Is partisanship more important than nationalism to Americans?

It seems more and more that actions by media and senators feed partisan politics rather than a common vision for the country.

If both sides are only intent on rocking boat and all are in the same boat, where are they headed?

To the bottom of the ocean.

I think that to be nationalistic, you need to first be aware that there are other nations and that they can have effects on your nation.

Is partisanship more important than nationalism to Americans?

It seems more and more that actions by media and senators feed partisan politics rather than a common vision for the country.

If both sides are only intent on rocking boat and all are in the same boat, where are they headed?

For shame, SAM, you're basing all of your "evidence" on the news media! SAM, the news media is far more interested in stirring the boiling shit than to attempt to help bring the nation together as a people.

The news media follows the slogan: "If it bleeds, it leads ....and if nothing is bleeding, do something to make it appear to be bleeding!"

Believing that the American news media is telling anything close to the truth is like believing in fairy tales. You can do it, but it won't do any good.

Baron Max

Is partisanship more important than nationalism to Americans?


Unfortunatly it is. If one party or the other can't get what they want done then they really piss the other party off .

Unfortunatly it is. If one party or the other can't get what they want done then they really piss the other party off .

No, I don't think that's true. I think it IS true that the media is trying their best to make it that way, but I don't think it is out in the real world. Stirring up the partisanship is a good way for the media to have something to report on ..that's all.

Baron Max

Unfortunatly it is. If one party or the other can't get what they want done then they really piss the other party off .

Yeah that right, scoring cheap points is desirable.

No, I don't think that's true. I think it IS true that the media is trying their best to make it that way, but I don't think it is out in the real world. Stirring up the partisanship is a good way for the media to have something to report on ..that's all.

Baron Max

Go back and read your own posts Baron Max.

Is partisanship more important than nationalism to Americans?

It seems more and more that actions by media and senators feed partisan politics rather than a common vision for the country.

If both sides are only intent on rocking boat and all are in the same boat, where are they headed?

As Joe said, to the bottom of the ocean.

Though, 'bipartisanship' and 'compromise' are silly ideas. You either get one or the other; you can't have both.

Is partisanship more important than nationalism to Americans?

It seems more and more that actions by media and senators feed partisan politics rather than a common vision for the country.

If both sides are only intent on rocking boat and all are in the same boat, where are they headed? I think it might be true of politicians more than the average "citizen bacillus". I may, however, be viewing things through my own particular "perceptual prism" - which allows the sole preference for whatever party's members seem less offensive at a given moment that when all members of their stripe are tied back to back with their opposite numbers so that shooting 2 through the skull might be accomplished with one round, the gun barrel would be pressed against the seemingly less odious individual's forehead so that they die first.

I mean - I'm sure that some people feel a genuine partisan passion which colors their view of the nation's course so significantly that they believe the predominance of one party or another spells either disaster or happy days. Perhaps this even remains the majority.

I think that at long last, however - although it may well be too late to matter - people are begining to see that neither side in the game that the Jiggycrats and Republigoons are playing in the odd little world they both occupy in the depths of their District of Corruption besotted minds is actually on their side.



I think that to be nationalistic, you need to first be aware that there are other nations and that they can have effects on your nation. Oh, now you're just being silly.

We're well aware that some vague and nebulous agglomerations of mud, or dust, or what have you have had imaginary lines drawn 'round them by the quaintly clueless autochthones dwelling within these regions in an obvious attempt to parody God's Own Holy and Most Divine Nation...

And of course we understand that some of them attempt to "affect" us by impeding our - I mean - HIS will...

In such times we recall the Word:

The trials we must bear when we make the changes that Jesus ordered are the elements of the Great Persecution which makes us eligible for God's kingdom...

Amen.

Is partisanship more important than nationalism to Americans?


The politics has evolved in to Competition at Large. This started when this country broke away from the British. Then came the Sputnik era of USSR. The Competition activities have been progressing geometrically. Without a Super Power to compete with, we focused on ourselves.

While such competition is unhealthy, the people have no basis to compare how unhealthy it has become. This is akin to boiling a frog slowly. The frog would not jump out.

This happens, because the media which provides the bulk of information to the public does not have the technical knowledge to discern what is what. For example, there has been no criticism when companies and government appoint senior executives that have least amount of education and experience in the field of that appointment. It is like you appoint a Lawyer to do Liver Transplants.

India has similar problem. That is why they do not understand how China is check-mating India in the economic progress front. The Central Ministers of India are mostly Lawyers. In USA, the President and Cabinet Level secretaries are mostly Lawyers. Have you ever seen a Lawyer design, build, maintain an oil refinery. But the media does not have the understanding to pick this up.

Nationalism is useless without understanding the nature of reality.

In a crisis Americans will unite. But unite around what? I am so sick of Republicans and Democrats and the internal American culture wars. People working the look of kindness versus people working the look of discipline is getting tiresome.

Either one party will dominate and carry the country to new heights(or lows), or both will continue to argue and tear this nation in two.

Didn't Lincoln start the Republican party because he was dissatisfied with the existing ones? Is it time for Americans to think beyond the two party system?

Or does the Republican Party need to be resurrected from the ground up?

Didn't Lincoln start the Republican party because he was dissatisfied with the existing ones? Is it time for Americans to think beyond the two party system?

Or does the Republican Party need to be resurrected from the ground up?What they share is already destructive enough. It's not sort of OK democrats and naughty republicans. It's tag team action and about as real as professional wrestling, except the effects are much more pernicious.

From my own observations, it is the media that has failed the American people. It is astounding how little it reports of facts vs opinions.

The self censorship is extremely damaging to the American political conscience/

From my own observations, it is the media that has failed the American people. It is astounding how little it reports of facts vs opinions.

The self censorship is extremely damaging to the American political conscience/

Did someone say "media". :)

See the Harvard University Analysis at

http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.topics&topic=2CCFE105-E740-134C-4EDF12478427F881

and a few of my comments

Do I need to read some more opinions to know what the media is not doing? ;)

The recent coverage of Haiti was case in point. It was so shabby and low class. Dramatics galore with the spotlight, not on the plight of the Haitians but on people like Pat Robertson and the Israelis. And the treatment of the victims, geared more towards sensationalism than facts. No context, no soul searching of the American role, nothing but a spectacle.

In the Television, the media programming is influenced by stupid Nielsen families. If those people would have been smart, you would get the right type of coverage and change the course of the country.

And why do you think they are not smart?

Is partisanship more important than nationalism to Americans?

It seems more and more that actions by media and senators feed partisan politics rather than a common vision for the country.

If both sides are only intent on rocking boat and all are in the same boat, where are they headed?
It's surprising how little you know about America given that you lived there for, well, I don't know how long.

Anyway, the average American generally doesn't give a shit about politics. They'll pay a little bit of attention during presidential elections, and when something unusual is going on, but for the most part they just want to get on with their lives.

The media, on the other hand, loves a horse race and loves conflict of any kind. So they tend to magnify and intensify any conflict to sell papers. Also, the Americans you see on this site are self selected to have a higher than average level of interest and passion in politics which might give our fellow sciforums members the idea that Americans sit around all the time arguing about politics.

This couldn't be further from the truth. The reason I like to argue politics here is that most people in the real world are too uninterested and uninformed to have any kind of meaningful discussion on politics.

So to answer your question, the American people are certainly more nationalistic than partisan, but this is not true of our political leaders. They cater to their bases, which are the most polarized section of the electorate. It is only when the general public senses things are really going wrong that they suddenly take interest and you get things like the recent Massachusetts upset.

The people are riled up right now, and with Democrats in power that means Republicans benefit. However, if the Republicans act as they did when in power before, they'll have their asses handed to them as well.

However, if we get Republicans in charge of congress with a Democrat in the White House, they'll keep an eye on each other. Given the way both parties have behaved when given complete control, a divided government in which one branch is hostile to the other and keeps it in check is probably the best we can hope for.

If you notice I said media and politicians, I am asking if the Americans care enough to give a damn. IMO, they seem to lack the ability to make either accountable.

Or as Varda so eloquently put it, Americans, you're getting raped again: what are you going to do about it?

And why do you think they are not smart?

You have the answer:


The recent coverage of Haiti was case in point. It was so shabby and low class. Dramatics galore with the spotlight, not on the plight of the Haitians but on people like Pat Robertson and the Israelis. And the treatment of the victims, geared more towards sensationalism than facts. No context, no soul searching of the American role, nothing but a spectacle.

You have the answer:

Dumbing down the masses is a smart move.

How much soul searching is the average American capable of?

Can you imagine a news article like this?

The Painful Truth: The Haiti Disaster is Good for the Jews (http://mondoweiss.net/2010/01/israeli-media-consultant-in-maariv-the-haiti-disaster-is-good-for-the-jews.html)

Americans would be devastated if they had to take responsibility for their policy shenanigans worlwide.

The kind of media analysis you see in other countries is only possible on unmoderated blogs in the US.

Dumbing down the masses is a smart move.



Easy to control the masses...

If you notice I said media and politicians, I am asking if the Americans care enough to give a damn. IMO, they seem to lack the ability to make either accountable.

Or as Varda so eloquently put it, Americans, you're getting raped again: what are you going to do about it?Sure, but your first sentence said "Americans". I was responding to that. If you had stuck with saying politicians, I'd agree with you that many and perhaps most care more about partisanship than nationalism.

Here's a video making the rounds that, while partisan, captures the feeling of those on the right and many independents right now. It's called America Rising:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0bh77k2Wdk&feature=player_embedded

Sure, but your first sentence said "Americans". I was responding to that. I

In a democracy, people get the government they want [or deserve]. Hence my question.

Anyway, the average American generally doesn't give a shit about politics. Which in a democracy is about equivalent to a farmer not giving a shit about machinery maintenance, or a cook not giving a shit about ingredient quantities.

Possibly even more childish and likely to produce disaster.

Originally Posted by madanth: "Anyway, the average American generally doesn't give a shit about politics."


Which in a democracy is about equivalent to a farmer not giving a shit about machinery maintenance, or a cook not giving a shit about ingredient quantities. Possibly even more childish and likely to produce disaster.

No, no! With farm machinery and the cook's stew, it makes a major difference in the final outcome. However, in American politics, giving a shit makes almost never makes a difference!

Look ....is it so difficult to see what's occured just recently in politics? The American voters elected Obama because of his promises to change American politics. What has he done? Well, golly, it's the same damned thing that's been done for the past umpty-eleven centuries in American politics!! Virtually nothing has "changed", has it? Oh, yeah, point out some minor little tiny things as examples, but ...has anything actually changed?

Farmers and cooks care about things because it makes a difference. American voters don't give a shit about poltics because nothing ever changes. We could vote Genghis Khan as president, with Joseph Stalin as vice-president, and nothing would change. Why should Americans care?

Baron Max

In a democracy, people get the government they want [or deserve]. ...

Maybe in other democracies in the world, but not in American democracy! In American democracy, the old politicians are so powerful that they continue to get elected as reps or senators, and thus control American politics.

Yes, you could say that the voters elected those politicians, but if you do, then you aren't fully knowledgeable about how politics and elections work in America. It's all about power and money.

Baron Max

Maybe in other democracies in the world, but not in American democracy! In American democracy, the old politicians are so powerful that they continue to get elected as reps or senators, and thus control American politics.

Yes, you could say that the voters elected those politicians, but if you do, then you aren't fully knowledgeable about how politics and elections work in America. It's all about power and money.

Baron Max

Now on this we can agree Baron Max (thunder claps, waters part, etc). :)

Now on this we can agree Baron Max (thunder claps, waters part, etc).

Agree? How do you get that ....when you keep posting that Democrats are such smart, intelligent, caring, empathetic, compassionate, ....., people on the planet?

You're confusing me, Joe. My post basically lambasted all of the "career politicians", both Dems as well as Reps. ...and you agree????

Baron Max

Agree? How do you get that ....when you keep posting that Democrats are such smart, intelligent, caring, empathetic, compassionate, ....., people on the planet?

You're confusing me, Joe. My post basically lambasted all of the "career politicians", both Dems as well as Reps. ...and you agree????

Baron Max

LOL, first show me one instance where I said Democrats were smart, intelligent, caring, empathetic, compassionate. The fact is, I have never made such a statement nor do I have any intentions of doing so. Because wither it is true or false, it simply has no relevance to public policy.

I do not like career politicians either.

With reference to media complicity in politics, I came across an interesting article by Greenwald (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2010/01/15/sunstein/index.html), who discusses a paper written by Obama's Information Czar, Cass Sunstein. Sunstein is, according to Greenwald


...responsible for "overseeing policies relating to privacy, information quality, and statistical programs." In 2008, while at Harvard Law School, Sunstein co-wrote a truly pernicious paper proposing that the U.S. Government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-"independent" advocates to "cognitively infiltrate" online groups and websites -- as well as other activist groups -- which advocate views that Sunstein deems "false conspiracy theories" about the Government.

And his theory in the paper (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1084585) he co-wrote with Adrian Vermeule, is that Muslims are prone to conspiracy theories due to the lack of free flow of information in their societies, poor civil liberties and bad parenting [which cold war enthusiasts may remember as ‘diaperology’ ] Quite ironic when you consider his words:


Conspiracy theories flourish in many Middle Eastern and predominantly Muslim societies, so much so that there is a small literature seeking to explain why Muslims are so prone to conspiracy theorizing it is unsurprising that such theorizing is even more widespread in the Muslim world than the United States. Overall conspiracy theorizing is undoubtedly virulent in the Muslim world, has a sharp anti-American inflection… It is highly likely that the virulence of conspiracy theorizing in Muslim societies has a great deal to do with… weak civil liberties and the lack of a robust market of ideas in many of these nations… The marketplace of ideas, in many Muslim countries, is institutionally fragile, or dominated by powerful governments.

His solution for such is to initiate stealth infiltration of forums and chatrooms, among other tactics


Sunstein advocates that the Government's stealth infiltration should be accomplished by sending covert agents into "chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups." He also proposes that the Government make secret payments to so-called "independent" credible voices to bolster the Government's messaging (on the ground that those who don't believe government sources will be more inclined to listen to those who appear independent while secretly acting on behalf of the Government). This program would target those advocating false "conspiracy theories," which they define to mean: "an attempt to explain an event or practice by reference to the machinations of powerful people, who have also managed to conceal their role."

And yeah, if that sounds familiar, its because its all outlined here
(http://www.docstoc.com/docs/8303274/The-Israel-Projects-2009-Global-Language-Dictionary)

In a crisis Americans will unite. But unite around what? I am so sick of Republicans and Democrats and the internal American culture wars. People working the look of kindness versus people working the look of discipline is getting tiresome.

Why can't Americans unite around the danger facing their country? Surely they don't enjoy the fact thats its disintegrating before them? How long before they recognise that there is no difference between the Republican and Democratic Parties, who both cater for the interests of lobbies, not the people themselves? They've already been sold out where their economy and healthcare has been concerned, as well as their national security interests. If Bush had Armstrong Williams and Maggie Gallagher, Obama has Cass Sunstein and Jonathan Gruber. In any case, the interests of the people are nowhere in sight.

Why can't Americans unite around the danger facing their country? Surely they don't enjoy the fact thats its disintegrating before them? ....

Why can't Indians unite around the danger facing India? Surely they don't enjoy the fact that it's disintegrating before them?

It's mostly the same the world over, SAM, and you know that, you've always known that, yet you asked the questions anyway. Why?

Baron Max

Why can't Indians unite around the danger facing India? Surely they don't enjoy the fact that it's disintegrating before them?

It's mostly the same the world over, SAM, and you know that, you've always known that, yet you asked the questions anyway. Why?

Baron Max

Baron, we have so much outsourced work from the US, we're now outsourcing it. With our vast labour resources. Don't worry about us.

Why can't Indians unite around the danger facing India? Surely they don't enjoy the fact that it's disintegrating before them?



WTF? We are now copying India?

Baron, we have so much outsourced work from the US, we're now outsourcing it. With our vast labour resources. Don't worry about us.

Yeah, but while only a few people in India are living high on the hog, millions of people are starving and poverty-stricken in the slums all over India. And you can actually say "....with our vast labor resources...."? Don't you mean almost slave labor, SAM?

SAM, as an Indian, you should be ashamed of even saying something like that above. Your nation is so poverty stricken that most Indians won't even admit it or face it because it's so bad.

Baron Max

No, no! With farm machinery and the cook's stew, it makes a major difference in the final outcome. However, in American politics, giving a shit makes almost never makes a difference! It has in the past.

The mechanism is there for the future.

You seem to be arguing that the billions of dollars and generations of concerted efforts toward manipulating American politics and citizen participation in it, by the rich and the powerful and the corporate class and so forth, was a futile and misled waste of their time and money.

Some more media manipulation:


Last week WMUR-TV (Channel 9) in Manchester, N.H., apparently shut off access to Al Jazeera, which [reporter Deborah] Arnesen had used to broadcast several segments. According to the Concord Monitor, Arnesen had been scheduled to appear on Al-Jazeera to discuss President Obama’s outreach to women and minorities. Instead, she had to do it by phone.

The Monitor reports that WMUR has not responded to requests for comment. But Sarah Alansary, a producer for Al Jazeera, is quoted as saying the station sent a message cutting off access:

They sent an e-mail telling them sorry, the studio’s no longer booked for you. We don’t wish to do business with your organization. I don’t know what’s the reason.

…“Every candidate on the planet who thinks of running for president is coming here,” Arnesen tells the Monitor. “Don’t you want the Middle East to know what’s going on? What message are they sending by shutting them off?”


http://www.dankennedy.net/2010/01/25/n-h-television-station-cuts-off-al-jazeera/

"Free Speech" anyone? lol

Here is another one:


To its journalistic credit, Electronic Intifada has confirmed a tip that many of us got over the last few days, that Ethan Bronner’s son has joined the Israeli Defense Forces. Bronner is of course the Jerusalem bureau chief for the New York Times (and did not respond to my inquiry to him on the issue).

EI nailed the story with an email from Susan Chira of the Times: "Ethan Bronner referred your query to me, the foreign editor. Here is my comment: Mr. Bronner’s son is a young adult who makes his own decisions. At The Times, we have found Mr. Bronner’s coverage to be scrupulously fair and we are confident that will continue to be the case."

I don’t know that this is a tenable line. I think this could be a sore point for Bronner, who’s already a sore point… People are going to harp on it; EI regards it as a "conflict of interest." And Ethan Bronner is the burning bush of hasbara. Also, I’ve heard that Bronner’s annoyed by criticism; I wonder if this is going to keep him up at night. I have to think the Columbia Journalism Review or some other keeper of the ethical flames is going to examine the question.

Don’t expect Bronner to write about it. He should; it’s a good story. But he won’t. We don’t talk about Jewish identity and militarism in the NYT.

The larger issue here is of course Zionism in the mainstream media, how deep does it go, and will anyone ever look into it? And on from that, Why are so many of the MSM reporters on Israel/Palestine Jews with intimate ties to Israel? Bronner is married to an Israeli and has a son in the most moral military in the world. The other Times person, Isabel Kershner, is "thoroughly Israeli," per the Jewish Forward, and married to an Israeli. The new Washington Post reporter, Janine Zacharia, is a Jewish woman from Long Island (I’m told) who once went over there to work for the Jerusalem Post. Wolf Blitzer worked for AIPAC and the JPost. Jeffrey Goldberg was in the IDF too.

It’s like a credential.

http://mondoweiss.net/2010/01/ethan-take-the-buyout.html