5 ms·

> We have our gods (founding fathers, dead presidents) and demigods (American folk heros, war heros). > We have our sacred texts (Constitution, Declaration, et

> We have our gods (founding fathers, dead presidents) and demigods (American folk heros, war heros). > We have our sacred texts (Constitution, Declaration, etc) and our genesis story (War for Independence). > We have our temples (capitals, court houses). > We have our core beliefs (representative democracy is good, all men are created equal). I'd be willing to bet a month's worth of my income that a majority of the population doesn't view it this way. The only people I know who view things this way are very far to the right (and this group is not the majority on the far right by any means). The only part I'd be willing to bet is shared by more than 50% of the population is that all men are created equal (in theory at least; there are plenty of people with disabilities who would disagree that they are viewed as equals in practice; you needn't think too far beyond who would be sacrificed on a deserted island first and without much conflict).

anonporridge 5y ago
I don't think I agree. The different political alignments are really just different sects of the nationalism/religion. Liberals simply idealize a different subset of the core tenants, and maybe are more tempered in their zealotry. But they are nationalist to their core nonetheless. Having said that, there certainly are other groups that don't prescribe to Americanism, and are loyal to other 'religions' be it globalism or some other political ideology that's incompatible with American ideals. I would even argue that Bitcoin is itself a flavor of globalism, albeit one that the establishment global elite aren't cool with, because they missed the boat on being early adopters and their power would be radically diminished if it wins.
- igorkraw 5y ago
  If you artificially constrain yourself to an overton window that excludes e.g Bernie Sanders, sure. That's a false equivalence that's being pushed by one ideological cluster though, similar to the horse shoe theory or the idea that the center is reasonable. There are a lot of people who have problems with the idea of nations themselves. And there are people for whom politics is not part of their identity, but simply a part of negotiationing existence with the world. Again, specific clusters of the political landscape use and fulfill the patterns of religions much more than others (demonizing the other, dehumanising the other, creating a mythology of the ingroup that doesn't tie to material reality) and it's in their interest to push the idea that everyone does that, that the other side is equally religious in their politics and therefore it's not a case of one group wanting special treatment in a system that's meant to be equitable, it's everyone gunning for special treatment with some winners, some losers, politics as war between equally valid but inherently unchangeable ideologies that justifies the actions one takes. I personally disagree with that politics as war perspective, as well as with the false equivalence

anonporridge 5y ago

I don't think I agree. The different political alignments are really just different sects of the nationalism/religion. Liberals simply idealize a different subset of the core tenants, and maybe are more tempered in their zealotry. But they are nationalist to their core nonetheless. Having said that, there certainly are other groups that don't prescribe to Americanism, and are loyal to other 'religions' be it globalism or some other political ideology that's incompatible with American ideals. I would even argue that Bitcoin is itself a flavor of globalism, albeit one that the establishment global elite aren't cool with, because they missed the boat on being early adopters and their power would be radically diminished if it wins.

igorkraw 5y ago
If you artificially constrain yourself to an overton window that excludes e.g Bernie Sanders, sure. That's a false equivalence that's being pushed by one ideological cluster though, similar to the horse shoe theory or the idea that the center is reasonable. There are a lot of people who have problems with the idea of nations themselves. And there are people for whom politics is not part of their identity, but simply a part of negotiationing existence with the world. Again, specific clusters of the political landscape use and fulfill the patterns of religions much more than others (demonizing the other, dehumanising the other, creating a mythology of the ingroup that doesn't tie to material reality) and it's in their interest to push the idea that everyone does that, that the other side is equally religious in their politics and therefore it's not a case of one group wanting special treatment in a system that's meant to be equitable, it's everyone gunning for special treatment with some winners, some losers, politics as war between equally valid but inherently unchangeable ideologies that justifies the actions one takes. I personally disagree with that politics as war perspective, as well as with the false equivalence