A theory about the political divide

[ditcherman]

Well said, Jamil and I generally agree.
I do question the first line of the 3 paragraph "as long as it's based on any of the objective morals that most people have" When I read that I think 'slippery slope'. I believe there is an absolute truth, and that absolute truth doesn't depend on what a majority of people hold to be true, it depends on the absolute truth. In other words, even the majority could be wrong. We may not even know the truth; remember when the world was flat? I've heard CM does. Point is, I'm not going to base my moral compass on "majority", I'm going to base is on what I believe no matter how the majority swings.

 

[wtburnette]

It had seemed that most of the bad ideas were contained in the fringe university departments, in the far left urban areas, in the left corners of media. It seemed that people were seeing the nonsense and were starting to push back. Then that ***damn idiot cop unknowingly closed off even more of society to hearing a skeptical perspective of the CHAZian world the uber accepting people propose. One can be too reluctant to accept new ideas. One can be too open to new ideas. There's a sane space which many people are leaving in droves.

I don't think that's correct. The Left has been taking over the democratic party for decades and at the same time quietly indoctrinating the American people via Leftist educators, media and Hollyweird. All that happened is that something shone a light on it that brought it all to the surface for everyone to see. Previously I had dismissed it as fringe groups wanting such things as disbanding police force and open borders and such, but I'm shocked to learn that there are people who really want it to happen. Then I realize, after watching that video on the ex-KGB guy talking about how communists take over, as well as reading Kurt Schlichter's latest book and other things I've watched and read that the plot is exposed. I don't know that the common citizen wants these things, but they've been told by one party, their teachers, professors, reporters and beloved actors and actresses that those things are what is right and it's become a knee jerk reaction for them to believe in it all. Add to that the actual architects and rabid believers and we're in a battle over the future of our country. I don't believe the average citizen is evil, just indoctrinated. I believe the architects of this mess and their die hard supporters are evil. They are the ones actively pushing for socialism/communism for our country and I 100% feel that is evil. Just my of course.

 

[Oldgunfan]

I think you're both right!
@jamil has provided a good explanation of the left right divide, but insufficient: there is a need for further delineation within the parties, as I tried to address in post #5. Let's start with the assumption that, more or less, half of America leans left and the other half leans right. When @wtburnette talks about "THE Left" that is a subgroup of the left leaning, and I think wtburnette has well described their activities and intentions. I believe they are the numeric minority within the left leaning half of America, but they wield the majority of the social and political power.

 

[jamil]

I don't think that's correct. The Left has been taking over the democratic party for decades and at the same time quietly indoctrinating the American people via Leftist educators, media and Hollyweird. All that happened is that something shone a light on it that brought it all to the surface for everyone to see. Previously I had dismissed it as fringe groups wanting such things as disbanding police force and open borders and such, but I'm shocked to learn that there are people who really want it to happen. Then I realize, after watching that video on the ex-KGB guy talking about how communists take over, as well as reading Kurt Schlichter's latest book and other things I've watched and read that the plot is exposed. I don't know that the common citizen wants these things, but they've been told by one party, their teachers, professors, reporters and beloved actors and actresses that those things are what is right and it's become a knee jerk reaction for them to believe in it all. Add to that the actual architects and rabid believers and we're in a battle over the future of our country. I don't believe the average citizen is evil, just indoctrinated. I believe the architects of this mess and their die hard supporters are evil. They are the ones actively pushing for socialism/communism for our country and I 100% feel that is evil. Just my of course.

So you're basically talking about the evolution of the extreme side of leftism. I didn't include the history. It has some roots in the Frankfort school many decades ago, a Marxist think tank basically. Some concepts were formed which eventually led to the development of Critical Theory. "Theory" doesn't mean what we might think of as theory, so don't let that throw you. So then that was taught at universities and from the basis of it, critical law theory (as it pertains to race) was developed in one of the ivy league law schools. Don't remember which. From that critical race theory was created and that was mostly developed from the 1980s through the 90s. At some point the ideas of Postmodernism were brought into it. So this whole thing that I call "insane social justice" is comprised of ideas borrowed from all those sources. And all that came from faculty at key universities and then spread out to other universities as graduate students became professors themselves. And these people taught the people who would become journalists, lawyers, teachers, politicians, artists, actors over the last couple of decades. Basically they taught anyone who had to have any depth in humanities studies for their degree.

So all this has been growing and spreading for many years. It hadn't really shown itself to the general public in any significant way until around 2014, with gamergate. GPIA can inform the details about that. And it later surfaced again with Evergreen State College in Olympia Washington, where some insane social justice **** hit the fan. Still it wasn't mainstream. More and more liberals became aware of it and this alarmed them. Not many people in academia took them seriously though. So now many major universities are infested top to bottom with these people.

In 2013 BLM was formed by two students of this nonsense. They're self-described trained marxists and community organizers. They started the movement with #blacklivesmatter on twitter and build the organization from there. Superficially it's always been about stopping police brutality but even a few years ago we had clues that it was more than that when they published their list of demands then. They're not all that different from now. Both included reparations.

But now BLM has removed the covers and they're bold enough to reveal what they are to people who can see. They're a Trojan Horse. They are the compilation of various components of Marxism, Postmodernism, Critical Race Theory, Intersectional Feminism. The past couple of months is really the first time that these ideas have been presented in mass to mainstream America. And the people at the top know what they're doing. It is intentional. And a lot of left leaning people don't really have the capacity to look critically at something that looks so benevolent. It's "social justice". And that's not to say all the lefties eagerly accept it. The resistance to this over the past decade, to the extent that there is actually a resistance, has been from people on the left. The people on the right were mostly oblivious to it until maybe 2015 or so. I started the original "Insane Social Justice" thread several years ago here just to make people aware of what was going on with the left.

Make no mistake, the goal of this kind of social justice is for the purpose of tearing down everything we know as the US and building the society they want.

 

[jamil]

I think you're both right!
@jamil has provided a good explanation of the left right divide, but insufficient: there is a need for further delineation within the parties, as I tried to address in post #5. Let's start with the assumption that, more or less, half of America leans left and the other half leans right. When @wtburnette talks about "THE Left" that is a subgroup of the left leaning, and I think wtburnette has well described their activities and intentions. I believe they are the numeric minority within the left leaning half of America, but they wield the majority of the social and political power.

I think this is true. The explanation of the left-right divide only serves that purpose.

 

[Oldgunfan]

Staying on the theme of "theory of the political landscape in the US":
The exchange between @Tombs and @jamil within this thread is illustrative of the divide within the right leaning half of America, and an even better example is the different perspectives in Longtime Liberal friend wants to buy a gun now. In that thread, @DadSmith asked if he should help out his friend with purchasing and learning how to use her first gun. The responses were ranged from "Don't help! Let her reap what she's sown and suffer the consequences of her voting record. She's irredeemable and just because she buys a gun doesn't mean she'll join us (meaning the Republican party)", to "Help anyone who has seen the light! I once was a lefty (or knew a lefty), and patient friends helped me (or my friend) see the light. Even if she doesn't change her voting, you are helping her protect her family."

What we have in the first group is the people who just see the conservative movement as Their set of values and beliefs, and they just want to protect their own interests, which in turn means politically fighting against those on the left who are a threat to Their values. They want political power so they can protect Their values and beliefs.

The second group is those who believe in a more libertarian message: everyone should be able to live with their values and beliefs, even those idiots on the left who are wrong Rather than seeking political power to exert Their values, they seek to minimize political power itself so that everyone no matter whether right or left is currently leading the government, their ability to impact the lives of citizens is minimized.

While I identify more with the second group, I'm not trying to denigrate the first group and I value their role in the right wing of politics.

 

[wtburnette]

So you're basically talking about the evolution of the extreme side of leftism. I didn't include the history. It has some roots in the Frankfort school many decades ago, a Marxist think tank basically. Some concepts were formed which eventually led to the development of Critical Theory. "Theory" doesn't mean what we might think of as theory, so don't let that throw you. So then that was taught at universities and from the basis of it, critical law theory (as it pertains to race) was developed in one of the ivy league law schools. Don't remember which. From that critical race theory was created and that was mostly developed from the 1980s through the 90s. At some point the ideas of Postmodernism were brought into it. So this whole thing that I call "insane social justice" is comprised of ideas borrowed from all those sources. And all that came from faculty at key universities and then spread out to other universities as graduate students became professors themselves. And these people taught the people who would become journalists, lawyers, teachers, politicians, artists, actors over the last couple of decades. Basically they taught anyone who had to have any depth in humanities studies for their degree.

So all this has been growing and spreading for many years. It hadn't really shown itself to the general public in any significant way until around 2014, with gamergate. GPIA can inform the details about that. And it later surfaced again with Evergreen State College in Olympia Washington, where some insane social justice **** hit the fan. Still it wasn't mainstream. More and more liberals became aware of it and this alarmed them. Not many people in academia took them seriously though. So now many major universities are infested top to bottom with these people.

In 2013 BLM was formed by two students of this nonsense. They're self-described trained marxists and community organizers. They started the movement with #blacklivesmatter on twitter and build the organization from there. Superficially it's always been about stopping police brutality but even a few years ago we had clues that it was more than that when they published their list of demands then. They're not all that different from now. Both included reparations.

But now BLM has removed the covers and they're bold enough to reveal what they are to people who can see. They're a Trojan Horse. They are the compilation of various components of Marxism, Postmodernism, Critical Race Theory, Intersectional Feminism. The past couple of months is really the first time that these ideas have been presented in mass to mainstream America. And the people at the top know what they're doing. It is intentional. And a lot of left leaning people don't really have the capacity to look critically at something that looks so benevolent. It's "social justice". And that's not to say all the lefties eagerly accept it. The resistance to this over the past decade, to the extent that there is actually a resistance, has been from people on the left. The people on the right were mostly oblivious to it until maybe 2015 or so. I started the original "Insane Social Justice" thread several years ago here just to make people aware of what was going on with the left.

Make no mistake, the goal of this kind of social justice is for the purpose of tearing down everything we know as the US and building the society they want.

Much more in depth than I could say, but yes. I agree. I think certain portions of "the right" have known about this for a while, but for the most part it's just recently been exposed what all of this is really about. Too many of the sheep don't know or don't care and just go along to get along.

 

[jamil]

Staying on the theme of "theory of the political landscape in the US":
The exchange between @Tombs and @jamil within this thread is illustrative of the divide within the right leaning half of America, and an even better example is the different perspectives in Longtime Liberal friend wants to buy a gun now. In that thread, @DadSmith asked if he should help out his friend with purchasing and learning how to use her first gun. The responses were ranged from "Don't help! Let her reap what she's sown and suffer the consequences of her voting record. She's irredeemable and just because she buys a gun doesn't mean she'll join us (meaning the Republican party)", to "Help anyone who has seen the light! I once was a lefty (or knew a lefty), and patient friends helped me (or my friend) see the light. Even if she doesn't change her voting, you are helping her protect her family."

What we have in the first group is the people who just see the conservative movement as Their set of values and beliefs, and they just want to protect their own interests, which in turn means politically fighting against those on the left who are a threat to Their values. They want political power so they can protect Their values and beliefs.

The second group is those who believe in a more libertarian message: everyone should be able to live with their values and beliefs, even those idiots on the left who are wrong Rather than seeking political power to exert Their values, they seek to minimize political power itself so that everyone no matter whether right or left is currently leading the government, their ability to impact the lives of citizens is minimized.

While I identify more with the second group, I'm not trying to denigrate the first group and I value their role in the right wing of politics.

I've heard that referred to in some circles that conservatives want to build a mote with crocodiles and dragons around their traditions. And that's pretty hyperbolic, but it's true enough that conservatives want to protect their ideas and values, and their tribe. They like to put walls around stuff. I can't help but sympathize with that to some extent. But also the way I prioritize my values is compatible with some people on the left, I think mostly because I also value a lot of libertarian principles.

Gayness, for example, I don't celebrate "pride" but I have no problem with what people do unless someone tries to impose their way of life people who don't want that. The libertarian principle I most identify with, I like the concept of limiting political power altogether, which isn't really a left or right concept. If government has no big stick then it's not worth fighting over to use it against your political rivals. And then I don't have to worry about my political rivals having the big stick.

 

[jamil]

Much more in depth than I could say, but yes. I agree. I think certain portions of "the right" have known about this for a while, but for the most part it's just recently been exposed what all of this is really about. Too many of the sheep don't know or don't care and just go along to get along.

People on the right have known about it but they they can't really spread the word because they don't have a big enough platform. The media which has been consumed by this insane version of social justice certainly is not going to inform everyone. They'll help conceal the Trojan Horse.

 

[jamil]

We seem to be moving into two topics. It started to be about the political divide and especially the nature around why the divide is getting bigger. But it's also about what has become of the left, and that's fine too. It's a subset of the discussion. Insane social justice has infiltrated society because the the left (accepting) accepts it without criticism, and the right (skeptics) have no voice in the public square to rebut it. They've been marginalized as racists, and haven't figured out how to get their place back in the public square to be taken seriously, especially given these new societal rules that marginalize them.

The rules of "social justice" are this: heads we (presumptive marginalize identities: PoC, women, LGBT, "marginalized" poor, excluding skeptics) win, tales you (white, male, skeptics of any identity) lose. If you disagree with them you're a helpless fragile racist, sexist, homophobic bigot who hates the poor and must be re-educated,canceled,oppressed. If you agree with them you're a helpless fragile racist, sexist, homophobic bigot who hates the poor, but at least you're tolerable.

There are two main ideas that would completely obliterate all that nonsense if skeptics didn't have their voice marginalized away. 1) free speech. That one is self evident. 2) individuals are real; identity groups are social constructs. Recognizing the individual's rights as more important than the group's makes a freer society and fosters real social justice. These two concepts have fundamentally enabled both freedom and peace to the greatest extent experienced in human existence. In contrast, there is no such thing as group rights because all instantiations of group rights is a power over people not in the group. The world they propose is one which really does have a power hierarchy, and is oppressive, and regresses us to a time before we fixed the problem of groups getting along.

 

[Twangbanger]

...The libertarian principle I most identify with...If government has no big stick...I don't have to worry about my political rivals having the big stick.

You are making the argument about Government that Liberals make about guns. "If nobody had guns, I wouldn't have to worry about people having guns." It's the Scott Adams thing: "Republicans are worried about Democrats taking their guns; Democrats are worried about being shot by other Democrats."

"We" respond by pointing out that guns have always been legal, culminating in the existence of some 400 million guns in this country. And therefore, the wish to have no guns isn't rooted in reality. It's rooted in "your" fantasy ideal world.

And I'm telling you, the same thing we tell liberals on gun control: Government has the stick. Government has always had the stick. You cannot put that genie back in the bottle. The desire on your part for government not to have it, is your fantasy world. It's your bubble. It's beautiful, and I like it too. But it's not reality-based. The difference between Left and Right, is the Left simply trusts government to have the stick. Like the Right (for the most part) trusts people to have guns. Individual Rights and Free Speech are our analogs of magazine capacity limits, assault weapons bans, and Red Flag Laws. Limits on the things we believe should be feared.

But maybe that's getting too much into the political end of it...

We seem to be moving into two topics. It started to be about the political divide and especially the nature around why the divide is getting bigger. But it's also about what has become of the left, and that's fine too. It's a subset of the discussion. Insane social justice has infiltrated society because the the left (accepting) accepts it without criticism, and the right (skeptics) have no voice in the public square to rebut it. They've been marginalized as racists, and haven't figured out how to get their place back in the public square to be taken seriously, especially given these new societal rules that marginalize them.

The rules of "social justice" are this: heads we (presumptive marginalize identities: PoC, women, LGBT, "marginalized" poor, excluding skeptics) win, tales you (white, male, skeptics of any identity) lose. If you disagree with them you're a helpless fragile racist, sexist, homophobic bigot who hates the poor and must be re-educated,canceled,oppressed. If you agree with them you're a helpless fragile racist, sexist, homophobic bigot who hates the poor, but at least you're tolerable.

There are two main ideas that would completely obliterate all that nonsense if skeptics didn't have their voice marginalized away. 1) free speech. That one is self evident. 2) individuals are real; identity groups are social constructs. Recognizing the individual's rights as more important than the group's makes a freer society and fosters real social justice. These two concepts have fundamentally enabled both freedom and peace to the greatest extent experienced in human existence. In contrast, there is no such thing as group rights because all instantiations of group rights is a power over people not in the group. The world they propose is one which really does have a power hierarchy, and is oppressive, and regresses us to a time before we fixed the problem of groups getting along.

So let's try something more psychology-based:

Accepting = Agreeable = Friendly

Skeptical = less Agreeable = less Friendly

This is what we have to confront. If you show skepticism to people like Anthony Fauci, you're not not in favor of politeness and being nice. As long as this pill is swallowed, people are going to continue to be pulled the "wrong" direction. The Jimmy Kimmels of the world are going to continue to chastise people into believing they have to accept SJW, if they want to be accepted by the puppy-dog-face-licking-friendly-accepting fraternity of mankind. We're going to continue to have twits like Charlize Theron nattering away about how they talk to their adopted black children about police officers kneeling on necks (news flash: another person died today), etc, etc.

People who just mindlessly absorb this content are being indoctrinated. But they don't realize it. What is the antidote to that? Skepticism. But Skepticism isn't nice...it's Denial. And Denial is just a form of bias which is considered an enemy to progress.

 

[jamil]

You are making the argument about Government that Liberals make about guns. "If nobody had guns, I wouldn't have to worry about people having guns." It's the Scott Adams thing: "Republicans are worried about Democrats taking their guns; Democrats are worried about being shot by other Democrats."

"We" respond by pointing out that guns have always been legal, culminating in the existence of some 400 million guns in this country. And therefore, the wish to have no guns isn't rooted in reality. It's rooted in "your" fantasy ideal world.

And I'm telling you, the same thing we tell liberals on gun control: Government has the stick. Government has always had the stick. You cannot put that genie back in the bottle. The desire on your part for government not to have it, is your fantasy world. It's your bubble. It's beautiful, and I like it too. But it's not reality-based. The difference between Left and Right, is the Left simply trusts government to have the stick. Like the Right (for the most part) trusts people to have guns. Individual Rights and Free Speech are our analogs of magazine capacity limits, assault weapons bans, and Red Flag Laws. Limits on the things we believe should be feared.

But maybe that's getting too much into the political end of it...



So let's try something more psychology-based:

Accepting = Agreeable = Friendly

Skeptical = less Agreeable = less Friendly

This is what we have to confront. If you show skepticism to people like Anthony Fauci, you're not not in favor of politeness and being nice. As long as this pill is swallowed, people are going to continue to be pulled the "wrong" direction. The Jimmy Kimmels of the world are going to continue to chastise people into believing they have to accept SJW, if they want to be accepted by the puppy-dog-face-licking-friendly-accepting fraternity of mankind. We're going to continue to have twits like Charlize Theron nattering away about how they talk to their adopted black children about police officers kneeling on necks (news flash: another person died today), etc, etc.

People who just mindlessly absorb this content are being indoctrinated. But they don't realize it. What is the antidote to that? Skepticism. But Skepticism isn't nice...it's Denial. And Denial is just a form of bias which is considered an enemy to progress.

I don’t really agree that “accepting” how I defined it, is equivalent with friendly, and skepticism, unfriendly. Accepting in the way I applied it only means the willingness to believe a given idea without scrutiny.

But I do agree that it’s very easy to look at the accepting as the good guys and the skeptics as the bad guys. That is their lot. And it’s insightful for you to notice that it is an additional burden on skeptics to be heard. “No. I’m sorry to tell you, but there is no reason to believe there’s a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.” It’s easy to cast skeptics as unfriendly. It’s easier to marginalize the skeptics as it is the accepting.

 

[jamil]

You are making the argument about Government that Liberals make about guns. "If nobody had guns, I wouldn't have to worry about people having guns." It's the Scott Adams thing: "Republicans are worried about Democrats taking their guns; Democrats are worried about being shot by other Democrats."

"We" respond by pointing out that guns have always been legal, culminating in the existence of some 400 million guns in this country. And therefore, the wish to have no guns isn't rooted in reality. It's rooted in "your" fantasy ideal world.

And I'm telling you, the same thing we tell liberals on gun control: Government has the stick. Government has always had the stick. You cannot put that genie back in the bottle. The desire on your part for government not to have it, is your fantasy world. It's your bubble. It's beautiful, and I like it too. But it's not reality-based. The difference between Left and Right, is the Left simply trusts government to have the stick. Like the Right (for the most part) trusts people to have guns. Individual Rights and Free Speech are our analogs of magazine capacity limits, assault weapons bans, and Red Flag Laws. Limits on the things we believe should be feared.

But maybe that's getting too much into the political end of it...



So let's try something more psychology-based:

Accepting = Agreeable = Friendly

Skeptical = less Agreeable = less Friendly

This is what we have to confront. If you show skepticism to people like Anthony Fauci, you're not not in favor of politeness and being nice. As long as this pill is swallowed, people are going to continue to be pulled the "wrong" direction. The Jimmy Kimmels of the world are going to continue to chastise people into believing they have to accept SJW, if they want to be accepted by the puppy-dog-face-licking-friendly-accepting fraternity of mankind. We're going to continue to have twits like Charlize Theron nattering away about how they talk to their adopted black children about police officers kneeling on necks (news flash: another person died today), etc, etc.

People who just mindlessly absorb this content are being indoctrinated. But they don't realize it. What is the antidote to that? Skepticism. But Skepticism isn't nice...it's Denial. And Denial is just a form of bias which is considered an enemy to progress.

First, no. It’s not the same argument at all for taking guns away. And as far as the government has always had the stick, this nation in its early years tried to have a government without the big stick. But in less than 100 years that ideal fell short and was laid waste by the rule of men. And you may point out that’s how it’s always been too. And I’d reply to that, not exactly. That’s not a binary proposition. I think your positions is just another example of skepticism. As I’ve pointed out, skepticism is good, but not all skepticism is beneficial. Just like not all new ideas are good. And not all new ideas are bad. We could not have evolved socially out of the dark ages without some better ideas surviving skepticism.

Just because something has always been a certain way doesn’t make that way the best it could be, nor does it mean that it cannot ever change, nor that it should not change. A government with a big stick against its own people will devolve into rule of men even if it was originally designed to be rule of law.

 

[Twangbanger]

...as far as the government has always had the stick, this nation in its early years tried to have a government without the big stick. But in less than 100 years that ideal fell short and was laid waste by the rule of men. And you may point out thatÂ’s how itÂ’s always been too. And IÂ’d reply to that, not exactly. ThatÂ’s not a binary proposition...

I'm not sure all or even most would agree with that.

Without quibbling over the precise "100 years" portion of your statement...

* Indians
* Blacks
* Japanese hustled into interment camps
* American soldiers who were unwitting victims of medical experimentation
* Central and South American governments might have a different opinion
* Hell, southerners might even have a different opinion

This is a case where someone could point up a lot of examples, and me as an old white man, would be willing to pry myself out of my skepticism and "accept" that they have a point. The sepia-toned memories of the supposedly-libertarian American of yesteryear are largely revisionist history in the minds of some who didn't have to actually live it. Government always had the stick. Some would argue the main change has been in the distribution of "who" is benefiting from it.

Don't get me wrong; I think there's a strong argument to be made in favor of a more-libertarian America with a shortened stick. But I'm not sure appeals to history are the right way to get that across. It may have to be presented as a radical, new idea. Because in the minds of a significant portion of the non-business community, who do not identify as JP Morgan corporate boss types, it _is_ a radical new idea. They do not necessarily believe all of America's prosperity was based on freedom. They believe a lot of it was based on fortunate circumstances.

Attempting to refute that argument on a point-by-point, historically-footnoted basis might not be a beneficial use of time and energy for "us."

 

[jamil]

I'm not sure all or even most would agree with that.

First, no. It’s not the same argument at all for taking guns away. And as far as the government has always had the stick, this nation in its early years tried to have a government without the big stick. But in less than 100 years that ideal fell short and was laid waste by the rule of men. And you may point out that’s how it’s always been too. And I’d reply to that, not exactly. That’s not a binary proposition. I think your positions is just another example of skepticism. As I’ve pointed out, skepticism is good, but not all skepticism is beneficial. Just like not all new ideas are good. And not all new ideas are bad. We could not have evolved socially out of the dark ages without some better ideas surviving skepticism.

Just because something has always been a certain way doesn’t make that way the best it could be, nor does it mean that it cannot ever change, nor that it should not change. A government with a big stick against its own people will devolve into rule of men even if it was originally designed to be rule of law.

Without quibbling over the precise "100 years" portion of your statement...

* Indians
* Blacks
* Japanese hustled into interment camps
* American soldiers who were unwitting victims of medical experimentation
* Central and South American governments might have a different opinion
* Hell, southerners might even have a different opinion

This is a case where someone could point up a lot of examples, and me as an old white man, would be willing to pry myself out of my skepticism and "accept" that they have a point. The sepia-toned memories of the supposedly-libertarian American of yesteryear are largely revisionist history in the minds of some who didn't have to actually live it. Government always had the stick. Some would argue the main change has been in the distribution of "who" is benefiting from it.

Don't get me wrong; I think there's a strong argument to be made in favor of a more-libertarian America with a shortened stick. But I'm not sure appeals to history are the right way to get that across. It may have to be presented as a radical, new idea. Because in the minds of a significant portion of the non-business community, who do not identify as JP Morgan corporate boss types, it _is_ a radical new idea. They do not necessarily believe all of America's prosperity was based on freedom. They believe a lot of it was based on fortunate circumstances.

Attempting to refute that argument on a point-by-point, historically-footnoted basis might not be a beneficial use of time and energy for "us."

Prediction: fulfilled.

Quibbling over the incremental failures of ideals during that 100 years is irrelevant to the point. The point was that the ideal was identified early on, that a free society cannot have a government powerful enough to oppress its people and stay free. Though this nation has failed to achieved that goal in fully compliant practice in a binary sense, in scale and magnitude, it has achieved it more than any other. It's not a hopeless goal, in other words. Civilization makes incremental improvements (with obvious corrections along the way) It falls shorter of the ideals set of the times. And then we learn from that. Hindsight would undoubtedly make a better constitution than the one we have.

As to the last bold part, let's be clear about what I want. I want a shorter stick, but not no stick. I am not an anarchist. That means I think there is a place for government in a free society. It's that the stick of power it has should have should only be sufficient to fulfill its part of the social contract, which is to protect citizen's rights, fulfill its obligations for justice, and protect the borders of the USA. Taking away the power of the stick means the extent that it is a power that people covet to wield over other people. I admit that I don't know enough to know how powerful the stick should be exactly, but I do know enough to know that it's too powerful now.

We've strayed far from the topic, which is the left/right political divide and a theory for why the divide has split across the lines it has. If that conversation has burnt itself out, I'm fine with continuing along these lines if you want.