Opinion What does "Make America Great Again" mean to you? And how do you see it being great again?

[avenue94]

You serious?

You're arguing that the US had a singular, overarching national identity for most of its history, one that overrode regional identifies. What is your evidence for this?

As I've said already, the use of the United States as a singular noun did not surpass its use of a plural noun (which implies multiple identities) until fairly late in the US's history.

 

[Deorum]

No argument there. You’d think we’d catch on eventually. Doom and gloom, and your life sucks, and that other guy is the reason it sucks, is what sells. Whatever, at least my conscience is clean.

Thankfully, I don't think it applies to either us (how you been?). The fact of the matter is that I'm an American out here living better than 99.9% of humans to ever exist on this planet ("Thank LIBERALISM for that!" - @Jack V Savage) . I'm not in debt, I'm not depressed, I'm not on drugs, I'm not diseased, I'm not disabled -- on the contrary I am absolutely driven, always looking for additional inspiration and motivation. Not for ever more money and making a living, but making a life.

 

[F1980]

It's impossible to make America "Great Again" unless we have a time machine and reverse the 1965 immigration act. It's right around that time when the US started to decline

 

[Sinister]

Evolving? I guess in the way that our national identity after 9/11 changed or after WWII. However, the basic tenants remain the same. When people say “Make America Great Again” they may be trying to get back to the tenants of earlier days or simply the ideals of the foundation of the country.

You still deny national identity exists?



E Pluribus Unum.

We have lost that.

National identity is a collection of things that contribute to culture, like food, language, customary observances. It's always evolving because people add to it, and things disappear from it over time. Tex-Mex food didnt always exist, it was an evolution of the merging of National customs. Spanglish didnt always exist, but it's a thing in many places in the US. In fact our "English" is hardly so, and depending on the region of the Country you're in, it can be indecipherable, because it has remnants of other languages in it. Hell the South is fighting for their right to "preserve heritage" of traitors.

Let me give you an idea of the founding principals of this Country in its inception:

"This new world hath been the asylum for the persecuted lovers of civil and religious liberty from every part of Europe, hither have they fled, not from the tender embraces of the mother, but from the cruelty of the monster; and it is so far true of England, that the same tyranny which drove the first emigrants from home, pursues their descendants still." - Thomas Paine

Paine, who was considered by Jefferson to be the best writer of the Revolutionary era, always maintained that the American plight is not loyalty to some Motherland, but is instead a kinship of any people fleeing oppression. He was also the guy who said this:

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."

 

[Sinister]

It's impossible to make America "Great Again" unless we have a time machine and reverse the 1965 immigration act. It's right around that time when the US started to decline

No problem that cant be blamed on those people.

 

[Spam On Rye]

Those are consistent views, yours are opposing views, assuming you support keeping production domestic. If you want jobs here, you can't tell people they have to join a union and nobody's even allowed to offer their work for less, and then bitch when they just automate or have the job done elsewhere because some degenerate who doesn't even work for the company wants to price you out of a job and skim off your paycheck and you have no say in the matter.

If you demand a 6 figure income for doing donkey work in a factory that doesn't even require you to be able to read or speak the language, and nobody who's willing to do it for less is even allowed to unless they're in another country, then don't be surprised when they find someone in another country to do it or just automate it.



Pre 2008 when the guy had to remind his supporters that he wasn't born in a manger, the media hardball questions were "what enchants you about being president", and they now want his wife to run just for being his wife even though she hasn't had a job in 30 years? Yeah, I don't think most people aren't talking about that recent, though pre 2008 did seem kind of fun when broke people with no job were getting approved to buy multiple houses.

I was more thinking before the turn of first century when liberalism had yet to invade western thought. All these people, including Trump are classic liberals whose main focus is appeasing the Zionists and/or WEF.

 

[Sinister]

Agree on everything except the drugs!

Drugs were made illegal as a way to criminalize minorities, not because they're "bad for you." Americans have been getting high as kites since the beginning of this Country. From opiates, to barbiturates, to casual cocaine use. The "War on Drugs" just successfully institutionalized lots of means of the powerful holding on to power. Xenophobia (those illegals are bringin all the drugs!!), racism (black people are all on or selling drugs!!), classism (well I'm not racist so I'm not just thinking its ALL black people, it's also them poor people whose communities have been disinvested in and cannot afford to relocate). Our current drug laws are very weird for a Country that claims to be free. Casual drug use among the middle-class and wealthy are merely gatekeep behind being able to afford to see a Doctor and getting prescriptions for pharmaceutical versions. Or just having enough money to not care about the legal system.

 

[Sinister]

Getting rid of capitalism and liberal democracy should be the priority. Arguing over the alternative which theres much room for is secondary. Humanitys survival must be secured. There is much room for arguing what the future will look like. Its like not operating on a cancer tumor because you don't know which treatment on the cancer will be effective. Well lets just get rid of the tumor first and we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.

Marx lived in the 1800s and was comparing capitalism and liberal democracy to feudal aristrocracy. This is something that needs to be taken into account every compliment Marx gives these systems. He is not living your life. He is not seeing what you see. Marx didn't see shareholders slowly cut costs and services over time. He didn't see cities destroyed by overdevelopment. He didn't see climate change and the limitations of our natural world. He didn't see any of these things. He wrote the Communist Mantifesto in 1848 and it was written for European peasants workers and intellectuals of that time period. It or any of his works or any of Engels work are not the Commie Bible they are the product of men viewing the world around them just like our musings are.

Also early liberal democracys allowed for more representation then this one. This is why Lenin advocated for Russians and Germans voting. It was not a permanent ideological stance. He was looking at the situation at the time and saying "voting will yield us results you should do it"(paraphrasing). Thats not an endorsement of 21st century American democracy and its ability to yield any serious changes to the system. Said system has demonstrated a complete and total failure to fix itself in any meaningful way.

Arguing the ignorance of the author of Das Capital, a modern architect of communicating on economic heirarchies and how they work, is a bit of a weird flex. I just can't fathom the idea that you think Marx wasnt accounting for wealth-hoarding and those who do so purchasing the institutions worth monopolies on violence to enforce their "property rights." Lol

And yeah, we haven't undone the anti-democratic measures done to thos Country which were done to secure the Union (appointed Justices, electoral college, etc.), and this was directly because people like John Adams openly wanted to curtail democratic involvement because he said if the people had their way, debt would be absolved and the policies would favor the poor. Back then States were making huge populist strides and it freaked out the American "aristocracy" almost as much as a minority coalition having a hand in electing Obama President freaked out modern Republicans.

But you cant just hand-wave the aftermath of removing a system from a perch of modern convenience that that system allows you. People die under those circumstances who had no stake in your cause, or in particular preservation of the system. Brushing that off as merely the cost of doing business doesnt make you any different than the capitalists..

 

[Rob Battisti]

National identity is a collection of things that contribute to culture, like food, language, customary observances. It's always evolving because people add to it, and things disappear from it over time. Tex-Mex food didnt always exist, it was an evolution of the merging of National customs. Spanglish didnt always exist, but it's a thing in many places in the US. In fact our "English" is hardly so, and depending on the region of the Country you're in, it can be indecipherable, because it has remnants of other languages in it. Hell the South is fighting for their right to "preserve heritage" of traitors.

Let me give you an idea of the founding principals of this Country in its inception:

"This new world hath been the asylum for the persecuted lovers of civil and religious liberty from every part of Europe, hither have they fled, not from the tender embraces of the mother, but from the cruelty of the monster; and it is so far true of England, that the same tyranny which drove the first emigrants from home, pursues their descendants still." - Thomas Paine

Paine, who was considered by Jefferson to be the best writer of the Revolutionary era, always maintained that the American plight is not loyalty to some Motherland, but is instead a kinship of any people fleeing oppression. He was also the guy who said this:

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."

Okay so you agree with me then

 

[Sinister]

Okay so you agree with me then

Not if you were contending that it is defined by mere collectivism, or that its static.

 

[ferrisjso]

Arguing the ignorance of the author of Das Capital, a modern architect of economic heirarchies and how they work, is a bit of a weird flex. I just can't fathom the idea that you think Marx wasnt accounting for wealth-hoarding and those who do so purchasing the institutions worth monopolies on violence to enforce their "property rights." Lol

And yeah, we haven't undone the anti-democratic measures done to thos Country which were done to secure the Union (appointed Justices, electoral college, etc.), and this was directly because people like John Adams openly wanted to curtail democratic involvement because he said if the people had their way, debt would be absolved and the policies would favor the poor. Back then States were making huge populist strides and it freaked out the American "aristocracy" almost as much as a minority coalition having a hand in electing Obama President freaked out modern Republicans.

But you cant just hand-wave the aftermath of removing a system from a perch of modern convenience that that system allows you. People die under those circumstances who had no stake in your cause, or in particular preservation of the system. Brushing that off as merely the cost of doing business doesnt make you any different than the capitalists..

Its not a flex to say someone isn't aware of things that happened after they died. That is just being human. Its the same thing as saying you're better qualified to understand the modern day US then the founding fathers were. Its not a flex its just the way time works. Dead men can not update you on their opinions. I'm not saying he ignored these issues entirely, if you dig your nose in Marxist lit especially later I'm sure you can something alluding to some of what i'm saying. But it could not have been on the mind like it would be for a modern person and it was not the priority of the movement at all. Marx didn't know MMT either for example.

And this whole conversation about the anti democratic measures with the founders is a little different than where we are today though in both cases the purpose is to subvert the will of the people. But yeah the foudners were trying to set up a confederation between what were essentially 13 independent countries and in doing so you are trying to make every authority as weak as possible. They were balancing the sort of situationship that led to the Civil War not our problems today which are completley foreign to their world. In the founders mind they were trying to prevent states from oppressing each other not to empower the federal government to fix peoples problems. They didn't know MMT they didn't know states are incapable of doing what the federal government is, in their minds the states were closer to countries whose individual identities were the main thing that needed to be protected. They weren't planning for a world where those identities are mostly irelevant.

And yeah John Adams was probably one of the best founders as a person imagine the worst ones.


At this point the cost of doing nothing is going to be infintly high. The cost of doing anything is going to be immense. Especially on the environment thats the nature of the situation we're in. And the reason we're in that situation is kicking the can down the road.

 

[The Diplomat]

It'd be nice if being patriotic, or atleast having appreciation for your country, wasn't co-opted by the right. You can be a liberal, know all our faults, and still love your country.

 

[Jack V Savage]

They want to undo social safety nets because it discourages people from serving them and makes them feel safe and secure and makes them feel less importance. Also while you've conceded on MMT when pushed your average neoliberal actually believes in monetarism. Theres a whole bunch of motives.

??

Austerity reduces peoples standards of living. This is pretty much universally agreed on even by many of your kind.

Also you can't magically create resources. But most of leftists wish doesn't require resources or is light on resources. Resources are the only limitation on the magic of MMT.

If total spending growth in the economy exceeds growth in the production of goods and services, you just get inflation. No new stuff. Magic isn't real, bruh, and claiming allegiance to some quack theory doesn't conjur stuff out of thin air.

 

[Jack V Savage]

It'd be nice if being patriotic, or atleast having appreciation for your country, wasn't co-opted by the right. You can be a liberal, know all our faults, and still love your country, too.

Not just "too." Rightists today generally hate America, or at least its cities, major industries, gov't, educational system, sports leagues, culture, and most of the people.

 

[The Diplomat]

Not just "too." Rightists today generally hate America, or at least its cities, major industries, gov't, educational system, sports leagues, culture, and most of the people.

Aye. It's a big country. It'd be nice if everyone appreciated the differences for what they are, considering we're still the strongest.

Also, Fuck the CCP.

 

[Seano]

You serious?

I kind of think he has to be one of those "disagree just for the fuck of it" types. I find it hard to believe we've lost so much that people no longer remember it.

 

[The Diplomat]

OK, so what evidence do you find compelling to conclude that Americans had a singular national identity that superseded region and states in American history? Was it newspaper articles, a scholarly work on the matter (this is extensively studied), etc., what? Because it seems like you're flailing about because you have never engaged with the actual history of the country.

You don't think just being "American" is a national identity?

That's sort of the thing with us. Yeah, we can all trace our roots back somewhere else, but we all ended up here. The best country on God's green earth.

 

[Deorum]

Okay so you agree with me then

Not if you were contending that it is defined by mere collectivism, or that its static.

You don't think just being "American" is a national identity?

That's sort of the thing with us. Yeah, we can all trace our roots back somewhere else, but we all ended up here. The best country on God's green earth.

The core of national existence and identity should be defined by the Constitution as amended. It's not only the world's longest surviving charter of national government but a historic enlightenment document for individual liberty. It's something every American shares lineage to by way of mere citizenship, whether inborn or naturalized. The country collectively possesses a surplus of natural resources, national treasures, world-class cultural institutions, and industries of incredible achievement that every citizen can take pride in.

 

[The Diplomat]

The core of national existence and identity should be defined by the Constitution as amended. It's not only the world's longest surviving charter of national government but a historic enlightenment document for individual liberty. It's something every American shares lineage to by way of mere citizenship, whether inborn or naturalized. The country collectively possesses a surplus of natural resources, national treasures, world-class cultural institutions, and industries of incredible achievement that every citizen can take pride in.

That's another part of what kind of makes us awesome. Yeah, sure, we're a melting pot. We'll accept that role. But we're also the longest running representative democracy on the planet.

 

[Sinister]

Its not a flex to say someone isn't aware of things that happened after they died. That is just being human. Its the same thing as saying you're better qualified to understand the modern day US then the founding fathers were. Its not a flex its just the way time works. Dead men can not update you on their opinions. I'm not saying he ignored these issues entirely, if you dig your nose in Marxist lit especially later I'm sure you can something alluding to some of what i'm saying. But it could not have been on the mind like it would be for a modern person and it was not the priority of the movement at all. Marx didn't know MMT either for example.

And this whole conversation about the anti democratic measures with the founders is a little different than where we are today though in both cases the purpose is to subvert the will of the people. But yeah the foudners were trying to set up a confederation between what were essentially 13 independent countries and in doing so you are trying to make every authority as weak as possible. They were balancing the sort of situationship that led to the Civil War not our problems today which are completley foreign to their world. In the founders mind they were trying to prevent states from oppressing each other not to empower the federal government to fix peoples problems. They didn't know MMT they didn't know states are incapable of doing what the federal government is, in their minds the states were closer to countries whose individual identities were the main thing that needed to be protected. They weren't planning for a world where those identities are mostly irelevant.

And yeah John Adams was probably one of the best founders as a person imagine the worst ones.


At this point the cost of doing nothing is going to be infintly high. The cost of doing anything is going to be immense. Especially on the environment thats the nature of the situation we're in. And the reason we're in that situation is kicking the can down the road.

it is a weird flex to argue that Marx didnt understand such a basic concept of capitalism, that almost always results from capitalism. And to bolster that claim by suggesting it would be incomprehensible because its in a modern context, as a means to minimize the input of a Historical figure. By that rationale it's easy to engage in the dismissal of Historical lessons and contexts in the same sense the fascists do. "Eh, old guys are old. What do they know?"

I dont think you're exactly right about the Founding Fathers, they were actively pursuing the preservation of economic hierarchy. The entire purpose of the Federal system, and the Constitution, was to oversee and largely restrain democratic engagement, because the landowners didnt want to be voted out of their wealth, or in the case of the Southern colonies, their slaves (which bolstered their wealth.) Left to their own devices the States would have been far more progressive-populist had the system of "checks and balances" not been installed. This wasnt an entirely terrible idea because it could be argued that these measures prevent States from must choosing to be slave States again, or denying voting rights to minorities (albeit they still do in other ways). Since then expansion and retraction of democracy has happened, and more and more right wing wealthy elites have grown fearful. In reaction to that, they targeted institutional reform to suit their purposes. Hence the Heritage Foundation goons you've encountered.

That said, I agree with the last paragraph. I just dont think systemic collapse is a good thing, and I dont think there is ANY entity in this Country who can overtake the wheel of the ship and correct-course. MAGA will drive it headlong into the proverbial iceberg, laughing all the way and killing/jailing dissidents. There is no Leftist organization even capable of assuming leadership, and any willing to try are likely to be equally insane/authoritarian. I do think something can be made better out of this system, but that takes time, work, strategy, and patience.