A Nation Divided?

dragon wench · Post by **dragon wench** » Thu Oct 28, 2004 12:01 am

Up here in the 'Great White North" we have been subjected to exhaustive news coverage of the US election. As I listened to the CBC tonight there was much discussion on the extreme polarisation between Democrat and Republican neighbourhoods.... between communities with divergent views generally. The perception seemed to be that the US has not been as divided since the Civil Rights Movement...

So I ask US Game Banshee members... Is this really true? I mean, I've always considered the US to be an extremely diverse country as it is, so I can't help but wonder if this is simply media hype..
It is hard for me to gauge, since slipping across the border and hanging out in Seattle periodically doesn't exactly provide the clearest picture

Paranitis · Post by **Paranitis** » Thu Oct 28, 2004 1:02 am

Every election is between a giant douche and a turd sandwich.

VonDondu · Post by **VonDondu** » Thu Oct 28, 2004 2:24 am

[QUOTE=dragon wench]The perception seemed to be that the US has not been as divided since the Civil Rights Movement...

So I ask US Game Banshee members... Is this really true?[/QUOTE]
Yes, it's true.

Jay Bookman of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution offered one of the best explanations in his Monday column. He claims that Americans are living in two different realities, and I agree with him. In one reality, just to take Iraq for example, Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, Iraq had no programs to produce weapons of mass destruction, Iraq had not collaborated or cooperated with al-Qaida, there is no proof of involvement by Iraq in the 9-11 attacks, America's standing in the world has diminished since the invasion of Iraq, terrorism is on the rise, and Iraq is currently a big mess. This view of reality can be confirmed by checking the facts. In the alternate reality, 72% of Bush supporters believe that Saddam possessed WMD or major WMD programs at the time we invaded, 75% believe that Iraq provided support to al-Qaida, 83% do not believe that the United States is less trusted and admired today than it was four years ago, 69% do not believe that most of the world opposes our intervention in Iraq, and most believe that we are winning the "war on terror" and Iraq is well on its way to becoming a peaceful democracy. This view of reality is largely a matter of faith, not facts.

As a proud member of the reality-based community, as opposed to the community that proudly creates its own reality, I can't even talk to people who live in the alternate reality. There are so many of them in Texas, I don't even try to discuss politics with them. I cringe whenever I listen to people in the Bush administration, especially President Bush himself, who is the most deluded of them all. By the same token, I'm sure that Bush supporters feel the same way about John Kerry and people like me. Since we're divided by our views of reality itself, I don't see how we can communicate with each other, much less find a way to agree with each other.

CM · Post by CM » Thu Oct 28, 2004 10:52 am

It cant really be that bad. I guess the most diehard fans of certain leaders would be supporting them. But i thought most of the american population would be considered part of the center. I agree that there are people who want to see something good in all of this but it cant be to the extent that it can be compared with the mood during the civil war.

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Thu Oct 28, 2004 11:44 am

Of the 50% who will vote, I would say it is a division which seems not to have any middle point (ground). As VonDondu posted the 25% who will vote for Bush will not care to hear anything from Kerry, the same the other way. The rest of the US (other 50% of legal voters) have either given up or care not to vote.

Where in the middle does little old Weasel fall....

1. 72% of Bush supporters believe that Saddam possessed WMD or major WMD programs at the time we invaded.

Check one. Even though this was just one of the reasons I backed the plan.

2. 75% believe that Iraq provided support to al-Qaida.

Minus one. Saddam didn't care for religion.

3. 83% do not believe that the United States is less trusted and admired today than it was four years ago.

Minus two. Rises and falls.

4. 69% do not believe that most of the world opposes our intervention in Iraq.

Minus three. I read about and saw the protest around the world.

5. most believe that we are winning the "war on terror" and Iraq is well on its way to becoming a peaceful democracy.

Minus four. The war on terror will take decades and with Bush and company more worried about oil than the people in Iraq, I would say decades for Iraq as well.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Thu Oct 28, 2004 1:08 pm

[QUOTE=VonDondu]As a proud member of the reality-based community, as opposed to the community that proudly creates its own reality, I can't even talk to people who live in the alternate reality. [/QUOTE]

Interesting that you bring this up (I know this is slightly OT, Dragon Wench, sorry for that), in Chanak's US 101 I just posted a question related to the recent investigation which you quote here.

The full report can be found here:
http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/P...ess10_21_04.pdf

It bugs me that 72% of Bush supporters believe that Iraq had WMD:s even after the final Congress report that said Iraq did not have a significant WMD program. It bugs me even more that 57% even think the opposite, ie that Duelfer concluded Iraq had at least a major WMD program. How is this possible?

Also, 63% of Bush supporters believe there is clear evidence found that Iraq supported Al Qaeda. 60% also believe most experts agree on this, and 55% think this was the conclusion of the 9/11 Commission. How is this possible?

How is this alternative reality created? How is it maintained? And what are people really voting for - clearly, political events plays only limited role?

Paranitis · Post by **Paranitis** » Thu Oct 28, 2004 1:09 pm

I too believed Saddam had WMDs..so did Bush..so did Kerry..so did pretty much everyone I have talked to. It was based off of old dated information..it wasn't Bush's fault.

I didn't believe there were any Al-Qaida tied to Saddam.

Nobody can 'win' a 'war on terror'..it is not possible.

Everyone outside of the United States hates us..or rather they don't hate us, but they hate what our government is doing.

Also the world doesn't think we did the wrong thing with Iraq..we have Poland on our side!

But Bush is saying that even knowing what he knows today he would have still invaded Iraq (even though is 'reason' for going to war was because of the WMDs..which weren't there). And he still thinks there is a connection between Saddam and 9/11..and there isn't.

fable · Post by **fable** » Thu Oct 28, 2004 1:24 pm

[QUOTE=C Elegans]Also, 63% of Bush supporters believe there is clear evidence found that Iraq supported Al Qaeda. 60% also believe most experts agree on this, and 55% think this was the conclusion of the 9/11 Commission. How is this possible? [/QUOTE]

Simple: people are taught to believe what they read in schools. They aren't taught to think; if anything, they are frequently taught that education is a painful, ugly, and time-consuming process. So when they get out, they try to turn life into a mixture of required work and endless entertainment. And they believe whatever they're fed by whomever represents the political philosophy they naturally incline towards. If any nation was reduced to the votes of those people who actually studied the claims made on both sides and demanded hard, plain statements of fact, democracies would be reduced to tiny fractions of their current enthusiastic participants who love taking part in the election game.

Welcome to Fantasyland. The price of entry is dirt cheap, but the final cost is sky high.

CM · Post by CM » Thu Oct 28, 2004 2:20 pm

Ok not to take a crack at the US, but what fable describes seems to be a pretty US centric issue. From what i have seen living all over the developing world is that the common begger on the street cares and knows more than whats going on in the world than the average american.

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Thu Oct 28, 2004 4:00 pm

[QUOTE=CM]Ok not to take a crack at the US, but what fable describes seems to be a pretty US centric issue. From what i have seen living all over the developing world is that the common begger on the street cares and knows more than whats going on in the world than the average american.[/QUOTE]

The average American really cannot view the world like a common begger. No worring about food or a place to sleep for the night. Not that this is an excuse. But from my view of some around me, they seem to focus more on the local area than the world at large.

Example....Getting the kids up and to school seems more important than who gets elected in some country they have to have a map to find in the first place.

What is forgotten is the cost of not paying attention. Yes it is important to get the kids off to school, but other events out of your neighborhood can be just as important.

I wouldn't think you will find an average American here at SYM.

RandomThug · Post by **RandomThug** » Thu Oct 28, 2004 4:59 pm

Were fat happy cows. Feed us grease and green paper. Long live America.

Tower_Master · Post by **Tower_Master** » Thu Oct 28, 2004 7:01 pm

[QUOTE=RandomThug]Were fat happy cows. Feed us grease and green paper. Long live America.[/QUOTE]

green paper???

Anyway, I couldn't agree with you more, Fable. It's pathetic that such a large percantage of the popular vote is taken up by the fools among us who decide a candidate merely on political posturing. How many of us HONESTLY bother to look at the actual legitmate records and bills the candidates have signed/supported, or do we just accept the endless rhetoric that the parties spew forth?

Sense when did we become so gullible?

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Thu Oct 28, 2004 8:15 pm

[QUOTE=fable]Simple: people are taught to believe what they read in schools. They aren't taught to think; if anything, they are frequently taught that education is a painful, ugly, and time-consuming process.[/QUOTE]

So you mean media criticism is not on the national curriculum in the US? Or if it is, it is not properly taught?

I know that the US does not have a centrally regulated education system as many European countries have, but that each state is very much independent when it comes to deciding curriculum etc. However, it has always (maybe erranous) been my impression that the US education system in general focus on teaching the individual to seek out information. In general comparisons between US and European education philosophy, it is often emphasised that even though there major differences between individual US states/European countries, a global difference is the European focus on teaching plain facts, and the US focus on teaching how to get the facts. From this, I would expect that independant thinking is difficult to avoid.

Anyway, maybe I'm straying to far off topic here, I am going to start a new thread about different educational systems in general, because I recently got personal reasons to think carefully about it.

VonDondu · Post by **VonDondu** » Fri Oct 29, 2004 3:40 am

[QUOTE=C Elegans]iit has always (maybe erranous) been my impression that the US education system in general focus on teaching the individual to seek out information. In general comparisons between US and European education philosophy, it is often emphasised that even though there major differences between individual US states/European countries, a global difference is the European focus on teaching plain facts, and the US focus on teaching how to get the facts. From this, I would expect that independant thinking is difficult to avoid.[/QUOTE]
I attended Texas public schools when I was growing up, and I have no idea what you're talking about. Where I come from, football is a higher priority than reading books that don't tell y'all how it IS. And you should know that Americans want balance in their textbooks. For example, if a textbook says that some heathen scientist believes that man evolved from apes, there'd better be an accompanying paragraph that explains that decent people believe that God created man on the sixth day just like the Bible says. And then He rested on Sunday, and probably watched some football on TV.

SPAM ALERT

And by the way, you're using a lot of big, fancy words there. You aren't French, are ya?

If you don't realize how anti-intellectual Americans tend to be, then you just don't get it.

VonDondu · Post by **VonDondu** » Fri Oct 29, 2004 3:56 am

[QUOTE=C Elegans]It bugs me that 72% of Bush supporters believe that Iraq had WMD:s even after the final Congress report that said Iraq did not have a significant WMD program. It bugs me even more that 57% even think the opposite, ie that Duelfer concluded Iraq had at least a major WMD program. How is this possible?

How is this alternative reality created? How is it maintained? And what are people really voting for - clearly, political events plays only limited role?[/QUOTE]
Well, for one thing, they listen to President Bush. I don't bother to listen to Bush's campaign speeches any more, but I watched a TV comedy program called The Daily Show a while ago, and it gave a classic example of Bush's rhetorical style.

You know about the 377 tons of explosives that are missing from a big ammo dump in Iraq, right? John Kerry has been criticizing the Bush administration for failing to secure such sites when they invaded Iraq. President Bush insists that no one knows what happened to the explosives, so it isn't right for Kerry to criticize him "without knowing all the facts". In the clip that was shown on The Daily Show, Bush also said, "If Senator Kerry had his way, Saddam Hussein would still be in power today and he'd be able to give those explosives to terrorists." Jon Stewart (the host of the show) stopped the tape and looked at the audience with a look of disbelief on his face and said, "But the terrorists have the explosives now. That's the point." And apparently a point like that is completely lost on President Bush and his supporters.

I guess you could say that Bush's rhetoric is "misleading", and it plays right into the belief system of people who believe that Bush is a "strong leader" and Kerry is "weak". But the larger issue is that Bush supporters really don't care about the facts, so even if you point out the fact that the Bush administration didn't send enough troops into Iraq to secure sensitive sites, it doesn't make any difference to them. Kerry is still "French", and they don't want anyone like that to be President.

Opalescence · Post by **Opalescence** » Fri Oct 29, 2004 7:08 am

You know, after watching all this, I'm beginning to feel that God's greatest mistake was in giving humans free will. Look at what we do with our gift: we destroy each other, point fingers around, and all-in-all act like we're complete morons. I find it amazing that people have to actually invent realities to live in when the real reality is wierd enough. The fact of the matter is, where I live (Rhode Island), there isn't that much debate. We all pretty much hate Bush. Still, I visited my cousin in Wisconsin, and boy lemme tell you, there are best friends up there that don't talk to each other. It's a virtual warzone. I find it sad, although I have to agree a peanut-sized turdball would be superior to Bush as commander-in-chief.

fable · Post by **fable** » Fri Oct 29, 2004 11:39 am

[QUOTE=C Elegans]So you mean media criticism is not on the national curriculum in the US? Or if it is, it is not properly taught? [/QUOTE]

I think it's a combination of factors--but the failure of school's in terms of teaching children to question, and to use tools of logic to deal with questions. This is not a failure in the US alone, of course. History books all over the world as simply taught as rote fact; and the way to get ahead is to memorize well, and give 'em back exactly what they want, no more, no less. That's actually a fair philosophy for survival in the modern world, but it augurs poorly for truly understanding human society.

dragon wench · Post by **dragon wench** » Fri Oct 29, 2004 12:39 pm

I find all of this rather worrying and depressing... An understatement I know, but at this point, with all that has occurred in the last few years, superlative adjectives almost seem redundant....

It is also disturbing that parallel to the Iraq situation, there is very little doubt North Korea has WMDs. Yet, where is the outcry? That so many people so easily buy the 'realities' spun by a duplicitous administration and the media quite frankly scares the hell out of me. I recognise I have my own biases here.. since people who have been opposed to the Iraq invasion are equally viewed as "out to lunch" by the other camp... but still... *sigh*

I don't entirely know just how different the US and Canadian schools systems are, and I imagine there are some striking variations depending on area, school etc. so it is likely impossible to generalise... However, my personal experiences dovetail with what has been said.
A few years ago I was running discussion seminars at uni for first year history students. Now, these are the kids who were apparently getting the better grades at school, otherwise they would not have passed admission standards..
However, I found that the vast majority were entirely unable to think critically. Their comments in class reflected an almost intuitive trust in media sources, and their papers usually lacked any kind of in-depth or thoughtful analysis.
Even more disturbing was that those students planning to enroll in the Education Faculty were usually the least insightful, least critical and least informed of all.....

Paranitis · Post by **Paranitis** » Fri Oct 29, 2004 4:52 pm

I also am scared of the 'media is always right!' thing that americans have been upto lately.

For Kerry supporters it's always 'Michael Moore said so' or 'Daily Show said so' etc.

For Bush supporters it's always 'Bush said so, and he is right because he is the president' or 'FOX news said so'.

There is literally NO middle ground in the United States..there is no longer room for opinions anymore..you are either right or you are wrong, and if you don't believe the guy who is wrong the you are also wrong, etc.

The people here aren't bad..but the political structure is pure and utter bullcrap!

fable · Post by **fable** » Fri Oct 29, 2004 5:08 pm

The US has long been this way, Paranitis. Check contemporary accounts of shootings and riotings during late 19th and early 20th century gubenatorial and presidential US races. It's even enshrined in literature. Verne's Around the World in 80 Days, if I recall correctly, provides an amusing picture of election fever in the Western US--a caricature for French audiences, true, but obviously based on some degree of international awareness, or Verne wouldn't have had any reason to introduce it as an incident in his tale. Second, there's an amusing short story by the early 20th century Canadian humorist, Stephen Leacoc!, in which an extremely naive young lady, off to visit her uncle in California, hears stories about both candidates in an important race told by the other side. As her uncle was one of the candidates, she runs screaming from him upon sight, having believed every word that was uttered.

I think that for a while the two parties more or less agreed between themselves to avoid character defamation and dirty tricks, and to keep their pit bulls in check. That more or less ceased to happen in 1980, when the neo-cons decided to go after the House of Representatives and the Presidency without regard for truth. But this is the first election I've seen since then when the moderates (there are virtually no liberals in the US) decided to fire back in kind. And of course, having a so-called "news network" with a blatant bias (Fox) only makes matters worse, in so far as objective, well-considered journalism is concerned.

Before anybody starts hammering at the US for this, let's remember that the traditions of character defamation, lying in the press, and actual physical attacks were brought straight over from England, where the term "the rough and tumble of ordinary politics" originated, and where it was meant literally. The viciousness of 19th century English politics provided the model. The British have since become more reserved, but if you want to see something even more repulsive, look at Aussie elections.

Or Russian ones. Or some of the antics the Dutch have been up to, lately. Or the Italians. Or...