Right Wing Discussion Thread XIII: Do the Right thing

[Dumb Ideologies]

Democracy has been captured by the super-rich and lobbyists to the point where the mainstream are unable to offer distinct visions while operating strictly within the normal party machinery. Leaders go direct to the people and leadership becomes increasingly personal.

Ideas of the common interest have been undermined by liberalism, hyperindividualism, "me-first" culture and by closed social media bubbles in which the most radical get the most praise. Protesters on both sides are increasingly reluctant to criticise violence or rioting if it's by "their side".

The stage is set for ambitious big-talkers who play fast and loose with the existing norms and rules, exploiting hyper-partisanism and the sense of "fakeness" in mainstream democracy to promise to get things done and REALLY stick it to the other side. Trump will be the first of many and this will weaken the democratic norm even further.

Problematically, while all of the above is true, none of this is new. In fact, especially in the case of the US, this has been a staple of American democracy since George Washington left office. His one request upon retiring to Mount Vernon was for Congress not to devolve into political parties, and naturally, said request was ignored. Naturally there's been plenty of paradigm shifts over the many centuries of the United States' existence, but the basic premise of two parties being at each others' throats and encouraging partisanship has been a fairly consistent theme of American political history. Trump is by no means the first in the long tradition of highly partisan presidents, nor will he be the last.

Fair, but I'd argue that faith in democracy itself may be becoming more conditional and reluctant.

[Canadensia]

Problematically, while all of the above is true, none of this is new. In fact, especially in the case of the US, this has been a staple of American democracy since George Washington left office. His one request upon retiring to Mount Vernon was for Congress not to devolve into political parties, and naturally, said request was ignored. Naturally there's been plenty of paradigm shifts over the many centuries of the United States' existence, but the basic premise of two parties being at each others' throats and encouraging partisanship has been a fairly consistent theme of American political history. Trump is by no means the first in the long tradition of highly partisan presidents, nor will he be the last.

Fair, but I'd argue that faith in democracy itself may be becoming more conditional and reluctant.

Admittedly yes, but not nearly as shaken as it was even a mere fifty years ago.

The current state of affairs is worrying, no doubt, but the US has suffered and pulled itself through much worse.

[Fahran]

The current state of affairs is worrying, no doubt, but the US has suffered and pulled itself through much worse.

I concur with this sentiment. We do not have anywhere near as many people advocating the violent overthrow of the government by force as we did in the sixties and seventies.

[United Muscovite Nations]

The current state of affairs is worrying, no doubt, but the US has suffered and pulled itself through much worse.

I concur with this sentiment. We do not have anywhere near as many people advocating the violent overthrow of the government by force as we did in the sixties and seventies.

Perhaps not, but we can easily slide into such actions without necessarily having the ideology to back it up.

[Canadensia]

The current state of affairs is worrying, no doubt, but the US has suffered and pulled itself through much worse.

I concur with this sentiment. We do not have anywhere near as many people advocating the violent overthrow of the government by force as we did in the sixties and seventies.

Exactly.

Let alone the utter sense of dejection and lack of national spirit in the early 80's at the tail-end of the Carter administration.

Trump is a worrying president insofar as he is highly partisan and indicative of a renewal of bitter political infighting, but even within the context of the past fifty years the US has seen far worse internal divisions. Naturally America will have to find a way to adapt and reconcile with itself, at it has on multiple other occasions, but this is by no means one of the worst storms that the US has had to weather.

[Genivaria]

What is ya'll opinion on Americanism being promoted as a point of shared values and collective patriotism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americanism_(ideology)

[Fahran]

What is ya'll opinion on Americanism being promoted as a point of shared values and collective patriotism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americanism_(ideology)

I'm largely in favor of it, depending on the form it takes. That said, I'm not the stereotypical sort of nationalist. Abstractions do not appeal to me. I value the concrete and the immanent.

[Northern Davincia]

What is ya'll opinion on Americanism being promoted as a point of shared values and collective patriotism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americanism_(ideology)

It brings a tear to my eye.

[Oil exporting People]

What is ya'll opinion on Americanism being promoted as a point of shared values and collective patriotism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americanism_(ideology)

Completely unworkable because you could never get both sides to agree on a common set of principles. The Right view the United States as a Nation while the Left views it as a social contract; history and politics has seen this to be unworkable.

[Kramanica]

What is ya'll opinion on Americanism being promoted as a point of shared values and collective patriotism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americanism_(ideology)

The modern Left feels nothing but shame toward America and its history, so I fail to see how this could ever work.

[Oil exporting People]

Even assuming we could adequately crush the cartels and prevent a power vacuum from opening up in the criminal underworld, we'd still have to deal with a hostile population that has often defined its nationalism against a backdrop of American meddling, a deeply ingrained culture of social, political, and economic corruption, deep-rooted cultural differences, and grinding poverty that would make even America's poorest cities seem opulent by comparison. You'd likely see socialist agrarian uprisings as well, since American agriculture would heavily out-compete small Mexican farmers and consign them to even worse destitution. In short, annexing Mexico would be bad for everyone.

Supra-majorities of Mexicans approve of being annexed to the United States, Mexicans are rapidly adopting English, and a convergence of Catholicism and Protestantism are occurring to remove that as an issue.

[Vsyerossiya]

What is ya'll opinion on Americanism being promoted as a point of shared values and collective patriotism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americanism_(ideology)

Just keep «Americanism» in America and out of Eurasia.

I don't care if America starts genociding some group it doesn't like within its own borders. America is a «free country». But America should keep her nose to herself.

[Genivaria]

What is ya'll opinion on Americanism being promoted as a point of shared values and collective patriotism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americanism_(ideology)

Just keep «Americanism» in America and out of Eurasia.

I don't care if America starts genociding some group it doesn't like within its own borders. America is a «free country». But America should keep her nose to herself.

So genocide is acceptable as long as they are in their own borders?
The fuck?

[Kramanica]

What is ya'll opinion on Americanism being promoted as a point of shared values and collective patriotism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americanism_(ideology)

Just keep «Americanism» in America and out of Eurasia.

I don't care if America starts genociding some group it doesn't like within its own borders. America is a «free country». But America should keep her nose to herself.

What an odd comment.

[Canadensia]

Even assuming we could adequately crush the cartels and prevent a power vacuum from opening up in the criminal underworld, we'd still have to deal with a hostile population that has often defined its nationalism against a backdrop of American meddling, a deeply ingrained culture of social, political, and economic corruption, deep-rooted cultural differences, and grinding poverty that would make even America's poorest cities seem opulent by comparison. You'd likely see socialist agrarian uprisings as well, since American agriculture would heavily out-compete small Mexican farmers and consign them to even worse destitution. In short, annexing Mexico would be bad for everyone.

Supra-majorities of Mexicans approve of being annexed to the United States, Mexicans are rapidly adopting English, and a convergence of Catholicism and Protestantism are occurring to remove that as an issue.

There is one other issue you might have a problem with, should the US annex Mexico.

Namely, incorporating 123 million people into your political system. People who, I imagine, would generally be voting Democrat.

Empire comes with its costs.

[Oil exporting People]

Just keep «Americanism» in America and out of Eurasia.

I don't care if America starts genociding some group it doesn't like within its own borders. America is a «free country». But America should keep her nose to herself.

What an odd comment.

It's logically consistent; "I don't care what you do as long as you leave me alone", more or less.

[Vsyerossiya]

Just keep «Americanism» in America and out of Eurasia.

I don't care if America starts genociding some group it doesn't like within its own borders. America is a «free country». But America should keep her nose to herself.

So genocide is acceptable as long as they are in their own borders?
The fuck?

It was a kind of hyperbole, but in theory yes. As long as the bad actions aren't spread by invasion, it's that country's problem.

Until the 18-20th century (depends where you look), human societies were isolated enough where such things took place. And we were fine. And the problems solved themselves. What we don't need is some busybody global policeman, who despite poking his nose into everything, leaves his own house a wreck.

[Oil exporting People]

There is one other issue you might have a problem with, should the US annex Mexico.

Namely, incorporating 123 million people into your political system. People who, I imagine, would generally be voting Democrat.

Empire comes with its costs.

For one, not all 123 million will be able to vote; age and other restrictions exist. Further, there is a question that if we become a proper Empire, will we remain Democracy? That's before you get into the nitty gritty of this. Could the Democratic survive such an influx, presuming it happens? Culture War issues would indeed become a greater flashpoint within the Democratic Party, given the conservatism of Mexicans on issues such as Abortion and Homosexuality. I also can't see the DNC accepting a mass Socialist program without alienating significant elements of their "Old America" voting bloc. Meanwhile the GOP could easily absorb Mexico's Evangelical vote (Currently a part of AMLO's government) as well as the autodefensa movements.

[Conserative Morality]

What is ya'll opinion on Americanism being promoted as a point of shared values and collective patriotism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americanism_(ideology)

A M E R I C A

Some creeds are incompatible tho.

[Conserative Morality]

It was a kind of hyperbole, but in theory yes. As long as the bad actions aren't spread by invasion, it's that country's problem.

Until the 18-20th century (depends where you look), human societies were isolated enough where such things took place. And we were fine. And the problems solved themselves. What we don't need is some busybody global policeman, who despite poking his nose into everything, leaves his own house a wreck.

"The problems solved themselves"

Yes, I suppose if you murder everyone that is a kind of solution to a problem.

Tbh this sounds more like someone mad about not being able to genocide certain ethnicities within their own borders without the world realizing that the people doing it are dangerous.

[United Muscovite Nations]

It was a kind of hyperbole, but in theory yes. As long as the bad actions aren't spread by invasion, it's that country's problem.

Until the 18-20th century (depends where you look), human societies were isolated enough where such things took place. And we were fine. And the problems solved themselves. What we don't need is some busybody global policeman, who despite poking his nose into everything, leaves his own house a wreck.

"The problems solved themselves"

Yes, I suppose if you murder everyone that is a kind of solution to a problem.

Tbh this sounds more like someone mad about not being able to genocide certain ethnicities within their own borders without the world realizing that the people doing it are dangerous.

>implying you don't also support murder to solve problems

[Conserative Morality]

>implying you don't also support murder to solve problems

It's okay, I'm an equal-opportunity murderer.

[Canadensia]

There is one other issue you might have a problem with, should the US annex Mexico.

Namely, incorporating 123 million people into your political system. People who, I imagine, would generally be voting Democrat.

Empire comes with its costs.

For one, not all 123 million will be able to vote; age and other restrictions exist. Further, there is a question that if we become a proper Empire, will we remain Democracy? That's before you get into the nitty gritty of this. Could the Democratic survive such an influx, presuming it happens? Culture War issues would indeed become a greater flashpoint within the Democratic Party, given the conservatism of Mexicans on issues such as Abortion and Homosexuality. I also can't see the DNC accepting a mass Socialist program without alienating significant elements of their "Old America" voting bloc. Meanwhile the GOP could easily absorb Mexico's Evangelical vote (Currently a part of AMLO's government) as well as the autodefensa movements.

Eh, France and Britain managed to maintain democracy at home (at least to some extent) while still having massive empires. I imagine the US could manage.

As for the rest, while the DNC would need to adapt, I'm inclined to say that if the GOP is unable to garner the support of the massive socially conservative voting bloc already present within the US, they won't manage to win over the much larger demographic of Mexico. And at any rate, the "Old America" Blue Dogs are a dying breed that's been all but outright ostracized by the rest of the Democrat Party. They've already been alienated, multiple times.

[United Muscovite Nations]

>implying you don't also support murder to solve problems

It's okay, I'm an equal-opportunity murderer.

Fair enough.

[Conserative Morality]

Guys, wait, I don't want to come off as the bad guy...