Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[Winstonm]

Winstonm, on 2021-September-10, 20:16, said:

 

Disclaimer: My understandings can be wrong. I am willing to learn.

 

Now, my grasp on things is that those walking from Guatemala to the U.S. border are not immigrants but asylum-seekers, and there is a difference. I don't think asylum seekers would affect the question about making immigration harder or easier.

 

 

 

 

Further thoughts on that question from the NYT poll (or quiz or whatever):

 

 

I looked up the exact wording of the question

 

The choices were

Much easier, slightly easier, no change, slightly harder, much harder.

"How easy or difficult should it be to immigrate to the United States?

 

Is it a clear question?

Winston mentions that many are not immigrants but are asylum seekers. In answering the question, I did not make that distinction. Further, my guess is that of those who took the poll, few made that distinction. And if they did make that distinction, did they then make other distinctions? Some immigrants go through a legal process before coming here. Perhaps those who do not do this should also not be classified as immigrants. If we do not classify asylum seekers as immigrants, who do we classify as immigrants?

 

So that's one (I think minor) problem with the question, it did not specify who was to be regarded as an immigrant. I say it's a minor problem because I would place a fair size bet that most who responded to it took the same view that I did, that by "immigrant" the question meant someone who is not a US citizen but who would like to come to the US and become a US citizen. Of course this is a large diverse group that can be broken into many sub-categories but I doubt most responders worried about that.

 

The bigger problem with the question was that immigration, however we classify immigrants, asylum seekers etc, is a complex issue. Start with a simple question: Are we to set immigration policy primarily to benefit those who wish to come here or primarily to benefit the country? "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses, yearning to breathe free". Very idealistic. I looked it up and these were placed on the Statue of Liberty in 1905. My paternal grandfather came through Ellis Island in 1905, my father and my uncle came through in 1910. Perhaps they were yearning to breathe free and perhaps they were allowed in because the government thought it was our mission to help the huddled masses, but I strongly suspect there was some strong economic motivation at play. The nation needed and wanted immigrant labor, the people who came thought the US was a good place to make a living.

 

So that would be a good question to see how people view the role of government: Should our immigration policy be directed toward helping the poor and huddled masses yearning to breathe free or should it be directed toward the economic benefit. of the country. Of course there can be a synthesis of these goals and that could be included on the question as well. The fact that sometimes the two goals can work in tandem does not mean that they always work in tandem and we could do a better job of tis if we acknowledged both that there is some interplay between the two goals, but the two goals are not identical. We could then decide whether we seek support ofr immigration policies based on what it would do for the huddled masses or based on what it would do for us. I am pretty sure that when my father came over, it was the second of these goals that dominated thinking.

 

 

I believe the NYT poll is highly flawed. That's no problem, I can just ignore it. But the questions, and the flaws in the questions, illustrate our current problems. Possibly clarifying the questions could help us toward a better approach to solving the problems.

 

Anyway, that's my reason for tis expanded response.

 

As to the poll, I have grown increasingly suspect about all polls, this one included. The questions usually are framed poorly and this one is no exception.

 

As to the question of asylum seekers compared to immigrants, I found this and it was quite helpful.

[awm]

There are some ways that the US is arguably more liberal than most of Europe. In particular:

 

1. Getting US citizenship is relatively easy. Here in Switzerland we have people who were born here and lived their whole life here and still are not citizens because their parents are from someplace else.

2. The US government routinely produces forms in basically every language. In most countries these forms are only in the official national language.

3. There is no official “church of the US” and government money doesn’t go to any religious institution. Sure, Republicans like to chip away at the edges of this but in Switzerland the government directly gives money to major churches.

[kenberg]

There are some ways that the US is arguably more liberal than most of Europe. In particular:

 

1. Getting US citizenship is relatively easy. Here in Switzerland we have people who were born here and lived their whole life here and still are not citizens because their parents are from someplace else.

2. The US government routinely produces forms in basically every language. In most countries these forms are only in the official national language.

3. There is no official "church of the US" and government money doesn't go to any religious institution. Sure, Republicans like to chip away at the edges of this but in Switzerland the government directly gives money to major churches.

 

Thanks. I think of liberal/conservative as multi-dimensional. People speak of being a social liberal and a fiscal conservative (or the other way around) but I think it goes far beyond that. I might try to say more later, busy right now.

[Gilithin]

Thanks. I think of liberal/conservative as multi-dimensional. People speak of being a social liberal and a fiscal conservative (or the other way around) but I think it goes far beyond that. I might try to say more later, busy right now.

This is part of the issue - in America the opposite of conservative is liberal. In most of the rest of the world the opposite of conservative is socialist and liberal is the traditional opposite of authoritarian.

[pilowsky]

There are some ways that the US is arguably more liberal than most of Europe. In particular:

 

1. Getting US citizenship is relatively easy. Here in Switzerland we have people who were born here and lived their whole life here and still are not citizens because their parents are from someplace else.

2. The US government routinely produces forms in basically every language. In most countries these forms are only in the official national language.

3. There is no official "church of the US" and government money doesn't go to any religious institution. Sure, Republicans like to chip away at the edges of this but in Switzerland the government directly gives money to major churches.

 

No country in Europe is crazier than the USA (the use of the term 'liberal' in reference to political philosophy is comical in the USA).

1. Switzerland is very tough on citizenship, but citizenship happens to about 0.5% of the population per year (around 40,000 new citizens). More importantly, there is a clearly defined pathway.

Switzerland is renowned as the toughest of all European countries. Amongst the many racist things about the USA, you still have to pass an English test to become a citizen (no nasty tinted people allowed here).

The US grants citizenship to ~850,000 people each year - which is about 0.26% - roughly half as welcoming as the Swiss - who are notorious (although better than the Japanese).

When Melania Trump gave a speech she was "called out" by important people like Bette Midler because "she can't speak English".

This is hilarious coming from a country where the President ordered the removal of diphthongs because they were too hard to spell; the reason the Americans have fones of different colors I suppose.

2. The US govt produces forms in every language - how is this a form of liberalism?

3. No official church: I take it this is some sort of joke? In the US, funding of churches (in the form of tax concessions) is given to any youtube that believes almost anything that must be "taken on faith" - including the church of sciencefictionology.

[pilowsky]

As to the poll, I have grown increasingly suspect about all polls, this one included. The questions usually are framed poorly and this one is no exception.

 

As to the question of asylum seekers compared to immigrants, I found this and it was quite helpful.

 

You might be suspect, but I suspect you mean suspicious - watch out, the American English police will come and revoke your citizenship.

[pilowsky]

It is completely natural for national politics to concentrate on the areas of disagreement between the major political parties of their country. As you point out, America has a broad agreement to ignore the left side of most political graphs completely. I usually categorise the choice as between the right and the more right. Even on the heat map of the original (US) link, it is remarkable just how linear the American voter population is - in most such graphs for mature democracies, the entire range is covered.

 

But you did not answer about the axes being used. It was a genuine question and I am interested in which political model is being used for Australian preferences.

 

From looking at the methodology it appears that the pollsters are attempting to help you work out your alignment to the groups that are seeking election.

They do this by looking at the published policies of the largest parties (Labor, Liberal, Green and a few others). Then they look at the policies that are of most interest to Australians based on GKW and create a visual analogue scale of agreement with the positions.

The difference in results that I get taking both the US and Australian 'test' reveals the massive "right-shift" in US political thinking - nothing to do with objective left/right.

What you are doing when you answer the questions is finding out how your views align with the published views of the people standing for election.

Clearly, this has very little to do with any kind of synthesised political philosophy.

How many Americans have actually read anything by Marx/Hitler/(any American politician)? If they did, would it include a discussion of whether or not to build a US/Mexico wall, or gun control or climate change?

People do not vote on the basis of a synthesised political philosophy they vote according to perceived self-interest (emphasis on perceived).

I have voted for the Australian Labor Party at every election since I turned 18. Except once when the party leader stated in a speech that "Asians were coming to Australia and stealing your jobs". Since the other party is racist to the core I voted "informal".

My vote is typically against my self-interest as an American would perceive it since the party I'm a member of favours higher taxation and more government spending on pointless activities such as health education and welfare.

Over the past 10 years, Australia has presided over the slow destruction of investment in education and science - while at the same time moaning about a lack of STEM knowledge.

Spending money on things that don't seem useful immediately is not easily understood by the majority.

Watch any episode of Rand Paul being contemptuous of science spending.

[Winstonm]

You might be suspect, but I suspect you mean suspicious - watch out, the American English police will come and revoke your citizenship.

 

Here in the U.S., the second meaning of suspect, i.e., to have doubts of : DISTRUST, is a fairly common usage.

[pilowsky]

Here in the U.S., the second meaning of suspect, i.e., to have doubts of : DISTRUST, is a fairly common usage.

 

No wonder it's hard to get US citizenship.

[cherdano]

Wait wait, I said one possible answer. Why did you think this one applies to you?

[Winstonm]

No wonder it's hard to get US citizenship.

😉

[kenberg]

As to the poll, I have grown increasingly suspect about all polls, this one included.

 

 

Here in the U.S., the second meaning of suspect, i.e., to have doubts of : DISTRUST, is a fairly common usage.

I believe that in your usage:

"As to the poll, I have grown increasingly suspect about all polls, this one included. "

the word "suspect" is being used as an adjective.

As in

"As to the poll, I have grown increasingly happy about all polls, this one included. "

or

"As to the poll, I have grown increasingly confused about all polls, this one included. "

 

 

The dictionary reference you provide treats "distrust as either a noun or a verb.

"Suspicious" is an adjective. That makes it the right choice for this phrasing.

 

So I recall from Miss Kinne's class in 1952.

[Gilithin]

The dictionary reference you provide treats "distrust as either a noun or a verb.

Try this one.

[Winstonm]

Try this one.

 

Or this one.

[pilowsky]

. -

.

[awm]

No country in Europe is crazier than the USA (the use of the term 'liberal' in reference to political philosophy is comical in the USA).

1. Switzerland is very tough on citizenship, but citizenship happens to about 0.5% of the population per year (around 40,000 new citizens). More importantly, there is a clearly defined pathway.

Switzerland is renowned as the toughest of all European countries. Amongst the many racist things about the USA, you still have to pass an English test to become a citizen (no nasty tinted people allowed here).

The US grants citizenship to ~850,000 people each year - which is about 0.26% - roughly half as welcoming as the Swiss - who are notorious (although better than the Japanese).

When Melania Trump gave a speech she was "called out" by important people like Bette Midler because "she can't speak English".

This is hilarious coming from a country where the President ordered the removal of diphthongs because they were too hard to spell; the reason the Americans have fones of different colors I suppose.

2. The US govt produces forms in every language - how is this a form of liberalism?

3. No official church: I take it this is some sort of joke? In the US, funding of churches (in the form of tax concessions) is given to any youtube that believes almost anything that must be "taken on faith" - including the church of sciencefictionology.

 

The number of naturalizations is not a good comparison point because about 1/3 of Switzerland’s population is non-citizens (mostly from other places on Europe but some from further away); this percentage in the US is much lower. And while Switzerland is known for being harsh in this regard, Germany is not much easier and the UK just left the EU in large part because they didn’t like letting in immigrants from Eastern Europe (much less refugees from Africa or the Middle East).

 

My point is that many countries are having debates about immigration, but the US in general has been friendlier to immigrants than many countries. They can communicate in their own language (even to the government), they can practice their religion (compare to France which bans wearing religious symbols in many contexts or Switzerland banning minarets) and obtaining citizenship is relatively easy (language tests are a citizenship requirement in almost every country for naturalization, but the US gives automatic citizenship to people born there while Europe does not).

 

Of course, the US is very much a crazy outlier with regard to gun laws and the social safety net. But it’s not just uniformly more conservative on every issue; the lines of debate are just different by country.

[pilowsky]

The number of naturalizations is not a good comparison point because about 1/3 of Switzerland's population is non-citizens (mostly from other places on Europe but some from further away); this percentage in the US is much lower. And while Switzerland is known for being harsh in this regard, Germany is not much easier and the UK just left the EU in large part because they didn't like letting in immigrants from Eastern Europe (much less refugees from Africa or the Middle East).

 

Fair point.

From here, we get into a very lengthy discussion about how each country treats all its people: citizens, non-citizens, ex-felons, etc.

A rabbit hole best avoided, I think.

[kenberg]

Or this one.

 

Ha yes, used as an adjective. But note the examples:

The government’s statistics are suspect.

 

He might have suspect motives in accusing her of malpractice.

 

 

Used in this way, the government's statistics are not to be trusted, and the accuser's motives are not to be trusted.

 

Neither example goes "I am suspect of the statistic's or I am suspect of the accuser's motives.

Odd phrasing.

 

Us Minnesotans don't never talk that way.

[kenberg]

The number of naturalizations is not a good comparison point because about 1/3 of Switzerland's population is non-citizens (mostly from other places on Europe but some from further away); this percentage in the US is much lower. And while Switzerland is known for being harsh in this regard, Germany is not much easier and the UK just left the EU in large part because they didn't like letting in immigrants from Eastern Europe (much less refugees from Africa or the Middle East).

 

My point is that many countries are having debates about immigration, but the US in general has been friendlier to immigrants than many countries. They can communicate in their own language (even to the government), they can practice their religion (compare to France which bans wearing religious symbols in many contexts or Switzerland banning minarets) and obtaining citizenship is relatively easy (language tests are a citizenship requirement in almost every country for naturalization, but the US gives automatic citizenship to people born there while Europe does not).

 

Of course, the US is very much a crazy outlier with regard to gun laws and the social safety net. But it's not just uniformly more conservative on every issue; the lines of debate are just different by country.

 

I'll get to a specific or two in a minute but first a general thought.

 

You are one of the few people I know (to the extent online conversation is related to knowing) that was born in the US but is now living, and I gather expecting to live for the foreseeable future, in Europe. Offhand, I can't think of another. I have known people who have moved to Canada, and people who have moved to Israel, but I can't think of anyone other than you who moved to Europe.

This is asymmetric. My father came to the US from Europe. My maternal grandfather came from Europe. The father of one of my closest childhood friends (we still see each other 70 years later) came from Europe. I would have no trouble making a long list.

 

And even travel seems asymmetric. Growing up in Minnesota I once visited relatives in Chicago. I lived in Maryland for the summer when I was 21. When I was 26 or so I went canoeing in northern Manitoba. And then even to Boston for a week or so. I was in my 30s when I first crossed the Atlantic. That's not unusual.

 

In short, Europeans posting here have had far more direct experience with the US than I have had with Europe. A great deal more. I am not sure what to make of that, but it seems to be a fact.

 

Now to a couple of your specifics.

 

Guns: Recently there was a deer in my backyard lying on its side and clearly dying. I called the county, a game warden came out and he said I should shoot it. I explained that I did not have a rifle. He was surprised but suggested that I borrow one from a neighbor., I explained that I did not know which of my neighbors owned a rifle and I was not interested in going door to door to find out. He gave up on me, and got a rifle, and killed the deer. As I recall, it took him two shots to do so even though he had a high-powered rifle and presumably knew the best way to go about it.

 

I had a BB gun when I was young and a shotgun when I was 12. I got a car when I was 15 and my fellow 15 year-olds and I would go out hunting together. In my early 20s I decided that I really was not Daniel Boone and I was going to put away the shotgun before I accidentally killed someone or someone killed me.

 

I won't say that a gun is never useful. When I was maybe 8 we had a woman and her two daughters living with us after she had left her abusive husband. The husband came by, banging on the screen door demanding to be let in. My father wasn't home, my mother had my father's 12 gauge pointed at the door, explaining to him that he was not coming in. After a bit, he left. I could still tell you exactly where I was standing as this unfolded. But it's best to let the cops handle it. Hopefully, they know what they are doing.

 

Now about immigration. I want intelligent people to think this through. This is not a matter to be decided by a poll. Of course, I have known people who can trace their ancestry back to the Mayflower. In fact, the Mayflower must have been a very crowded ship. But most of us don't have to look very far to see immigrants or the kids and grandkids of immigrants. So of course we should see immigration as a good thing. What we have is chaos. Immigration is good, chaos is not good. I hope we can improve on this, but I am not the one to lay out explicit plans of how to do this.

[Gilithin]

Odd phrasing.

Would you find it easier to believe the Oxford University Press?

Partisans can become increasingly suspect of all news sources outside of their own political bubble

 

Or indeed an association dedicated to education in communication:-

the American middle class was growing increasingly suspect of corporate America

 

It may not work in Minnesota but there are thousands of examples of this usage available for the rest of the world.

[kenberg]

Would you find it easier to believe the Oxford University Press?

 

 

Or indeed an association dedicated to education in communication:-

 

 

It may not work in Minnesota but there are thousands of examples of this usage available for the rest of the world.

Live and learn. Well, I live at least.

[Cyberyeti]

Would you find it easier to believe the Oxford University Press?

 

It may not work in Minnesota but there are thousands of examples of this usage available for the rest of the world.

 

I wouldn't say in the rest of the world (note the OUP authors are 2 from the US and a German), nobody in the UK uses it like that, we would say suspicious rather than suspect.

[Winstonm]

Live and learn. Well, I live at least.

 

That phrasing must affect you like it does me when someone says, "I will grow the economy"; I understand it is proper but it strikes my ear as way wrong.

[Winstonm]

Ha yes, used as an adjective. But note the examples:

The government's statistics are suspect.

 

He might have suspect motives in accusing her of malpractice.

 

 

Used in this way, the government's statistics are not to be trusted, and the accuser's motives are not to be trusted.

 

Neither example goes "I am suspect of the statistic's or I am suspect of the accuser's motives.

Odd phrasing.

 

Us Minnesotans don't never talk that way.

 

I've been suspect of people from the northern states ever since I watched Fargo and heard Frances McDormand's line, "and it's a beautiful day" while describing the view from her patrol car on a sub-zero day in a frozen, snow-and-ice-covered tundra.

[kenberg]

I've been suspect of people from the northern states ever since I watched Fargo and heard Frances McDormand's line, "and it's a beautiful day" while describing the view from her patrol car on a sub-zero day in a frozen, snow-and-ice-covered tundra.

 

 

One of the charming features of Fargo was that. for better or worse, I often felt "Yep, that's us" while watching it. Exaggerated of course, but I did, for example, regularly go ice skating in sub-zero weather.

And, of course,

Frances McDormand was perfect for the role.

The TV series got old fast, as far as I was concerned.

 

Cold weather is easy, you put on warm clothes. Of course snow and ice can be a problem, but so can hurricanes further south.

"Some say the world will end in fire, some say in ice".

And, just so I do not re-ignite the plagiarism issue, yes, I am quoting Robert Frost.

"For destruction ice is also great and would suffice"