Politics & News

Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Make America Great Again!

We hear this all the time now. Intrinsic in this phrase is the presumption that the USA was great and is no longer. Is this what you believe?

To my many friends here who are not citizens or residents of the United States of America, I do (as always) welcome your input in the comments, but this post is primarily directed to my countrymen (and women). And yes, I am proud to be of what we like to call the land of the free and the home of the brave. However, please know that I have traveled extensively through many of your homelands and there is much to be proud of throughout this world. Your culture, just like mine, is part of a beautiful mosaic that makes up humanity.

So, to my fellow citizens ... Do you believe that the USA was great and is no longer? Because I do. But I suspect that many of us differ on what was great in the past and what is no longer great.

There was a time not too distant in the past when if you were not white, Anglo-Saxon, and Protestant, then you were "lesser". God forbid you were none of the three (not white, not Anglo-Saxon, and not Protestant). Am I talking about a hundred years ago? Nope, I'm talking about the 1950's and 1960's and 1970's.

And what if you were gay or lesbian or some "other" on the orientation or gender spectrum? Well that was even worse because even the non-white, non-Anglo-Saxon, non-Protestants rejected you.

Now add in a little eccentricity and suddenly you were crazy and committed to an asylum. Right?

But that America was great, wasn't it?

I know, I know, that is not what most of you are referring to when you say America was great. My point here is that America wasn't so great for huge swaths of Americans. But you're going to tell me that what you most miss is American manufacturing and good jobs for the middle class, right? Is that the issue? Okay, let's look at that.

Our economy has, indeed, shifted its focus away from manufacturing with services and high-tech employing millions in jobs that did not exist a few decades ago. But with that shift comes an enormous reduction in workplace injury rates:

[media=https://fitsmallbusiness.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Infographic_Workplace_Injury_Rates_Per_100_Employees_2003-2019.svg]

Okay, so we manufacture less, right? Or do we?

Right, but we employ fewer people in manufacturing, right?

Nope. The truth here is that manufacturing output in dollars is way up, employment in the manufacturing sector is still number one across our economy, and Americans are safer in the workplace than ever before.

So what is the issue? I'm serious. I really want to know what decade you look to as the time when America was great and what about that decade do you want to bring back?

I said at the beginning that I do believe that the USA was great and is no longer. Do you want to know what I think needs to comeback? Well, a few things.

I'll start first with our politics... Democrats and Republicans have never agreed on everything, but there was a time when they agreed on many things. Compromise being first among them. For example, do you remember the last time we reformed our immigration laws? Yes, it was the result of a compromise between Republican President Ronald Reagan (of California) and Democrat Speaker of the House of Representatives Thomas "Tip" O'Neill (of Massachusetts). East coast, west coast. Liberal, conservative. Polar opposites who saw the importance of compromise. Too bad their law was never once backed with any significant enforcement.

But six years later the new Speaker of the House declared publicly and proudly that his role and the role of Republicans in Congress was to ensure that the new administration succeeded in nothing. What happened to the "loyal opposition"??

Second is our reputation in the world. As the new post-war world order was settling in, America's reputation was on the rise. When America spoke at the UN, evidence to back up our position was not needed because America wouldn't lie. Countries around the world WANTED to loan us land for bases because we didn't want to colonize their countries, we just want to trade fairly with them and wanted to protect the high seas and promote freedom and capitalism. We were, for a while, a shining city on a hill, a phrase used frequently by American presidents including John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan.

Today we are anything but. Today, we are moving to close ourselves off from the world, to pull back our presence, to abandon those we used to wrap our arms around. Where once we helped you because freedom and democracy were at risk, today we first assess your mineral wealth and your willingness to pay for our help. Personally I'm ashamed.

So, yes, let's Make America Great Again.

1) Let's elect politicians who represent our big picture views of liberalism or conservatism but who above all else seek unity and equal justice for all.

2) Let's reopen America and American business to the world and not hide behind protectionist policies that harm everyone.

3) Let's recommit to supporting and strengthening our alliances around the world to defend freedom, democracy, and (yes) capitalism.

The far right and the far left of American politics need to both be rejected. To my Republican friends, I will stand with you and proudly fly my flag when you reject those who would tear down others and treat them as lesser just because they are different. To my Democrat friends, I will stand with you when you stand up for law and order and reject those who seek the destruction of our society.

/rant

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

ViciDraco · 41-45, M

What do you mean by those who sell the destruction of our society?

As someone on the left I want to see more taxation upon the wealthy in order to fund better public investment. The way it was in the 40s and 50s. I'm good with a robust auditing system to help make sure that extra income doesn't feed corruption. But I strongly support public works for infrastructure and essential services and public housing programs that are designed for mixed-wealth occupancy (public housing was actually really good in the nation until it was changed to only be available to the poor and then concentrated poverty in public housing neighborhoods became a problem).

I want the nation to do better because I love it. I don't want anyone to destroy it. I don't know why anyone believes this narrative that the left supports people who want to destroy our society.

1-25 of 30

sarabee1995 · 26-30, FVIP

@ViciDraco Because some on the extreme left do seek the destruction of our Republic. It is not most of the left. Not even a plurality of the left. But it is there and it is vocal.

As for the things you support, we are not far apart on these things. Here in Massachusetts I see MANY housing complexes going up that are VERY expensive, but that hold back a certain percentage of units for low income tenants. If this is what you are talking about, then it is already happening and it is great.

badminton · 61-69, MVIP

@sarabee1995 How do you define "the destruction of our Republic"? What does that actually mean?

It seems to me liberals, aka progressives, have always supported the most constructive policies; improving conditions for the poor, working and middle class; opposing racism; supporting equality for all; protecting the environment; opposing wars for profit.

sarabee1995 · 26-30, FVIP

@badminton I think if you ask most progressives, they would draw a hard line between themselves and liberals.

But, what I meant by "those who seek the destruction of our society" is that there are those on the extreme left who seek anarchy over democracy. I would respect liberals in America far more if they would call out and reject this and other elements of the far left.

samueltyler2 · 80-89, M

@sarabee1995 I guess we differ on the definition of what you mean by those on the left wanting to destroy our society. Please tell me who and how? Is trying to have an open free society, protecting the less fortunate is destruction, them yes, blame me.

sarabee1995 · 26-30, FVIP

@samueltyler2 Do you seek anarchy over democracy?

samueltyler2 · 80-89, M

@sarabee1995 no, never, but i do seek democracy over fascism, oligarchy, etc. but, if you believe there is a movement that wins yo overthrow our democracy, who do you see doing that?

ViciDraco · 41-45, M

@sarabee1995 The far left anarchism is a fairly different animal than colloquial anarchy. However, even that anarchism is a theoretical ideal to be strived for and not a practical thing to accomplish overnight. The far left doesn't want roving bands of murder hobos and thieves in the night, but rather a world that maximizes individual autonomy through voluntary communal endeavor. The notion of getting rid of the government is a result of society being advanced enough to no longer need one to function. But that is theory, not practice. Any serious leftist realizes that is not possible given the way humanity operates today. But it is the goal we try to step towards.

I am one such leftist.

Yes, there are some crazy people out there. There are people that do not understand the difference between theoretical ideal and practical reality. And there are a hell of a lot of people out there trying to mischaracterize and demonize the left.

samueltyler2 · 80-89, M

@ViciDraco as I have said many times, if you mean that a leftist has empathy for their fellow humans, strives to be sure that everyone is fed adequately, has safe air and water, is entitled to basic liberties as phrased in the US Declaration of Independence, as in life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which happens to include health care, then I am proud to be called a leftist!

sarabee1995 · 26-30, FVIP

@ViciDraco All I ask is that leftists and rightists (am I making up that term?? 🤔) recognize, call out, and reject the crazies in their midsts. I don't see either side doing this and until they do I don't see how we come together and get anything done. Polarization makes progress (in any direction) impossible.

samueltyler2 · 80-89, M

@sarabee1995 I think you have missed a lot of statements by "leftists" then. There is pretty uniform condemnation of violence. For one simple example, check out the statements by both sides defined as leftist and rightests, if there is really such, about the murder in Minnesota just yesterday!

sarabee1995 · 26-30, FVIP

@samueltyler2 Please don't conflate rights & liberties with services. As a slightly right-of-center individual, I support universal healthcare because in a modern civil society it is the right thing to do. But it is absolutely not a "right" or a basic "liberty". I've written here extensively on this distinction. Rights and liberties are not granted by governments. They are intrinsic to the human condition. I am born with the right to self defense, free expression, free thought, etc. I am thankful that I live in a country where my government is banned by its highest laws from infringing on those rights. But healthcare, housing, food security ... these are services that governments can and should provide, but they are not rights. You are not born with a right to food or a doctor.

samueltyler2 · 80-89, M

@sarabee1995 you are now confusing health care and finding a doctor. Health care is far more than medical care, and it is my right to believe that it is an inalienable right of all people. That includes the right to safe air, water, food, etc. The only way such rights can be insured and assured is through the actions of government and government regulations.

By the way, we are both entitled to our opinions, but simply writing about them here over and over again doesn't make either of us "right!" as in correct.

ViciDraco · 41-45, M

@sarabee1995 I actually do fully agree with you on the abuse of the term "rights" when we talk about governance.

Rights are very much something that governments prevent someone else (including themselves) from infringing upon. The point where government forces itself upon rights are usually cases in arbitration over whose rights supercede whose. For example, the right to speech doesn't allow you to falsely claim fire in a crowded theater because the ensuing panic may deprive someone else of their right to life.

Things like Healthcare isn't granted through a prevention of others restricting your right, it is granted through provision of a service. It only makes sense this to provide this as a public good in a sufficiently advanced society that can provide for enough medical expertise to go around. An isolated nation where only one person in a million can be a doctor has no way provide Healthcare for all. They aren't violating rights by not providing it. But when a nation does have the resources to provide it, it becomes a moral thing to provide.

Comparing that to what you said, we may differ in what level of services should be provided by government, but we classify them the same. And I do admit a lot of the left mistakenly call these services as rights.

samueltyler2 · 80-89, M

@ViciDraco You raise an important point. I am a retired medical school faculty member. I was on the admissions committee. Every interview i did for applicants seeking admission included a discussion of that exact subject. Should everyone have access to health and, by extension, medical care? I think every applicant eventually agreed that health care is not the same as medical care, and that a certain basic level of medical care should be a right of everyone. The discussion always ended up as to what degree is each level of medical care a right and what level is really above that and not covered. If someone has a life threatening illness shouldn't that always be covered? If someone wants cosmetic surgery should that be covered? If you deny that last, what about if it is really not just elective, but important for the physical or psychological well being.

This is a very complicated issue, but it is amazing to me, to this day, that in what is touted as the richest and most developed country in the world we are still fighting for the rights granted in almost every other country, the right to medical care.

Part of the problem is the way care is paid for, mostly fee for service, and the compounded issue of the cost to obtain medical training. The average medical school graduate owes in excess of $200k in loans today, that is like taking out a mortgage immediately. In many, if not most, other developed countries education is heavily supported and graduates are in far better economic positions than ours on graduation. I was only $10k in debt in 1967 when i earned my MD degree, but to put that in perspective, my 1964 Ford Falcon auto cost $1776, and my salary as a first year resident was $1200 but rose to $3600 before the year ended. I was obligated to pay $91.16 a month towards my loan. When I left the Navy in 1972, i decided to stay in academic medicine and practice in the inner city to help provide medical care to those less fortunate than I. Careful control of spending enabled me to save enough to retire after 50 years in practice.

sarabee1995 · 26-30, FVIP

@ViciDraco We are in complete agreement regarding what is a right and what is not. I love your analogy of the person born into a society with only one in a million doctors.

@samueltyler2 Sam... Neither of us is saying that basic life saving medical care should not be provided. In fact, I am quite proud of my state (Massachusetts) for pioneering universal healthcare long before the Affordable Care Act was passed.

But I hold "rights" to be those things intrinsic to the human condition. Healthcare is a service and one that every civilized society should provide, but I don't put it in the same bucket as free speech, free expression, self defense, freedom of religion or assembly, etc.

These are rights. No person goes to school to earn a degree and gets paid for me to have my rights. I am born with them fully intact and inalienable. Going to a doctor is a service provided to me by that doctor.

samueltyler2 · 80-89, M

@sarabee1995 it will take me a while to explain the difference between health care and medical care.

ViciDraco · 41-45, M

@samueltyler2 that definition doesn't matter to the point being made.

If you are alone in a cave with nobody there and nobody knows you are there, you have your right to freedom of speech with you. It may not matter because nobody is there to stop you from speaking. But you have it.

You do not have a right to medical or health care with you. Because no matter how hard you try, you cannot cause a doctor or care facility to manifest in the cave and treat you. You require active, conscious participation from other people.

It's like the fire department. You don't have the right to have the fire department come put your house fire out. But as a society we have decided to make that a freely available public service.

samueltyler2 · 80-89, M

@ViciDraco part of good health is having clean air, clean water, etc., safe food! Those are not charged as services.

ViciDraco · 41-45, M

@samueltyler2 Are you having a different discussion than we are? That response doesn't seem to fit in. Or are you claiming that you have a right to safe food? That if you sit alone in a room and do absolutely nothing that someone is obligated to feed you?

Water and Food Safety are public services, not rights.

samueltyler2 · 80-89, M

@ViciDraco no, the government sets standards for such things as food safety, worker safety, air and water clean air! Those are not paid services they are provided paid through tax dollars, because you have a right to expect that when you breath, drink, eat or work you are poo revented from illness.

sarabee1995 · 26-30, FVIP

@samueltyler2 Yes, but "rights" do not come from governments.

If something is provided by a government, then it is not a right. As Vic said, a right is yours even if you are sitting alone in a cave.

ViciDraco · 41-45, M

@samueltyler2 I never said they were paid services. I said they were public services. Things the government does for the public good. A public service is something the government provides.

samueltyler2 · 80-89, M

@sarabee1995 I never said rights come from government, they are inalienable, like life liberty and pursuit of happiness. But, it may be the responsibility of government to guarantee them. If you read The Jungle it took government to assure our rights to safe workers and safe good in meat packing.

samueltyler2 · 80-89, M

@ViciDraco the government provides assurance that you will be able to pursue life liberty and happiness!

sarabee1995 · 26-30, FVIP

@samueltyler2 One person's labor cannot and aught not be the "right" of another person, even if the first is a doctor.

That doesn't mean that I don't think modern civil societies should not put in place means and methods to ensure access to those services for all persons. I just don't believe those services ride to the definition of a "right".

And this entire conversation is the literal definition of arguing over semantics. If I understand the two of you as I think I do, we are all in favor of universal access to care (and yes, Sam, good food & water & air, etc). It's just that two of us do not believe these services to be inclusive to that group of things we call rights.

1-25 of 30