Why are Americans so scared of different Politcal Ideology

page: 1
9

log in

join

posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 08:17 AM
link   
The reason for this thread is simply to open a discussion. I keep seeing posts , litterally gasping in shock, at the prospect of any American Leader adopting any other politcal ideology. Especially the Socialism idea seem to cause the most amount of panic. Why is that? Are there any (Intelligent, well educated on the subject) people out there that can offer a good explanation for the "Fear of Something Different" phenomenon?

Why are people so hell bent on one idea ? One size does not fit all does it? Why can't you have aspects of idea (a) and some from idea (b) with a little sprinkling of (c)?

People keep slating us in the UK for having socialists? And....so what. I for one think that having different levels of working is a way to a much better society.

A simple argument I have always presented is this: We want the innovations and invention and wealth that can be created by capitalism, but at times capitalism sacrifices all ethics and morality and quality for the sake of profit. So for me, why can't energy, food , water etc etc....be not for profit. Does it not seem strange that just for you to live from one day to the next you have to buy food, which is fair to have something to trade, yet supermarket and energy companies make billions of profit....NET profit...at the sake of all of us.

And, some companies choose a different model. There are countless social enterprises and Co-ops in the UK that want to run a service or sell goods, and then invest that profit back into its staff or to go towards charitable projects. The general feeling is that they can deliver a well priced service and actually put something back.

We have a situation in the UK with dairy farmers being paid less per pint for milk than it costs them to produce simply because the supermarkets they supply dictate their prices. As their profit is held above the welfare and sustainability of the supply chain.

America to me is very corporate; it’s all about achieving this wealth and dream, which down to the laws of society and the simple economics of demand and supply are impossible dreams. Only a few can be at the "Top" while you still need a structure to support that top wealth.

America is hell bent on profit (To the sacrifice of geopolitics in the past 100 years). Its seems that America almost needs a few leaders to do what is right, rather than what will make the powerful, even more powerful.

So why are the Americans I see on ATS so stubborn for want of a better word? Its like talking to my father in law. To him , Tuesday is Sausage night and he will never change....even if you say ...pork is actually bad for you and will lead to the end of the world as we know it....he will still say..."Tuesday is Pork Night, has been and always will be" .

So why can't Americans look at different ideas....after all if America was perfect, everyone had health education food, no homeless etc etc...and everyone was happy....then of course you would not even consider a change. But, Americans, never seem happy to me. So why not consider.....something new...a MOD if you like? What’s so scary? Does not mean the red army starts marching through New York.

I for one would like to buy my food, and not see people counting their last pounds, desperate to afford their weekly shop , getting into debt just to pay their gas bill, crying when they see their electricity bill....at the same time watching the owners scoot off with their billions of profit without a care in the world.

Having said that, if I want a luxury item like a DVD or Music or TV....yes I expect to pay and for someone to make a profit.

But should we all be slaves to the very bottom rung of Maslows Pyramid?

Signing off now...looking forward to informed discussion about....Flexibilty and Change vs. Inflexibility and the same.




posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 08:23 AM
link   
I've always thought a system that incorporates the best 'bits' of every system would work well, but I can't say I've really looked into it too deeply.

Off to bed but just wanted to S&F for a thought provoking thread



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 08:32 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

reply to post by Pax et Intellectus
 

It's a fair question but frankly I'm a bit concerned that you have singled out Americans -- or at least the Americans among our membership. (And by the way, I'm not an American.) It seems to me that there are pretty well always going to be some people who resist change, others who will consider it and accept some, and still others who actively seek change and welcome it.

Why? Besides being a social issue at some levels, it is also a human issue and possibly even primordial. There can be advantages in trying to maintain a certain status quo if it is one that the individual (or group s/he belongs to) is comfortable with. There is also the fear of uncertainty: the "what will happen if?" this or that changes, or we accept some new idea or way of doing things. Then there are economic influences as well -- both for and against some kinds of change. I don't see any of these traits as exclusively American. Sure, some Americans are quite vocal in respect of politics and so forth, but they have a culture that encourages them to be so -- within certain limits. In other cultures, there are different aspects of life they consider more or tend to discuss more.

But getting back to Americans, perhaps it is because there is a lot at stake in any given political ideology and they are aware of this. Or at least, a fair number of those who post here seem to be aware.

I take that as a positive. The discussions here get a bit heated at times but I don't think that means all involved are completely inflexible. Some will change their views to a degree, others won't. But as you illustrated with your own anecdote about your father-in-law, the same applies to something as banal as having sausages every Tuesday: sometimes there is no real reason, it's just what someopne gets used to and they just don't want to change.

That's human. Stubborn? Sure.
But human.

Mike

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

edit on 4/9/12 by JustMike because: of a typo. Like usual.




posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 08:51 AM
link   
Especially Americans in my view...I think it's a cold war thing.

Just remember how was an average american scared with the communist boogey man...the devil it self.

All enemies of the state were communist/socialist states...from USSR to Cuba.

Remember the words "Red threat"...

It was something to scare your children with back than. Today...these children are all grown up, with a built in fear/hate towards all that associate themselves with anything socialist in nature.



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 08:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Pax et Intellectus
 

The Majority of everyday working Americans don`t understand their own Political System.

Throw a different form of Gov at them in Discussion , and they want to go to War against it.



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 09:08 AM
link   
It's basically fear. Fear of change, fear of the unknown. We love the saying "A devil you know is better than a Devil you don't know".

I believe in Capitalism and free markets, it makes sense. I am an abomination though...my life is not just about profit and the acquisition of "stuff". I have respect for the Nordic examples of Socialism (Sweden, Denmark, Finland and Norway). It apparently works for them. I have wondered to myself if a system like theirs could work for us and why it isn't considered. There are very wealthy people in these countries. Studies have shown that the Nordic countries have the happiest populations and a very stable and pleasant standard of living...just saying.

In my opinion however, it won't work here.

1) They have relatively small populations. In that scenario, people are more dependent on each other so a social sharing is much more logical. If you truly "need" your neighbor, you are more inclined to look after him...here, we don't.

2) We are born and bred to be competitive against thy neighbor. If he has a nice car, in order to be considered successful you need two or one twice as nice. It is mental engineering and it has worked extremely well. It's not going to ever change without total collapse from top to bottom. Only then will alternative systems be considered. It has to be top to bottom. if the top remains successful while the bottom begins cannibalizing itself, the top will be fine with that...the top needs to fall with everyone else for them to entertain a new idea.

I think about these things on occasion but I am educated and wise enough to know it won't happen. The fear and propaganda surrounding anything but the "dog eat dog" system is too well ingrained into the consciousness of the average person...they are afraid of anything else.

And finally...corruption is far too deep. Sure, free electricity and water sounds great, but in this system, you are removing someone's profit base and dividend income...won't ever happen.



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 09:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Pax et Intellectus
 


F&S for the OP, an interesting question indeed.

Actually I think it really boils down to fear and ignorance. Most of those that fear the change you speak of, do so out of ignorance, some of which I call "willful ignorance."

IMO, this is the primary difference between American conservative ideology and their counterpart, the progressive or liberal ideology. When most progressives hear of a new idea with a proven track record of success, they usually educate themselves regarding the new strategy and then look for ways to implement it within their society.

On the other hand, when conservatives hear of a new idea, they react (almost predictably) in the opposite manner. For starters, if the idea wasn't American born, more than likely it's trashed without any further consideration. I believe this is due to their fear of anything foreign. (You know, if it didn't come from America, it must be either Muslim, communist and/or socialist in nature.
) Once they've thrown up that road block in their minds, any further investigation into the new idea is out of the question and their own "willful ignorance" takes over.

Sadly for us progressives, the rest is history.



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 09:30 AM
link   
Yes, it has to do with the cold war era (some say it is not finished) and all that propaganda, the witch hunt for reds, etc.. For example, in France, there was a very healthy communist party, because USSR was influential, and when the soviet union fell, that French communist party started to lose it's power, and today it is almost non-existent. And today in USA, MSM is doing a great job to "remind" the American people of what their political ideology "should be" (extreme capitalistic competition).. You know, it makes me laugh when I think about the fact that something like fox news is really there, and not just something that has to do with a movie, say V for Vendetta for example.. But I am afraid other *"*democratic*"* countries like France are following the same path.

I also believe food, water, electricity and housing should be almost free, or at least it should be forbidden by law to make huge profit on those vital commodities. The real problem for me is privatization of almost everything, and it shouldn't be that way, this is not the path the human species should follow. Our future as a species is in cooperation and nowhere else. What is preventing the people of a country, today, from cooperating on food or electricity production in order to make those commodities dirt cheap, almost free ? It's ideology, and nothing else. What is the ultimate structure of a peoples cooperation ? It should be the government. But we all know here what is happening : central banks, privatization of everything, enslavement, money that doesn't exist, debt that is impossible to repay .. I-DE-O-LO-GY.



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Pax et Intellectus
 


When our leaders take the oath of office they all swear to protect and uphold the Constitution, then they go about trying to change it. Why didn't they state that they want to change the Constitution before they got elected?

Our Founding Fathers gave us a near perfect document and near perfect system. The reason it doesn't work as well as they envisioned it to work is because of the nature of the very people it was conceived for. You say you'd like to feel clearheaded about buying your groceries, but seeing others having difficulty paying for their groceries makes you uneasy. Would you feel "uneasy" if you knew the details of their difficulties? What if they were living beyond their means, buying extravagances they really cannot afford, like $150 sneakers for their kids or large flat panel TVs, then find themselves short of money for buying the real necessities of life? What if their cash was spent on drugs and gambling? What if, instead of looking for work, they were hanging out on the street or shopping in the mall? How many people during the housing boom went out and bought houses they really couldn't afford? Home ownership isn't a right. It's an achievement.

I'm not claiming this is the case for everyone that is in need and is collecting public assistance, as there are certainly people with integrity who require help because of rotten circumstances. However, our society has become one of entitlement. You want to blame it on corporate brainwashing? OK but what ever happened to personal responsibility? What ever happened to pride? Yeah pride isn't a dirty word like some would make it out to be. There was a time in the course of history where people felt shamed to receive a handout. Now there are people who demand it and that number is growing exponentially. What happens when everyone feels that way? Who will people then turn to for sustenance? That's exaggerated of course, but some politicians have led people down the garden path making them believe that they're entitled to things they haven't worked for. If we truly wanted to ween people from the teat of society, we'd require they work for welfare. We'd require they get training for welfare. But this doesn't serve the purpose of welfare - to keep a segment of society dependent and as a collective voting block.

We all know human nature has many facets and not all of them are righteous. There are people who will take a mile when offered an inch. Nothing is cute and dried, but we, as a society, have certainly have come to accept less accountability and personal responsibility to a level never before seen. And when questioning it, you're branded as a callous robber baron.

Charity should be just that and not redefined by some politician. I'm not religious, but I found this to be appropriate.

I am Not My Brother’s Keeper

And what we're looking at isn't socialism. It's fascism.

It’s not Socialism



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 09:32 AM
link   
Well for Americans socialism does't work. It is one of the reasons we are in the trouble we see now. Show me a socialsitic state that has held super power status for over two hundred years. Americans are [or used to be] free thinking independant peoples. They did not ask permission or need to. They did not expect handouts and were willing to offer a hand up, not benefits for life. They were some of the greatest inovators af all time. The reason is that we lived in a free Republic.

When we return to this form of government you will see the American people rise from the ashes like a phoenix. However you have those that cannot stand for the people to be free aand independent, and they now are pulling the strings.

reluctantpawn

I am sure I will get flamed for this, but my back is strong and my burden is light.



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 09:41 AM
link   
Americans are lemmings, we look to follow one another everywhere...even if its off a cliff. We're a nation of mindless followers.....not really afraid of change though.



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Bilk22
 


I just had to say that I disagree with almost every word you wrote and IMO, It's ideology like yours that is the problem. It sounds as if you're more concerned with dictating what the poor can spend their money on than finding a way to meet their basic needs. By the way, can you still actually buy a t.v. other than a flat screen nowadays?

Furthermore, the extreme lack of accountability and personal responsibility you speak of is much more prevalent among the wealthy elite than it ever was among the poor and needy. That's why no one has gone to jail for the nation's economic collapse while poor people go to jail every day.

No one is trying to remove capitalism here, they're only making the argument that basic needs and services should be provided on a not-for-profit basis while you're contending that if they own a t.v. or a pair of shoes, then they don't need help. What a joke!



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 09:55 AM
link   
There is a lot of misinformation in the OP, which i dont think is intentional.

"People keep slating us in the UK for having socialists?"

Personally i have never heard it mentioned, except in threads like this.

The UK is not socialist, if that is what you mean or do you mean there are socialists in the UK?

In the UK there are poor people, medium income and wealthy. It is basically the same system in the U.S and most everywhere else with some exceptions. Od course we can use the phrase more socialist but i never thought that applied to the UK.

When you say that the U.S is slow to adopt new political philosophies, of course it is, but so is everywhere else. There are good reasons for this, just look at history.



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flatfish
reply to post by Bilk22
 


I just had to say that I disagree with almost every word you wrote and IMO, It's ideology like yours that is the problem. It sounds as if you're more concerned with dictating what the poor can spend their money on than finding a way to meet their basic needs. By the way, can you still actually buy a t.v. other than a flat screen nowadays?

Furthermore, the extreme lack of accountability and personal responsibility you speak of is much more prevalent among the wealthy elite than it ever was among the poor and needy. That's why no one has gone to jail for the nation's economic collapse while poor people go to jail every day.

No one is trying to remove capitalism here, they're only making the argument that basic needs and services should be provided on a not-for-profit basis while you're contending that if they own a t.v. or a pair of shoes, then they don't need help. What a joke!


OK let's use your metric here. How do we further help them meet their "basic needs"? What have we not done or what can we do better? Educate? Well we've lowered the standards so far, we're not educating any longer. What else can we do? What do you think will solve the problem?

Oh I don't disagree with what you said about "the elite". We're in the middle. Oh some would claim I'm rich, but it's all a matter of definition, isn't it?. Maybe some would same the same about you. So do we first need to draw lines? Is that what the problem is? Do we need lines in the sand to clearly define who has what so we can forcibly take from them what is theirs? It's coming to that. You may be on the wrong side of the line too.

The ironic thing about Obama's presidency is he is the perfect counter argument to all the class warfare BS yet the MSM never points that out. Thankfully the RNC convention did a good job of illustrating that point. Maybe it gave people hope that they too can rise to be a governor of a state or even secretary of state if not the president. People want a share of the American dream yet don't want to work toward that. They want it handed to them.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bilk22

OK let's use your metric here. How do we further help them meet their "basic needs"? What have we not done or what can we do better? Educate? Well we've lowered the standards so far, we're not educating any longer. What else can we do? What do you think will solve the problem?

Oh I don't disagree with what you said about "the elite". We're in the middle. Oh some would claim I'm rich, but it's all a matter of definition, isn't it?. Maybe some would same the same about you. So do we first need to draw lines? Is that what the problem is? Do we need lines in the sand to clearly define who has what so we can forcibly take from them what is theirs? It's coming to that. You may be on the wrong side of the line too.

The ironic thing about Obama's presidency is he is the perfect counter argument to all the class warfare BS yet the MSM never points that out. Thankfully the RNC convention did a good job of illustrating that point. Maybe it gave people hope that they too can rise to be a governor of a state or even secretary of state if not the president. People want a share of the American dream yet don't want to work toward that. They want it handed to them.


I don't pretent to have all the answers but a good place to start would be to overhaul our minimum wage system to demand that all employees above the age of 18 be paid a "living wage" above that of poverty level. IMO, it's corporations who are looking for the hand out, and usually getting it. If you want to "broaden the tax base," then your going to have to pay the workers enough to get them into a taxable bracket. So long as corporations wish to retain all the profits, they should expect to pay all the taxes, plain & simple.

Another good start would be to stop the privatization of government services and insure that the basic needs of the people are provided on a not-for-profit basis, you know things like health care, police protection, fire fighting, education, national defense, food, water, etc....



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 12:15 PM
link   
The factors involved in America's stagnation as far as political ideological growth can be directly attributed to its relatively "short" existence.

For starters, America has never had feudalism. Born from bourgeoisie foundations, the sense of hierarchy diminished in America because of a less established social system, thus a class consciousness never developed. Hence, class exploitation has continued under the guise of Capitalism, for without feudalism, revolution has never produced socialism.

People who believe Capitalism results in the highest standard of living are sadly mistaken. Such beliefs, undermine the truth that is the natural lottery. The natural lottery denotes the chance attributed to what family an individual is born into. This pertains because a family's economic status in Capitalism, directly relates to the meaningful opportunities an individual can garner in one's life.

Capitalism by its very nature is flawed. Wealth based upon previous metals, created a vast disparity of wealth and continued exploitation. Capitalism created the conditions for scarcity, as it was royalty who owned large stockpiles of such previous metals. This means that any system which derived from previous metal representative wealth, was imbalanced from the start.

Additionally, America has never had a true revolution. The American revolution does not constitute, as America already had a fully functioning government prior to the Declaration of Independence. A true model of revolution, is that which took place in France.

In America, workers have always earned two to three times more than their European counterparts in regards to the same standards of living. Social institutions in America appealed to workers along class-lines, gaining a foothold in America by way of unionization. However this was undermined by the political process, as Democratic and Republican representatives exploited the ethnic differences within the country.

There is a quote, that "all socialist utopia's come to grief, at the sight of roast beef and apple pie".

The American identity is less a matter of material conditions or education, and is rather a matter of ideology. In Europe under socialist systems, governments are able to redistribute higher levels of wealth to the impoverished. Furthermore, the notions within America, as to the role of government should play in an individuals life, greatly differs in relation to Europe. In Europe, government is not seen as an over-bearing agency, wishing to dictate an individual's life. Instead, government is viewed as a welcome partner, aiding in the development of a meaningful life.

Unions in Europe maintain larger role in labor, with some countries such as Sweden having upwards of 80% of its workforce unionized.

Finally, religion remains as constant foundation for much of American ideology. America is considered to be the most spiritual of "modern" societies. In Europe religion is highly secularized, illustrating another prominent divergence in thought. When a society believes that worldly injustice will be rectified by way Heaven and pacifism, inaction is the only logical outcome.

This is not speculation, America bashing or outlandish rhetoric.



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 01:45 PM
link   
Larken Rose (who gave us the brilliant 'Tiny Dots' video) published a book back in 2011 called The Most Dangerous Superstition In the World that delves into this in detail. The link will allow you to download the pdf. His premise, carefully and expertly supported, is that ALL government of any kind is diametrically opposed to the best interests of humanity. He contends that virtually all the injustices and horrors wrought throughout history are a direct result of our having been duped into believing that a certain class of people has the 'right to rule'. It's hard to argue with his reasoning. I encourage people to download and read the book. It's free.






top topics



 
9

log in

join