h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I just read your Ghosts of Eagles thinger. It's difficult for me when I feel obliged to defend something and I'm forced to take the opposite side of my own usual arguments.

Your piece is useful as a reminder that the mighty will fall and the weak shall someday rise. Very Ecclesiastes. Mesopotamia, after all, was once a home to one of the greatest civilizations at its time - and now it's occupied by American soldiers. It's fitting enough that America may be occupied in a half century or so (though naturally I do disagree that that will happen)

Maybe the reason I find it hard to understand your perspective is that I inconveniently believe in the elusive concept of American exceptionalism - which is just about as inconveniently impossible for a nonbeliever to disprove as the concept of religious faith.

A few years back, I was talking to someone who was a child in the '50s or '60s. He told me that he used to talk to the other children in his class and they would all ask each other what they would do when the nukes started falling. Go into the basement or go out onto the roof? Maybe if that day comes, the concept of American exceptionalism will be disproved, but I do have great faith in my country. And I'm not worried about being wrong, because I'll be one of the people on the roof

Hi Jodan. No, Jordan. This is the real guy I'm talking to.

It's not a scenario I believe in either. The usual confession applies, this is more about whether I can write it than a desire for people to read it. It isn't going AWW-wards any time soon.

I got into a conversation recently with an American friend who drew parallels between Islamist suicide-bombers and college-campus gun-maniacs (before the latest Chicago area example, too). I took it a step further in my head and imagined a literal Battle of Texas. It's still in the writing, but to make it consistent and convincing I founded I needed a 'how we got here' backstory, so I made this one. Hilde's school essay was a nice vehicle, with plenty of layers and opportunity for unjudged self-indulgence.

America is exceptional, sure, but no more so than anywhere else. I think America's decline from ascendancy as an economic superpower is the really inevitable part of this, and our collective future depends on how the US of A handles it. There's an unhelpful tendency (and the Roofies are just as prone to this as the Rednecks) to believe that the politicians are to blame and that the real America's spirit is somewhere else. Popular democracy, though, actually does deliver the Will of the People, the furtive cravings along with the high ideals. Somebody must have voted for Bush.

China is unquestionably more progressive as a nation than the US now. It's still a way back in terms of individual freedoms, sure, but it's moving steadily forward. The US is log-jammed. The idea behind GofE pivots on certain assumptions, and the key one is that the rest of the world tires of America and sides with the rising powers. Perversely, the US of A's best chance of resisting change probably rests on other dinosaurs, notably Russia, behaving in a manner that requires a counterweight.

There's a scenario I discarded that would work as an alternative: the second US Civil War. The invasion force into Texas could be Yankees. The reason I didn't go there, now I think about it, might just be because it would be too cruel to people I like, you included.

As for the roof, have you read Imperator by laconian? A21393399. Roof-think is verse three, where you've rationalised that you're not actually immortal, but you still think you're worth a Gotterdammerung. The real end is verse four.

Will America get over it? You could argue that those kids who shoot up their class-mates are roofies, listening to verse three in the form of two and a half centuries of political rhetoric playing in their under-medicated heads. You could argue that Obama is on a road to the White House purely and simply because he is piping that same delusional sh*t into the heads of a nation.

OK, sorry. That wasn't meant to be a wind-up. I think patriotism is dangerous rather than admirable, that's all. But I can see the irony in deconstructing rhetoric by using...rhetoric.

Let's discuss this more, please. I'd really like to. I know you can teach me something. I'll try behave better and be worth the effort.

Pin

Some people did vote for Bush. Trust me, I did not. There are some people who believe he's doing a good job, still. Somehow. These things happen. There are always going to be bad leaders, just as there will always be speed bumps on the road to progress. I think that in a few decades, with the benefit of hindsight, America will look back at the Bush era with shame. There's something to be said for that, at least.

I don't agree with your assessment of the USA as log-jammed. I just don't see that. The way our Republic is set up, it takes time to do things, which can be both good and bad. The elections of 2006 helped to stop the bleeding, so to speak. In the next few years, the important thing is to deal with the root of the problem and then forge a new path.

The difference between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, by the way, is that the former is an ends liberal and the latter is a means or process liberal. Hillary has liberal goals, but will go through institutional channels and work within the system to achieve those goals. Obama would rather reform the system and then fight for a new direction. Of course, Obama's way is more impractical.

I can understand how the pull of patriotism could be destructive rather than constructive. It has been in the past, obviously, on numerous occasions. But the entire concept of American exceptionalism is not that America is exceptional, and so are other places. It's that America is a different kind of exceptional. I'm sure that a Briton in the 18th century would think the same thing of his country. It's hard not to be patriotic in those conditions.

You say you didn't vote for Bush. Yet you give all the appearance of respecting a political system that made it possible for Bush to be elected. Bush's canditature in the first place was an affront to democracy, and the manner of his election and his performnce in office have merely compounded that failure. Shame in a few generations' time isn't good enough, Jordan. The US is letting the world down, and being despised for it. You. In the only way that matters, You Voted for Bush.

>>I'm sure that a Briton in the 18th century would think the same thing of his country<<
That statement says more about your viewpoint than the one it pretends to reveal. There is no collective viewpoint. The recorded testimony of Britons of the time is diverse, and none of it is typical of the ordinary people. The ordinary people, then and now, have no perception of a world mission.

The politics of that time and place, though, are very relevant to this discussion. It's possible to make a case that the enlightened Britons of that time were the champions of American Independence, with great hopes for a new nation that would cleanse the world. You got our radicals, and the reactionaries stayed home. For Britain, it didn't actually matter (IMO anyway) because the die had already been cast, and our race was run in terms of hard economic factors of resource. For the fledgling US, it did matter, because in that brief time it meant you really were exceptional. You were trying to create an ideal society, based on a set of values and principles that remain unique in history.

You can point to the endurance of the articles and instruments of that time. You *have* pointed to them, you and Jimi X. You've written the Guide on them. And you appear to believe that those instruments still embody the spirit of Independence. I can't believe that, I'm afraid. I think that they have become a disgraceful travesty of an extraordinary dream.

The easiest target is the interpretation of the Second Amendment. Any person who condones a right to bear arms when his own nation's children continue to be picked off in their places of education is in IMO morally bankrupt and a danger to his society. I can't understand how the NRA-mindset can co-exist with a revulsion towards, say, acts of terrorism. There is a direct and simple equivalence, surely?

But there are lots of other examples of the same kind of refusal to be judged by a common moral standard. If the US of A is truly exceptional, then it has to act like it. Exceptional status brings responsibilities.

The US really should be the first country to escape religious fundamentalism, but instead it clings to a belief in the irrational. It should be the first to demand representation by heroes instead of pragmatists at best, populists for preference and inadequate morons as last resort. (Digression: a theory as to what 'plausible deniability' really means in the modern US. It means, let's have political candidates so clay-footed, artificial and conspicuously unfit for office that we can later convince ourselves we aren't responsible for their performance)

The US should be setting the world examples of justice and equity, but instead it perpetrates brutality in its treatment of prisoners, in Guantanemo Bay and in Death Row in a dozen or more states. The US should behave like a Union, but instead it seems to pretend parts of its corporate whole don't exist - what happened to New Orleans? How come you can move five miles out from the centre of any Midwest city and encounter a lawless, destitute, hopeless hell?

The US, as head of the world family, should eat no more than its fair share at the table. But addiction has gone too far and everyone in the US is a junkie, roofie liberals included. Even the have-nots are would-be-junkies, setting their aspirations in consumption. This incidentally, might just be the issue that makes Bush's legacy more than shame. The US could reasonably be tried in a world court for its policies on sustainability and the environment. What do you think of the possibility of US assets being sequestered in compensation within your lifetime?

Why can't the US have a reconcilation commission, admit its broken promises and then try get back on track? I'm a bit depressed that you talk about patriotism. I can't see what you've got to be patriotic about, except the fine ideals of long-dead forefathers who have been systematically betrayed by their repulsive children.

Maybe a bit of a rant, I know, but it's only fair that you hear what's a prevalent world-outside view. The important point here is that contempt for Bush does not exonerate anyone in the world's eyes. Tolerating the system makes the liberals culpable too.

All of which makes your Obama comment interesting. The world fears one thing about the Democrats generally, which is that they will attempt protectionism as a salvation for a busted economy. A decade of protectionism is not what the world needs right now, and it would surely plunge the US itself into permanent and precipitous economic decline. Most of us out here would rather see President Hilary (slightly), because she at least shows signs of appreciating that the excess has to stop. Obama comes over as a idealistic stump-orator, all charisma and no ideas. The world cannot afford for the US to forgive itself and just carry on with the party.

I have to say that McCann sounds at least as good as either donkey. It's a pity that Republicanism is a poisoned brand, because that's making the counter-swing to isolationism too powerful.

>>the important thing is to deal with the root of the problem and then forge a new path<<
I'd be interested to hear your definition of the problem (I think you've now got mine). I'd be even more interested to hear you suggest the path.

That's some odd logic. Respecting the political system is NOT the same as endorsing its outcome. There's really no other choice but to respect the system. Violent uprising is not an option these days. Sitting elections out would only make matter worse. The only way to change the political system - and I agree, the manner of Bush's initial election was an affront to democracy - is to change it from within.

I'm sorry you don't like Obama. I don't know why you believe he has no ideas. He's a fine orator, partially because his stump speech is not a laundry list of policy proposals, but rather an idealistic and hopeful-sounding collection of ideals. His rhetoric is uplifting, though fairly empty in terms of policy. That doesn't mean he doesn't have policy proposals - he absolutely does. Most great rhetoric is empty. Martin Luther King's famous speech was empty in terms of new ideas, but it brought people to action. Obama is the same way. There is value in inspiring people.

And, y'know, there are important things for Americans to consider in choosing a candidate that have nothing to do with the rest of the world, quite frankly. And McCain would not be a good President.

Odd logic? Sure you have to work with the system. That doesn't constitute respect for the system, though, and certainly doesn't justify the reverence that you seem to afford it.

As for Obama, ideals and ideas are not the same thing. How will change happen? Precisely what will change? What will a new society look like? If he's told you, please relate it. It certainly hasn't been broadcast on this side of the pond. His morals sound fine, sure, but that's only part of the requirement.

To say I don't like the guy is putting it too strongly. I find his oratory more uplifting than Hilary's, and for that matter more convincing than any President's since Carter. It's just that he's too upbeat for the nation's needs. He's gaining stock by telling an electorate what they want to hear. That would be fine in a healthy nation, but in today's US it doesn't align with what the nation needs to hear.

I happen to think that the US needs a President who is prepared to say that the expectations and lifestyle of the nation are unsustainable. That's not Obama is it? I really don't know about McCain. I just get the sense that he has to be contrite because he (nominally) belongs to the same party as the most incompetent person ever to hold public office. Hilary, for all her other faults, gives the strongest sign that she understands the real arena.

An arena in which staying on the same course is untenable. But one in which finding a new formula for taking as much from the system as before (Obama's false promise) is also untenable. An arena, in fact, in which making do with less has to be faced and accepted.

You didn't answer the previous questions. Now you're begging another one:
>>there are important things for Americans to consider in choosing a candidate that have nothing to do with the rest of the world<<
Like what, may I ask? You recognise, I guess, that the candidate you elect will hugely affect the life of everyone on the planet? Doesn't that mean that you ought to think of the world picture in every aspect of your selection?

Until you put me straight, I remain unhappily convinced that the disasters of the last decade are going to be perpetuated. A lot of the reason I think that way is that most of the smarter, more broad-minded Americans I know (like you, for instance) seem reluctant to admit what a dire position their nation's in, let alone accept responsibility for how badly that weakness hurts your neighbours.

Pin
(tell me I'm annoying, but don't hang up)

I afford reverence only to a few parts of the American political system. The design of the Congress and Presidency are quite good, I think. The Supreme Court has done well. I'm quite a big fan of the whole Constitution, for the most part. I don't like the Electoral College bit, but there's always something...

There are some important parts of the American system that irk me. I think we should have more than two parties. I think the primary system is ill-conceived (the states of Iowa and New Hampshire constitute less than 1% of America, yet have a huge say in deciding who the next President will be). Lobbyists and campaign finance are huge issues to me. The electoral college I already mentioned. I think the American media is shameful in how it chooses to report and what it chooses to focus on. If I had my druthers, my top three changes through the government would be in media reform, campaign reform and our approach to the environment.

"Doesn't that mean that you ought to think of the world picture in every aspect of your selection?"

Not every aspect, no. I don't see what just about any social issue has to do with the rest of the world. I can understand that you may find our gay rights laws to be unfortunate, as I do, but those don't affect you as such. Quite a lot of things do. Broadly speaking, foreign policy is about 75% of the President's job.

I don't know that there won't be disasters in the next decade. Check that, I do know that there will be. The best government, both wise and apprehensive, can't keep all the bad that happens from happening. If Al Gore or Bill Clinton or Abe Lincoln was President in 2000, we still would have had 9/11. If John Kerry or John McCain or Howard Dean or Joe Lieberman was President in 2004, I would have to guess we'd still have lost New Orleans. There's no mortal man who do all that we seek. Does that make it excusable? No. But I'm grateful when a President simply doesn't *create* his own disasters, as our current one has. I'm grateful for small miracles. Don't think I haven't lived through the hell of the past 7 years as intensely as you, I've been at the damned epicenter of the thing.

Now it's late, so I'll issue my usual disclaimer apologizing if this is incomprehensible in the light of morning Night.

The US has this odd adherence to the archaic. Why don't people demand an electoral system that attempts to make everyone's vote carry the same weight? It's presumably the same reverence for the obsolete that persuades people they have a right to bear arms, that imperial measurement is convenient and that American cars should weigh twice as much as anybody else's.

The usual European perception is that this behaviour stems from a shortage of history. Maybe there's a deeper curse, though. Whereas Europe's history stretches back into brutality, the United States is founded in philanthropy. That must be a hard ideal to live up to. In Europe, no matter how bad things are, we can all trace back to something worse.

9/11 is a tough subject. Katrina too. I tried saying something about them, but I've just deleted it. It's hard to be critical of the US response to either without seeming cruel. Maybe another time with those.

Media reform, campaign reform and approach to the environment. I can understand all three, but I suspect my list, if I were American, might differ. I think there are more fundamental problems with religion, race and wealth distribution. America's moral conscience is anaesthetised by faith and flag, and the other ills stem from that.

Sorry about the scratched record

Just to nitpick, the right to bear arms is a right cherished by many Americans. They say it's a cultural thing. I tend to think some people just like guns. If someone tried to pass a repeal of the second amendment, every state south of the Potomac and a lot of others besides (including Ohio) would refuse to ratify it. They don't want to piss off the NRA, for one thing. So I don't think that the root of the gun problem is tradition, or 'adherence to the archaic' - it's more the same old political problems.
There's no constitutional problem regulating ammunition, by the way. I don't understand why pro-gun control legislators don't push Bullet-Control. Maybe I'm being naive though.

In my view, the concern you have about the influence of religion is overstated. Bush relied heavily on religious votes to "win" the Presidency, but what has he done for them? On restricting gay marriage, he gave up on that without a fight. His biggest accomplishment for 'faith voters' is a small project called the Office for Faith-Based Initiatives, which is underfunded and serves mostly to advance goals that even secular society deems appropriate. There are religious fanatics in America, possibly a growing number, but I'm not that worried. America will never be a theocracy. It's not within the realm of possibility, as far as I'm concerned.

The concept that patriotism and religion are the root of America's problems seems very narrow-minded to me. The former may have been the reason for Bush's reelection, and the latter the reason for his initial "election", which may color your perception of the current state of American affairs, but they're surely not the root.

It's interesting you mention history. It reminded me of the Oscar Wilde quote which sits atop one of my entries here (forgive me for not looking it up) "America is the only nation in history that went from barbarism to decadence without anything in between". Maybe we did need something in between.

When are we going to do that collaboration, by the way? I've been bit by the writing bug.

We're pretty different, aren't we?

You reckon that seeing religion/patriotism as problem-roots is narrow-minded, but it's you who's looking at them in a narrow-minded way! You (dare I say typically of Americans?) internalise stuff so much. For example, you think religion isn't a big issue because it doesn't impact greatly on the way the US works.

You could take a broader view than that, though. Religion, you might conclude, is the worst problem on earth. It frustrates effective population control, it creates and justifies divisive cultures, and it allows people to believe that genocide is right.

This is where the responsibility of leadership comes in. The US is top nation, and it ought to set an example. Moreover, the US owes the rest of us, leaves the biggest mess, expects always to get its way. The US, arguably, *has* to set an example.

An example of unashamedly secular government might set the whole world on a better course, but instead the US pretends authority based on a different brand of the same contemptible and obsolete fallacy. Worse, the majority of its politicians may not even do this through genuine faith. Apparently, they're doing it for maximum electoral appeal, to get a measure of approval from conservatives and liberals alike. In which case, this is the Leadership of Appeasement. IMO, that simply isn't appropriate in the government of a nation that purports to guide the world.

You get an idea why I think my ideas/bugbears are more fundamental than yours? The media (which I agree is execrable in the US) mirrors the executive by seeking wide-appeal copping-out on anything profound. The formula seems to be shock-if-it's-trivial/sanitise-if-it's-difficult.

Something goes for patriotism. In fact it's a closely-related concept to religion. Both are comfort blankets that dilute evil in a false concept of collective responsibility and an even falser one of collective destiny. "If there are enough of us, we can do know wrong" is the general idea. But Hitler practised democracy on the same model.

The hugely frustrating thing about the US is that so many Americans recognise their individualism only too well, but characterise it in terms of rights rather than responsibilities. The flag stands for a schizophrenic concept: protection of the rights of the individual coupled with a scapegoat federal institution that absolves the individual from any hand in wrongs.

That's why Bush is in power, or so I believe. The best scapegoat is the hopeless incompetent, prepared to sign his name to the intolerable. When it's some other idiot's fault, the intolerable is then somehow more tolerable. The general public's partcipation in politics probably has to start with the choosing of least-worst options in fledgling democracies, but it should never be like that in great nations. Why, oh why, does the US settle for this travesty?

I'm sorry in a way I brought guns up. If Americans want to shoot each other, what's that got to do with me? But by the same token, if Americans want to teach their kids that Darwinism is only a theory, what's that got to do with me? And if Americans want to burn resources and emit CO2, what's that got to do with me?

We're all connected, that's why. The examples above make that point with progressive clarity. There's only one planet, and when a country as large and powerful as the US does stupid things, we all suffer. If half of America wants to carry guns, then what moral authority have you got to lecture about terrorism? How can you deplore suicide bombers when religious fanaticism is freely available on cable, and when kids who are obviously prepared to die today walk into class and start shooting?

Americans seem to have an under-developed concept of guilt. Brits are probably too far the other way, I guess, and maybe that's why I find the US attitude so disturbing. I hear supposedly intelligent people justifying Guantanemo Bay, and yet their nation put other regimes' henchmen to death for directly comparable actions.

Ironic, isn't it? If a Christian God really does judge us all, then America would seem to be doomed by its brazen denial of sin. Y'all goin' to Hail...

We possibly agree on wealth distribution, at least? I just want a world in which 1. everyone has enough and 2. those that have more have earned it by through their exceptional contribution towards shared good.

I can't see America getting there, though. It's the responsibility thing again: wealth, fame and happiness can be gained without debt to others. There is no obligation to give anything back. Through everything around them, White House down, American children are taught to believe this. To me, it's tragic.

Tisn't well at all, George.

Rant over. Collaborative Entry. Now you're talking.

Is Crisbecq any good? Do you have anything else in mind? I'm not as picky as you, see...

We are pretty different
Maybe your ideas are more fundamental than mine. I'm willing to concede that possibility. I'm not conceding that they're more correct. But you've always been much smarter than me.

Crisbecq sounded good, but my initial problem with it still stands. I can't find any good sources. I haven't looked that intently, though.