4 ms·

How did the U.S. go from world leader to world laggard?

by jitl 9y ago

ruffrey 9y ago
Gerrymandering, and the Citizens United supreme Court decision that let corporations contribute unlimited amounts of money to politicians.
- SpikeDad 9y ago
  And Trump.
- scarface74 9y ago
  I don't think either explain Trump's election. For the most part, corporations didn't back Trump and gerrymandering with in states doesn't have any affect on the presidential election. Trump won because of the electoral college, a weak Democratic candidate, and because Trump unlike most mainstream Republican Presidential candidates pandered to people's baser instincts.
  - kabdib 9y ago
    Gerrymandering has had a huge effect. I highly recommend reading _Ratf--cked_, it'll probably make you angry though.
    - scarface74 9y ago
      Gerrymandering affects Senate and House races. Electoral votes for president are based on the entire state's population. How could gerrymandering affect the Presidential election?
- rayiner 9y ago
  Neither gerrymandering nor Citizens United got Trump elected.
  - confounded 9y ago
    Was it God?
    - iiiggglll 9y ago
      Funny. But, here's a real answer: Too many people do not like Hillary, and they stayed home instead of voting for her. That's the bottom line. Right or wrong, fair or unfair, she is not well liked enough to get elected. The thing is, that was never a secret. It was obvious even before she got her ass kicked in the 2008 primaries. It was even more obvious afterwards. So why did she run last year? For her own selfish reasons, that's why. She should have known she would lose. If she actually cared about things as much as she claims to, she would have stepped aside and let someone else, run instead. Then we wouldn't be where we are today. But because she couldn't put aside her own wants and do what was best for the nation, here we are. (Even her campaign slogan spelled it out: "I'm with her". Clearly, it was all about her, and not about the country.)
      - tptacek 9y ago
        Clinton whomped Sanders, by something like 10x the margin Obama beat Clinton by. I don't think you can reasonably draw a lesson about 2016 from the 2008 primary. There's something tautological about saying someone "wasn't well-liked enough" to get elected. That's why everyone loses an otherwise fair election. An equally compelling and even simpler narrative is that it's simply rare for the governing party to hold on to the White House for 3 consecutive terms. The opposition party gets to run a "change" election that the incumbent party can't. For a second term in office, where the incumbent party can run the same candidate, they can run a "continuity" election that more often than not beats "change". But they can't do it for a third term, and so the opposition simply tends to win that term.
        fjdlwlv 9y ago
        Clinton owned the Democratic party, they followed her sinking the ship instead of unifying behind someone electable. Clinton's campaign was 100% continuity and that is what her opposition focused on
- eplanit 9y ago
  Don't forget the Russians.
lotsofpulp 9y ago
Not enough progressive people voted and those negatively affected by the trends in automation and other populations catching up to US standards voted for a wildcard to change things up, even though their problems aren't fixable. Of course, cognitive dissonance is to be expected for short term relief, hence here we are, in a situation where the people who most need the help of others vote for those who espouse "every man for himself" rhetoric.
- jlarocco 9y ago
  Sorry, but I don't think it helps to just blame everything on Trump and his supporters. You could just as easily turn it around and ask why nobody's done a good job explaining and convincing them that these things are important. Your post seems to imply that a big group of people are just too dumb to know what's best for themselves, and that doesn't help anything. In any case, it's not a problem that just popped up overnight when Trump was elected.
  - hsod 9y ago
    Trump and his supporters are the proximate cause, and it does help to identify that.
- chrischen 9y ago
  US political system significantly overrepresent conservatives. If you take the most economically prosperous states or counties, they are overwhelmingly more progressive.
  - knz 9y ago
    It's not as if those other nations don't have conservatives. There are still debates about tax rates and social services there, they just all agree on a higher level social contract (mandatory sick leave, that education and healthcare results in a more prosperous society etc). The US always strikes me as a country dealing with the logical outcomes of decisions made decades ago - a health insurance not care system (I pay more in insurance premiums than the total taxation for a median family back in my birth country!), low investment in urban public transportation, and an overly complex government structure (I live in an urban area with 100+ "cities" that all have their own council, there is a regional government agency, then the country, State, and Federal government agencies. That's a lot of duplication). Every country has it's issues but it does seem that the US is determined to look inward for solutions instead of looking to what works elsewhere. I'm an immigrant so accept that as the US way (and understand that Americans really value local control) but I do find it interesting/frustrating/admirable at times. I also often wonder what the US could achieve if we resolved some of these fundamental issues out - how many entrepreneurs can't make the jump because they need healthcare for their family or are paying vast sums of money for health insurance...
votepaunchy 9y ago
Remember Kyoto?
- caseysoftware 9y ago
  The Kyoto Protocol is an interesting one.. Of the countries who signed it, which or what percentage followed through and met their commitments?
rayiner 9y ago
The US stepped up to respond to the exigency created by WWII and the Cold War. Those are gone and US leadership is no longer needed.
- fjdlwlv 9y ago
  We have hot war in Middle East spilling over into Europe...

How did the U.S. go from world leader to world laggard?

by jitl 9y ago

How did the U.S. go from world leader to world laggard?

Gerrymandering, and the Citizens United supreme Court decision that let corporations contribute unlimited amounts of money to politicians.

SpikeDad 9y ago
And Trump.
scarface74 9y ago
I don't think either explain Trump's election. For the most part, corporations didn't back Trump and gerrymandering with in states doesn't have any affect on the presidential election. Trump won because of the electoral college, a weak Democratic candidate, and because Trump unlike most mainstream Republican Presidential candidates pandered to people's baser instincts.
- kabdib 9y ago
  Gerrymandering has had a huge effect. I highly recommend reading _Ratf--cked_, it'll probably make you angry though.
  - scarface74 9y ago
    Gerrymandering affects Senate and House races. Electoral votes for president are based on the entire state's population. How could gerrymandering affect the Presidential election?
rayiner 9y ago
Neither gerrymandering nor Citizens United got Trump elected.
- confounded 9y ago
  Was it God?
  - iiiggglll 9y ago
    Funny. But, here's a real answer: Too many people do not like Hillary, and they stayed home instead of voting for her. That's the bottom line. Right or wrong, fair or unfair, she is not well liked enough to get elected. The thing is, that was never a secret. It was obvious even before she got her ass kicked in the 2008 primaries. It was even more obvious afterwards. So why did she run last year? For her own selfish reasons, that's why. She should have known she would lose. If she actually cared about things as much as she claims to, she would have stepped aside and let someone else, run instead. Then we wouldn't be where we are today. But because she couldn't put aside her own wants and do what was best for the nation, here we are. (Even her campaign slogan spelled it out: "I'm with her". Clearly, it was all about her, and not about the country.)
    - tptacek 9y ago
      Clinton whomped Sanders, by something like 10x the margin Obama beat Clinton by. I don't think you can reasonably draw a lesson about 2016 from the 2008 primary. There's something tautological about saying someone "wasn't well-liked enough" to get elected. That's why everyone loses an otherwise fair election. An equally compelling and even simpler narrative is that it's simply rare for the governing party to hold on to the White House for 3 consecutive terms. The opposition party gets to run a "change" election that the incumbent party can't. For a second term in office, where the incumbent party can run the same candidate, they can run a "continuity" election that more often than not beats "change". But they can't do it for a third term, and so the opposition simply tends to win that term.
      - fjdlwlv 9y ago
        Clinton owned the Democratic party, they followed her sinking the ship instead of unifying behind someone electable. Clinton's campaign was 100% continuity and that is what her opposition focused on
eplanit 9y ago
Don't forget the Russians.

lotsofpulp 9y ago

Not enough progressive people voted and those negatively affected by the trends in automation and other populations catching up to US standards voted for a wildcard to change things up, even though their problems aren't fixable. Of course, cognitive dissonance is to be expected for short term relief, hence here we are, in a situation where the people who most need the help of others vote for those who espouse "every man for himself" rhetoric.

jlarocco 9y ago
Sorry, but I don't think it helps to just blame everything on Trump and his supporters. You could just as easily turn it around and ask why nobody's done a good job explaining and convincing them that these things are important. Your post seems to imply that a big group of people are just too dumb to know what's best for themselves, and that doesn't help anything. In any case, it's not a problem that just popped up overnight when Trump was elected.
- hsod 9y ago
  Trump and his supporters are the proximate cause, and it does help to identify that.
chrischen 9y ago
US political system significantly overrepresent conservatives. If you take the most economically prosperous states or counties, they are overwhelmingly more progressive.
- knz 9y ago
  It's not as if those other nations don't have conservatives. There are still debates about tax rates and social services there, they just all agree on a higher level social contract (mandatory sick leave, that education and healthcare results in a more prosperous society etc). The US always strikes me as a country dealing with the logical outcomes of decisions made decades ago - a health insurance not care system (I pay more in insurance premiums than the total taxation for a median family back in my birth country!), low investment in urban public transportation, and an overly complex government structure (I live in an urban area with 100+ "cities" that all have their own council, there is a regional government agency, then the country, State, and Federal government agencies. That's a lot of duplication). Every country has it's issues but it does seem that the US is determined to look inward for solutions instead of looking to what works elsewhere. I'm an immigrant so accept that as the US way (and understand that Americans really value local control) but I do find it interesting/frustrating/admirable at times. I also often wonder what the US could achieve if we resolved some of these fundamental issues out - how many entrepreneurs can't make the jump because they need healthcare for their family or are paying vast sums of money for health insurance...

votepaunchy 9y ago

Remember Kyoto?

caseysoftware 9y ago
The Kyoto Protocol is an interesting one.. Of the countries who signed it, which or what percentage followed through and met their commitments?

rayiner 9y ago

The US stepped up to respond to the exigency created by WWII and the Cold War. Those are gone and US leadership is no longer needed.

fjdlwlv 9y ago
We have hot war in Middle East spilling over into Europe...