8 ms·

I think most Americans are unhappy with this situation. But we feel powerless to change it. We may have the right to vote, but we don't have options to vote for

by thayne 6y ago

I think most Americans are unhappy with this situation. But we feel powerless to change it. We may have the right to vote, but we don't have options to vote for anyone that is incentivized to change the status quo.

sudosysgen 6y ago
I'm just grappling with the question. How can we call this democracy if most Americans want many extremely important things for decades and they don't happen? Isn't the point of democracy that the people have power?
- pak9rabid 6y ago
  Sure, but when you basically have to be a millionaire to run for high-level political offices that could actually change things like this, you get a limited selection of people, who are likely going to fight to preserve the status-quo of continuing to make themselves and their friends rich.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    I guess my point is that democracy isn't really a social structure, but an emergent attribute of social structures where power is distributed widely. If one would accept this description, and I think that it's appropriate from a literal reading of democracy, then wouldn't the structure you're describing where you can only have power if you're a millionaire and you are incentivized not to use it to express the power of the many, lack the emergent attribute of being democratic?
- Jgrubb 6y ago
  I just really want to be the first to say "it's a republic, not a democracy!" because nobody can punch me while I'm quarantined.
  - NationalPark 6y ago
    Republics are a subset of democracy by the definitions the people original using those terms went by, that's why people punch you when you say this. Personally I think that's overkill, I prefer to issue backhanded anonymous admonitions via HN comment.
- JohnJamesRambo 6y ago
  Democracy only works well with an informed and educated populace and we have been defunding education for a decade. Add in the power of lobbyists and the newfound power of tech giants to inflict misery on humanity and you get the current “corporate rule” we are experiencing. https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/a-punishing-decade-for-school-funding https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/a-punishi...
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    That's a fair point, but even then there's some good policies such as the breaking up of some monopolies that are backed up by the absolute majority of the American public, yet they aren't put in practice. It would seem to me that one would have to conclude that the problem is deeper, then.
  - rayiner 6y ago
    Almost nobody who went through the educational system in the last decade is even voting. People who are voting today were educated during a period of massively growing education funding: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2015/mar/02/dave-brat/brat-us-school-spending-375-percent-over-30-years-/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2015/mar/02/dave-brat/...
    - remram 6y ago
      In most states, your vote literally does not count. (mine doesn't for a different reason since I'm a foreign citizen)
      - afjl 6y ago
        Only for the presidential race. Everything else (local offices, local ballot props, state office/props) counts quite a bit!
    - JohnJamesRambo 6y ago
      >Almost nobody who went through the educational system in the last decade is even voting. Do I need more proof that defunding education was a bad thing?
- munk-a 6y ago
  IMO democracy isn't working in the US since the political parties were whittled down to just two actors and they realized they can just fight over social issues and have nearly identical stances on economic issues. This is one of the reasons I've been advocating hard to keep IRV in my local district (Chittenden County VT) and why I'm so happy to see Democrats, Republicans and Progressives all competing in the elections.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    Actually yes, this is a good point, a large part of it can be attributed to the FPTP system enforcing two parties that can endlessly justify themselves by being marginally better on some issues (in this case, social issues). Do you see a possible path for something like IRV nationwide?
    - bobthepanda 6y ago
      States are expressly empowered to choose how they run elections, although the current FPTP (at least for the House) is actually a law of Congress. That being said, the major issue with relying on states to do this, is that the first states to do this will probably lose out. In a parallel universe with orange and green parties, if, say, the orange state decides to move to proportional electoral college but the green state does not, then the green party will benefit because they get both split votes from the yellow state and the total votes for the green state.
      - munk-a 6y ago
        I think something like the interstate voting compact is an extremely deft strategy for approaching a more proportional voting approach for the executive office - for congressional seats there might be a similar approach possible but I'm not certain - such an approach might need to be activated only when a much higher proportion of states sign on - I agree that the leaders would lose if they approached this individually and, honestly, I think we need a really big change to get into a good place - we might get a bit better incrementally. I'd really like to see the US have regional and balancing seats in congress - the former tied to districts and the latter allocated to maximize the correctness of the representation - so maybe the Purple wins all the races in Maine but Green had 40% of the vote in both races - Green would gain a non-regionally tied house seat[1] while purple gets both of the regional seats. 1. Potentially seats depending on how national elections go
- tehjoker 6y ago
  You're exactly right. Sheldon Wolin calls America a "managed democracy" and an inverted totalitarian state. Democracy was traditionally understood to mean "rule of the poor" simply because the poor outnumber the rich. That is precisely the opposite of what we have here.
- rayiner 6y ago
  You're overlooking many things: 1) You'd be surprised by what people want. As a background principle, Americans don't like government and don't like government regulation: https://news.gallup.com/poll/243662/americans-worry-less-government-regulation.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/243662/americans-worry-less-gov.... The percentage of people who want more regulation "of business and industry" hovers around 25%. Even during most of the George W. Bush presidency, those who wanted less regulation substantially outnumbered those who wanted more. Folks who wanted less regulation outnumbered those who wanted more 2:1 in Obama's first term. The percentage of people saying the federal government has "too little power" has been under 10% over the last 20 years. Since 2005, a majority has said the federal government has too much power. 2) People might want something in the abstract, but that doesn't mean they support a specific implementation with specific trade-offs. As of 2007, a majority of Americans said they wanted government to guarantee healthcare: https://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/02/washington/02poll.html https://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/02/washington/02poll.html. but look at the question more carefully: "Americans showed a striking willingness in the poll to make tradeoffs to guarantee health insurance for all, including paying as much as $500 more in taxes a year and forgoing future tax cuts." $500 is just 1.5% of the median individual income. That's not nearly enough to actually pay for European-style universal healthcare. Unsurprisingly, support for the Affordable Care Act started out well under 40%: https://www.wsj.com/articles/recent-warmth-toward-affordable-care-act-persists-wsj-nbc-poll-shows-1487979095 https://www.wsj.com/articles/recent-warmth-toward-affordable.... Opposition to the law didn't outweigh support until 2017. And as a result of Democrats pushing through the ACA, Republicans gained 63 seats in the House (a gain bigger than the 2016 "blue wave"). Democrats started out with large majorities of the Senate and House in 2008, and by 2014 Republicans had flipped the situation, with Democrats losing 13 Senate seats and 69 House seats. In another example, if you asked people in 2008, most Obama voters would have said they wanted clean power. But they don't actually want to pay more at the pump or a higher electric bill. Hence Obama taking credit for fracking a major achievement of his administration: https://apnews.com/article/5dfbc1aa17701ae219239caad0bfefb2 https://apnews.com/article/5dfbc1aa17701ae219239caad0bfefb2 3) Americans really hate taxes: https://news.gallup.com/poll/268295/support-government-inches-not-socialism.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/268295/support-government-inche.... Even in 2019, when 39% of people say they support "socialism" just 25% want a combination of "more [government] services" and "more taxes." (This is an all-time high! It didn't clear 20% from 1993 to 2013.) Meanwhile, 42% want "less services" with "less taxes." 4) People don't necessarily want the same things. Just because 55% of Americans want A and 58% want B, that doesn't mean there is a voting block comprising a majority that wants both A and B. 5) People who agree on a problem don't necessarily agree on a solution. The majority of Americans think income inequality is a problem: https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2020/01/09/most-americans-say-there-is-too-much-economic-inequality-in-the-u-s-but-fewer-than-half-call-it-a-top-priority/ https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2020/01/09/most-americans-sa.... But people don't necessarily agree on what causes income inequality and what the solution should be. Democrats want a big government to redistribute income. Republicans want to earn their money, and think that big government creates opportunities for the super-rich to earn income unfairly. 6) America is a Republic, not a Democracy. Elected representatives must balance (1)-(5) to give people what they want, not what they say they want. America makes way more sense if you realize that the government we have is what we can achieve with how much we're willing to pay (not that much) and how much we trust the government to do the right thing (not that much).
- edgyquant 6y ago
  Because the US is a republic not a democracy. There is a difference after all there were noble republics like the Dutch Republic (which the framers based their system loosely off of) and Novgorod hell even Rome.
- vishnugupta 6y ago
  > Isn't the point of democracy that the people have power? Over last few decades the democratically elected government has been retreating from providing public goods and services. It may or may not have been meticulously engineered but the US is now at a point where just about every aspect of services and goods has been privatised. It is assumed, at least as per the PR, that free markets are more effective and efficient than elected government in discharging public goods and services. And the government's role has reduced to maintain the quality of the USD currency. Housing, , health, transportation, education, law enforcement, national security and military, public safety -- just to name a few -- have all either been fully privatised or almost there. Given this, to what extent can public influence the way things are run? The public get one chance in five years to choose a government which has anyway privatised much of its functions. To add to that the political parties get non-trivial funding by these private corporations.
dcow 6y ago
Except we do have people willing to challenge the status quo. Go listen to Tulsi Gabbard’s responses in the DNC debate. Talk to any Trump hating republican who at this point would betray their party for a principled person like Sanders. People just don't vote for them and don’t participate locally where it counts. I believe America is desperately in need of voting reform. And I believe the only way to achieve that is by voting against the establishment. I won’t be voting left or right this election. I’ll either be voting third party or writing in a strong left/right P/VP ticket.
- r00fus 6y ago
  A third party vote is a spoiler unless you change the voting system. RCV/IRV is an absolute minimum.
  - zanny 6y ago
    Approval voting requires no modifications to ballots, has no spoiler effect, and would be so much better than what we have now. Which is exactly why it will never happen - both major parties enjoy their power duopoly. The powerful always resist democracy because it takes their power and gives it to the people, be they monarchs, corporations, or political parties.
    - r00fus 6y ago
      St Louis, MO is putting approval voting on the ballot.
mdoms 6y ago
> I think most Americans are unhappy with this situation. But we feel powerless to change it. BS. Americans will happily send half their disposable income to Amazon in the name of convenience.
- computerphage 6y ago
  Ah yes, because if I alone don't pay Amazon any money, they'll go bankrupt any day now. There is such a thing as coordination, and it's not always easy.
- tehjoker 6y ago
  This is just blaming individual consumers for the fact that there is concentrated power that benefits from minor choices people make in mass, the kinds of choices that are easily manipulable by adding or removing friction to various choices. We don't have strong enough democratic social and labor movements that can move the needle yet. If we abandon the individualistic frame, we begin to see the necessity of joining political groups and regularly discussing our problems and how we can try to solve them, sometimes by coordinating with coalitions of groups to increase power.
  - Aunche 6y ago
    Nobody is "blaming" individual consumers. They're just respecting their free agency. Most people who purchase from Amazon prefer it to brick and mortar stores and other e-commerce websites. Most people who work at Amazon fulfillment centers willingly accept higher expectations in exchange for better pay. You don't get to decide whether someone is being coerced or manipulated.
    - tehjoker 6y ago
      You're always "free" to take whatever crumbs the master drops from the table. You're also free to organize a rebellion for a better world.
- nunez 6y ago
  Name another company _that is not Walmart_ that can deliver most of the items I want or need (or, hell, anything that I can think of) next day without paying exorbitant shipping fees and I'll switch to them right now.
zanny 6y ago
You can technically write whomever you want on your ballot. In most states. At least in PA where I live every slot on my mail in ballot had a write in box. The problem is that there is no coordination of the people to actually change the status quo. Too many people are still content with it. From both sides movements like BLM, Antifa, Occupy, the Tea Party, the alt-right, etc represent at most a tenth of the nation. And by-and-large the other 80% not participating in political activism at all largely either A. don't believe in the ability to organize a movement for change or B. don't want it at all. This is not to say it would not be in the self interest of a vast supermajority of Americans to seek such change - for example, universal public healthcare would be a tremendous boon to like 4 in 5 people at least. Better elections, with election day being a public holiday, universal mail in voting, and any of the myriad alternatives to first past the post voting would all improve the conditions of like 95% of the country. The problem is that most people were taught and conditioned to be non-participatory and largely will not become so no matter what anyone else does or says . Even if things did get bad. Even if there were tangible impacts to their day to day experience. Conditioning is an extremely potent force and a combination of American corporate news, American public education, the cultures of swathes of the country raise their kids on, the material conditions you live through and your life experiences within them, etc all contribute to the apathy and attitude. Thankfully the dial is moving in a positive direction, I think. Anyone under the age of 40 to greater and greater degrees was unable to grow up in an isolated microcosm of Americana that conditioned them into non-participation. The numbers still aren't great, but they are getting better, and unless we see systems collapse take us all offline it will hopefully keep improving moving forward, albeit centralized private social media has done a lot last decade to stymie progress.

by thayne 6y ago

sudosysgen 6y ago

I'm just grappling with the question. How can we call this democracy if most Americans want many extremely important things for decades and they don't happen? Isn't the point of democracy that the people have power?

pak9rabid 6y ago
Sure, but when you basically have to be a millionaire to run for high-level political offices that could actually change things like this, you get a limited selection of people, who are likely going to fight to preserve the status-quo of continuing to make themselves and their friends rich.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  I guess my point is that democracy isn't really a social structure, but an emergent attribute of social structures where power is distributed widely. If one would accept this description, and I think that it's appropriate from a literal reading of democracy, then wouldn't the structure you're describing where you can only have power if you're a millionaire and you are incentivized not to use it to express the power of the many, lack the emergent attribute of being democratic?
Jgrubb 6y ago
I just really want to be the first to say "it's a republic, not a democracy!" because nobody can punch me while I'm quarantined.
- NationalPark 6y ago
  Republics are a subset of democracy by the definitions the people original using those terms went by, that's why people punch you when you say this. Personally I think that's overkill, I prefer to issue backhanded anonymous admonitions via HN comment.
JohnJamesRambo 6y ago
Democracy only works well with an informed and educated populace and we have been defunding education for a decade. Add in the power of lobbyists and the newfound power of tech giants to inflict misery on humanity and you get the current “corporate rule” we are experiencing. https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/a-punishing-decade-for-school-funding https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/a-punishi...
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  That's a fair point, but even then there's some good policies such as the breaking up of some monopolies that are backed up by the absolute majority of the American public, yet they aren't put in practice. It would seem to me that one would have to conclude that the problem is deeper, then.
- rayiner 6y ago
  Almost nobody who went through the educational system in the last decade is even voting. People who are voting today were educated during a period of massively growing education funding: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2015/mar/02/dave-brat/brat-us-school-spending-375-percent-over-30-years-/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2015/mar/02/dave-brat/...
  - remram 6y ago
    In most states, your vote literally does not count. (mine doesn't for a different reason since I'm a foreign citizen)
    - afjl 6y ago
      Only for the presidential race. Everything else (local offices, local ballot props, state office/props) counts quite a bit!
  - JohnJamesRambo 6y ago
    >Almost nobody who went through the educational system in the last decade is even voting. Do I need more proof that defunding education was a bad thing?
munk-a 6y ago
IMO democracy isn't working in the US since the political parties were whittled down to just two actors and they realized they can just fight over social issues and have nearly identical stances on economic issues. This is one of the reasons I've been advocating hard to keep IRV in my local district (Chittenden County VT) and why I'm so happy to see Democrats, Republicans and Progressives all competing in the elections.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  Actually yes, this is a good point, a large part of it can be attributed to the FPTP system enforcing two parties that can endlessly justify themselves by being marginally better on some issues (in this case, social issues). Do you see a possible path for something like IRV nationwide?
  - bobthepanda 6y ago
    States are expressly empowered to choose how they run elections, although the current FPTP (at least for the House) is actually a law of Congress. That being said, the major issue with relying on states to do this, is that the first states to do this will probably lose out. In a parallel universe with orange and green parties, if, say, the orange state decides to move to proportional electoral college but the green state does not, then the green party will benefit because they get both split votes from the yellow state and the total votes for the green state.
    - munk-a 6y ago
      I think something like the interstate voting compact is an extremely deft strategy for approaching a more proportional voting approach for the executive office - for congressional seats there might be a similar approach possible but I'm not certain - such an approach might need to be activated only when a much higher proportion of states sign on - I agree that the leaders would lose if they approached this individually and, honestly, I think we need a really big change to get into a good place - we might get a bit better incrementally. I'd really like to see the US have regional and balancing seats in congress - the former tied to districts and the latter allocated to maximize the correctness of the representation - so maybe the Purple wins all the races in Maine but Green had 40% of the vote in both races - Green would gain a non-regionally tied house seat[1] while purple gets both of the regional seats. 1. Potentially seats depending on how national elections go
tehjoker 6y ago
You're exactly right. Sheldon Wolin calls America a "managed democracy" and an inverted totalitarian state. Democracy was traditionally understood to mean "rule of the poor" simply because the poor outnumber the rich. That is precisely the opposite of what we have here.
rayiner 6y ago
You're overlooking many things: 1) You'd be surprised by what people want. As a background principle, Americans don't like government and don't like government regulation: https://news.gallup.com/poll/243662/americans-worry-less-government-regulation.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/243662/americans-worry-less-gov.... The percentage of people who want more regulation "of business and industry" hovers around 25%. Even during most of the George W. Bush presidency, those who wanted less regulation substantially outnumbered those who wanted more. Folks who wanted less regulation outnumbered those who wanted more 2:1 in Obama's first term. The percentage of people saying the federal government has "too little power" has been under 10% over the last 20 years. Since 2005, a majority has said the federal government has too much power. 2) People might want something in the abstract, but that doesn't mean they support a specific implementation with specific trade-offs. As of 2007, a majority of Americans said they wanted government to guarantee healthcare: https://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/02/washington/02poll.html https://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/02/washington/02poll.html. but look at the question more carefully: "Americans showed a striking willingness in the poll to make tradeoffs to guarantee health insurance for all, including paying as much as $500 more in taxes a year and forgoing future tax cuts." $500 is just 1.5% of the median individual income. That's not nearly enough to actually pay for European-style universal healthcare. Unsurprisingly, support for the Affordable Care Act started out well under 40%: https://www.wsj.com/articles/recent-warmth-toward-affordable-care-act-persists-wsj-nbc-poll-shows-1487979095 https://www.wsj.com/articles/recent-warmth-toward-affordable.... Opposition to the law didn't outweigh support until 2017. And as a result of Democrats pushing through the ACA, Republicans gained 63 seats in the House (a gain bigger than the 2016 "blue wave"). Democrats started out with large majorities of the Senate and House in 2008, and by 2014 Republicans had flipped the situation, with Democrats losing 13 Senate seats and 69 House seats. In another example, if you asked people in 2008, most Obama voters would have said they wanted clean power. But they don't actually want to pay more at the pump or a higher electric bill. Hence Obama taking credit for fracking a major achievement of his administration: https://apnews.com/article/5dfbc1aa17701ae219239caad0bfefb2 https://apnews.com/article/5dfbc1aa17701ae219239caad0bfefb2 3) Americans really hate taxes: https://news.gallup.com/poll/268295/support-government-inches-not-socialism.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/268295/support-government-inche.... Even in 2019, when 39% of people say they support "socialism" just 25% want a combination of "more [government] services" and "more taxes." (This is an all-time high! It didn't clear 20% from 1993 to 2013.) Meanwhile, 42% want "less services" with "less taxes." 4) People don't necessarily want the same things. Just because 55% of Americans want A and 58% want B, that doesn't mean there is a voting block comprising a majority that wants both A and B. 5) People who agree on a problem don't necessarily agree on a solution. The majority of Americans think income inequality is a problem: https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2020/01/09/most-americans-say-there-is-too-much-economic-inequality-in-the-u-s-but-fewer-than-half-call-it-a-top-priority/ https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2020/01/09/most-americans-sa.... But people don't necessarily agree on what causes income inequality and what the solution should be. Democrats want a big government to redistribute income. Republicans want to earn their money, and think that big government creates opportunities for the super-rich to earn income unfairly. 6) America is a Republic, not a Democracy. Elected representatives must balance (1)-(5) to give people what they want, not what they say they want. America makes way more sense if you realize that the government we have is what we can achieve with how much we're willing to pay (not that much) and how much we trust the government to do the right thing (not that much).
edgyquant 6y ago
Because the US is a republic not a democracy. There is a difference after all there were noble republics like the Dutch Republic (which the framers based their system loosely off of) and Novgorod hell even Rome.
vishnugupta 6y ago
> Isn't the point of democracy that the people have power? Over last few decades the democratically elected government has been retreating from providing public goods and services. It may or may not have been meticulously engineered but the US is now at a point where just about every aspect of services and goods has been privatised. It is assumed, at least as per the PR, that free markets are more effective and efficient than elected government in discharging public goods and services. And the government's role has reduced to maintain the quality of the USD currency. Housing, , health, transportation, education, law enforcement, national security and military, public safety -- just to name a few -- have all either been fully privatised or almost there. Given this, to what extent can public influence the way things are run? The public get one chance in five years to choose a government which has anyway privatised much of its functions. To add to that the political parties get non-trivial funding by these private corporations.

dcow 6y ago

Except we do have people willing to challenge the status quo. Go listen to Tulsi Gabbard’s responses in the DNC debate. Talk to any Trump hating republican who at this point would betray their party for a principled person like Sanders. People just don't vote for them and don’t participate locally where it counts. I believe America is desperately in need of voting reform. And I believe the only way to achieve that is by voting against the establishment. I won’t be voting left or right this election. I’ll either be voting third party or writing in a strong left/right P/VP ticket.

r00fus 6y ago
A third party vote is a spoiler unless you change the voting system. RCV/IRV is an absolute minimum.
- zanny 6y ago
  Approval voting requires no modifications to ballots, has no spoiler effect, and would be so much better than what we have now. Which is exactly why it will never happen - both major parties enjoy their power duopoly. The powerful always resist democracy because it takes their power and gives it to the people, be they monarchs, corporations, or political parties.
  - r00fus 6y ago
    St Louis, MO is putting approval voting on the ballot.

mdoms 6y ago

> I think most Americans are unhappy with this situation. But we feel powerless to change it. BS. Americans will happily send half their disposable income to Amazon in the name of convenience.

computerphage 6y ago
Ah yes, because if I alone don't pay Amazon any money, they'll go bankrupt any day now. There is such a thing as coordination, and it's not always easy.
tehjoker 6y ago
This is just blaming individual consumers for the fact that there is concentrated power that benefits from minor choices people make in mass, the kinds of choices that are easily manipulable by adding or removing friction to various choices. We don't have strong enough democratic social and labor movements that can move the needle yet. If we abandon the individualistic frame, we begin to see the necessity of joining political groups and regularly discussing our problems and how we can try to solve them, sometimes by coordinating with coalitions of groups to increase power.
- Aunche 6y ago
  Nobody is "blaming" individual consumers. They're just respecting their free agency. Most people who purchase from Amazon prefer it to brick and mortar stores and other e-commerce websites. Most people who work at Amazon fulfillment centers willingly accept higher expectations in exchange for better pay. You don't get to decide whether someone is being coerced or manipulated.
  - tehjoker 6y ago
    You're always "free" to take whatever crumbs the master drops from the table. You're also free to organize a rebellion for a better world.
nunez 6y ago
Name another company _that is not Walmart_ that can deliver most of the items I want or need (or, hell, anything that I can think of) next day without paying exorbitant shipping fees and I'll switch to them right now.

zanny 6y ago

You can technically write whomever you want on your ballot. In most states. At least in PA where I live every slot on my mail in ballot had a write in box. The problem is that there is no coordination of the people to actually change the status quo. Too many people are still content with it. From both sides movements like BLM, Antifa, Occupy, the Tea Party, the alt-right, etc represent at most a tenth of the nation. And by-and-large the other 80% not participating in political activism at all largely either A. don't believe in the ability to organize a movement for change or B. don't want it at all. This is not to say it would not be in the self interest of a vast supermajority of Americans to seek such change - for example, universal public healthcare would be a tremendous boon to like 4 in 5 people at least. Better elections, with election day being a public holiday, universal mail in voting, and any of the myriad alternatives to first past the post voting would all improve the conditions of like 95% of the country. The problem is that most people were taught and conditioned to be non-participatory and largely will not become so no matter what anyone else does or says . Even if things did get bad. Even if there were tangible impacts to their day to day experience. Conditioning is an extremely potent force and a combination of American corporate news, American public education, the cultures of swathes of the country raise their kids on, the material conditions you live through and your life experiences within them, etc all contribute to the apathy and attitude. Thankfully the dial is moving in a positive direction, I think. Anyone under the age of 40 to greater and greater degrees was unable to grow up in an isolated microcosm of Americana that conditioned them into non-participation. The numbers still aren't great, but they are getting better, and unless we see systems collapse take us all offline it will hopefully keep improving moving forward, albeit centralized private social media has done a lot last decade to stymie progress.