Are Americans a Broken People?

[Simplicius]

It's not uncommon to see that sort of thing appear in popular-leftist articles like this, though. For a facile critique, it's easy to divide all society into The People, who are good and innocent even if they are ignorant, and The Establishment, meaning the government and large corporations, which victimizes The People to accumulate power and wealth. Then the author of the article comes along to lay bare the hypocrisy of society and unite The People as a force for righteousness etc.

When you acknowledge that The People are deeply complicit in the social ills that hurt them, not only is the rhetoric complicated, but the task of making the public your ally for sweeping social reform becomes vastly more difficult.

[Coyote]

When you acknowledge that The People are deeply complicit in the social ills that hurt them, not only is the rhetoric complicated, but the task of making the public your ally for sweeping social reform becomes vastly more difficult.

Well, it means that the public's role in their own oppression has to be clarified. Being beaten/broken would imply, to me, being aware that they were fighting, or have fought, or lost a fight. Instead, I don't think many people really feel that way. Most of them are ignorant or dismissive ("it's all media hype/government/corporate lies/scaremongering by fringers") or they don't really care ("doesn't affect me").

But then there's the notion that complaining won't do any good, and violent action is not only unlikely to gain support but is also unwinnable, even if it were palatable (or people feel that "we haven't reached that point" and may or may not add "...yet").

Plus, the enormity of the task that "sweeping reform" would require is enough to make most balk. The only people with the motivation to attempt such a feat are the ones that are driven by visionary ideologies, which is a polite way to say "serious fucking trouble", and that goes for left and right wings.

[Junghalli]

Well, it means that the public's role in their own oppression has to be clarified. Being beaten/broken would imply, to me, being aware that they were fighting, or have fought, or lost a fight. Instead, I don't think many people really feel that way. Most of them are ignorant or dismissive ("it's all media hype/government/corporate lies/scaremongering by fringers") or they don't really care ("doesn't affect me").

Or they care but they have only so much time, energy, and money and most people will direct their time, energy, and money first at their own personal problems and at their own personal interests and desires before they start spending it on shit that doesn't personally effect them. That's just human nature; people will as a general rule prioritize things that are actually likely to effect their own lives over things that don't. In just about any cause you'd care to name that has a reasonably wide mainstream following the committed crusaders who spend a lot of their time and energy fighting for it are going to be vastly outnumbered by the guys who nod their heads, talk about how great it is, bitch about how much better the world would be if more people embraced and fought for it, maybe make the occassional (often token) donation or effort, and then go back to their own lives. I'm perfectly willing to admit I fit firmly into that majority, as I suspect do most people here, simply as a matter of statistics. Most people do want to help others*, but it's one thing to talk about it in the abstract, it's another thing when The Cause starts to compete with fulfilling your own desires for your resources; most people will prioritize fulfilling their own desires.

* Of course, different people often have very different ideas of what it means to "help" others, and even when their ideas of what is ultimately desirable are similar they'll often clash over the best methods of getting there.

[fgalkin]

Americans are a demoralized people? Pfft. Call me when America has an abortion rate greater than the live birth rate because people don't want to bring children into the world- that's being demoralized. This is just a whiny self-centered asshole trying to explain the actions of other whiny self-centered assholes and improve his visibility.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Big Orange]

I wouldn't say American working and lower middle class are fully demoralized yet, even though there's a creeping realization that things are seriously going to shit, despite many Americans not quite putting their finger on it. And there seems to be a high degree of delusion, hubris and denial in Americans than the deeply ingrained demoralization seen in post Soviet Russia and Ukraine, even if the quality of life has been gradually deteriorating for many years (mainly through pressure from the private sector), and some Americans are voting or protesting against their real interests, as stupefying as it is.

Joe Bageant covers the same topic featured in the OP's article in his book, Deer Hunting with Jesus. I haven't read through all of it yet, but here are some of the better excerpts from the book so-far:

Page 5-6
Many are working poor but kid themselves that they are middle class - partly out of pride and partly because of the long-running national lie that most Americans are middle class. Being born lower class in working America makes some of us, probably most of us, class conscious for life. Consequently, a good deal of this book is about class in America, especially the class from which I sprang, the bottom third of Americans constituting the unacknowledged working-class poor: conservative, politically misinformed or oblivious, and patriotic to their own detriment.

Page 29-30
Meanwhile, the conservative Republicans ballyhoo “personal responsibility” to working-class employees like the guys and gals here at the Royal Lunch. Most working people around here believe in the buzz phrase “personal responsibility.” Their daddies and mamas taught them to accept responsibility for their actions. The assume responsibility their lives and don’t want a handout from the government. They see accepting public help as a sign of failure and moral weakness. Consequently, they don’t like social spending to give people a lift.

Page 32
That is not to say the class divide was not a steep and ugly ditch back then [1960s-1970s]. It was. But it is an absolute canyon now, and growing deeper.

Page 65
My people don’t cite real facts. They recite what they have absorbed from the atmosphere. Theirs is an intellectual life consisting of things that sound right, a blend of modern folk wisdom, cliché’, talk radio, and Christian radio babble. So I know there is no use in pointing out that corporations are very good at increasing productivity using every means available except increasing wages and benefits. Or that corporations are beholden to Wall Street, not to the workers, and vastly prefer Asian sweatshops to the bargaining of free men and women. In Tom Henderson’s world, there are no sweatshops. “The Asians in the so-called sweatshops working for two dollars a day are the middle class of their economy,” he says. A Limbaugh-ism if ever there was one.
I cannot resist: “So you think that we should be reduced to the level of some guy on a sampan in Asia? Is that what you want for Americans?”
“Well pardon me, ole buddy,” he replies, poking around in his crumpled cigarette pack for a Camel, “but I don’t think anybody in Washington is asking Tom Henderson what he thinks. But the bottom line is that globalization is in our national interests.”

Page 72
So what happens if you are Tom Henderson and you’ve put in more than twenty years at the plant and let every unique aspect of yourself atrophy so you could do the American Dream by the numbers, only to find that your wife suffers from chronic depression and that terrorists crashed airplanes into New York. And whispered rumor again has it that Rubbermaid [plastics company] is moving your job to Asia, and television pundits loudly proclaim the impending death of the Social Security system you’ve been counting on to be there for you, though you’d never admit it openly because, well, it’s a handout. An entitlement.

Page 88
To spread its message the GOP has a huge number of grassroots operatives. They turn up everywhere - a city council meetings and in the letters columns of local newspapers Whenever they spot an opportunity to inject a slogan or recite some conservative rhetoric or retail a concocted story from NewsMax, Town Hall, or FrontPage, they take it. That’s why the GOP has such a unified response to any liberal message.
The nationwide grassroots network of zealous conservatives such as Laurita [tyrannical landlord] recruits manpower for the entire GOP. At the humble level of the small towns, local candidates are raised an groomed for state and national office, backed by a host of Lauritas contributing and working the crowds and writing letters to the editor. And it is from these local grassroots GOP business-based cartels that the army of campaign volunteers, political activists, and spokesmen springs. The result is that, even though the social and economic visions of the ultra-rightists are repulsive the rightists succeed at forcing their vision of America down our throats because they have committed themselves to organization and communication. They had a setback in 2006, and they may have more setbacks in 2008, but they are dedicated to victory at any cost.

Here's a truncated, but still interesting interview with Joe Bageant:

[Broomstick]

I think I lean towards "people aren't uncomfortable enough to do anything yet". Right now people still think that if they do the Right Thing they can continue to hold on to a home and income. Or, if they've lost a job, if they do the Right Thing they'll get another and step back into prosperity. Americans CAN move mountains, but we have to be motivated to do so. There's not enough motivating force to upset the applecart yet.

If it gets to the point that people feel there is nothing left for them to lose, then things could happen.

[Big Phil]

I think I lean towards "people aren't uncomfortable enough to do anything yet". Right now people still think that if they do the Right Thing they can continue to hold on to a home and income. Or, if they've lost a job, if they do the Right Thing they'll get another and step back into prosperity. Americans CAN move mountains, but we have to be motivated to do so. There's not enough motivating force to upset the applecart yet.

If it gets to the point that people feel there is nothing left for them to lose, then things could happen.

~1770 (and the subsequent 40-50 years were filled with rebellions, uprisings, and turmoil) Revolutionary War
1860-1865 (Civil War)
~1900 +/- 20 years (unionization of labor, women's suffrage movement
1950's-1970's - Civil Right Movement, Women's Rights, Vietnam War, and also Baby Boomers acting like self-indulgent pricks

Roughly speaking, every 50 years or so people get pissed off enough about something or other to do band together and work for change. In between, things are relatively calm (internally, I mean - I know there were wars and the like). If that "trend" holds true, we're looking at people getting pissed off about something in the next 10 or 20 years (my guess is it'll be related to social security and this country's likely bankruptcy due to financial mismanagement in the public and private sectors - really going out on a limb there, aren't I?), but right now things just aren't bad enough for people to riot or march against the government.

[Surlethe]

A quick thought - you might also examine demographics. Populations that are very young are more likely to be out in the streets protesting; populations that are old are likely to be sitting at home sipping brandy. I'm fairly certain that accounts in part for the turmoil of the '60s.

[Big Phil]

A quick thought - you might also examine demographics. Populations that are very young are more likely to be out in the streets protesting; populations that are old are likely to be sitting at home sipping brandy. I'm fairly certain that accounts in part for the turmoil of the '60s.

Yes, that is true. And I believe Gen Y (18-30 year olds) are more numerous than even Baby Boomers, meaning there will shortly be a shitload of self-important douchebags wondering why the best job they can get is greeter at Wal-Mart despite $150K in student loan, car, and credit card debt (maybe it's the fact that you got a degree in Comparative History of Ideas - no BS, that's a real degree at the University of Washington)

[Resinence]

Yes, that is true. And I believe Gen Y (18-30 year olds) are more numerous than even Baby Boomers, meaning there will shortly be a shitload of self-important douchebags wondering why the best job they can get is greeter at Wal-Mart despite $150K in student loan, car, and credit card debt (maybe it's the fact that you got a degree in Comparative History of Ideas - no BS, that's a real degree at the University of Washington)

Gee I wish I could gloat over people graduating into a failing economy and job market up to their necks in debt while trotting out old stereotypes about young people when the majority of majors in the last few years have been education, business and health related.

But that would make me a raging asshole. Oh well.

[Sarevok]

So ? Its the truth. Sanchez is correct a lot of people graduated in last few years with degrees that have no practical value.

[Darth Wong]

So ? Its the truth. Sanchez is correct a lot of people graduated in last few years with degrees that have no practical value.

And worse yet, they often have a massive entitlement complex. Many of them think that the world owes them a job for some reason. And not just any job; they expect something you can brag about at parties.

[mr friendly guy]

OK, just for interest, what type of bullshit degrees are we talking about here? Well I know there are lots and lots of degrees, but when I was trying to think of a career course while I was still in high school, I would never consider selecting things which didn't have obvious job prospects. So even while I thought complicated physics sounds cool, I really had no idea what job prospects they had so I would never chose it because being the smartest person in the unemployment queue didn't appeal to me.

[Big Orange]

Many Generation-Y'ers may have unrealistic expectations and potentially phony qualifications, but they have still been legitimately hard done by the ravages of Globalization and the "free" market. Affordable housing has been rendered an impossibilty in the Anglo-American hegemony and the cost of living has gone up, with job prospects going down. An uncomfortable though likely explanation why white Americans in general seem very hesitant to take to the streets in genuine, spontaneous anger, even if they're in grinding poverty, is the stigma that supposedly only black people in ghettos and liberal students violently riot.

[Broomstick]

That may change if significant numbers of suburban white folks find themselves in the street not out of anger but out of homelessness. White people in the US have rioted quite nicely in the past, they are certainly capable of it even if they didn't do it much during the 20th Century.

Falling from middle class to poverty has been fucking rough for me, and I've been poor before and never was someone with an extravagant, materialistic lifestyle and never defined myself by my job. If people with a college degree and 20 years experience are having a rough go (and they are) then kids fresh out of college - regardless of whether or not their degree is "bullshit" - will have it even rougher.

I think some folks would like to regard the Americans as "broken" out of schadenfreude. Whether or not there is still greatness in the US... I dunno. We were pretty broken from 1929 to 1941, even worse than now, but oddly enough by 1950 we seemed to have recovered.

Right now the US is going through some shit. It happens. It's not going to get fix overnight or even in a year or two. But personally I think we're a long way from "broken" in the extreme sense.

[Lusankya]

I think some folks would like to regard the Americans as "broken" out of schadenfreude. Whether or not there is still greatness in the US... I dunno. We were pretty broken from 1929 to 1941, even worse than now, but oddly enough by 1950 we seemed to have recovered.

Though keep in mind that during that period of time, the rest of the world suffered through World War II, which left Europe and Asia pretty devastated, but left America relatively unscathed, which gave America a huge leg up.

At the moment, while there are problems coming in the future, they're likely to affect the US at least as much as they affect everyone else, so the US won't have the same relative advantage in overcoming the current crisis.

That said, the US still has plenty of advantages: it's still the world's largest economy, the Greenback is still the world reserve currency, and it still has unrivalled power on the global stage. Part of issue is whether or not these things are sustainable long-term, and whether or not the US is willing to sacrifice any of them if it turns out that they are unsustainable. The impression that I get is that plenty of people in the US assume that having unrivalled power is necessary for their security as a nation-state - ignoring the fact that there are some 190-odd countries that manage to survive quite nicely without this benefit. The US is unlikely to become irrelevant, but given an increasingly unified Europe and the growing economy in China, they're not going to remain undisputed top dog forever, and if they try to hang onto that title at the expense of domestic concerns, then I can see the people becoming broken.

The myth of American excellence is probably adding to the impression that Americans are "broken", though. People look at the US and are comparing it to its peak, and not some kind of objective standard. They're also probably comparing the direction they see the US moving in ("down" from its peak, though that is in part due to others rising, rather than the US falling) with the direction they see others moving ("up", at least in terms of increasing unification in Europe and growing prosperity in China) and assume that it's necessarily a long-term trend.

[Coyote]

Would this be kind of like what people called the "Britsh loss-of-Empire syndrome"?, a sort of cultural malaise that afflicts a people after a perceived fall from high status?

For a long time I've felt that the USA needs to adapt itself to the notion that it is just one of many fish in the sea; and that we should be glad that we are among the bigger fish.... and that is the actual natural order of things.

[Lusankya]

That's what I think it is - at least in part. The US also seems to have other weirdness such as an absurdly weak Federal government and a large libertarian streak, which is giving them additional problems. If you look at the later days of the British Empire, it corresponds with the rise of Trade Unions and relatively socialist, which probably cushioned the fall for the average person.

The current domination of the US is really an historical aberration, and (in my non-professional opinion) probably only made possible by the isolationist policies of the Qing Dynasty followed by a period of turmoil in Chinese history at what just happened to be the time when the West was industrialising. Since the Han Dynasty, China has, by and large, been one of the most powerful countries in the world, and China's current reclamation of that power is really just a return to their natural position. (Of course, you probably already know that I think that, given how obvious it is which basket I'm putting all my eggs in.)

And with the EU becoming more relevant and Russia being, well, Russia and India and Brazil both developing (though not to the same extent as China), we're going to see a world with a lot more superpowers in the future, and that will probably be a harder transition for the US than the rest of us, because all countries like Australia have to do is start sucking up to somebody different. The US has to learn how to suck up.

[Sarevok]

Would this be kind of like what people called the "Britsh loss-of-Empire syndrome"?, a sort of cultural malaise that afflicts a people after a perceived fall from high status?

For a long time I've felt that the USA needs to adapt itself to the notion that it is just one of many fish in the sea; and that we should be glad that we are among the bigger fish.... and that is the actual natural order of things.

Is not the US still the biggest fish by a hefty margin ? Sure a lot of things about living in USA sucks. But USA is still the country with $ 14 trillion economy, 11 supercarrier strong navy and several space shuttles. Other countries have not yet closed the gap economically, militarily and technologically. I mean technically the EU could in short order but they are not one country. Russia never recovered anywhere near the strength the once wielded. China is growing in everyway yet they are still not at the halfway mark. India ? Many parts of India is still dark ages in terms of starvation,illeteracy and other standards of life.

If the USA were a British empire analogue USA is now where the Empire was in 1909. Not the rapidly collapsing mess in late 40s and 50s.

[Lusankya]

It could be that your average person is just more aware of the decline than people were in 1909. Morale is in large part about how people perceive things, after all. If people aren't thinking "we're still the biggest fish" but rather "these other fish are growing more quickly than we are", it will still be a demoralising effect.

And the decline of the British Empire was in large part deliberate: colonies like Australia and New Zealand were encouraged to gain independence from Britain. You can't say the same about America's (relative) loss of power.

[Shroom Man 777]

It's not just in the hard numbers, but also in the "international prestige". America can keep its carrier fleets, its monies, its GDP and stuff, but the fact is that it's become a global laughing stock with a moron for a leader (Shrubya), who personally led his nation and its allies to two wars that turned out to be not entirely what they were cracked up to be (i.e. lying to everyone else about them Dubya Em Dees), while also leading the world in the big financial poo-poo we're dealing with today, and all the gross incompetencies, hypocrisies and humiliations we've beheld time and time again... it's really kind of degraded the American moral/cultural/whateverical supremacy over everyone else. America made itself look bad, and the sudden rise of China and Europe and Putin's Russia and everyone else didn't help either.

Basically, everyone saw that America sucked.

[Simon_Jester]

That said, the US still has plenty of advantages: it's still the world's largest economy, the Greenback is still the world reserve currency, and it still has unrivalled power on the global stage.

Some of those things may not be advantages; having unrivalled power encourages us to waste money on foreign adventures, and having a huge economy just seems to speed up the rate at which we bleed money out through imports.

[Lusankya]

Well, as with some things, they can be used for either the forces of good, or the forces of suck. Unrivalled power, used effectively, is an advantage. And having the huge economy means that other countries are willing to bend the rules for you just that little more, which would give some wiggle room if it was accompanied by competent economic management. You're right though, that if the forces of suck get a hold of them, they're dangers to the US and to others.

In absolute terms, though, simply being a first would country is a huge advantage. If given a choice between being a citizen of an average first world country in a recession, and an average third world country during a growth period, most people would still choose the first world country.

[Darth Wong]

That said, the US still has plenty of advantages: it's still the world's largest economy, the Greenback is still the world reserve currency, and it still has unrivalled power on the global stage.

Some of those things may not be advantages; having unrivalled power encourages us to waste money on foreign adventures, and having a huge economy just seems to speed up the rate at which we bleed money out through imports.

Having unrivaled power makes you more willing to use the military option, but let's not kid ourselves: you blundered into Iraq because of your fucked up right-wing politics and your attempt to remake the world in your image, not because your large military tempted you. It's the exact same reason you went into Vietnam, where you had nowhere near the same level of technological and tactical superiority.

[Aeolus]

You know, it occurs to me that the author's assumption that Americans are "demoralized" is oddly self-serving. It presumes that most Americans agree with the author but are just too weak to make their voices heard. It does not make any allowances for the idea that Americans are genuinely complacent, or easily persuaded by bad logic, or more selfish than he would like to think.

That was the thought I had as well. He is assuming that everyone agrees with him. Therefore in his mind the fact that they are not rising up must mean that they are broken. When a much simpler idea is that the Majority simply do not agree with him.