'America in Decline' Narrative Finally in Decline?

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

America is not in decline. The Constitution is in decline. The later is just as scary as the first.

I have to agree with this.  I preferred the Constitution during the slave days.  That really was the golden era of the US Constitution.  Those were also good times because women couldn't vote.

[/sarcasm]

Well, enjoy the new era of unlawful drone killings, government wiretapping, and shadow Presidents named Cheney ruling the country. You should be fine with it; after all, didn't you Egyptian slavery in the name of national prestige ok?

[/strawman argument]

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

Of course it is. Other countries are now more capitalist than we are- Singapore.

Depends on what you mean by "more capitalist."  Singapore's economy is more state capitalist.  I'm not an expert on how Singapore's government works, but it appears to do a better job at providing public goods (housing, education, health care, recreational services, transportation, etc.) than the United States.

[Link]

Well, enjoy the new era of unlawful drone killings, government wiretapping, and shadow Presidents named Cheney ruling the country.

There is zero chance me or anyone I know will ever have to worry about a drone strike.  The NSA can list to all my phone calls if they wish.  They will be bored to tears.  I don't care how any President or Vice President divvy up their tasks.  As long as the President isn't presiding over the Senate and his signature is on all the laws and treaties what Constitutional difference does it make?

I wouldn't trade any of that for a Negro shackled out back.  How about you?

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Well, enjoy the new era of unlawful drone killings, government wiretapping, and shadow Presidents named Cheney ruling the country.

There is zero chance me or anyone I know will ever have to worry about a drone strike.  The NSA can list to all my phone calls if they wish.  They will be bored to tears.  I don't care how any President or Vice President divvy up their tasks.  As long as the President isn't presiding over the Senate and his signature is on all the laws and treaties what Constitutional difference does it make?

I wouldn't trade any of that for a Negro shackled out back.  How about you?

Please find the section of the Constitution that says slavery is legal. States Rights is an ambiguous term; that is why we have an amendments process. I don’t know of a Libertarian who opposes the 16th Amendment. The states don’t have any more of the right to trample human dignity then the federal government does.

[Link]

Please find the section of the Constitution that says slavery is legal. States Rights is an ambiguous term; that is why we have an amendments process. I don’t know of a Libertarian who opposes the 16th Amendment. The states don’t have any more of the right to trample human dignity then the federal government does.

Not sure what that string of words was getting at but the US Constitution today and how it is applied is far better than it's been for most of our rather sordid history.  It's not perfect.  It's a work in progress.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Please find the section of the Constitution that says slavery is legal. States Rights is an ambiguous term; that is why we have an amendments process. I don’t know of a Libertarian who opposes the 16th Amendment. The states don’t have any more of the right to trample human dignity then the federal government does.

Not sure what that string of words was getting at but the US Constitution today and how it is applied is far better than it's been for most of our rather sordid history.  It's not perfect.  It's a work in progress.

It never was perfect, and yes, it is a work in progress. You go back and retcon the parts that are bad. Like not abolishing slavery outright. But if your going to increase the executives power, go back and do it through the Constitution, via passing an amendment.

[King]

The present is always in decline.

[angus]

Yes.  

When I was born, the US accounted for about half of the worlds aggregate product.  Now it's about 20%.  Much of that is due to the fact that developing nations have figured out how to educate their people and produce products, but if you're standing still while everyone else is walking forward, then in the frame of reference of the average walker, you're backing.  That, in my opinion, is decline.

I think we'll probably be the king of the hill for the remainder of my life.  The US aggregate GDP surpassed that of the UK in about 1895, but it was another 40 or more years before the cultural dominance of the US surpassed that of the UK.  Similar statements can be made about the UK's cultural dominance over Spain, and that didn't really happen until about a hundred years after the spanish King Phillip II flooded the european markets with looted Peruvian gold, causing such inflation that Spain's currency plumeted.  Similarly, I think there will be many years between the time any developing country's aggregate GDP surpasses that of the United States and the time of cultural dominance, so we won't likely live to see it.  Nevertheless, relative to the developing world, we are in a cultural and economic decline even when we have a net positive economic growth rate, so long as that growth rate remains less the world average.

[pbrower2a]

Some aspects of American life are in decline. We have an intensification of economic inequality that relates to economic elites getting more power over people and the political system and not from innovation in desirable goods and services. Extreme inequality implies the inevitable destruction of the small-business sector and the degradation of innovation. Our economic elites are thoroughly ruthless and irresponsible, and they on the whole support a reactionary set of political values. We could get a soft set of rules for elites but harsh ones with brutal enforcement upon the proles, a situation ill-suited to public concord.

Add to that our sordid mass culture replete with mindless depravity; a "values-free" educational system that imparts no sense of duty upon future elites of bureaucrats, managers or owners; and a widespread contempt for thought. Our Constitution has seams that have existed from its enactment, but political figures at all times until recently years have scrupulously avoided exploiting them out of fear of consequences.

Nothing about the current rot is irreversible. The political climate can change swiftly in a democracy -- more swiftly than systems with greater rigidity and brittleness. We still have time, but do we have the will as We the People?

That can  change. It may be far easier to keep a democracy (however flawed) from going into ruin than an oligarchy or an outright tyranny.    

[angus]

Nothing about the current rot is irreversible.    

True, but overly idealistic on your part.  The problems are systemic and deeply rooted.  Our students are being out-performed on so many levels (well, all of them really) by students from other societies that have made wiser choices.  We spend all our energies on the most unnecessary functions in the schools.  (See my rant on the "lockdown drill" today, for example, or any of my public school rants since my son started public school three years ago.) 

It is highly unlikely that the current rot will reverse.  It will fester and reek, and eventually a limb will need to be amputated.  And that will only exacerbate the income inequality you speak of.

[Simfan34]

The posts ITT just show that America will always be in decline whenever one political party is out of power.

Did I say it was Obama's fault? I squarely placed a large share of the blame on Bush?

Yes, but your outlook about the United States would quickly shift not when any barometers about quality of life change but when someone inline with your beliefs won the election.  If Jon Huntsman was President right now, you'd be spinning a different yarn.

Fair point- but I feel like I'd possess at least some honesty.

[Person Man]

This is a pretty abstract conversation. What does it actually mean for our day to day life? What problems will it cause? What can we do about them?

But in the abstract, if we are declining, we are declining because we got to where we are out of necessity. That necessity no longer exists. We no longer have a majority of our country totally devoid of human life or demonic tyrants that threaten our very existence. Then again, one could say that the period between WWI and the Great Depression or even between the Civil War and the Turn of The Century (The Long Depression) were very similar to the time we are in now. Like then, our country had few enemies and the elite were in a perpetual pie eating contest at the expense of the  poor and the modestly solvent. So, to answer this question, we will have to answer several;

Is the United States in absolute decline? No.
Is the United States in relative decline? Yes.
Has the United States even be in decline before? Yes.
Will the United States always be in decline in the future? No.
Will the United States even be in decline again? Yes.

[tallguy23]

I like to do things by height. America used to be the 6'4 guy in a room of 5'8-5'9 guys. Now we're still 6'4 but the other guys are 6'0-6'2. Make sense?

[angus]

I like to do things by height. America used to be the 6'4 guy in a room of 5'8-5'9 guys. Now we're still 6'4 but the other guys are 6'0-6'2. Make sense?

Not what you intended, but it is instructive to take your metaphor at face value.  Americans, who have been the tallest in the world for a very long time, are no longer the tallest.  I think US males rank 9th and US females rank 15th in height, by country.  The average height of an American male nowadays is about 177 cm, not much different than in 1950 when our males were, on average, 173 cm tall.  By comparison, the average Netherlands male in 1950 was about 169 cm tall.  Nowadays, the average Netherlands male is about 181 cm tall. 

That, of course, is a physical attribute, not an economic one.  Or is it?  Conjecture about this phenomenon usually centers on the fact that those countries which are now taller, on average, than we are may have better neo-natal health care.  It's one thing to be losing economically to developing countries.  We sort of expect to be outperformed on math tests by East Asians, for example.  But to lose out to decrepit imperialist states such as those in Western Europe, the very lands our ancestors left because they were such horrible places, well, that's just adding insult to injury.

Okay, so we may not be the tallest anymore, but at least we're still the widest.