How Did the Country (USA) that Could Do Anything Turn Into One That Can't Do Anything

[crfriend]

Let's see if anybody bothers to read this one through...

But seriously, [Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television] an interesting read, and once you do read it, you'll never look at television the same way again.

I don't doubt that for a moment, and I've held television in increasingly low esteem over the years of my life. It has gotten steadily worse over time, and the tactics is uses to ensnare viewers are insidious. Note that this is not news; it's been with us for six decades at the very least. I have a penchant for referring to Newton Minow's (chair of the FCC in 1961 under the Kennedy administration) Vast Wasteland speech which was presented to the National Association of Broadcasters when I was five months old in May of 1961. I of course do not remember it, but I can read, and history has a way of preserving things. I recommend reading it highly, and it'll likely astonish the reader not only how bad things were then, but how much worse they have become since.

Perhaps one reason the vetocracy exist is because of bad information, one reason for this bad information could be television.

It could be, and although I remain unconvinced of a "vetocracy" (for the reason of complexity), "bad information" -- and frequently fraudulent information -- is all over the airwaves, not to mention in the various echo-chambers that all too many of the population now willingly inhabit.

Television "news" is, today, more about whipping up emotions and playing to the sensationalist for the simple reason that it brings in ratings and advertising revenue. The fact that frequently the truth (and even frequently facts) get tossed aside is a logical outcome of the desire to drive ratings and revenue. This does not take conspiracy; all it takes is greed. Whither Eric Sevareid and Walter Cronkite? They're spinning in their graves I suspect.

I don't think its a conspiracy as much as I think it's a combination of laziness and greed.

I do not believe I have even once attributed the failure of the Republic of the United States of America to conspiracy. It's happened because of the basest of human traits -- greed. That's a trait we all have, all carry with us, and the ones that are highly-functioning and possess the characteristic of altruism are capable of suppressing. Remove altruism -- by any means -- and you wind up with a mess.

A recent technique is the use of what's known as "the brown note" a deep tone that some can't even hear.

The Mythbusters did a segment on that -- using its original meaning -- quite some time ago and gave it a rank of "busted". However, the use of music to enhance scenes in movies (and sometimes real life) is astonishingly common. Consider what's likely the most famous ostenato in American musicology: one that still has the power to send shivers up one's spine. We've all heard it, we all know it. It's John William's shark theme from the movie Jaws. Conveying darkness and uncertainty is one of the primary reasons for minor keys in music. This is well understood indeed.

Television is manipulation... and who likes to be manipulated?

Quite surprisingly, most of us. How many of us happily (used to) decamp to the movies to see the latest action thriller (which used to be known as "shoot 'em ups) and suspend reality for an hour or so. But at what price to our humanity?

In the modern day, we literally have a reality TV president who mostly communicates through punchlines on Twitter... time tested punchlines that have been historically proven to invoke various emotional states within humans, to whip them into a frenzy without much critical thought.

Contemplate Orwell and 1984 or the 1980's cult classic series Max Headroom. Again, this is not a new concept.

Twitter is similar to what I've called "bumper sticker thinking"

I like the comparison. There's a reason I do not use twitter, nor engage in twits (posts thereupon), for the simple reason that it is impossible to get a cogent thought across in 160 characters (coincidentally, the size of an SMS text message).

Politicians have to communicate in a more dumbed down manner today because if they spoke more intellectually, most people wouldn't understand what they were saying. You can't present a 2,000 word article for a populous to unpack when we've been conditioned to accept short visual snippets for the last 70 years.

The techniques of the past do not work in the present because of what the present has become. Nobody has the time to sit down and read a news story that contains a thousand words. There are more pressing things to do. And so the important ideas -- which require force of intellect to digest and evaluate -- go unread. Why do you think I am terrified of holding a Constitutional Convention in the USA in the modern era? Because we'd wind up with something that could be expressed in a twit (screw "tweet") and would be nothing but sound-bites.

Post like what we find frequently here at the Cafe are rare elsewhere on the internet.

There's a reason for that -- the cast of characters here tend to be individuals of learning, inquisitiveness, and motive. We're the ones who do great things, who change the world around us. Few others do.

Thus I posit that if a vetocracy exist here, perhaps one reason could be due to a mostly uninformed populous conditioned to ACT on punchlines rather than thoroughly explore issues.

There is little doubt that the vast majority are uninformed or misinformed about the state of affairs, and part of that is down to television and various echo-chambers into which people segregate themselves. It doesn't excuse anything, mind -- if anything that damns -- and it's not down to conspiracy. It's down to a simple purchase.

[Jim]

There is no such thing as news right now. I don't want to get into what is "fake" news or real news, but there is no news. There is no reliable, non-partisan, explicitly objective recitation of facts and stories anywhere.

Maybe the most reliable, non-partisan source in the US readily available is https://apnews.com/.

[Faldaguy]

Thanks for the reminder Jim.
One of today's articles:

Economist’s warnings on inequality draw attention with virus. "A central question for Piketty is whether the crisis will prove to be a catalyst that drives policy changes — from paid sick leave to government-provided health care to a reordering of the tax code — that might narrow the wealth gap. Or not."

Now, Piketty is out with a new book, a manifesto for political change called “Capital and Ideology”

The interview scarily concludes: "... with his survey of history that indicates voters could either shift toward his ideas in the aftermath of a crisis — or reject them entirely and embrace nationalism more fully."

[crfriend]

The interview scarily concludes: "... with his survey of history that indicates voters could either shift toward his ideas in the aftermath of a crisis — or reject them entirely and embrace nationalism more fully."

There's the rub. The electorate is effectively out of the picture because the "nominees" are pre-selected by the rich, the powerful, and the corporations -- and for any meaningful change to happen means that any nominee/candidate, once elected, would have to betray those who put him in power and vote in the interest of the general welfare of the nation, not the rich. This could -- quite literally -- be a suicide mission for anyone who tries it. How many will take up the mantle given those odds? 50? Not enough. 100? That'd solve the Senate handily but not the House. 250? That's be enough to swing the House of "Representatives", but not both houses. 300? You'd never get that many to lay their lives on the line -- and you'd still have the presidency and the Supreme Court to deal with.

The USA needs another Teddy Roosevelt. Unfortunately, he's not available at the moment.

[Pdxfashionpioneer]

Bravo Moonshadow, you made some great points.

As did you Alexthebird.

But I have to give special commendation to Freefrom for citing the mechanism that is essential to effective democratic governance: Compromise.

Carl, whether you realized it or not, when you call elections and the whole current governmental process a charade; you’re saying that it’s an act scripted and directed by a limited number of people that is acted out by the elected officials. Even if it is just 1,000 people who are working in concert, that’s a conspiracy.

Too many of our elected officials get seduced by that old Sirens’ song of power and learn that to hang on to it they have to continuously raise ever increasing amounts of money. So, yeah, the billionaires’ greed has driven them to court power to maintain their position and expand their wealth.

What’s the solution? Public financing of federal elections and a ban on private donations above some amount lower than the current. VERY strict limitations on PACS, how much money any one individual can donate to them. No corporate political donations. Etc.

Not to mention a wealth tax on large fortunes. Why not? The middle-class pays one already; we refer to it as a property tax. We also need a top MARGINAL income tax of at least 90%. And an Inheritance Tax on large fortunes that will prevent an oligarchy from emerging and consolidating their power.

We all have to accept at some point our own taxes will go up; but as Oliver Wendell Holmes said, “It’s the price we pay for civilization.” And democracy.

[crfriend]

What’s the solution? Public financing of federal elections and a ban on private donations above some amount lower than the current. VERY strict limitations on PACS, how much money any one individual can donate to them. No corporate political donations. Etc.

Not to mention a wealth tax on large fortunes. Why not? The middle-class pays one already; we refer to it as a property tax. We also need a top MARGINAL income tax of at least 90%. And an Inheritance Tax on large fortunes that will prevent an oligarchy from emerging and consolidating their power.

My god man! Do you know what you're saying?! You're saying nothing less than that we need to reverse the Reagan-era tax-cuts for the super-rich and go back in time to the economic era of Eisenhower and Kennedy!

What are the odds of that flying? Who, realistically, can make it happen?

We all have to accept at some point our own taxes will go up; but as Oliver Wendell Holmes said, “It’s the price we pay for civilization.” And democracy.

Unless you make the rules (either directly or by proxy), that is.

[Pdxfashionpioneer]

do you know what you’re saying? ...

I have a dozen or more years on you Carl and started getting interested in politics and public policy about the time you were getting potty trained so I not only know exactly what I’m talking about; I remember the Eisenhower and Kennedy years.

It was just 10 years ago that a “public opinion” in health care was shot down as quickly as the words were spoken; this past year, the question in the Democratic primary was whether or public provision of health care was going to be an option or a requirement. There’s nothing more powerful than an idea whose time has come.

[crfriend]

It was just 10 years ago that a “public opinion” in health care was shot down as quickly as the words were spoken [...]

It wasn't shot down "quickly" at all. It took a months-long campaign of misinformation (and outright lying) on the boob-tube sponsored by the assorted for-profit insurance companies to scupper it -- proving, once again, the gullibility of the populace when deluged with bad information. There was also a lot of work done at the time to redefine health "care" as health "insurance" in the public view, which was also successful.

The time has come and gone. The damage has been done, and it's persistent. Perhaps in another generation we might have another go at getting it right, but not any time soon.

[Pdxfashionpioneer]

Carl, I have to wonder aloud; why do you always see the emptiness in the glass and never see the fullness?

Bravo! You nailed me on how long it actually took to close off discussion on the public option 10 or so years ago! And missed my bigger point; the question raised during the Democratic primary was, "Shall we move directly to Medicare for all, phase it in gradually or make it an option?" Framing the question that way assumed we are going to have universal, single-payer health coverage soon. The only question remaining is, "How soon?"

I hope I never forget how in the late 80's the demonstrations and disinvestment against South Africa's started up again. An acquaintance told me how excited she was about that movement. My response -- having participated in more than my share of peace and affirmative action marches and demonstrations and not seeing much substantive change -- was, "Here we go again! Charging down the futile primrose path."

But lo and behold; not only did the South African government abolish apartheid, they released Nelson Mandela so he could help establish a new government based on racial equality. And rather than wallow in a bloodbath of violent recriminations; Bishop Desmond Tutu was empowered to lead their nation through a peace and reconciliation process.

To be frank, their current government has been anything but enlightened. South Africa is still wrestling with the demons of its history of racism. But so is the United States and we fought a full-fledged, industrial-scale Civil War over the issue! Nonetheless, South Africa still has a recent history of doing the right thing, the right way, which I have faith they will get back to. Probably sooner than we think.

All of that said, you were quite right Carl when you said that the question of states' rights in the United States is still up in the air. In fact, any good historian, legal scholar and in particular Constitutional scholar will tell you nearly all such questions are, and always will be, up in the air. That is why judges' rulings are called "opinions."

That is both the beauty and the frustration of our Constitutional system. Even though it is written (the Constitution of Great Britain is a potpourri of parliamentary laws, royal decrees, legal judgements, common law, tradition and common understanding) in language that (despite how much American English has evolved since 1787) is still fairly clear, the US Constitution is open to interpretation. The beauty is that our Constitution is adaptable through both the amendment process and judicial interpretation to our changing circumstances. Not only our country but our entire world is an entirely different place than it was 233 years ago and yet our Constitution still stands!

The frustration is that as Edmund Burke said, or at least is quoted as saying, "Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom." Or as they put it in baseball, "There's always next season." Probably the clearest expression of the frustration of the democratic system came from a Canadian feminist, "Democracy is like washing dishes; there's always another dirty dish!"

And always will be. To get back to the original issue; federal power vs. states' rights is an issue that, despite the clarity and succinctness of the 10th Amendment, is and always will be in dynamic tension.

For all that, if you chart America's progress over time toward fulfilling the promise of the ringing words in our Declaration of Independence -- "all men are created equal" -- you will get a jagged and yet monotonically increasing trend line. That -- rather than the cavilings of the Gloomy Gus Nay-sayers -- is what we should focus on!

[Faldaguy]

Pdxfashionpioneer wrote to Carl about emptiness vs fullness:

For all that, if you chart America's progress over time toward fulfilling the promise of the ringing words in our Declaration of Independence -- "all men are created equal" -- you will get a jagged and yet monotonically increasing trend line. That -- rather than the cavilings of the Gloomy Gus Nay-sayers -- is what we should focus on!

You both makes so many valid points, but the concluding view above may be tinted like the Rose City asking we settle for patience. There are hundreds of quotes about having the patience of Job, but nearly all are effectively compromise, fatalism, or wistful prayer. Two that seem to cover the gambit:

“To lose patience is to lose the battle.” Mahatma Gandhi & “Patience has its limits. Take it too far, and it’s cowardice.” George Jackson

In my view Carl consistently hits the mark with his point about the US (and many others) having been bought and paid for -- outcomes are foregone as we often see Congress vote counter to popular opinion if their yoke is yanked by their moneyed masters. Yet where else do we turn for hope save the jagged line PDX offers? Elections are riddled with fraud and purchased; violent revolutions historically fail. I'm not sure that even in the narrow context of "all men are created equal' that we have truly progressed -- we've only changed a few parameters of the equation.

The best reason I can cite for a focus on fullness is that to do otherwise is a spirit killer, and like stress it is oh so destructive.

If this discussion is yet to enlighten, perhaps it would be useful to observe the subject line is inherently flawed!

[Pdxfashionpioneer]

Hello Faldaguy,

Last things first, I'm assuming that you're objecting to the notion that the US never was "the country that could do anything." Consider, when we declared our independence a motley crew of smugglers, slaveholders, tax refusers and other malcontents and scofflaws threw down the gauntlet with the largest, best equipped, most powerful and capable military in the world! What were the odds of that working? The world had to see it to believe it.

At the turn of the 19th century the US surpassed Great Britain and Germany as the world's largest producer of steel.

The First World War locked in an intractable stalemate until the Americans joined the fray in force. Twenty-eight years, American industry and manpower were the deciding factor in winning another World War and eventually, the resulting Cold War. While the US was at it, it founded the a conclave of the world's nations that is dedicated to peace. Created a system of universities that is the envy of the world. Won more Noble Prizes in the sciences than any other nation. Turned a century's old dream -- a machine that could do complex mathematical calculations -- into the plaything of its children. And landed men on the Moon. Several times. Not to mention, most of those things were accomplished much faster than anyone could have ever imagined.

As far as voter fraud goes, it's nearly nonexistent in the US.

Elections are bought and paid for? How about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's? Who had the most money in the Democratic primaries? Bernie Sanders. Nearly all of his donations were from middle-class individuals. By contrast, coming into the primary elections of Super Tuesday, Joe Biden's campaign was so close to broke the candidate couldn't afford to campaign in several of the crucial states. No matter; the Democratic Establishment's choice turned out to be the people's choice as well.

As far as that goes, during the Republican primaries four years ago, Donald Trump was the antithesis of the Establishment's choice -- brash, crude, no political experience, no record of public service and, worst of all, virtually no allegiance to the Republican Party let alone most of its long-standing principles -- but he walked away with the top job nonetheless.

To be clear, I do NOT advocate sitting on our hands patiently waiting for the world to catch up to us. I urge ALL of you to get informed and then get involved because, as one of my first bosses told me, "People make things happen!"

I chose a paradoxical title to remind my fellow Americans that when we have worked together as a nation for worthwhile causes, we have accomplished great things. My parents were members of the Greatest Generation. They and their age-cohorts worked hard to earn that appellation, even though that wasn't what they were striving for. They worked as hard as they did because that's what their times and their country asked of them. As one of their children I had a front row seat on how ordinary they were and have spent my whole adult life studying the extraordinary things they helped accomplish.

It wasn't that either one of them was in thrall of Franklin D. Roosevelt. I don't remember Dad saying anything much about him and it was clear Mom didn't have much use for either FDR or his wife, but they fulfilled his vison nonetheless because it was a generous and righteous one.

So, Faldaguy, you are absolutely right to focus on the quality of the spirit that guides our efforts. That makes all the difference in the world; if we keep that straight all other good things will follow.

[crfriend]

If this discussion is yet to enlighten, perhaps it would be useful to observe the subject line is inherently flawed!

That observation has been gnawing at this reader for a few days, and I suspect that changing the context of the original question from being a nation that "can't do anything" to one of "won't do anything" may make a difference.

The distinction is both subtle and profound. One implies a simple inability -- perhaps due to technologies and capabilities forgotten; the other implies a wilful decision to not deploy capability where it may be needed.

And, as usual, there isn't going to be one hard-and-fast answer, but instead a vast sea of grey from which to choose one's conclusions.

On one hand, there is much technology and knowledge that has been irretrievably lost, and we have an entire human generation (in the USA) that is 100% risk-averse. This forms a substantial impediment to doing great things, for doing great things requires ingenuity, bravery, and a willingness to take on risk.

On the other, there is substantial monetary interest that is only interested in enriching itself to the exclusion of all others. This is the one that seems to drive public policy today. And that is something I see as tragic, entirely avoidable, and despicable. Not to mention an utter waste of human potential.

[Faldaguy]

I've been holding off on a response to PDX awaiting more comment, and Carl you've opened the door a bit -- so I'll jump back in.  

   As to the comment about an inherently flawed subject line, my thoughts were going several ways, but the simple one was the use of "anything" was far too grandiose a claim, aside from mathematically or logically impossible, and "can't" was overly dramatic on the other end.  Adding nuances like 'won't' opens the door to more takes on various of the prior contributions.  One nuance I assumed, perhaps incorrectly, was when I read the original subject line it seemed to carry an implication that those "do anythings" were all positive and admirable accomplishments--an implication that does not ring true to me, as history is written from the bias of the "winners'.   Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States" is a testament to this assertion. 

   Ex:  As it arose in David's response to me:  "As far as voter fraud goes, it's nearly nonexistent in the US.", I would contend this is a prime example of where Yanks have been duped into believing the US is vastly superior and better than most other countries. Voter fraud in the US is indeed pervasive -- just a hell of a lot more subtle in the techniques of application.  An obvious and easy example is Ohio in the 2004 Presidential election where numerous books and reports clearly document some of the fraud; the Conyers Report alone should scare the pants (or skirt) off anyone thinking all votes count.  If you want to take it further, the use of gerrymandering and pulling of voting stations from poor districts; or rule making targeting specific populations has clearly manipulated outcomes.  The US may not outright 'buy' votes with direct cash hand-outs to voters (although this too still appears to be done in some places exploiting homeless, street people, etc. those who can vote) but we do allow politicians power over "pork" for their districts and other purchasing techniques.  In time when all of the documents that have not been destroyed are found and released, I truly believe we will find that the Trump administration was fraudulently obtained -- if not directly by breaches of software security in voting machines, then by dis-information campaigns.  However, I agree one can argue dis-information is not fraud per se, but Ohio was and the other techniques are certainly manipulation even if you do not wish to label them as moral fraud. 

   Another aspect of what distresses me about the ethnocentric US point of view is that it considers so many things "accomplishments" that from other perspectives might well be considered amoral or illegal.  How many of these things were 'accomplished' on  the backs of black slaves; or dead Indians; of outright mass murder in the name of defeating some "ism" or protecting some freedom when in fact nearly all were at their base a vested interest in an economic outcome, coveting resources in other people's lands, and seeking hegemony.  Too many Americans have been fed the myopic gruel of a corporate owned media with no real exposure or experience of the world from any other assessment.  The deliberate dumbing down of America has contributed to our arrival at this juncture where our accomplishments now are driven by brute force, devoid of a moral compass.
   As Carl writes:  "....there is substantial monetary interest that is only interested in enriching itself to the exclusion of all others. This is the one that seems to drive public policy today. And that is something I see as tragic, entirely avoidable, and despicable. Not to mention an utter waste of human potential."  

So, PDX, I concur we need "to focus on the quality of the spirit that guides our efforts. That makes all the difference in the world; if we keep that straight all other good things will follow." 

Barry, aka Faldaguy

[Pdxfashionpioneer]

There's a lot I like about Carl's last post, in particular the point of "won't" vs. "can't." His last paragraph is indisputable.

As to Barry's response, when I reacted to his initial remark about voter fraud, I was thinking in the limited, literal sense that Republicans keep claiming is rampant to justify their efforts at voter suppression. The evils and pervasiveness of gerrymandering and voter suppression are also indisputable and to call it voter fraud isn't really a stretch so, I readily concede his point.

While we're on the issue of equality of votes, it's overdue that we Americans consign the Electoral College to the dustbin of history; 3 out of our last 5 Presidents lost the popular vote, but attained the White House because they obtained the majority of the electoral "votes." If the authors of the Constitution were to come back, I am sure they would shake their heads in disbelief that the Electoral College hadn't been abolished decades ago. This, by the way is a 180 degree pivot from where I was on this issue in 2017.

In the same vein, I have wondered if we shouldn't, as a nation, think deep thoughts about the composition of the Senate. Not to abolish it nor to put it on a strictly representative basis, but maybe give our supersized states such as New York, California and Texas an additional Senator to even things up a little.

As to the dark side of America's history, slavery and the genocide of our Native Americans, it's indisputable, but hardly the basis of our achievements in the 20th Century. Yes, there is a growing recognition that racial inequality dating back to those inexcusable abuses of humanity financed a lot of what we Americans enjoy, but every developed country has been financed by similar abuses.

A strong argument can be made that the US entered the First World War on Britain's side out of economic interests at least as much as idealism, probably more. But the same cannot be said about our choice of sides in the 2nd World War. Similarly, we acquired no new territory at the end of hostilities in 1945. We had zones of occupation, but only until we had poured enough money and expertise into Germany and Japan that they had regained self-sufficiency.

Nor was there an economic motive to Pres. John Kennedy's call to the nation to go to the Moon and safely return. That was almost purely ideological; we wanted to prove the superiority of American science and engineering over the Soviet Union's. But before we got there, we explicitly announced we were going to the Moon "for all mankind." We even left a metal plaque up there confirming that promise.

There's a good reason the United States is often referred to as "The American Experiment;" we unflinchingly recognize that we're a work in progress. We persistently believe our best days are ahead of us, but always with the caveat that we keep working at getting better at living our ideals.

[Uncle Al]

I'm going to throw my $.02 worth on the Electoral College.

The Electoral College gives an EQUAL playing field for all Americans.
This way, the lower populated areas hold the same 'voting power' as
the heavily populated areas. The large cities, ie: New York City,
would NOT be able to out-vote the rest of the country.

The 'popular vote' would allow higher population areas to mandate
what the rest of the nation receives. Fairly good concept but doesn't
work due a non-level playing field. The E.C. gives our nation just that,
a level(equal) playing field.

Uncle Al