# Atlantic: US now failed state



## notimp (May 18, 2020)

This is currently making headlines around the world:


We Are Living in a Failed State 
The coronavirus didn’t break America. It revealed what was already broken.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/06/underlying-conditions/610261/

The President Is Winning His War on American Institutions 
How Trump is destroying the civil service and bending the government to his will
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/04/how-to-destroy-a-government/606793/

Its important, because its in the Atlantic.  (Its part of the 'intellectual elite' reflecting on this.)


----------



## Xzi (May 18, 2020)

Sounds about right, we're pretty fucked regardless of who wins the election (and I'm sure Trump will reject the results if he loses and attempt some bullshit with Barr).  There will be more pandemics in the future.  More disasters, both natural and manmade.  And we aren't going to be prepared, just as we weren't for COVID-19.  We'll see how well a consumer economy continues to function when all the consumers are either broke or dying.  Shit's just beginning to hit the fan.


----------



## notimp (May 18, 2020)

Neh.  All depends on perspective. But imho its important to know that this stuff is going on as well.

Democracy shouldnt break, just because a 'chaotic evil' character gets to drive his ambitions. Or maybe it should break a little, because people have been shouting for renewal. 

(People have to think of a reaction.)

Its too early to declare the US a banana republic. Separation of power still has not ended. People are just raising flags on warning signs.


----------



## FGFlann (May 18, 2020)

I read all the way down to the conclusion only to be confronted with a load of fluff. George Packer's solution to society's problems is that we should all hold hands and think about how bad the pandemic has been, and that's going to stop us all from being politically tribal. Frankly, I'm insulted.


----------



## spotanjo3 (May 18, 2020)

notimp said:


> This is currently making headlines around the world:
> 
> 
> We Are Living in a Failed State
> ...



It doesn't matter and I do not care. The world is a corrupt political class, not only in America, PERIOD.


----------



## Taleweaver (May 18, 2020)

The first article is a lenghty analysis of things I already knew.
...but for which I really lost my ability to care about. At the very last after he just kept office after being impeached, it was clear that the cancer has overtaken the system it was supposed to lead. I could have predicted in advance corona would strike the USA hardest, but because everyone's so polarised on their side no effort is being taken to clear the country. In other words: people love hating their fellow Americans with different agenda's more than they want to build a strong nation.

In a cynical way, that's good news for foreigners. With all his macho talk, I was kind of frightened Trump would start an economic and later a real war with the rest of the world. But partially due to this virus, it's only a matter of time before there'll be a second civil war.

The second article, however, is much more interesting. 'divide and conquer' only goes so far: the propaganda and required loyalty to be able to reply to an evergrowing mountain of criticism is also something that had - and is - to be implemented. This too is a very lenghty article, but the setup is interesting. Basically: how is USA turning into a dystopia under Trump?


----------



## Xzi (May 18, 2020)

notimp said:


> Democracy shouldnt break, just because a 'chaotic evil' character gets to drive his ambitions.


It shouldn't, but there's still a good chance it might.  All the institutions which normally protect our democracy are now controlled by cronies and sycophants.  When you add in the factors of foreign interference and hacking, there really is no way to know for sure that any of our future elections will be legitimate.



notimp said:


> Its too early to declare the US a banana republic. Separation of power still has not ended. People are just raising flags on warning signs.


I'm not so sure.  Trump has bent the Supreme Court, the Senate, the DOJ, and our intelligence agencies to his will.  He's also packed the lower courts with young alt-right judges.  All that's left is the House, and the Senate can effectively kneecap their progress on any oversight actions.


----------



## FGFlann (May 18, 2020)

Why stop at hacking? A ballot counter armed with an eraser tipped pencil is just as much of a threat. Every paper ballot ever cast since 1858 is at risk. This could be election fraud on a scale yet unprecedented. But since we're also claiming that the courts are packed with the "alt-right" it might be time to consider we may be paranoid.


----------



## Xzi (May 18, 2020)

FGFlann said:


> But since we're also claiming that the courts are packed with the "alt-right" it might be time to consider we may be paranoid.


I mean, did you expect Trump and McConnell to appoint a bunch of socialists?  Or even centrists?  Of course they're gonna pick people that agree with their (rather extreme) viewpoints.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_Donald_Trump


----------



## FGFlann (May 18, 2020)

Xzi said:


> I mean, did you expect Trump and McConnell to appoint a bunch of socialists?  Or even centrists?  Of course they're gonna pick people that agree with their (rather extreme) viewpoints.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_Donald_Trump


The only thing I can glean from this is that you don't understand what their viewpoints are or you don't know what the alt-right is. Or maybe you do and simply don't care? It's exactly this kind of misrepresentation that's damaging the world's social fabric.


----------



## Xzi (May 18, 2020)

FGFlann said:


> The only thing I can glean from this is that you don't understand what their viewpoints are or you don't know what the alt-right is. Or maybe you do and simply don't care? It's exactly this kind of misrepresentation that's damaging the world's social fabric.


I'm aware the alt-right is not one specific thing, it's a grouping of political ideologies which includes everything from nationalism to fascism, and then some.  But does it really matter when 95% of people with each of these so-called "unique" ideologies all bow before Trumpism in the exact same way?  I'd argue no, it's all been blended together along with modern neoconservatism into one big shit sundae, at least where US politics are concerned.


----------



## FGFlann (May 18, 2020)

That also is a misrepresentation. The alt-right is a very specific ideological group that centers around ethno-nationalism in particular. A short history; It was originally conceived as a self-descriptor for conservatives who were disillusioned with US republican party, but was very quickly overtaken by its current ideology, forcing moderates who had initially taken up the label to abandon it. From that point onwards it has been used specifically by that ideological group. It is also currently in opposition to the republican party as it exists. They abandoned Trump very quickly after they realized he wouldn't give them what they wanted.


----------



## Xzi (May 18, 2020)

FGFlann said:


> It is also currently in opposition to the republican party as it exists. They abandoned Trump very quickly after they realized he wouldn't give them what they wanted.


I guess we'll find out this November if that's really true, because Trump cannot win without his alt-right base.  I haven't seen any indicators that they're abandoning him, at least not in significant numbers.


----------



## FGFlann (May 18, 2020)

Xzi said:


> I guess we'll find out this November if that's really true, because Trump cannot win without his alt-right base.  I haven't seen any indicators that they're abandoning him, at least not in significant numbers.


How large do you think the alt-right is? I can guarantee you they are irrelevant in terms of vote share. They are a joke not just in ideological terms but also in terms of political power. They will affect nothing and screech impotently like all other fringe groups.

What will decide the election is how 'moderates' in swing states will vote. At the moment there are a lot of variables on the field which makes any kind of prediction tenuous. Including but limited to:

Incumbent advantage.
Trump's wildly varying popularity.
Poor democratic performance.
Public response to the pandemic.
Increasingly partisan media coverage.

I wish I had the kind of confidence to call the election.


----------



## Xzi (May 18, 2020)

FGFlann said:


> How large do you think the alt-right is?


Considerably larger since Trump began running his campaign.  His announcement speech was made up almost exclusively of dog whistles for the alt-right, and ever since then they've been working to expand radicalization pipelines on the internet.

Of course, the group would seem a lot smaller if a larger percentage of Americans could be relied upon to come out and vote every election, but that's simply not the reality we live in.  As-is, even if the alt-right only represents 5% of Trump's base, that's still enough to swing the election one way or the other.  I think that's severely low-balling it, of course, and I think the vast majority of alt-righties will continue to pick their cult of personality over the ideologies they supposedly hold dear.


----------



## FGFlann (May 18, 2020)

None of that is true, but let's run with it, I guess.

A "base" is a guaranteed voting block. You can expect your base to vote for you almost no matter what unless you fuck up monumentally. But let's be generous and assume of all the people that voted for Trump in 2016, 5% of them are "alt-right", that's over three million people who are now internet ethno-nationalists from the chans. Certainly would have been interesting to see up to three million people turn up to 'unite the right' instead of the actual few hundred people that attended against the 1,000 counter protestors that also turned up.  Let's be equally generous and divide them up between the states, that's 60,000 alt-righters per state, that's approximately 1-3% of each swing state's voting population, again to be contrasted against their ideological marches which have vastly lower numbers sometimes in the _double digits(!)_ and are always overshadowed by their counter-protests. It just doesn't hold up to observable reality unless you somehow know that they're all secret alt-righters who are just hiding! In which case, how do you know? You can't. These groups are tiny and they don't matter. All they do is create noise and inconvenience the rest of us.


----------



## notimp (May 18, 2020)

FGFlann said:


> I read all the way down to the conclusion only to be confronted with a load of fluff. George Packer's solution to society's problems is that we should all hold hands and think about how bad the pandemic has been, and that's going to stop us all from being politically tribal. Frankly, I'm insulted.


They arent activists, mind you.  Some of this is also used for (establishment) polit campaigning, currently.

Dont be disturbed - thats normal. Also in return, that strengthens my argument, that its not 'end of democracy' quite yet, because there is a palpable lack of urgency... 

Nevertheless, this is a reflection process, that is at least interesting...


----------



## FAST6191 (May 18, 2020)

There is much to look at but those articles had little of substance. Reasonable stab at a timeline in the people based story though, even if what you might call rather one sided.

It flirted with a few interesting things but I want good numbers, projections, breakdowns of percentages and something to try to build a few of those together. Educational quality, education related debt, general debt as ratio of assets/projected income, nature of use of debt (the idea/execution of credit builder loans is nuts to me), projected income, retirement projections for young and old (and by extension career advancement), that would also speak to pensions, speaking of pensions local government in many places has a rather large axe waiting to fall on that one, home ownership, nature of home ownership (the palatial mansions thing is odd but the idea of a starter home is an odd one from where I sit), distance moved from place growing up, children per (sub replacement does not bother me but it does lead to fun things to contemplate, especially in the current villain of the week by way of the PRC), quality of healthcare and access to it (it is quite good so many of those now longer able to retire are able to work rather than rot -- I met 50 somethings and beyond in the 80s and they don't look anything like those of today, even with the epidemic of fat bastards), while the US does seem to hand out head meds like sweeties there is at least something to it, the US seems fond of its military but it costs an awful lot for not a great deal as far as combat effectiveness and equipment goes (many others get much the same for a lot less, not to mention the nation of fat bastards thing is looking like it might make recruitment hard), on military and force protection also comes diplomacy and things do seem rather insular, nature of business (be it breakdowns of general incomes, debt ratios, what kind of reserves they have), nature of infrastructure (broadband is awful, phones is a hard game but not all that much better, roads and bridges oh dear)...
Tell me a story with all/most of those, and why various numbers might be deceptive (in work might well mean underemployed, likewise most politicos seem to have adopted business wonk methods of next quarter and annual report which can have gaps filled in well enough) and I might be interested. Those links at the start though... amusing waffle at best, and some kind of face saving measure at worst (oh no the walking idiot was actually a genius, though business wonk cutting through politicos that spent their time being politicos rather than gaining some experience in the real world is almost as amusing as watching Japan slice up business wonks in the US a few decades back).


----------



## Xzi (May 18, 2020)

FGFlann said:


> But let's be generous and assume of all the people that voted for Trump in 2016, 5% of them are "alt-right", that's over three million people who are now internet ethno-nationalists from the chans.


It sounds like a lot, but at the same time it doesn't.  That's less than 1% of the total US population, and frankly I think you could sell just about any product or ideology to 1% of Americans.  Particularly if it's a right-wing ideology that so many have already had a "soft introduction" to.



FGFlann said:


> Certainly would have been interesting to see up to three million people turn up to 'unite the right' instead of the actual few hundred people that attended against the 1,000 counter protestors that also turned up.


I never said these people had the testicles or mental fortitude to stand up against public opinion in the majority.  Even with Trump in office a lot of them choose to hide their beliefs as best they can, because they know they'll be criticized and ridiculed for them.


----------



## FGFlann (May 18, 2020)

Xzi said:


> It sounds like a lot, but at the same time it doesn't.  That's less than 1% of the total US population, and frankly I think you could sell just about any product or ideology to 1% of Americans.
> 
> 
> I never said these people had the testicles or mental fortitude to stand up to public opinion in the majority.  Even with Trump in office a lot of them choose to hide their beliefs as best they can, because they know they'll be criticized and ridiculed for them.


The ultimate point though is that the numbers don't hold up to observation, and if they only turn out to vote in presidential elections how do you even know that they hold that specific set of beliefs? You can't know it. You're creating a boogeyman for yourself, a monster under your bed.


----------



## Xzi (May 18, 2020)

FGFlann said:


> The ultimate point though is that the numbers don't hold up to observation, and if they only turn out to vote in presidential elections how do you even know that they hold that specific set of beliefs? You can't know it.


Sure you can, all you have to do is look at Republican polling on various issues, specifically issues which the alt-right obsess over (mostly immigration).  Like I said previously, however, it has become harder to actually separate the alt-right from the rest of the party, because it's no longer a party with a single set of cohesive values.  It's all jumbled up into a big mass of hateful nonsense since all the moderate Republicans were driven out, so I find it easier to simply call it Trumpism.  Far more all-encompassing.


----------



## FGFlann (May 18, 2020)

That's very dishonest framing. This simply sets yourself the expectation that anyone that has a concern over immigration is an ethno-nationalist. You couldn't get more hyper partisan framing if you tried.

I find the opposite is actually true when it comes to party cohesion, republicans are very unified with a common set of values and principles. There will always be differences but it's not a split party at all, not by a long shot.


----------



## Xzi (May 18, 2020)

FGFlann said:


> That's very dishonest framing. This simply sets yourself the expectation that anyone that has a concern over immigration is an ethno-nationalist.


I'm not talking about "concerns," I'm talking about support for a white ethnostate, or short of that, blanket support for deportation of non-whites.  These things poll a lot higher than you'd expect among Trump supporters.  Or maybe exactly as high as you'd expect, depending on how little faith in humanity you have left.  The Southern Strategy has certainly left its mark over the decades.



FGFlann said:


> There will always be differences but it's not a split party at all, not by a long shot.


Oh I didn't say they were split, but the fact that Republicans are always so willing to fall in line is not necessarily a good thing.  Right now they're more like lemmings slowly marching the entire country in a single-file line toward a cliff.


----------



## FGFlann (May 18, 2020)

Xzi said:


> I'm not talking about "concerns," I'm talking about support for a white ethnostate, or short of that, blanket support for deportation of non-whites.  These things poll a lot higher than you'd expect among Trump supporters.  Or maybe exactly as high as you'd expect, depending on how little faith in humanity you have left.
> 
> 
> Oh I didn't say they were split, but the fact that Republicans are always so willing to fall in line is not necessarily a good thing.  Right now they're more like lemmings slowly marching the entire country in a single-file line toward a cliff.


Serious question, are you messing with me? I know that you know there has never been a poll of republicans with a question of "do you support the creation of a white ethno-state?" ¬_¬


----------



## Xzi (May 18, 2020)

FGFlann said:


> Serious question, are you messing with me? I know that you know there has never been a poll of republicans with a question of "do you support the creation of a white ethno-state?" ¬_¬


Not in those exact terms, no.



			
				Newsweek said:
			
		

> Only six percent of respondents said they strongly or somewhat supported the alt-right, while eight percent said the same of white nationalism and just four percent of neo-Nazism. In the case of the alt-right and white nationalism, a staggering one-fifth said they neither support nor oppose the groups.
> 
> About 70 percent of respondents strongly agreed that people of different races should be "free to live wherever they choose" and that "all races are equal," and 89 percent agreed that all races should be treated equally. At the same time, 31 percent of respondents said they strongly or somewhat agreed that the country needs to "protect and preserve its White European heritage," while 34 percent strongly or somewhat disagreed and 29 percent said they neither agreed nor disagreed.
> 
> The poll also revealed disparities in which groups Americans believe are "under attack." More than a third—39 percent—of respondents strongly or somewhat agreed with the statement that "white people are currently under attack in this country."


https://www.newsweek.com/many-ameri...ite-nationalists-they-think-poll-finds-666228

It's really easy to radicalize people with a victim complex.  Also worth noting the poll is a couple years out of date, but it's the most recent relevant one I could find on short notice.


----------



## FGFlann (May 18, 2020)

The study does not break down the responses by political party, and is actually weighted toward democrats. It also does not convey the respondents understanding of the questions or terms involved. In any case, the statistics are overwhelmingly against fringe ideologies of all stripes. Except BLM apparently, but that doesn't surprise me.

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/cr...017-Reuters-UVA-Ipsos-Race-Poll-9-11-2017.pdf


----------



## Xzi (May 18, 2020)

FGFlann said:


> View attachment 209567


Pretty dang close to the same results, only difference is that doesn't include questions about "protecting and preserving white European heritage," or which groups people believe are "under attack."

Still, if we're looking at this as representative of the larger population, support for the alt-right is higher than my previous guess of 5%, and that's without accounting for the other groups which essentially fall under the same umbrella.  A total of 18% support between the alt-right, white nationalism, and neo-nazism is fairly disturbing.  Assuming all of them are voters, they definitely hold quite a bit of power over the Republican party.


----------



## FGFlann (May 18, 2020)

(It's the same poll, question is on page 2.)

Lol, it's basically bunk. You shouldn't panic over it.

There's a much more thorough questionnaire which was done more recently by Reuters.

https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/mkt/12/4809/4766/Topline Reuters Race Poll.pdf

Breakdowns along party lines, too. There are some quite hilarious questions which demonstrate all the stereotypes you can imagine.
("America will be better off with whites as the minority" 12% democrat approval. Thanks, dems. )

But the takeaway from it is that basically nobody really cares about these dumb race based ideologies. Whether it's democrats or republicans the response on average is that people are egalitarian.


----------



## Xzi (May 18, 2020)

FGFlann said:


> Lol, it's basically bunk. You shouldn't panic over it.


I'm not panicking over it, but I'm also not particularly shocked by it.  We haven't come nearly as far as we'd like to believe we have in the last 100 years, and quite a bit of institutional racism/classism continues to linger.  All you have to do is look at the Ahmaud Arbery and Breonna Taylor cases for examples.


----------



## Hanafuda (May 18, 2020)

Four More Years!


----------



## Xzi (May 19, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> Four More Years!


If Trump isn't lying about personally taking hydroxychloroquine, you'll be lucky to get four more days out of his already-struggling heart.  Then again, whenever you're starting with the assumption that Trump is telling the truth about something, there's a 99.9% chance you're on the wrong track.


----------



## Hanafuda (May 19, 2020)

Xzi said:


> If Trump isn't lying about personally taking hydroxychloroquine, you'll be lucky to get four more days out of his already-struggling heart.  Then again, whenever you're starting with the assumption that Trump is telling the truth about something, there's a 99.9% chance you're on the wrong track.



Four More Years! 

TBH, neither of the candidates have better than 60/40 odds at another 4 years. And while Biden might live that long, his mental faculties are already pulling out of the station. So I'm looking at the VP slots and that freaks me the fuck out. I don't have a problem with DJT as a frontman (let's face it, POTUS is really just a magazine cover), but Mike Pence? That ain't my flavor. But neither is Stacey Abrams or Kamala Harris or whatever other female dem prospect Biden is somewhat compelled to choose.  They're all too far off center, one way or the other, for me.


----------



## Xzi (May 19, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> TBH, neither of the candidates have better than 60/40 odds at another 4 years. And while Biden might live that long, his mental faculties are already pulling out of the station. So I'm looking at the VP slots and that freaks me the fuck out.


Oh no doubt, it's dementia Joe vs brain damaged Donald.  It was always going to come down to these two though, the only thing we have left is the illusion of choice.



Hanafuda said:


> let's face it, POTUS is really just a magazine cover


Typically yeah, but there's nobody left in the Republican party willing to suppress Trump's worst instincts.  Even just giving him a funny look results in banishment.  At the very least we'd have progressives carefully watching and criticizing everything Biden does in office.



Hanafuda said:


> Mike Pence? That ain't my flavor. But neither is Stacey Abrams or Kamala Harris or whatever other female dem prospect Biden is somewhat compelled to choose. They're all too far off center, one way or the other, for me.


Kamala Harris is pretty damn centrist on most issues, if not center-right.  At the same time I feel like she'd be a bad pick, since Biden already occupies that same lane and you typically want a VP that makes up for your weaknesses.  Stacy Abrams I'd be happier with, but she's just starting to establish herself and is still relatively unknown.


----------



## weatMod (May 19, 2020)

notimp said:


> This is currently making headlines around the world:
> 
> 
> We Are Living in a Failed State
> ...


not exactly the punctuation i would put around The Atlantic


----------

