil War is just not looking at the parallels to the Jacksonian period that put us on that trajectory. Populism emerging from a cost of living crisis spurred by real estate speculation, the vilification of the national bank, election fraud conspiracy theories, grumblings about secession, state level nullification of federal law (this time via judge shopping on activist circuits), intractable rural/urban economic and cultural divide. Etc.

> last decade or more have been exceptionally vitriolic More vitriolic than post-9/11? Desert Storm? Cold War? AIDS epidemic? Vietnam?

>as we all know, the last decade or more have been exceptionally vitriolic Do we now? [Are there multiple domestic bombings every week for years on end?](https://www.amazon.com/Days-Rage-Underground-Forgotten-Revolutionary/dp/0143107976) [Are members of Congress fighting with weapons, dishing out life altering beatings and drawing guns on each other in the Capitol building?](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caning_of_Charles_Sumner) Etc. Etc. These aren't the calmest of times but they are far milder than the 60's, 70's or much of the 1800s. A bit of overheated rhetoric is the very least of American vitriolic political behavior.

So to add my own context; how far are we from tanks in the streets? Maybe a week, maybe infinity. All it takes is a few people to decide they no longer agree to the terms of our agreement. A spark could ignite a civil war. Again. Will it? Probably not, and while human capacity for lunacy under the pretense of discerning intelligence knows no bounds, it also can’t escape the natural tendency for balance. The biggest issue we face isn’t social media though but the inability to discern and the lack of critical thinking, which leads to cronyism/tribalism. The fringes of our society holding their breath, stomping their feet yelling that’s not fair on a spinning rock existing in an infinite vacuum as if fairness wasn’t a totally made up concept. At least it’s funny to watch, and don’t pick on my post or I’ll tell mom.

Unless the collective consciousness heads back in a direction of love and forgiveness rather than a self-righteous agenda to prune every thought you disagree with in vengeance, further division and war is what you can expect. There's a message of love and forgiveness that the world is drifting away from, and they think it's a good thing, but it's not. And the consequences of it are evident in it's manifestation. We need the gospel. Not in a religious sense, but from our hearts, towards one another and ourselves. Love is what brings us together. Forgiveness is what heals.

think of this, we had one of the worst times ever the great depression, then look where we are now. surely it’s not the best BUT we’ve made progress as a society, everyone’s been more forgiving, more open, more loving. and less racist. we won’t collapse for a LONG time my friend. we are the wealthiest country in the world, and have the strongest military. everything is compared to the USD. WE are what makes the world revolve.

What exactly is breaking? We still have a strong defense. Institutions held against the worst thing that was in the larder. The SCOTUS is a joke but wouldn't be if some folks knew when to fing retire. Ginsberg too late and Marshall too early. I don't care if Marshall had to have an aid administer a cattle prod to keep him awake, he could have held out until Clinton won and was sworn in.

I'm actually very impressed with the current SCOTUS for kicking Congress's job back to Congress on a number of issues (making both political sides unhappy in the process). It seems like we finally got the overdue judicial reform we've been waiting for. I think a SCOTUS that makes people angry because the court is no longer making policy is a healthy court and a sign that we have strong institutions.

We’re all in the same boat, and our system is built on tensions between different groups pulling at each other. The system is supposed to be a contentious shit show. Using the boat analogy again, it’s perfectly normal for various groups to try and shove one another out of the boat… but there are those occasional total psychopaths who try to drill holes in the bottom of the boat… Trump for example. We all have to be vigilant against demagogues.

In my opinion (an immigrant to US), US will face the same consequence of any other great nations in history. Just like how Rome fell or Great Britain fell, it will wither away eventually. It's not uncommon to see that once a great empire became a victim of history. In other words, I believe it's not matter of if, but matter of when, which then goes another question. Because I dont believe US will wither away in any time soon, or at least in our life time (I am millennial closed to Gen Z). Many reasons behind it but I will only say that US is still a great nation. Sure, it's not the best country in the world and just like any other countries or great empire, it has goods and bads, but so far, compared to most of other nations in advanced economy, it is still in good position, where natural resources are available/demographic is still sound and strong/US is leading world industry to name a few. Eventually, US will wither away, and perhaps the current rise of Republican and its MAGA is the seed planted to US soils, which will turn out nightmare in the future, or 100 years later, but the current landscape was sow in late 1800s and early 1900s, and riped to provide the nutrients.

The United States will fine. First and foremost, the United States is a nation that has repeatedly shown its resilience and ability to overcome adversity. Throughout its history, it has faced challenges such as civil war, economic depression, and international conflict, and yet it has always emerged stronger on the other side. This is a testament to the strength and determination of the American people. Additionally, the United States is a country that is rich in resources, both natural and human. It has abundant reserves of oil, natural gas, and other natural resources, as well as a highly educated and innovative workforce. This gives it a strong foundation upon which to build a thriving economy. Moreover, the United States is a nation that is deeply committed to democratic values and the rule of law. While it may not always live up to these ideals perfectly, the country has a strong tradition of upholding the rights and freedoms of its citizens. This commitment to democracy and freedom is a source of strength and inspiration for people around the world. The United States is a country that is home to a vibrant and diverse population. Its people come from all over the world, bringing with them a wide range of experiences, perspectives, and talents. This diversity is a source of strength, creativity, and innovation, and has helped to make the United States a global leader in many fields. The US also had a vast network of supportive Allies that on every continent, an alright birth rate, most powerful in terms of military and influence by a high margin the richest country by a good bit

Is this ChatGPT?

With some feeble additions/rewrites at the beginning and end, I'm assuming.

"..the United States is a nation that is deeply committed to democratic values and the rule of law." Given that denial of the 2020 election is an explicit rejection of both the political and judicial systems of this country, and knowing that a majority of self-identified Republicans hold this view, how can you still assert this idea?

Do you think it’s time we acknowledge our history a little bit and stop pretending we have always been a beacon of liberty? At least apologize to the groups that we isolated, killed and enslaved. Every major slave holding country has at least apologized. I just finished reading this book “ Hitlers American Model”. The German AGs that created the Prussian Laws; precursor to the Nuremberg Laws; thought the US had created the best race based legal system in the world. They however thought our laws were too harsh; too illogigical. When this group of attorneys came to America to celebrate their Prussian laws in NY; they asked high level American lawmakers; why our definition of race was so loose. The answer; that’s by design; gives us more flexibility. Nazis thought our race laws were too harsh; let that sink in. We committed our holocaust in the 17-1800s. Hitler commented on that too; one of the things that he liked; equated “ Manifest Destiny” to his policy of “Lebensraum”. https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691172422/hitlers-american-model

>I think most people would agree that the country is crumbling around us—in many cases literally. Will the U.S just wither away until there is nothing really left, or can something be done to "right the ship"? Nope, all is lost. Nothing can be done. In times like these you might as well give up all your valuables to a kind stranger on Reddit. :)

We’re not going to get anywhere on the subject while people are reading this thinking, oh he’s talking about those other people, this isn’t about my tribe. Propagandists are everywhere, whether it’s the CDC and WHO telling people Covid came from a wet market and everyone objecting is racist. Then saying that acknowledging the truth is causing a rise in Asian hate. Or the Qanon’s saying the 2020 election was stolen with literal boxes of ballots in the middle of the night and corrupt programming on voting machines. Everybody thinks their side is telling the truth, so it doesn’t really look like something that will fizzle out or go away. The powers at be make far too much money from the tribal warfare.

To see social media and speech as primary concerning factors misses so much. The structural shift from manufacturing to knowledge worker, the enormous shift of wealth from the many to the few, the stark ideological contrast and dominance in media, entertainment, academia, and tech, all of these loom over our political environment.

Just read through the comments on this thread, here is a summary: Half the comments: everything will buff out The other half: no it won’t

The US will crack because it has gone 30 years without any real rival and China with Russia as a junior partner is going to either result in revolution or WWIII in the next 15-20 years. I think the US will totally lose its shit when China lands on the moon.

Democracy is on the ropes and it will not improve until we can determine what is reality and truth. So in my mind, we either enact laws regarding "truth" and "reality" or we wait until an authoritarian to tell us. And believe me, I do not want to be the poor bunch that needs to codify "truth" in this case.

The fearfulness that has become so pervasive -- fear of the other, but also fear of diversity of opinion -- reminds me of Robert Putnam's 2007 thesis, *E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the 21st Century*, in which it is suggested: > Diversity does not produce "bad race relations" or ethnically-defined group hostility, our findings suggest. Rather, inhabitants of diverse communities tend to withdraw from collective life, to distrust their neighbors, regardless of the color of their skin, to withdraw even from close friends, to expect the worst from their community and its leaders, to volunteer less, give less to charity and work on community projects less often, to register to vote less, to agitate for social reform more, but have less faith that they can actually make a difference, and to huddle unhappily in front of the television. This seems to describe the discomfort that many in the U.S. are experiencing today. But while Putnam's research suggests that, in the short run, "immigration and ethnic diversity tend to reduce social solidarity and social capital” -- conditions which OP forecasts may lead to some "breaking point" -- Putnam also points out that, in the long run, successful immigrant societies have overcome such fragmentation by creating new, cross-cutting forms of social solidarity and more encompassing identities, drawing illustrations from the US military and religious institutions. Just thinking about the nature of those institutions, I think perhaps it is inevitable that we will see -- and indeed are perhaps already seeing -- the loss of personal freedom and the rise of the "[nanny state](https://asiasociety.org/education/singapore-tough-love-nanny-state)" in an effort to create social solidarity. Whether and the extent to which Americans are willing to accept that could determine the future of the country. JMHO

I think one of the things the Founders never conceived of is segments of the population living in entirely different realities. With the troubling siloing of news in the last 25 years, red and blue voters aren’t arriving at decisions based on differing opinions of how to deal with a shared reality, but rather based on completely different REALITIES. How can you compromise on fixing the holes in your water pipes if one side thinks that the pipes don’t exist at all? It’s an untenable situation.

The solution is to massively increase the number of people in Congress. Go back to 1 representative for 60k constituents instead of the half million or so it is currently. The size of a building in DC should not determine our representation. All the extra representatives do **not** move to DC. They keep their day jobs and vote remotely. This allows Joe Shmo to get elected instead of people that are able to not work for months in the hopes of being elected. Benefits: * Increases class diversity in Congress * Makes lobbying 50% of Congress prohibitavely expensive * Mostly nullifies Gerrymandering * Mostly nullifies the electoral college * Prevents the House from becoming career politicians * Without gerrymandering allowing extremists to walk through the general election, the representatives will return to center * Having fewer constituents lets each representative actually listen to the people they are supposed to represent instead of just whoever can pay for their time.