Is America the greatest country in the world?

[Synthaholic]

Still one more appeal for civility, gentlemen???? Please???? And one more appeal to conduct partisan politics on some other thread? Please????

I think, since you started this thread, it is incumbent upon you to define "greatest", so we know what the parameters for discussion are.

 

[tjvh]

You are correct. Watching the rest of the episode clearly puts things in perspective that the Jeff Daniels character is not a Liberal. Or a Conservative.

Liability does not see that many policies of the Rightwing are indeed wars on poor people.

False.

NONE of the policies favored by Conservatives constitute a war on poor people. In fact, objectively, which Synth is not, it could be better argued that the effect of modern American liberalism is an attack on individual liberties the worst effect of which is dumped on "poorer" people.

Laughable.

How about Mandatory Minimums for drug offenders?

How about the disparity between sentences for crack vs cocaine?


These two hurt poor people at a much higher rate than rich people.

And don't try to tell me that millionaire Wall Streeters don't do drugs. It is well documented.

How nice of you to stereotype the poor as being drug users. I don't think the examples you give hurt poor people as much as they hurt STUPID people.

 

[Synthaholic]

I think it all depends on how you interpret what he is saying or what filter you look through to arrive at a conclusion. I did not get the same inferences from it that you did, and anybody who knows me is that I am about as modern American conservative as they come and have been railing against the welfare state for decades now. He didn't say so specifically, but within the whole of his message, I could easily see him seeing the so called "War on Poverty" as a war on the poor and a part of the problem, not the solution. I interpreted it that he started out by focusing on modern liberalism and wove that into the substance of his observation about what was wrong.

There is no way that he equated the alleged "War on Pverty" with a War on the Poor.
He was distinguishing BETWEEN the two.

Some of the "facts" he discussed are all too true. If we said to all the folks at USMB (excluding the laughably mindless morons like Douger, etc) "is it acceptable that we are so far from being the best in terms of infant morality or from meeting educational needs" I can't imagine that any of us -- liberal or conservative -- would say "yeah. no problem. I'm good with that."

TO pontificate like Sorokin does about where we need to improve ourselves is all well and good. I want our infant mortality rate to get much better, too. But let's be objective about it on both sides. I GRANT that many (maybe most) of the people we call modern American liberals ee problems and want to fix those problems. I further believe that many (maybe most) conservatives would like to see many of those same identified problems remedied, too.

The difference is in how we go about it. And the process matters. Sorokin's pontifications don't recognize that.

Again I call on fellow USMB members to not let this dissolve into another bashing session of any political figures or political party. I am NOT including Liability's post here in that request, however, as he is absolutely debating the concept of the OP. And I will now respond to it.

Liability, you may be right re the "War on Poverty" but I just didn't get the sense that he was referring to LBJ's signature legislation because of the context in which he included it. But we can amicably agree on different perceptions there. We can all argue the various postives and negatives we see in our country and whether we think these are increasing or decreasing. But public perception certainly seems to agree with the speaker in the OP:

In 2011:
The Hill: poll shows that more than 2/.3 of voters think the U.S. is declining
Fox News: 62% think the U.S. is in decline.
Politico: 4 in 10 Americans think U.S. is in permanent decline.
CBS-NYT: 39% think U.S. is in permament decline.

And according to a late 2011 Pew polll, in a nation that was created on a concept of American exceptionalism, only about 50% of Americans now see America as exceptional.

The Hill Poll: Voters say US is in decline - TheHill.com
Fox News Poll: 62 Percent Think U.S. Is on the Decline | Fox News
httphttp://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2011/11/19/charles-blow-and-the-hard-lefts-addled-view-of-american-exceptionalism/://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/58097.html
Poll: American Exceptionalism in Decline, RealClearWorld - The Compass Blog

So for everybody, what has changed us as a people? Please don't say that it was any one person or any political party because neither has the power to do that. We choose. We the people determine what is important to us. Why and when did we change from the exceptional nation to just another country? Or did American exceptionalism ever exist?

Unbridled Greed.

 

[Synthaholic]

Essentially the same resources are available today to Americans as a hundred years ago. America has the capacity to be what Americans want. To say that it is presently that way would be a horrible thought. Even if we were to say it is presently the best in the world, no one would disagree that it could be better.

But what has changed? (If anything.) And why has it changed? Many of us recall a time when as a people we once would not have even thought to disrespect the National Anthem, the flag, the Pledge of Allegiance. We were unashamed in our patriotic displays and enthusiasm, and we mostly shared values of church, family, Christmas programs at school whether we were Christian or not, a generic prayer before the highschool football game whether we were religious or not. Being a real man who supported his family was deemed a virtue and an expectation for all and in the small towns, everybody disciplined everybody's kids and kids were expected to grow up as educated, responsible, mature citizens. The traditional family was the backbone of the nation. We knew our nation was imperfect, but we honestly believed it was better than any other and we believed in ourselves that we could find ways to fix whatever ailed it.

Silly nostalgic myths some of our younger generation would say. But those of us who lived it know it was real.

Until the 1980s, it was considered vulgar by American society for a CEO to make more than 100 x more than their employees.

Now it's celebrated by some as an ideal to emulate.

Until the 1980s, it was considered unpatriotic for a company to be a war profiteer.

Now it's seen as a business goal.

 

[eots]

America is in fact a paradox of the greatest and the lamest, the most noble and most despicable and if any part of it has ever been the "envy of the world" it would be the opportunity provided by less government and more individual freedom and more credit being given to personal achievement than bloodline or birthright and this is a great risk of being lost at this point in time

 

[Synthaholic]

False.

NONE of the policies favored by Conservatives constitute a war on poor people. In fact, objectively, which Synth is not, it could be better argued that the effect of modern American liberalism is an attack on individual liberties the worst effect of which is dumped on "poorer" people.

Laughable.

How about Mandatory Minimums for drug offenders?

How about the disparity between sentences for crack vs cocaine?


These two hurt poor people at a much higher rate than rich people.

And don't try to tell me that millionaire Wall Streeters don't do drugs. It is well documented.

How nice of you to stereotype the poor as being drug users. I don't think the examples you give hurt poor people as much as they hurt STUPID people.

How nice of you to display your stupidity.

Most drug abusers who are imprisoned are poor.

I didn't claim that most poor people are drug abusers.




Another example of why the Rightwing are constantly wrong: they cannot even read and comprehend correctly.

 

[Liability]

It is difficult to understand how statements and positions can be so misinterpreted. Bush is certainly the worst president, but any criticism of him that falls also on his party is not intended as only reserved to it. Both parties are to blame.

As a side thought, using word-salad in place of argument is only amusing for a short time.

W is certainly NOT the worst President. That title used to belong to Jimmah Cartduh.

But now, the incumbent has run away with it.

This is a prime example of your hyper-partisanship that blinds you to political reality.

No. Your rejoinder is the example you seek.

Idiots like to pretend that W was dumb and the worst President ever.

He clearly was neither.

It is one thing to admit where he fell short. It is quite another thing to jump to the unsupported conclusions you prefer. When you do that you are assuming your conclusion as your premise and then reaching your conclusion. It can sometimes look like logic. But it is in fact, just a fallacy of yours.

 

[Synthaholic]

W is certainly NOT the worst President. That title used to belong to Jimmah Cartduh.

But now, the incumbent has run away with it.

This is a prime example of your hyper-partisanship that blinds you to political reality.

No. Your rejoinder is the example you seek.

Idiots like to pretend that W was dumb and the worst President ever.

He clearly was neither.

It is one thing to admit where he fell short. It is quite another thing to jump to the unsupported conclusions you prefer. When you do that you are assuming your conclusion as your premise and then reaching your conclusion. It can sometimes look like logic. But it is in fact, just a fallacy of yours.

The conclusions are supported in enormous quantities.

You just won't admit them.

 

[eots]

Laughable.

How about Mandatory Minimums for drug offenders?

How about the disparity between sentences for crack vs cocaine?


These two hurt poor people at a much higher rate than rich people.

And don't try to tell me that millionaire Wall Streeters don't do drugs. It is well documented.

How nice of you to stereotype the poor as being drug users. I don't think the examples you give hurt poor people as much as they hurt STUPID people.

How nice of you to display your stupidity.

Most drug abusers who are imprisoned are poor.

I didn't claim that most poor people are drug abusers.




Another example of why the Rightwing are constantly wrong: they cannot even read and comprehend correctly.

poor people ,pan handlers,hardcore homeless addicts do not fund billion dollar drug enterprises just as alcoholic town drunks do not support the liquor industry.. there are not enough hardcore street addicts to support such a vast enterprise..what supports the industry is vast numbers of middle and upper income recreational users and addicts

 

[Swagger]

Essentially the same resources are available today to Americans as a hundred years ago. America has the capacity to be what Americans want. To say that it is presently that way would be a horrible thought. Even if we were to say it is presently the best in the world, no one would disagree that it could be better.

But what has changed? (If anything.) And why has it changed? Many of us recall a time when as a people we once would not have even thought to disrespect the National Anthem, the flag, the Pledge of Allegiance. We were unashamed in our patriotic displays and enthusiasm, and we mostly shared values of church, family, Christmas programs at school whether we were Christian or not, a generic prayer before the highschool football game whether we were religious or not. Being a real man who supported his family was deemed a virtue and an expectation for all and in the small towns, everybody disciplined everybody's kids and kids were expected to grow up as educated, responsible, mature citizens. The traditional family was the backbone of the nation. We knew our nation was imperfect, but we honestly believed it was better than any other and we believed in ourselves that we could find ways to fix whatever ailed it.

Silly nostalgic myths some of our younger generation would say. But those of us who lived it know it was real.

Until the 1980s, it was considered vulgar by American society for a CEO to make more than 100 x more than their employees.

Now it's celebrated by some as an ideal to emulate.

Until the 1980s, it was considered unpatriotic for a company to be a war profiteer.

Now it's seen as a business goal.

What you're condemning is far from exclusive to the United States. Surely you must've known that?

 

[Foxfyre]

Essentially the same resources are available today to Americans as a hundred years ago. America has the capacity to be what Americans want. To say that it is presently that way would be a horrible thought. Even if we were to say it is presently the best in the world, no one would disagree that it could be better.

But what has changed? (If anything.) And why has it changed? Many of us recall a time when as a people we once would not have even thought to disrespect the National Anthem, the flag, the Pledge of Allegiance. We were unashamed in our patriotic displays and enthusiasm, and we mostly shared values of church, family, Christmas programs at school whether we were Christian or not, a generic prayer before the highschool football game whether we were religious or not. Being a real man who supported his family was deemed a virtue and an expectation for all and in the small towns, everybody disciplined everybody's kids and kids were expected to grow up as educated, responsible, mature citizens. The traditional family was the backbone of the nation. We knew our nation was imperfect, but we honestly believed it was better than any other and we believed in ourselves that we could find ways to fix whatever ailed it.

Silly nostalgic myths some of our younger generation would say. But those of us who lived it know it was real.

Until the 1980s, it was considered vulgar by American society for a CEO to make more than 100 x more than their employees.

Now it's celebrated by some as an ideal to emulate.

Was it? I don't recall that being an issue in the 1960's and 70's. I do recal people like J.C. Penney and Henry Ford and the Rockefellers being somewhat revered as the examples of what we all could aspire to be--people who provided us with great products, great marketing, great philanthropy. Certainly the disparity between the income of these people and all of the people I knew was immense. But it didn't matter as we all expected to earn what we received. Class warfare was not a common household word as it is today.

Until the 1980s, it was considered unpatriotic for a company to be a war profiteer.

Now it's seen as a business goal.

From what I heard and read from the generation just preceding mine, in WWII--that would be well before the 1980's--it was considered one's patriotic duty to participate in the war effort. Many manufacturing plants shut down domestic operations to retool to make guns and tanks and other war equipment. Certainly all who did that profited mightily. Many women left their kitchens to become "Rosie the Riveter" in the manufacturing plants to replace the men who were overseas fighting the war. To save certain products, to conserve, to accept rationing was all one's patriotic duty.

There are many perspectives to consider other than the assigned political views and talking points. I like to focus on the realities in this thread rather than the politivcally correct point of view.

 

[there4eyeM]

One thing that changed is that some of us learned about all the lies that had been perpetrated in order conserve and develop a childish devotion to an untenable ideal.
At the beginning, Americans were oriented to where they lived and not a flag. All that sort of patriotism came from often unnecessary wars (with Mexico, with Spain, in Vietnam, Iraq and arguably others). The spirit was of family, work and community. There was individual initiative, strenuous effort, enterprise and sharing with loved ones and the needy. These were obvious and no central control was required for administration.

 

[Foxfyre]

One thing that changed is that some of us learned about all the lies that had been perpetrated in order conserve and develop a childish devotion to an untenable ideal.
At the beginning, Americans were oriented to where they lived and not a flag. All that sort of patriotism came from often unnecessary wars (with Mexico, with Spain, in Vietnam, Iraq and arguably others). The spirit was of family, work and community. There was individual initiative, strenuous effort, enterprise and sharing with loved ones and the needy. These were obvious and no central control was required for administration.

Exactly. American exceptionalism is the concept of self governance and the amazing things the human spirit and initiative can achieve when people are truly free. The function of the central government was to recognize and secure the unalienable rights of the people and then leave them alone to create whatever sort of society they wished to have. Some did that better than others, but as the Founders knew would happen when people were grounded in morals and values, the people one by one rejected more harmful policies and adopted better ones.

I will disagree on your version of patriotism. I think Americans have always known that to be an American is something special, and I think most have respected our flag and our patriotism from the beginning.

it was the nobility and virtues of mankind making America great that I heard from the speaker in the OP. Obviously everybody hasn't heard that the same way.

 

[Liability]

One thing that changed is that some of us learned about all the lies that had been perpetrated in order conserve and develop a childish devotion to an untenable ideal.
At the beginning, Americans were oriented to where they lived and not a flag. All that sort of patriotism came from often unnecessary wars (with Mexico, with Spain, in Vietnam, Iraq and arguably others). The spirit was of family, work and community. There was individual initiative, strenuous effort, enterprise and sharing with loved ones and the needy. These were obvious and no central control was required for administration.

A succinct reiteration of the crap version of liberalism taught in today's schools.

But in actuality, the ideal most of us have of America revolves around a few core matters of importance: America's dedication to liberty and freedom, the notion of individual (as opposed to collective) identity and self worth, the rights we cherish and our ability to improve our lot in life by our own efforts.

It is not necessary that we cling to the views taught in grade school in our younger days. We are ok when we admit our shortcomings.

But it is a very different thing to focus so heavily on the things we have done wrong that we forget to keep in mind the important and more noble things that got us where we are.

Slavery was wrong. Racial discrimination is wrong. We have rooted slavery out and have made genuine progress on rooting out racial bigotry.

Some of our wars were arguably ill-advised, but despite that, at least in modern day America, the wars we fight have not been wars of conquest. It was a liberal member of the USMB family who recently noted that fact here. A damn fine point, I'd say.

We don't suffer under Sharia Law and Muslims are not forbidden from practicing their dopey faith here. I can call Islam a dopey religion here without having to fear reprisals.

Are there other countries on Earth where folks have freedom, too? Yes. Sure.

In some cases, their freedoms may even rival ours. But it's simply not the case that they have superior rights, freedoms and liberties. Despite the rancid partisan yapping of some folks, OUR businessmen and businesswomen are not subject to arbitrary governmental reprisals after suspicions are raised. France, Germany tax evasion inquiries target Swiss bank clients - latimes.com

I cannot abide our current Chief Executive. I can openly talk about getting him removed from Office and I can openly criticize the current policies of our government. I do so feel secure in the knowledge that the government can't say "boo" about it. This is NOT the way it is in all other countries, not even some of the ones we recognize as having similar freedoms.

 

[there4eyeM]

Talk about a lot of words, and without saying very much.
The poster thinks America is great, so it is.
Other people may think their country is great, but they just don't understand that they don't understand.
Poor foreigners! Those French who find their nation a just compromise between freedom and collective effort must just be stupid to not think precisely as "'mericuns" do.

 

[oldernwiser]

So for everybody, what has changed us as a people? Please don't say that it was any one person or any political party because neither has the power to do that. We choose. We the people determine what is important to us. Why and when did we change from the exceptional nation to just another country? Or did American exceptionalism ever exist?

I'm thinking it was Communism - or at least, it's perception - particularly during the McCarthy era that has caused us to lose focus on where we're going as a country.

McCarthy not only rooted out the evil hordes, but he made it perfectly acceptable for us to polarize into sects who will not, under any circumstances, accept the legitimacy of any opposing argument purely on the merits. We now pick a label to apply to anyone who dissents, and use that label to simply brush the opposition to the side without ever having to consider the honesty of that action. It has become sufficient to simply say "He's a liberal" in order to avoid actually thinking.

How does a country ever regain what it's lost, if anything, and more importantly, how does a country maintain it's greatness when every 4 or 8 years, we simply tear down what came before based solely on the ideology that put it there in the first place? How do we maintain continuity from administration to administration when we, as a people, swing from one side to the other? As an engineer, I see this as being a complete and reckless waste of time, energy, and funding. WE lose sight of what was important, and fail to properly understand the problems we're trying to get fixed. WE miss the opportunities to correct past mistakes in the least intrusive and most efficient manner. But, perhaps the saddest of all, WE miss out on working together to solve issues and to learn from each other.

My father was right, Communism is a "bad thing". My father was also wrong - Communism was created as a solution to a problem, and contained within it's tenets, in which we truly don't believe, are nuggets which we have actually put into practice in our system. Good ideas used to stand up on their own. Now, I guess, it's just about who thought of them and whether that person belonged to the ideology du jour at the time.

 

[Foxfyre]

So for everybody, what has changed us as a people? Please don't say that it was any one person or any political party because neither has the power to do that. We choose. We the people determine what is important to us. Why and when did we change from the exceptional nation to just another country? Or did American exceptionalism ever exist?

I'm thinking it was Communism - or at least, it's perception - particularly during the McCarthy era that has caused us to lose focus on where we're going as a country.

McCarthy not only rooted out the evil hordes, but he made it perfectly acceptable for us to polarize into sects who will not, under any circumstances, accept the legitimacy of any opposing argument purely on the merits. We now pick a label to apply to anyone who dissents, and use that label to simply brush the opposition to the side without ever having to consider the honesty of that action. It has become sufficient to simply say "He's a liberal" in order to avoid actually thinking.

How does a country ever regain what it's lost, if anything, and more importantly, how does a country maintain it's greatness when every 4 or 8 years, we simply tear down what came before based solely on the ideology that put it there in the first place? How do we maintain continuity from administration to administration when we, as a people, swing from one side to the other? As an engineer, I see this as being a complete and reckless waste of time, energy, and funding. WE lose sight of what was important, and fail to properly understand the problems we're trying to get fixed. WE miss the opportunities to correct past mistakes in the least intrusive and most efficient manner. But, perhaps the saddest of all, WE miss out on working together to solve issues and to learn from each other.

My father was right, Communism is a "bad thing". My father was also wrong - Communism was created as a solution to a problem, and contained within it's tenets, in which we truly don't believe, are nuggets which we have actually put into practice in our system. Good ideas used to stand up on their own. Now, I guess, it's just about who thought of them and whether they belonged to the ideology du jour at the time.

Perhaps. But I can remember a time in college when a communist leader (Russian) was invited to speak at my university. (I covered the event as a reporter so was paying special attention to both the speaker and the audience reaction to him.) This was a very conservative, anti-communist part of the country at that time--still is actually--but the speaker was received very cordially--no boos, no cat calls. In the question and answer period at the end of the speech, thoughtful questions were asked by the students and thoughtful answers were given by the speaker.

Despite this being a very attractive, intelligent, and persuasive gentleman, I don't think the speaker changed a single opinion about communism. It was still viewed as an unworkable system by all the students, at least those I interveiwed.

I sometimes wonder if most students now even know why communisim is a dangerous thing, and why it is unworkable within human nature. It sounds so noble, so righteous, so virtuous. And yet it has been a scourge and a creator of mass poverty everywhere it has been tried.

But is the "Marxist" mentality of a virtue in everybody sharing in everything according to their needs that has created the current breakdown in American culture? Or do others see a breakdown? Is the entitlement mentality the core of the problem here? Or something else? These days students are more apt to protest or even riot in objection to somebody speaking at their university if they strongly disagree with that person. The idea of being entitled to or deserving of anything anybody else earned was a totally foreign concept to the students in that university in my day.

Why the difference between the two eras?

 

[oldernwiser]

So for everybody, what has changed us as a people? Please don't say that it was any one person or any political party because neither has the power to do that. We choose. We the people determine what is important to us. Why and when did we change from the exceptional nation to just another country? Or did American exceptionalism ever exist?

I'm thinking it was Communism - or at least, it's perception - particularly during the McCarthy era that has caused us to lose focus on where we're going as a country.

McCarthy not only rooted out the evil hordes, but he made it perfectly acceptable for us to polarize into sects who will not, under any circumstances, accept the legitimacy of any opposing argument purely on the merits. We now pick a label to apply to anyone who dissents, and use that label to simply brush the opposition to the side without ever having to consider the honesty of that action. It has become sufficient to simply say "He's a liberal" in order to avoid actually thinking.

How does a country ever regain what it's lost, if anything, and more importantly, how does a country maintain it's greatness when every 4 or 8 years, we simply tear down what came before based solely on the ideology that put it there in the first place? How do we maintain continuity from administration to administration when we, as a people, swing from one side to the other? As an engineer, I see this as being a complete and reckless waste of time, energy, and funding. WE lose sight of what was important, and fail to properly understand the problems we're trying to get fixed. WE miss the opportunities to correct past mistakes in the least intrusive and most efficient manner. But, perhaps the saddest of all, WE miss out on working together to solve issues and to learn from each other.

My father was right, Communism is a "bad thing". My father was also wrong - Communism was created as a solution to a problem, and contained within it's tenets, in which we truly don't believe, are nuggets which we have actually put into practice in our system. Good ideas used to stand up on their own. Now, I guess, it's just about who thought of them and whether they belonged to the ideology du jour at the time.

Perhaps. But I can remember a time in college when a communist leader (Russian) was invited to speak at my university. (I covered the event as a reporter so was paying special attention to both the speaker and the audience reaction to him.) This was a very conservative, anti-communist part of the country at that time--still is actually--but the speaker was received very cordially--no boos, no cat calls. In the question and answer period at the end of the speech, thoughtful questions were asked and thoughtful answers were given by the speaker.

Despite this being a very attractive, intelligent, and persuasive gentleman, I don't think the speaker changed a single opinion about communism. It was still viewed as an unworkable system by all the students.

I sometimes wonder if most students now even know why communisim is a dangerous thing, and why it is unworkable within human nature. It sounds so noble, so righteous, so virtuous. And yet it has been a scourge and a creator of mass poverty everywhere it has been tried.

But is the the "Marxist" mentality of a virtue in everybody sharing in everything according to their needs that has created the current breakdown in American culture? Or do others see a breakdown? Is the entitlement mentality the core of the problem here? Or something else? These days students are more apt to protest or even riot in objection to somebody speaking at their university if they strongly disagree with that person.

Why the difference between the two eras?

I wasn't trying to set Communism (or any other ideology) itself on any pedestal. The point was that McCarthy showed us that it was acceptable to paint any radical new idea with a dismissive brush without ever contemplating the idea's application to the problem set. From that point on, if a person appeared to have communist leanings, his entire line of reasoning was branded communist and dropped without a second thought.

Over the years, we have refined that anti-discussion method so that we have different brushes, but it amounts to the same thing. We, who once all pulled in the same direction, are now going our own separate ways. The only opinions that count are the ones that come from our own way of thinking, and all else is garbage.

I tend to see our own society as fragmented.

 

[Liability]

Talk about a lot of words, and without saying very much.
The poster thinks America is great, so it is.
Other people may think their country is great, but they just don't understand that they don't understand.
Poor foreigners! Those French who find their nation a just compromise between freedom and collective effort must just be stupid to not think precisely as "'mericuns" do.

You may be an imbecile, but at least you totally lack logic.

I didn't say that folks in other countries are not allowed to revere their own nations.

But if the Congo considers itself the best country on Earth, that doesn't make them right.

Ditto the Peoples' Republic of China.

And the word you were straining so ineffectual to reach is "Americans."

Newsflash for you, thereforyouaren't, you poor deluded dipshit: just because YOU don't agree that America is the greatest country on Earth doesn't mean that YOUR belief is right, either.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm thinking it was Communism - or at least, it's perception - particularly during the McCarthy era that has caused us to lose focus on where we're going as a country.

McCarthy not only rooted out the evil hordes, but he made it perfectly acceptable for us to polarize into sects who will not, under any circumstances, accept the legitimacy of any opposing argument purely on the merits. We now pick a label to apply to anyone who dissents, and use that label to simply brush the opposition to the side without ever having to consider the honesty of that action. It has become sufficient to simply say "He's a liberal" in order to avoid actually thinking.

How does a country ever regain what it's lost, if anything, and more importantly, how does a country maintain it's greatness when every 4 or 8 years, we simply tear down what came before based solely on the ideology that put it there in the first place? How do we maintain continuity from administration to administration when we, as a people, swing from one side to the other? As an engineer, I see this as being a complete and reckless waste of time, energy, and funding. WE lose sight of what was important, and fail to properly understand the problems we're trying to get fixed. WE miss the opportunities to correct past mistakes in the least intrusive and most efficient manner. But, perhaps the saddest of all, WE miss out on working together to solve issues and to learn from each other.

My father was right, Communism is a "bad thing". My father was also wrong - Communism was created as a solution to a problem, and contained within it's tenets, in which we truly don't believe, are nuggets which we have actually put into practice in our system. Good ideas used to stand up on their own. Now, I guess, it's just about who thought of them and whether they belonged to the ideology du jour at the time.

Perhaps. But I can remember a time in college when a communist leader (Russian) was invited to speak at my university. (I covered the event as a reporter so was paying special attention to both the speaker and the audience reaction to him.) This was a very conservative, anti-communist part of the country at that time--still is actually--but the speaker was received very cordially--no boos, no cat calls. In the question and answer period at the end of the speech, thoughtful questions were asked and thoughtful answers were given by the speaker.

Despite this being a very attractive, intelligent, and persuasive gentleman, I don't think the speaker changed a single opinion about communism. It was still viewed as an unworkable system by all the students.

I sometimes wonder if most students now even know why communisim is a dangerous thing, and why it is unworkable within human nature. It sounds so noble, so righteous, so virtuous. And yet it has been a scourge and a creator of mass poverty everywhere it has been tried.

But is the the "Marxist" mentality of a virtue in everybody sharing in everything according to their needs that has created the current breakdown in American culture? Or do others see a breakdown? Is the entitlement mentality the core of the problem here? Or something else? These days students are more apt to protest or even riot in objection to somebody speaking at their university if they strongly disagree with that person.

Why the difference between the two eras?

I wasn't trying to set Communism (or any other ideology) itself on any pedestal. The point was that McCarthy showed us that it was acceptable to paint any radical new idea with a dismissive brush without ever contemplating the idea's application to the problem set. From that point on, if a person appeared to have communist leanings, his entire line of reasoning was branded communist and dropped without a second thought.

Over the years, we have refined that anti-discussion method so that we have different brushes, but it amounts to the same thing. We, who once all pulled in the same direction, are now going our own separate ways. The only opinions that count are the ones that come from our own way of thinking, and all else is garbage.

I tend to see our own society as fragmented.

I didn't think you were selling Communism or setting it on a pedestal. I think I got what you were saying and I appreciate the point of view. I'm just quarreling with it a bit, while leaving the possibility of my being persuaded differently open.

Going all the way back to Pearl Harbor, the USA was attacked by Japan and thereby dragged into WWII. But the attack itself occurred during the very week that Japanese diplomats were meeting with FDR to work out differences between the two countries. And in the shock and anger at the attack, the administration, constitutionally charged to provide the national defense, had to be concerned about what spies and saboteurs had been installed in the USA by Japan. And what loyalties Japanese Americans might have to their mother country. So thousands of Japanese were rounded up and placed in interrment camps while all that was sorted out.

Justifiable? No, not in hindsight. It was a cruel process for most. A few were happy to go out of fear of retaliation of their American neighbors. But was it reasonable? At the time, we have to at least admit that it would seem so to an administration that had not experienced such an attack. There was a reason over and above blatant racism for the policy.

And we learned from it. When we were attacked by al Qaida on 9/11/2001, we didn't round up and inter a lot of the Arabs in the country. But without the lessons of Pearl Harbor, we might very well have seen a justification to do that.

The next lesson learned from WWII, was the expansion of the Soviet empire following the close of WWII. And being smarter and wiser, we knew full well that the 'empire' intended to eventually include us in that expansion. Or at least obliterate us as a world power. So ally became cold war enemy. But what spies and saboteurs had the 'empire' established in the USA? A justification of McCarthyism? No. A reason for it over and above ideological prejudices, yes.

And purely because so many Americans saw the injjustices of the Japanese interrment camps and the worst of McCarthyism, we didn't repeat those injustices following 9/11.

And that is why I don't see McCarthyism as the culprit in changing the culture.