Would you say the United States is a reactionary or progressive country?

[angus]

Extremely reactionary.  And extremely progressive.  No doubt, we are a burgeoning empire, dealing with the growing pains that spain, for example, must have had to deal with some five hundred years ago.  Hopefully, King George the Second won't be quite as foolish as Ferdinand and his goons who flooded the European market with lifted peruvian gold and caused a minor economic collapse.  We freak out over terrorism, and seem willing to give up or first-amendment rights in favor of increased security.  On the other hand, we were the first modern nation to formally grant those rights in the first place.  And we came up with socialist solutions to the 1929 worldwide stock market crash that have basically been copied by, and in some cases, improved upon, by countries all over the globe.  And our pseudo-culture is co-opted by folks all over.  I have seen Wal-Marts in at least four countries, and MacDonald's in more countries than I can count.  And in every country I have ever visited, I see more advertisements for American movies than I see for movies made in the country which I am visiting.  And we have consistently been a country on the move, full of immigrants.  From opressive, economically ravaged societies ranging from 18th-century England to 19th-century Germany to 20th century China to 21st-century Latinoamerica, we still welcome your great unwashed masses.  Then again, there's always Generalissimo Tancredo and his ilk.  Like I said, we're an extremely progressive and extremely reactionary people.  And we got this way because we lack a long-term historical and cultural base.  Progressivism run amok and reactionism run amok are not necessarily endearing.  Still, it's who we are.  So we might as well embrace the fact that we're a mighty progressive and a mighty reactionary people with a serious lack of historical and cultural insight.  I suppose, after some period of imperial growing pains, we might be able to take our place among mature countries of the world.  It seems that all decaying empires (with the striking exception of la Republique Française) have been able to do just that.  On the other hand, we may end up like France, and still be both extremely reactionary and extremely progressive far into our culture's old age.  Nothing less attractive than an old man in speedos.  Well, who knows what the future will bring for our fledgling reactionary/progressive empire?  Time will tell.  But for now, we're definitely a very progressive and very reactionary people.

[angus]

But angus, I think it might be a little too optimistic to call the Empire 'burgeoning'.  The high point was probably 1945-1965.  It is hanging on, no doubt, but it has not exactly got the wind at its back.  Think Edwardian England.

I don't think you can necessarily guage imperial success by the standards of Edwards' time.  There's no unclaimed ground, and with instant access to information by a relatively literate worldwide public, the sorts of land grabs made by earlier empires aren't likely to happen as often.  Moreover, the US expansion ("Manifest Destiny") culminating in the addition of the two newest US states during the period you mention, while both reactionary and progressive, didn't take the form of classic imperialism in the first place.  Unlike the Inca--probably the best, and perhaps only, example of a system that was truly socialistic and truly imperialistic at the same time--who went on military conquest and absorbed the gods of the conquered people into its own state religion (a very wise move if the ultimate goal is control), our form is more subtle.  We desire control, and for the same reasons that they did, but our religion is democratic capitalism.  And given that the two terms are often in direct contradiction, it's sometimes a hard sell, so we sell it hard.  With guns and tanks and planes, if necessary, but not always.  And the sales pitch must be tempered by some absorption of local customs, just as the Inca absorbed local religions into its own overarching view centered on the Tihuantinsuyu and its protectorate, Pachamama.  And if we can sell our religion globally (we have succeeded only in Europe, Japan, and, by some measurements, in parts of Latin America and the middle east, particularly Israel).  The US constitution, probably one of the most progressive and most reactionary documents ever written, has been copied by countries around the globe.  And each time some society does that, it provides another reasonably stable market for our entrepreneurs, potentially creating greater wealth for that small fraction of Americans who have learned to exploit our particular brand of imperialism.  And we continue to sell it.  Surely a worldly-wise man such as yourself takes note of the increasing presence of American pop-cultural gadgets, gizmos, films, foods, lingo, music, and trinkets.  Not that anything's actually made here anymore.  We seemed to have lost the ability to actually produce any commodities, and that may be our ultimate demise, but the ideas are still contstantly being exported.  And you don't measure American Imperialism in terms of the (astonishingly successful) land grabs that gave us the phrase "manifest destiny."

[angus]

with regards to what?

btw, I always hate it when professors would give out huge essays with questions that are extremely broad.  Perhaps if your question has better wording, I could try to help.

but those are the easiest As.  You can pretty much baffle so long as you're a reasonably talented writer.  With specific questions you actually need to have studied specific material.

Even on this forum, the best threads are those with sufficient ambiguity to ensure a variety of interpretations.  Granted, it's under the "political debate" subheading, and in any debate the first priority is to define terms, but honestly, no one changes anyone's mind here, and no one really follows the rules of debate.  It's all ranting, discussing, and opining.  Just enjoy it.  You might even learn something once in a while. 

[angus]

any country that voted for Bush twice struggles with me to be considered "Progressive".

Once, man. Once.

Okay fair enough, but you had a chance to rectify your error (or rather the Supreme Court's error) and... you blew it.

Actually, you were correct in your initial assesment.  The only votes in question in 2000 were in NM, where gore eventually won by 360 votes; IA, where gore eventually won by 4000; and FL.  And only Florida had enough votes (25 I think) to make a difference, and in Florida Bush won by 185 if you counted them the way the Bushies wanted, or Bush won by 1500 if you count them the way gore wanted, or he won by 587 if you count them the way Katherine Harris wanted.  (No doubt, the Supreme court was inconsistent, and made a bad ruling, and that certainly deserves its own thread, but Bush won legitimately both in 2000 and in 2004 with or without the Supreme court's poor showing during that episode.)  So you should stand by your initial assertion.  One with which I disagree, I might add, because as I pointed out, Bush has been one of the most reactionary, by some measures, and one of the most progressive, by others, of all our presidents.  He may have finished Reagan's hatchet job of FDR's New Deal by reducing taxes even more than Reagan, but he also appointed more women and black people and hispanics than any of his predecessors.  He has also tried to reach for Mars.  In terms of US imperialism, unfortunately his reach has exceded his grasp.  Still, there's plenty of evidence our blue-blood, ivy-league, Connecticut Yankee president (and self-styled Texas Cowboy President) has taken some of the most progressive and most reactionary steps of all presidents.  In fact, I submit that his very transformation from aristocratic Easterner to egalitarian Westerner is about as progressive and as reactionary a transformation as you can find in the annals of world leaders of any epoch.

[angus]

In comparison with other developed countries, it is certainly much more conservative than any other.  Indeed, it serves as a bridge of sorts between the developing world (which is going through a major religious revival across nearly all the major faiths -Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism) and the developed world. 

you've been watching CNN again, haven't you? 

actually, I have as well.  nicely done, I must say.  And I didn't realize she was iranian.  All things considered, it was fairly objective.  and informative.