Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[Zelandakh]

It may be new in the sense that we haven't often had many refugees comming from outside Europe.

Completely new to be getting non-Europeans coming to Europe.

[gwnn]

Completely new to be getting non-Europeans coming to Europe.

She said "not often", not "never."

[helene_t]

Completely new to be getting non-Europeans coming to Europe.

I don't think the Moores generally count as refugees.

 

Of course we have always had plenty of immigrants from Africa and Asia, from Homo Ergaster and onwards.

[kenberg]

If we are going back into history we could note that the arrival of Europeans in the Americas did not work out well for the Iroquois, the Aztecs, the Incas and others. A quick summary was given by a Native American guide at a museum in New Mexico: "The Spanish came and said we had to give them our gold, give them our women, and convert to Christianity. We said we don't have any gold, you can't have our women, and we are happy with the gods that we have. So there was trouble."

 

At a personal level, most people I have known in my life have been easygoing about assimilation. Most people really don't spend their time hating other people, for ethnic reasons or for other reasons. The trouble comes when we group ourselves as this, that or something else, and today we do that much more often and in much more detail than at any time I can recall. I really dislike being labeled, I avoid labeling others, I think it leads to nothing good.

 

There was an amusing bit it the paper the other day. A reporter was talking to a woman and figured she would be supporting Rubio for ethnic reasons. The woman could not understand why she would do that. "He's Cuban, I'm Mexican".

[Winstonm]

If we are going back into history we could note that the arrival of Europeans in the Americas did not work out well for the Iroquois, the Aztecs, the Incas and others. A quick summary was given by a Native American guide at a museum in New Mexico: "The Spanish came and said we had to give them our gold, give them our women, and convert to Christianity. We said we don't have any gold, you can't have our women, and we are happy with the gods that we have. So there was trouble."

 

At a personal level, most people I have known in my life have been easygoing about assimilation. Most people really don't spend their time hating other people, for ethnic reasons or for other reasons. The trouble comes when we group ourselves as this, that or something else, and today we do that much more often and in much more detail than at any time I can recall. I really dislike being labeled, I avoid labeling others, I think it leads to nothing good.

 

There was an amusing bit it the paper the other day. A reporter was talking to a woman and figured she would be supporting Rubio for ethnic reasons. The woman could not understand why she would do that. "He's Cuban, I'm Mexican".

 

Here is an explanation from Robert Reich:

 

But America’s new tribalism can be seen most distinctly in its politics. Nowadays the members of one tribe (calling themselves liberals, progressives, and Democrats) hold sharply different views and values than the members of the other (conservatives, Tea Partiers, and Republicans).

 

Each tribe has contrasting ideas about rights and freedoms (for liberals, reproductive rights and equal marriage rights; for conservatives, the right to own a gun and do what you want with your property).

 

Each has its own totems (social insurance versus smaller government) and taboos (cutting entitlements or raising taxes). Each, its own demons (the Tea Party and Ted Cruz; the Affordable Care Act and Barack Obama); its own version of truth (one believes in climate change and evolution; the other doesn’t); and its own media that confirm its beliefs.

 

The tribes even look different. One is becoming blacker, browner, and more feminine. The other, whiter and more male. (Only 2 percent of Mitt Romney’s voters were African-American, for example.)

 

Each tribe is headed by rival warlords whose fighting has almost brought the national government in Washington to a halt. Increasingly, the two tribes live separately in their own regions – blue or red state, coastal or mid-section, urban or rural – with state or local governments reflecting their contrasting values.

 

I’m not making a claim of moral equivalence. Personally, I think the Republican right has gone off the deep end, and if polls are to be believed a majority of Americans agree with me.

 

But the fact is, the two tribes are pulling America apart, often putting tribal goals over the national interest – which is not that different from what’s happening in the rest of the world.

[barmar]

LOL.

Seriously, I am not sure I have ever seen a statement as wrong as this one in the WC.

I'm sorry, I'm just trying to make sense of the suggestion that something is radically different in Europe now than in the past, and between Europe and the US.

[kenberg]

A telling sentence in Reich's essay: "Only 2 percent of Mitt Romney’s voters were African-American"

 

How does he know? I do not give my race when I vote, I do not tell some nosy pollster how I voted (I used to make up answers when I was stopped by a pollster but now I just walk away). We slice and dice everything. How is Hillary doing with white male corn farmers over the age of fifty in Iowa? No doubt some pollster can give you exact figures on that.

[helene_t]

I'm sorry, I'm just trying to make sense of the suggestion that something is radically different in Europe now than in the past, and between Europe and the US.

The attitude towards immigration has been different here for a while. Maybe it always has. USA is a country of immigrants. Talking specifically about refugees: lots of Americans, including celebreties, have refugees among their recent ancestors.

 

European countries are nation-states. If you move from Turkey to Denmark you are still Turkish until you start eating pork and raise your children in Danish etc. This is unlikely to happen the first several generations. Hence, Danish people tend not to consider their immigrant or immigrant-decentend neighbours to belong to the Danish tribe. So they are less tollerant of any (perceived) misbehaviour than they would have been if they have had ethnically Danish neighbours.

 

As I understand it, the assimilation goes faster in the U.S. and even immigrants who are not assimilated can be considered Americans because having some foreign ethnicity does not contradict belonging to the U.S. tribe.

 

There is also a widespread perception over here that some immigrants are attracted by social benefits and that they are a burden on the economy. Obviously that is less of an issue in USA.

[barmar]

A telling sentence in Reich's essay: "Only 2 percent of Mitt Romney’s voters were African-American"

 

How does he know? I do not give my race when I vote, I do not tell some nosy pollster how I voted

Enough poll respondents give correct information for the results to be considered reliable. Outliers like you won't affect the statistics significantly.

[Zelandakh]

Enough poll respondents give correct information for the results to be considered reliable. Outliers like you won't affect the statistics significantly.

Tell that to the viewers of the 1992 UK general election. The truth is that the outliers (the so-called "shy Tory voters" in this case) can have a very large impact but the pollsters make a big effort to predict the behaviour of different groups within the electorate and factor this into their models.

[y66]

How is Hillary doing with white male corn farmers over the age of fifty in Iowa? No doubt some pollster can give you exact figures on that.

I have not seen a breakout for while male corn farmers over the age of 50 in Iowa. I know of at least one soybean farmer who meets the other criteria who is not for Hillary:

 

 

Based on this poll, I suspect there are more farmers who feel similarly. I do not know if corn farmers and soybean farmers have different political views.

[y66]

Iowans’ Passion for Sanders Worries Clinton

 

http://static01.nyt.com/images/2016/01/12/us/13PASSIONweb1/13PASSIONweb1-largeHorizontal375-v2.jpg

Photo: Max Whitaker for the New York Times

[Winstonm]

The attitude towards immigration has been different here for a while. Maybe it always has. USA is a country of immigrants. Talking specifically about refugees: lots of Americans, including celebreties, have refugees among their recent ancestors.

 

European countries are nation-states. If you move from Turkey to Denmark you are still Turkish until you start eating pork and raise your children in Danish etc. This is unlikely to happen the first several generations. Hence, Danish people tend not to consider their immigrant or immigrant-decentend neighbours to belong to the Danish tribe. So they are less tollerant of any (perceived) misbehaviour than they would have been if they have had ethnically Danish neighbours.

 

As I understand it, the assimilation goes faster in the U.S. and even immigrants who are not assimilated can be considered Americans because having some foreign ethnicity does not contradict belonging to the U.S. tribe.

 

There is also a widespread perception over here that some immigrants are attracted by social benefits and that they are a burden on the economy. Obviously that is less of an issue in USA.

 

Obviously, the original inhabitants of the land now held by the U.S. were separated by tribes - Choctaws, Cherokee, Apache, etc. The modern U.S. has less tribalism I think due to the concept of immigrants wishing to leave past tribal allegiances for perceived increased opportunities in the U.S. Many Italian immigrants, for example, would not allow their children to learn to speak Italian.

 

That attitude of immigrants seems to have changed. Perhaps that is due to increased tribalism within the U.S. Chicken or the egg type of debate.

[mike777]

For the record many of the original immigrants came from Asia. In turn many immigrants to Asia came from Africa and Europe. Most of them moved looking for a better life.

[kenberg]

Obviously, the original inhabitants of the land now held by the U.S. were separated by tribes - Choctaws, Cherokee, Apache, etc. The modern U.S. has less tribalism I think due to the concept of immigrants wishing to leave past tribal allegiances for perceived increased opportunities in the U.S. Many Italian immigrants, for example, would not allow their children to learn to speak Italian.

 

That attitude of immigrants seems to have changed. Perhaps that is due to increased tribalism within the U.S. Chicken or the egg type of debate.

 

I suppose somewhere sometime someone has written a book titled The history of immigration in the United States, or some such title. It probably should be assigned reading in every high school.

 

My father, I am sure, was representative of many. He would not talk about it. "My childhood was hell". End of conversation. I have tried tracking it now that we have so much data accessible. Basically I have struck out. I am not up for paying a researcher big bucks since, Faulkner to the contrary, the past is past. But surely there are some fascinating stories.

 

I think that the fundamental change in immigration is the purpose. Whatever it may say on the Statue of Liberty, immigration policy in my father's time (he arrived in 1910) was based on a need for immigrants. Often the focus now is much more on the plight of those seeking entrance. At least at the low skills end of the spectrum. It has always been a mix of purpose, but I think that top billing has changed. This is a major change of viewpoint.

[blackshoe]

I suppose somewhere sometime someone has written a book titled The history of immigration in the United States, or some such title. It probably should be assigned reading in every high school.

 

From Wikipedia: Handlin, Oscar. The Uprooted: The Epic Story of the Great Migrations That Made the American People (1951), classic interpretive history; Pulitzer prize for history

 

There are several other references listed in the Wikipedia article; this one caught my eye.

[kenberg]

One thing that I liked about the State of the Union speech was what was not done. We skipped the introduction of Susie Q from Ohio with her three kids and a hard luck story that illustrates the brilliance of the speaker's policies. Thank you for that.

 

Generally I thought it was a speech from the heart. Not entirely, but more than I expected. I also liked that.

 

I don't expect to remember much of it a month from now but that's par for the course with political speeches.

[billw55]

I suppose somewhere sometime someone has written a book titled The history of immigration in the United States, or some such title. It probably should be assigned reading in every high school.

Many (most?) high schools in the US offer a course called advanced placement US history, aka APUSH. My two kids go to a more or less average public high school, and took this course there. Both report it as their toughest course. Immigration is discussed in many contexts. So there is some education for this available ... but not required.

[barmar]

For the record many of the original immigrants came from Asia. In turn many immigrants to Asia came from Africa and Europe. Most of them moved looking for a better life.

I think equating prehistoric migrations of early humans to modern immigration and asylum-seeking is not very productive.

[gwnn]

Feel the Bern.

[Al_U_Card]

Feel the Bern.

Can you say; Eugene McCarthy or George McGovern...?

Has a peace-nik, do-gooder type EVER been elected?

[Zelandakh]

Many (most?) high schools in the US offer a course called advanced placement US history, aka APUSH. My two kids go to a more or less average public high school, and took this course there. Both report it as their toughest course. Immigration is discussed in many contexts. So there is some education for this available ... but not required.

This sounds like the kind of education that inspired the likes of Pink Floyd. :o

[billw55]

This sounds like the kind of education that inspired the likes of Pink Floyd. :o

Is that good or bad? It sounds like you are referencing Another Brick in the Wall, which presumably would indicate the latter. Not sure why a deep course in the history of one's own nation would be a bad thing.

 

 

[kenberg]

In high school I was an erratic student. For example I got a scholarship but I was not on the honor role. One of my teachers was pretty clear about the fact that I would not have been given the scholarship if she had had any say in the matter. When I see what is expected of young people today I am very glad I was born when I was. A young person is no longer allowed to stumble a bit on the way to adulthood. So "Teacher, leave the kids alone" has always resonated with me.

 

All that being said, I liked history. A lot. My main objection was that the course always seemed to end around 1890 and then, next time, we would start all over again at Plymouth Rock. I suppose that they didn't want to get into the moral ambiguity of the speakeasy. The older teachers may well have been patrons.

 

Anyway, history was one of the good courses, as far as I was concerned. Although I got very tired of hearing about pilgrims.

 

I think that this side road from the main thread is in fact relevant. It would be really good for voters to have a good feel for what "A nation of immigrants" means.

 

And Bill, I hope the kids are enjoying it. At least enjoying some of it. A kid's life is tough these days.

[billw55]

In high school I was an erratic student. For example I got a scholarship but I was not on the honor role. One of my teachers was pretty clear about the fact that I would not have been given the scholarship if she had had any say in the matter. When I see what is expected of young people today I am very glad I was born when I was. A young person is no longer allowed to stumble a bit on the way to adulthood. So "Teacher, leave the kids alone" has always resonated with me.

 

All that being said, I liked history. A lot. My main objection was that the course always seemed to end around 1890 and then, next time, we would start all over again at Plymouth Rock. I suppose that they didn't want to get into the moral ambiguity of the speakeasy. The older teachers may well have been patrons.

 

Anyway, history was one of the good courses, as far as I was concerned. Although I got very tired of hearing about pilgrims.

 

I think that this side road from the main thread is in fact relevant. It would be really good for voters to have a good feel for what "A nation of immigrants" means.

 

And Bill, I hope the kids are enjoying it. At least enjoying some of it. A kid's life is tough these days.

I don't think they enjoy it much. One is very math and science oriented, and the other prefers noncore classes (while still being very good at math). There is definitely no stopping at 1890 though. A course objective is to present material from every past presidency.

 

I took some high school in Texas. A one semester course in Texas history was required. Only much later did I come to suspect that the material was not very objective. In contrast, the current APUSH course is definitely not a patriotic whitewash.