The Identity Crisis of the United States

[Lord Thesaurian]

Originally founded as a liberal Republic where even the thought of a regular army seemed tyrannical, the US has become the largest and wealthiest superpower since Rome. Some attribute this to capitalism, others to resources, and some to divine providence. In the late 19th and early 20th century, the Progressive movement, brought from various socialist, populist and intellectual factions, began the process of changing the sociopolitical landscape of the Republic.

Perhaps the first major leader to emerge from the Progressive was brazen caffeine junky and founder of the Progressive Party, Teddy Roosevelt. He was, in my opinion, our first fascist president, whose policies seemed so to such a degree that they were dubbed the "Big Stick" policies. Prior to becoming president TDR helped rush the nation to jugement about the real cause of the sinking of the USS Maine, and carried in his conquests of the Spanish colonies the flag of - not the US - his own Progressive Party. Thus TDR made the goal of his imperialist policies quite clear.

Next, we have Woodrow Wilson, who pushed the US into global politics, WWI, and founded the League of Nations to try to bring the world into greater cohesion with the goal of globalization.

The next giant of Progressivism was of course FDR, who launched the largest and most autocratic increase in the size and scope of the federal government of that time that would increase the federal debt by seven times, and founded the UN, the resurrected, reformulated League of Nations that would more actively seek globalization.

Since then the US has become an empire, with armies and interests in every corner of the globe. She now suffers the common ailments of every previous empire:

Indolent citizenry. Of the small percentage that do vote most of these vote by party, tax breaks, entitlements, or advertisements. The average voter knows infinitely more about what's on television than how the government works, its founding documents and principles, or even his or her own role in society.

Crippling debt. Projected to hit 100% of GDP by 2015 and continue to skyrocket.

Massive Military-Industrial Complex. The size and scale of the American military accompanies entitlement conundrums in pushing the public debt to dizzying heights, and has embroiled the US in decades of foreign entanglements while tarnishing the image of the US abroad and multiplying her enemies in a vicious cycle.

Corrupt political system run entirely by hundreds of billions of dollars in political hustling.

I do not wish to discuss the past, however, but the future. Given the dire position of the US, I seek additional input on her course from here.

Should she embrace her position as a quasi-fascist Athenian empire? For this option I seek bold, Caesarian leadership and Romanesque government. Nationalism and production. Abandon the Constitution (we already have anyway) and adopt policies for the sole purpose of maintaining production, competitiveness in global markets, and an iron foreign policy.

Should she return to the Constitution, reign in entitlements, close the Cold War military installations and become comparatively isolationist, and adopt more linear, uniform policies of governance and regulation? For this I seek equally bold leaders who fully understand the severity of the situation and are willing to defy the machinations of the current system to restore the Republic or die trying. Drastically reduce the military and the executive power of the intelligence community, secure the borders, reform the tax and legal codes to fight political schemes, cut entitlement spending and force the citizenry to become more self-reliant.

Should she accept her fate and pass from the limelight, hoping eastern rivals will fill the power vacuum before or while domestic violence erupts? Simply accept the status quo, then wring our hands when all hell finally breaks loose and hope something comes out well in the end.

I believe the latter is the most likely scenario, but seek discussion. Perhaps something other than these options will come up? I await your analysis....

[fkizz]

I think it's a bit exagerated to say "biggest power/wealth since rome", since power and wealth of countries is contextualized to their eras, and there have been many power and wealth centers since then.


That said, US foreign policy follows the same Cold War logic, but Cold War is already over, so there's a lack of purpose in it nothing seems to fill. US needs a new enemy, and no one wants to be his direct enemy, making some people to wonder if money spent on so many military bases couldn't be used to improving the life of US citizens instead.

The founding fathers ideals are also lost,

"Over grown military establishments are under any form of government inauspicious to liberty, and are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty."
- From George Washington himself

America's direction will be directed purely by power interests, and whims of the super-rich. Ideological, more purpose driven goals will be foregone in the name of hedonic power-domination game and money play, that despite showing signs of falling, people keep addicted to it.

[Squiggle]

I think America like really the whole of the Western world is at a crossroads. On one is the road we've been going down with increasing government, debt, hostility to liberty, free speech etc etc. I think this will ultimately end with a huge economic collapse, riots, death, loss of freedom. The other is tearing down the welfare state and creating a new liberal age. I dont think the demographics [let alone the debt crisis, fiat currency etc etc] allow for anything else.

[ShockBlast]

I think America like really the whole of the Western world is at a crossroads. On one is the road we've been going down with increasing government, debt, hostility to liberty, free speech etc etc. I think this will ultimately end with a huge economic collapse, riots, death, loss of freedom. The other is tearing down the welfare state and creating a new liberal age. I dont think the demographics [let alone the debt crisis, fiat currency etc etc] allow for anything else.

Sorry to burst your bubble but USA is not a walfare state and European warfare states are the ones that are doing well (Germany , Netherlands and all of Scandinavia) unlike the rightist European state (Greece, Italy , Spain , Portugal).

The walfare state doesn`t have anything to do with the current crisis.This crisis at the core it`s just another reminder that any market economy goes up and down.Without the walfare state the down part would have happened anyway but would have hit the masses much worse.

What we need is proper regulations and preemtive action against those cycles to make them more bearable,Poland proved this.

Also the walfare state is becoming a must in any state,the life of any profession is going down and thoday`s population must be much more versatile and they much have the possibility to convert to something else in their life time.

Proper education , proper healthcare and a proper law enforcement agency are vital for a state and those will not be achieved if adequate funding isn`t given.

This retard trend with less state must stop,the state was created to benefit the entire population not to give into the demands of the few just because they have more money then rest.

[Stavroforos]

Sorry to burst your bubble but USA is not a walfare state and European warfare states are the ones that are doing well (Germany , Netherlands and all of Scandinavia) unlike the rightist European state (Greece, Italy , Spain , Portugal).

In what world is Greece a rightist state?

[Sphere]

Next, we have Woodrow Wilson, who pushed the US into global politics, WWI, and founded the League of Nations to try to bring the world into greater cohesion with the goal of globalization.

You are just plain mistaken.

Woodrow Wilson was no FDR. He really did practice neutrality/isolation as deeply as he preached it. It infuriated the Hawks and American Imperialists like TR, and Wilson's neutral policies were a major reason the US was so unprepared to mobilize once war was declared.

Perhaps you should read more and assume less.

[Admiral Piett]

You are just plain mistaken.

Woodrow Wilson was no FDR. He really did practice neutrality/isolation as deeply as he preached it. It infuriated the Hawks and American Imperialists like TR, and Wilson's neutral policies were a major reason the US was so unprepared to mobilize once war was declared.

Perhaps you should read more and assume less.

That's not the perception I've gotten from Wilson, tbh.

[Kitsunegari]

Ethnic nations have no philosophical identities. Germany will always be German, France French, no matter what happens to these countries. The US, however, was built and was successful based upon ideas.

But these ideas were products of that group of people, not the other way around, this used to be understood, which is why immigration was tightly regulated.

Woodrow Wilson was no FDR. He really did practice neutrality/isolation as deeply as he preached it. It infuriated the Hawks and American Imperialists like TR, and Wilson's neutral policies were a major reason the US was so unprepared to mobilize once war was declared.

No he did not. William Jennings Bryan, resigned his position as secretary of state in protest of Wilson's policy of moving to alignment with the Entente. See for example:http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/046502467X/

"The Bethlehem story is a pithy summary of the evolution of the United States into a branch of the British armament industry during the thirty-two months of its neutrality,"

[Lord Thesaurian]

But these ideas were products of that group of people, not the other way around, this used to be understood, which is why immigration was tightly regulated.

I do not subscribe to the traditionalist-conservative view that the merits of English culture were solely or even mainly responsible for the success of the American Republic. While the "Puritan ethic" of the early English settlers was certainly beneficial in persevering against the excruciating wilderness conditions and building a successful market economy based upon trade and production, the philosophy of the Declaration and Constitution is by no means unique to the English ethos. I understand well that the US is an English nation (I often chuckle at my own quasi-Victorian respect for women and children and hostility toward the Roman Church), but the "American Idea" is not exclusively English by any means. America is the product of minds, not of blood, and blood does not determine the mind.

I'm not entirely sure what you intend to establish by saying "this used to be understood, which is why immigration was tightly regulated." There have been periods in US history when immigration was more restricted and others less so. In times of tighter regulation standards, the practical purpose was to prevent overcrowding and such. However, support for these kinds of regulations was commonly rooted in racism and elitism (See American or Know-Nothing Party, for example). Among the poor, foreigners were frowned upon simply as outsiders. Sociologically, many of the poor and uneducated were fiercely prejudiced out of a need to create a class lower than themselves. The more well-to-do frowned on foreigners for more aristocratic reasons. At one time and even now to a much lesser degree, some patrician types believed that if a person's family could not trace US ancestry to a certain date or colony (ie to the Mayflower settlers), said person did not "belong" in America and was thus "lower class." These moronic notions were the driving force behind restricted immigration and "nationalist" platforms.

I by no means call you a racist. I only question the precedent of your assertion that the ideas of Life, Liberty, and Property are uniquely English and that a knowledge of the latter prompted anti-immigration policies. America is a nation of immigrants from all over the world who came voluntarily to work hard and build a new life in the only nation that could offer them the individual independence to do so. This is part of America's success.

[Sphere]

There is a persistent popular revisionism that somehow the Wilson Administration orchestrated events to get the US into the war. That somehow he was the GWB of the 1910's, pushing a war agenda on the public.

It's just not the case. Quite the opposite, it was Wilson's political enemies and opposition newspapers who were war-mongering. They used events like the Rape of Belgium and the sinking of the Lusitania to hammer on Wilson for three years, often calling him a coward. Granted Wilson was not part of the extreme isolationist's represented by Lafollette, but he certainly was not orchestrating a plan to get the US militarily involved in Europe.

Events and public opinion overtook him, not the other way around.

[Admiral Piett]

There is a persistent popular revisionism that somehow the Wilson Administration orchestrated events to get the US into the war. That somehow he was the GWB of the 1910's, pushing a war agenda on the public.

It's just not the case. Quite the opposite, it was Wilson's political enemies and opposition newspapers who were war-mongering. They used events like the Rape of Belgium and the sinking of the Lusitania to hammer on Wilson for three years, often calling him a coward. Granted Wilson was not part of the extreme isolationist's represented by Lafollette, but he certainly was not orchestrating a plan to get the US militarily involved in Europe.

Events and public opinion overtook him, not the other way around.

I don't see him as like a Bush. I think rather that Wilson's policy was not much unlike FDRs by all but officially siding with the Allies, but wished to use America's position as a 'moral guarantor'. But I don't think he actually intended on joining the war effort in a direct way. Wilson fashioned himself a great mediator and wanted to use his position as a moral authority from a position of democracy, but only to the annoyance of both powers in the war and also for the divided camps of public opinion at home. Despite Roosevelt's criticisms, Wilson was not part of the anti-war groups, but rather the 'liberal internationalists', who sought to use the war's example as a message against reactionary empires. This did little more than make him seem incredibly awkward diplomatically. Wilson was definitely not the isolationist that his opponent Charles Evans Hughes was and Roosevelt's infighting and outspoken support for armament outshined and contradicted Hughes' campaign on relative pacifism.

For the most part, the majority of Americans were antiwar. The Irish, the Germans, the women's suffrage, and especially the industrialist Democrats like Henry Ford were all strongly opposed to war. However, the media, like you said, were dominated by New England Anglophiles and were pro-war for the most part. But the odd thing that I find is that Wilson used a rather poor casus belli to ask for a declaration of war. The Zimmerman telegram was pretty much totally ignored by the anti-European Mexican government and when the US found out about it, they openly rejected it. The indiscriminate submarine attacks by Germans was a problem, but a controlled naval conflict would probably have been more suited to protecting America's interests than outright intervention on the ground. So the events surrounding the declaration of war on the Central Powers never made much sense to me.

[Lord Thesaurian]

There is a persistent popular revisionism that somehow the Wilson Administration orchestrated events to get the US into the war. That somehow he was the GWB of the 1910's, pushing a war agenda on the public.

It's just not the case. Quite the opposite, it was Wilson's political enemies and opposition newspapers who were war-mongering. They used events like the Rape of Belgium and the sinking of the Lusitania to hammer on Wilson for three years, often calling him a coward. Granted Wilson was not part of the extreme isolationist's represented by Lafollette, but he certainly was not orchestrating a plan to get the US militarily involved in Europe.

Events and public opinion overtook him, not the other way around.

While Wilson campaigned on neutrality, he needed a World War to carry out much of the globalization he desired; much like FDR. He certainly did not seek to counter-act the British propaganda that the latter was feeding American citizens, and ultimately decided to join the war; not in the interest of the nation, but for the sake of his own utopian Progressive ideals. Pressured by warhawks, infatuated with the Russian Revolution, and seeking to make the world "safe for democracy," Wilson plunged the US into a war that was nearly won anyway. The US did not enter the war in D-Day fashion, but instead as a boost to Allied moral and to spill some blood and treasure in the construction of Wilson's globalist dreams. Wilson underestimated the state of the world, however, and sought to accomplish the New Order that FDR would some 25 years later.

Yet I consider WWI somewhat secondary on Wilson's record compared to the insidious nature of the Federal Reserve and Wilson's personal philosophy.

[Enemy of the State]

A return to the constitution will not happen. The constitution has either authorized the government that we now have, or it has been powerless to stop it. In either case, it is now a worthless piece of paper. We must find new ways to achieve and maintain liberty.

I think America like really the whole of the Western world is at a crossroads. On one is the road we've been going down with increasing government, debt, hostility to liberty, free speech etc etc. I think this will ultimately end with a huge economic collapse, riots, death, loss of freedom. The other is tearing down the welfare state and creating a new liberal age. I dont think the demographics [let alone the debt crisis, fiat currency etc etc] allow for anything else.

I simply don't see how the latter could happen without first having the former. There must be a crisis before the status quo can be challenged.

[Imperial]

I simply don't see how the latter could happen without first having the former. There must be a crisis before the status quo can be challenged.

This. It should happen sooner rather than later.

[Squiggle]

I simply don't see how the latter could happen without first having the former. There must be a crisis before the status quo can be challenged.

Unfortunately your probably right.

Sorry to burst your bubble but USA is not a walfare state

Yes it is.

and European warfare states are the ones that are doing well (Germany , Netherlands and all of Scandinavia) unlike the rightist European state (Greece, Italy , Spain , Portugal).

How is Greece magically a right wing state? Britain is also heavily socialized and its mired indebt, regardless, all of Europe is going to tank due to the Euro crisis and they're going to tank harder due to a lack of children. France- only for like the last two years- is the only western European country that has replaceable demographics. The European share of the world economy has crashed from something like 27% in the late 60's to 15 or so % now. Europe is not doing well, its dieing a slow death and its about to ramp up.

[Matthias]

The US isn't going through an identity crisis, though some have manufactured a crisis because they don't like where America is going. They always seem to get their history completely wrong, and it's always wrong in a way that backs their opinion of where they think the US should go.

Your recounting of US history was just awful.

[Lord Thesaurian]

The US isn't going through an identity crisis, though some have manufactured a crisis because they don't like where America is going. They always seem to get their history completely wrong, and it's always wrong in a way that backs their opinion of where they think the US should go.

Your recounting of US history was just awful.

Such as? I love history, so if you could give me a free lesson I would be most grateful.

Additionally, I would perceive this to mean that you do not see any crisis at all facing the country today. So I have a few questions.

At what point do you see the federal debt reaching critical mass? I guess 100% of GDP in the next two and a half years doesn't bother you, so what does, if anything?

What makes our current plutocratic political system so wonderful?

At what point will the military-industrial complex make the false move that embroils us not just in Latin American geopolitics for a century, or in the Middle East or Africa for fifty years, but in the real New Cold War enemy America's military seems to need so desperately?

What about the increasing power of the federal government, the complete rejection of the Constitution, the Patriot Act, Executive Order of March 16, 2012, and other gems seems so harmless if not beneficial to you?

What about the massive entitlement apparatus that bankrupts the nation and corrupts our citizenry seems permanently sustainable to you?

What about any of the problems the US faces today seems permanently sustainable to you?

You must have your own reasons to say that the US does not face any crisis and anyone who claims otherwise is merely a disenfranchised spin doctor. If you would share them that would be splendid.

[Matthias]

Such as? I love history, so if you could give me a free lesson I would be most grateful.

Teddy Roosevelt wasn't a fascist, for one thing, and your short and dirty exploration of progressivism skipped quite a lot, like, I don't know, what the causes were that drove it, not to mention all of the other forces in the US opposed to it. It's an oversimplified version of history to fit your view of progressives as fascists I guess.

At what point do you see the federal debt reaching critical mass? I guess 100% of GDP in the next two and a half years doesn't bother you, so what does, if anything?

This isn't an identity crisis, it's a fiscal crisis, born out of conservative fiscal theory (deficits don't matter) of the last four decades since Reagan. The real "battle" is the debate over economic theory. You have economists out there that swear tax cuts and deregulation are the way to go, and other economists that say the exact opposite. There is no consensus on where to go economically.

What makes our current plutocratic political system so wonderful?

It's not great, but it's a lot better than it was before "progressives" came along.

At what point will the military-industrial complex make the false move that embroils us not just in Latin American geopolitics for a century, or in the Middle East or Africa for fifty years, but in the real New Cold War enemy America's military seems to need so desperately?

Hopefully never, especially with fiscal realities taking a greater priority.

What about the increasing power of the federal government, the complete rejection of the Constitution, the Patriot Act, Executive Order of March 16, 2012, and other gems seems so harmless if not beneficial to you?

They aren't good, but they aren't part of an "identity crisis". The US has suspended civil rights during periods of paranoia and war many times in the past, so it's nothing really new, though it's not good.

What about the massive entitlement apparatus that bankrupts the nation and corrupts our citizenry seems permanently sustainable to you?

I'd say that the US was much, much worse before the "entitlement apparatus" was put in place, and that it doesn't corrupt our citizenry. In fact, in order to compete in the modern economy worldwide, it is absolutely necessary to develop human capital.

You must have your own reasons to say that the US does not face any crisis and anyone who claims otherwise is merely a disenfranchised spin doctor. If you would share them that would be splendid.

US identity is as varied as it has ever been, it's nothing new. I find those that say there is a "crisis" are the same that refer to "Real Americans" like Sarah Palin on the campaign trail did. It's people who can't handle democracy too well, extremists that don't ever like to compromise, that think there is some well defined "identity" that must be adhered to or otherwise cause the downfall of the nation.

[ShockBlast]

Yes it is.

No it`s not , you don`t even have a universal healthcare to begin with.If the state runs one pathetic universal program that doesn`t mean it`s a walfare state.Going by that logic all states are walfare states because you can find at least one universal program.

How is Greece magically a right wing state?

Oh wow , don`t tell me you put all the European countries in the same pot and you think that all are leftist?

Britain is also heavily socialized and its mired indebt,

As an American you have a funny way of looking at things.UK is a rightist state by all accounts.You put center right and center in the left side,that is clear as day since you guys believe Obama is a socialist while here in Europe he barely qualifies for a centrist if that at all.

regardless, all of Europe is going to tank due to the Euro crisis and they're going to tank harder due to a lack of children. France- only for like the last two years- is the only western European country that has replaceable demographics.

Actually , France , UK and all of Scandinavia have a growing population not only France.As a fact France and UK are under replaceble demographics,they are growing due to migration.

The European share of the world economy has crashed from something like 27% in the late 60's to 15 or so % now. Europe is not doing well, its dieing a slow death and its about to ramp up.

European economy has continued to grow, but the thing is that Europe have more developed countries then developing,those developed countries grow slowing and combined with a stagnant population that resulted is a slower growth of overall GDP.The nice thing is that if you ignore population growth you will find out that Germany for example grew faster then USA,thus productivity per capita has risen in Germany more then in USA.

The bottom line is that Europe didn`t shrink,the rest of the world is growing faster,for now.

[justicar5]

Unfortunately your probably right. Yes it is. How is Greece magically a right wing state? Britain is also heavily socialized and its mired indebt, regardless, all of Europe is going to tank due to the Euro crisis and they're going to tank harder due to a lack of children. France- only for like the last two years- is the only western European country that has replaceable demographics. The European share of the world economy has crashed from something like 27% in the late 60's to 15 or so % now. Europe is not doing well, its dieing a slow death and its about to ramp up.

better a slow death than the fast global war you keep calling for. How is it this week who needs to be slaughtered..muslims, socialists or atheists? Can you go a whole week without using double speak to call for a massacre?