A large portion of the population either does not believe or does not mind the violations of our constitution to achieve their desired outcomes. As an American, it came as a surprise to me that we do not, in fact, have broadly shared values about our system of governance. This year has been a devastating blow to my confidence in our democracy and the ability of people to govern themselves generally.
> This year has been a devastating blow to my confidence in our democracy and the ability of people to govern themselves generally.
The latter has been on my mind for quite some time.
The logical conclusion of "people can't govern themselves generally" kind of gestures at religion as a solution - after all, if man cannot govern themselves, why not rely on a higher power to manage them?
Of course, the problem with that point of view is that from the atheistic perspective, there is no higher power, and from the agnostic perspective, whatever higher power there is is inscrutable and beyond our ken.
This then leads me to the conclusion that religion is ultimately a creation of men, and are thus prone to the same power-corrupting vices as any other institution created by men.
Except that leaves no real solution the problem of the governance of people. And it's a quandary I see no realistic chance of escape from.
I agree to the same thing to a somewhat degree from another standpoint / a discussion worth tapping into.
Its not that the logical conclusion is "people can't govern themselves generally"
Its that, we have created a system which incentivizes corruption or basically evil things for the most part from TOP TO BOTTOM partially influenced by biological factors beyond our control.
Sure, one answer to the "people can't govern themselves generally" is to decentralize the power.
I live in India and I loathed my political system thinking that it wasn't good and I really appreciated american political system but the more I think about it, fundamentally Indian political system is one of the best actually.
It has 3 levels of decentralization with Strong Right to information and uh multi party system with Even Universal basic income which I came to know from an american which is a real shocker I know.
Yet I still see people begging and there being some chaos, My logical answer to it is corruption from TOP TO BOTTOM which I observed atleast.
I sort of believe that the same thing happens everywhere to be honest if that can make sense...
Like, there is corruption and human evils which is what people select in real life anonymous things as compared to true morality that one can reason through. Simply for one's own profit.
It also might be one of those debates that India might have a good political system but simply the people don't have enough money or something and they want more or everyone does it which is a common answer that I actually hear.
I believe that the reason why people can't govern themselves generally is that there is a biological answer to it in the sense that for people to govern themselves, we would prefer /need an altruist society and in an altruist society, and how the genes which favour a bit of evil in altruist society might reproduce more and spread sort of thus creating an equilibra of sorts and combining with that the idea on how interlinked/interinfluential each of us is to one other through language.
It was a catharsis to me, The answer might be depressing. But its fundamentally logic. Life just sort of happened and then it got way too focused on spreading itself / the one which did survived and boom that's biology which then gets to this political thing...
Like it was sort of meant to happen y'know? atleast that's my current understanding of it. Would love to discuss tho.
> As an American, it came as a surprise to me that we do not, in fact, have broadly shared values about our system of governance.
It shouldn't, America is two very distinct nations. The shape and nature of those nations vary wildly in classical Baudrilliardian sidewinding progression, but it's rooted in the very early history of British North America. Two distinct primogenitor colonies and societies, Jamestown and Plymouth. Founded for different reasons, in different contexts, by different people. Understanding the disparity is key to understanding a great deal about America. This divide has always persisted. Jefferson was of Tidewater, Hamilton was of Yankeedom. Democrats vs Whigs. Dixie vs Yankeedom. This split persists in history, and is much the reason why America is ostensibly a two party system. Even if the regional divide is not as hard and fast as it once was, even if the matters in which they differ change radically over time, the divide itself will always persist. It's wrapped up in the pre-revolutionary context the country was founded on. America will always be two countries in a trenchcoat, two echoes of wildly different cultures set against each other for dominance. You should always be keen to remember that. The union isn't of 13 distinct colonies, but two distinct cultures always in tension. It's a fundamental structure within our larger cultural blueprint.
That's a great insight and one for which I thank you for pointing out as I learned something new thanks to you today.
My question is whether two different cultures can in fact coexist with each other for a single system of governance.
Like, Why do we focus so much on our differences as a species that we forget how much common we are on literally everything.
What is a solution to this problem that's kinda impacting the world right now. America moves in pendulum in a political cycle completely 180'ing but yet at the same time, I feel like no real change is being made against lobbying/corruption which sort of infiltrates the world too.
Bernie sanders and now maybe zohran are the two democrats who are genuinely tryna do something for america which I deeply respect tbh. Yet there wasn't really a way for one to vote for them directly y'know?
Are these differences of cultures really that distinct to basically split a country in half in everything except the borders?
Was there no way of integrating them without having them idk being the way that they are right now?
I'm kinda struggling to understand how this relates to our makeup today. I can't find the thread.
What cultural group today is Jamestown and which is Plymouth?
I think a good introductory text on the deep nature of the divide in America is We Have the War Upon Us by William J. Cooper.
It's mostly a book about the civil war, but it introduces some post-revolution pre-war history and names. That gives you more resources to dig up. You should read as much as you can and form your own opinions on that.
I'm relatively well versed in "the divide" so to speak. But I'm trying to understand what you mean by the Plymouth and Jamestown split as it relates to our modern country today.
It seems like both the spirit of Plymouth and Jamestown are inside the big tent of the Republican party today. But that doesn't sound like what you intended it to mean. Or maybe it is?
That's the part I'm curious about; who is Plymouth and who is Jamestown in 2025 in your eyes?
Plymouth is harder to identify. It's not just the Puritans at Plymouth, nor exclusively New England. It's merely everything that came with the second colonization. The Dutch are a foundational part of Yankeedom. In fact, New York should probably be considered more foundational than Plymouth. You would be right to identify Jamestown with the modern GOP. Traditionally it was represented by the Democratic party, but I assume you're familiar with that.
I should note these geists extend far beyond legitimate political guise.
Of course I understood there were vast cultural and political differences causing tension. I just also believed that we had a shared system of fundamental values enshrined in the constitution and when push came to shove, we would all rally behind it. That's what I thought American patriotism meant; I genuinely thought I could count on Red voters to rabidly defend the constitution.
> I just also believed that we had a shared system of fundamental values enshrined in the constitution and when push came to shove, we would all rally behind it.
The US had a Civil War in the 19th century over the fear of the southern states that the northern states would not only refuse to continue to be complicit in the institution of slavery, but eventually end it.
The seceding states wrote slavery, as well as protections of the property rights of slave-owners, into their constitution.
After the war came the scaling back of Lincoln's planned reconstruction, sharecropping and Jim Crow. There are people alive today who remember segregation.
White supremacy is as American as apple pie.
The thing I find most interesting about your reply is how it demonstrates that we live in wildly subjective realities.
Specifically, how? GP's claims can be factually substantiated. Pick whichever you claim can't.
He isn't calling the claim subjective, but underlining what the claim posits entails that we live in subjective realities.
My read on the US is that it could be 10 or more, functional independant states, or a single massive mess, and US citizens wake up every day and commit themselves to the mess.
Right wingers will look you straight in the eye and tell you that they support suppression of gun rights and speech when it hurts their enemies. Their enemies often live many states away. I have seen the entire country flip on an issue just because the context changes.
The bloodless resolution would be to just agree to not hang out anymore. But I think citizens of a once empire would feel somehow aggrieved to lose that empire. So you guys are going to have to figure this out after spilling a bunch of blood.
The constitution provides no mechanism for dissolution or secession.
Well thats it then. If it isnt written in the documentation, it cant be done.