I have to say, Orathaic, that I have watched this thread since you started it, expecting to read lots of opinions expressed... But nothing... at approximately the same time that surprisingly ( well to me anyway) controversial thread I started got 490 posts. I wonder what that says about us.

freedom of the individual

even when it's rather tasteless :P

Without the USA it seems probable that there would be a global communist one world government by now. With no escape for anyone from its committee decisions, forever.

I was going to say, maybe this isn't an interesting topic because it is taught to 6 year olds in school and they haven't thought about it since...

But thank you fiedler for an answer. Even if the one line you gave demonstrates a 6 year old's comprehension... (The second and third posts add bigly)

Sorry, i don't actually mean to be offensive.

What is this 'freedom of the individual' and how is it defined (other than opposition to communism).

And more specifically, since you mention committees, how is the average individual in the US free, say, to choose what they eat? Who decides (if not a committee) which options are available (granting the in nature the options were whatever you happended to be lucky enough to find growing or scuttling around)

@orathiac -

This is a *great* question, and I'm glad you asked. Just to clarify, are you asking the forum "what are the ideals that make/made America great" ... or are you asking what we think that Trump thinks those ideals are? It's worth admitting that there might be variations on a theme in the answers you'll get from red voters. I'm confident that the partisan divide in the US isn't only due to differences in policy-towards-the-same-ends, but differences in the end vision of human flourishing. Even then each major political party feels like a coalition of loosely related ideologies that occasionally coalesce behind a candidate. So... whose take on these ideals are you asking for?

orathaic: My god that interview was painful to get through. The interviewer and especially Pence live in an alternate reality.

No, it is not refreshing. To accept that the U. S. government kills (presumably innocents) helps no one if you maintain that such murders are normal and continue to believe that the United States is exceptional and superior to all other countries.

Well, orathaic, I'd say that the liberty interests and democracy as a governing principle are set in opposition to the authoritarian monarchies rather than communism (although certainly applies there). Roughly it is the notion that personal liberty from the arbitrary application of government force applied for the benefit of the ruling elites is at the core. That gives one rights to security in ones home, possessions and privacy from government interference, as well as to speech and political activity, in order to have a civic society that can provide a check on ruling elites. Needless to say ruling elites often don't like this arrangement. As for human rights and civil rights, those movement come in response to efforts by ruling elites to suppress the political and social participation of others who might challenge them. Domestically, that translates into attempts to deal with institutional sexism and racism and the social bigotries that act to suppress in the individual freedoms of ALL members of societies. (Odd how conservatives love to mouth the words "freedom" and "liberty" but are the fastest to work to deny both to women, minorities and other groups who aren't white males. ) Similarly, the aims of human rights are grounded in similar values.

Naturally, these are aspirational values that we can't say America has ever done more than stand for partially, if only because only a fraction of the American people actually subscribe to them. The rest want authoritarianism as long as it benefits them and don't give a rats ass about the harms inflicted to others. The issue with deciding what America "stands for" is that America is divided about these core values, and only some people endorse them more than at a superficial level.

Thus, by the adage "don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I'll tell you what you believe" we are left with a US that is a traditional imperialist colonial power with a shading of decency added to the mix, but clearly a blend of two competing philosophies. The US is exceptional for its power and for its bizarre blend of enlightenment philosophies and conservative theocratic values. If you look at measures of social attitudes, you'll find that Americans sit all by themselves in a netherzone between the western democracies of Europe and traditional societies such as Saudi Arabia or Nigeria. We're unique in the sense that our actions and attitudes are of some hybrid chimera that never quite made it into the twentieth century.

What ideals do we stand for? I think you need to distinguish between the American people and the American government. The American people, by and large, are great. The American government, by and large, is about as horrible as you can imagine.

The American government has been that way for a long time starting with when the Alexander Hamilton and his cronies hijacked the Constitutional Convention to amend the Articles. It's been steady downhill President after President since then to where we are now. With each President, I don't think the American governmen can become more evil. Yet they do.

Obama had his secret kill list. (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html) Trump, I predict, is going to be worse still.

The sad trend toward greater and greater evil perpetrated by the American government will continue.

American exceptionalism? Proponents of that notion in the American government use premise as an excuse to repress foreign peoples and avoid any form of empathy. Empathy for others by the American government is nonexistent.

@teacon: which ever you prefer - i mean i was asking what you think, but if you want to talk about what Trump thinks then that is fine too...

@JECE you said: "No, it is not refreshing. To accept that the U. S. government kills (presumably innocents) helps no one if you maintain that such murders are normal and continue to believe that the United States is exceptional and superior to all other countries."

So i take your point that normalising killing is no good thing. What is refreshing is hearing it openly admitted. It seems counter to the usual 'policeman of the world', American Exceptionalism, morally superior to all, which i am used to hearing.

Hearing Trump say (essentially) 'Sure, Putin may be a killer, but we've killed loads of people, tyat doesn't automatically make us bad...'

Even that is refreshing to here of the 'hated enemy' in Russia (which obviously it isn't any more... Expect to see economic sanctions lifted, and oil deals being made!!)

@eturmage
Over sixty million American Ma voted for Trump. That spelled any notion that the American people are by and large great.

If America is not great why do so many people leave home, family, community even identity and traverse through dangers, perils, at great distances by any means possible? What do they see that you do not, you who do not think America great and Americans exceptional? How do you explain the relief and even happiness of those recently detained and turned back but eventually made it here in spite the presidential suspension of travel? Those who feel that America is not great include those still in those old world societies or are the children of those here that are ungrateful for the blessings and opportunities that their forebearers sought. America is the dream and hope of something better and the belief that through effort the believer can attain the dream.

America equals hope for a better life

Proud Trump Voter here. America used to be great and it will be again.

America is and always will be great; a little smudged at times but ALWAYS great!!!

Just curious ND. When you say "America used to be great" what time are you referring to?

America is and always will be great; a little smudged at times but ALWAYS great!!!! Take that slypups!!!!!!!
America is the dream and hope of something better and the belief that through effort the believer can attain the dream.

1980s under Reagan was good

Reagan wouldn't last two minutes in the modern Republican party.

Still 80s was great.

@Ora... please don't tell my boss at my 6figure sysops job that I have teh comprehension of a 6 year old...

How's you job going? You never did tell us what you do all day?

A troubled and afflicted mankind looks to us, pleading for us to keep our rendezvous with destiny; that we will uphold the principles of self-reliance, self-discipline, morality, and, above all, responsible liberty for every individual that we will become that shining city on a hill. - Ronald Reagan

I guess the 80's were pretty great if you were a guy. Women, not so good, with salaries 65-70% of what men made, versus around 85-90% today. Racially, wages are about flat, with blacks and Hispanic salaries roughly 70-75% of white salaries in the 80's and today.

But 80's music was great. If we can just bring that back more, it will make America great again. Was that what Trump was promising? Hope so.

Do what I say and not what I do.

Kennedy had the Bay of Pigs (planned by Nixon when he was VP) and Cuban Blockade Crisis, but failed to get his Civil Rights program through.

Johnson escalated Vietnam, but used his political skills to get through Civil Rights.

Nixon had his enemies list and Watergate, but did open up relations with China and eventually pulled troops out of Vietnam that had started with Eisenhower's advisors in 1957.

For was probably the most honest modern president, but was never elected and failed when he ran for re-election.

Carter was considered weak for failing to deal with inflation, oil prices, and the military operation to rescue the 52 American hostages in Iran.

Whereas Reagan is considered strong for his direct and indirect sales of arms to Iran to get back hostages that has left the US with a cowardly reputation in the Mid East that still persists. Iran-ContraGate to privately fund a war against Congressional approval and their control of appropriations to pay for it. Low casualty fights in Grenada and Panama, but then fleeing in Lebanon and the failure to go after those responsible. Helped both sides in the Iraq-Iran War.

Bush I did Gulf War I to protect our oil interests.

Clinton fixed our economy after the Bush recession. Had a Commerce Department that actively got contracts overseas for US companies.

Bush II had 9/11 and then kept up his incompetence. He went into Iraq for WMD and then left unguarded so it could be looted the site where radioactive materials were held. Created the need for massive government spending with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that still can't be stopped.

When I see Reagan's 'shining city on a hill' quote, I'm reminded of nothing so much as William Gibson's short story "The Gernsback Continuum," a biting satire of similarly pat visions of the future in science fiction.

orathaic: The second part of my point was that Pence in that interview clearly says that the States is still exceptional and morally superior to all. Murder is not just normalized but seen as compatible with moral superiority.

"Over sixty million American Ma voted for Trump. That spelled any notion that the American people are by and large great."

Not really. Look at who the Democrats put up against him. Clinton. She was a horribly corrupt and terrible candidate. Many people voted against her and the highly warlike and corrupt administration she would have imposed on us. Many of the votes for Trump were as votes for the lesser of two great evils.

I didn't vote for him. But I understand why people would vote for him when you consider Clinton as the alternative.

*Clinton fixed our economy after the Bush recession.
Not so. the economy was already on the way up before Clinton took office. The only real reason that Bush 41 lost was the errant campaign by Ross Perot. Any success in Clinton's administration must be considerate that for the first time since the 1950's that the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress.

* must consider that

"Not really. Look at who the Democrats put up against him. Clinton."

This isn't an argument against what Ogion said, though. If anything, it's compounding his statement by arguing that Trump was actually the best option, meaning *neither* candidate was compatible with America being great. In order to argue against what Ogion said, you have to argue that Trump is compatible with America being great. I'm not saying that would be wrong, but it's not the argument you made.

@fiedler (1293 D)
Wed 09 PM
+1
@Ora... please don't tell my boss at my 6figure sysops job that I have teh comprehension of a 6 year old... "

I did not say you have the comprehension of a 6 year old, i mean you have at least that much comprehension based on what i saw in the firdt 1 line answer (and i admitted you expended fairly well).

My point was just that i inagine a 6 year old being able to spout out 'freedom of the individual' if you asked the right question....

"How's you job going? You never did tell us what you do all day?"

How is judging me based on my career going? Did you decide that my social standing on webdip and the quality of the content of my posts relies entirely on my career choices? Or is it just partial?

So glad you mentioned your six figure income though, that is a pretty big number, have you ever considered donating to keep webdip free for all users. (All accounts are created equally, but someone has to pay)

I'd hate to see all your money getting robbed by some bank or taxed into oblivian. :p

@"JECE
orathaic: The second part of my point was that Pence in that interview clearly says that the States is still exceptional and morally superior to all. Murder is not just normalized but seen as compatible with moral superiority."

Yep, that is rather depressing. But i don't see Pence admiting that the US has killed some people. I see him holding onto a cold war Us vs Them attitude (or is it post-cold war, where the them is Islamic Terrorism rather than the Red Menace)

'We are morally superior, because God is on our side, because we do these things for good reasons, whereas they are bad because the consequeces of their actions are negative for us, because god is on our side - no theirs...'

If killing has been normalised, it has at least been hidden away from plain sight. There are no death camps - despite getting very close.

There would probably be more people locked up in Guantonomo Bay if it wasn't so expensive to run. And it is much cheaper to put a bullet in someone's brain in Yemen rather than bring them state-side for a trial...

"This isn't an argument against what Ogion said, though. If anything, it's compounding his statement by arguing that Trump was actually the best option, meaning *neither* candidate was compatible with America being great. In order to argue against what Ogion said, you have to argue that Trump is compatible with America being great. I'm not saying that would be wrong, but it's not the argument you made."

Good point. I suppose a truly great population would not have allowed the political parties and the apparatus of the federal government to dictate an election such as we witnessed in 2016, or the situation where we are essentially stuck with the two party system. A system captured by corporate/governmental (i.e., fascist) interests.

I agree with you that the election proved the American people are not great with politics. I agree with you that the 2016 election really does prove the American people are too trusting. If qualities of greatness in a people are cynicism and skepticism, then yeah, the American people are not great. They are too naive by and large.

On the other hand, I am not sure that the absence of those qualities, or the presence of naivete, is enough to establish a lack of greatness. Maybe other qualities in the American people can still establish greatness.

Is greatness the same as the 'ideals America has always stood for'?

@orathaic

um... it's hit and miss

Maybe "Trump's America" stands for, a polarised society where selfishness rules, make as much money as you can, irrespective of all other considerations, watch him and his family monetise the presidency, ignore the rules except to thwart them, eg Emoluments clauses in Constitution. ....Good luck with it, it'll be a beautiful thing, (with a nightmare at it's core) it's all going very well
I've got a few new descriptive terms..."Trumptruth"...it's the best description of untruth available, "Trumpfact"...it's the best available description of falsehood

trash

@fiedler, so how do you feel about Spicer lying about the size of the crowd at the inaugeration? I mean just as a trivial example.

I watched the programme "Planet America" recently, where there was a discussion about the polarisation in American politics. Surveys done recently in America showed some interesting changes in opinions within the American people. For example they asked Democrats and Republicans whether they would support the repeal of an "Privacy Act" ( that doesn't exist ) when Republicans were asked if they supported the repeal there was a certain level of support & opposition when they were told the Democrats wanted to repeal the act, the figures changed radically reflecting the polarisation in American politics. Democrats who were similarly quizzed behaved the same way.... Demonstrating that people in America were becoming so biased by their political "loyalties" that the actual facts were becoming increasingly unimportant... Blind loyalty was more important than rational examination of an issue. Similarly Republicans were shown the two comparison photos of crowds outside the White House at Obama's first inauguration & those for Trump's inauguration, which clearly show that Obama's first inauguration had much greater crowd numbers...yet there were about 15% of so of Republicans insisting that there were more people shown in the photo of the crowd at Trump's inauguration than the photo of the crowd at Obama's first inauguration. Like the people in the story of the Emperor's New Clothes, willing to ignore and deny an obvious truth, and assert the opposite. No he's not naked (when he was) he's wearing a fantastic new outfit. It's a beautiful thing ( with a nightmare at it's core )
I think it's more likely that Trump and his most loyal supporters are a minority, that they and Trump do not represent the American people, only a noisy minority. I think there were a lot of Americans who were desperate ( eg out of work people in the "rust bucket" old industrial areas, eg West Virginia coal miners ) and supported Trump, but when they realise that Trump will not solve their problems, they will desert him in droves..wait and see.

@MM i think you'll find this vox doc an interesting exploration of some of your ideas (mostly about health care and Kentucky) https://youtu.be/M0FvLkXDKIs

"Is greatness the same as the 'ideals America has always stood for'?"

The original ideal of what America stood for was liberty. I don't think it has always stood for liberty. So you original question has no good answer because America has not always been faithful to liberty. In fact, most of the history of America is contrary to the notion of liberty. It started to degrade with the elevation of Hamiltonianism soon after Washington was elected president.

@Orathaic, it's unlikely that I will go hunt that thingy down, please don't underestimate my lack of Internet thingy skills.. I am hopeless with this new fangled internet.. But I did watch an interesting interview with the chap who wrote the article comparing the tactics of Trump with those of Hitler. He was not saying Trump and Hitler are the same, he was very clear on that. But a point he made was that a democracy doesn't become a totalitarian state in one instant, in one simple move.. It happens as a "slide into disaster" ( my words).. many steps to get there..and there are worrying signs with Trump, that's for sure... ignoring them, making excuses is a dangerous policy.

https://youtu.be/M0FvLkXDKIs
@MM not hunting required, just open this link.