The American Politics Thread

Why are Americans so obsessed with their flag and their National Anthem?

I personally might be a bit miffed if someone burned or wiped their arse on the Union Jack, but I don't get any great sense of pride from it: it's just a bit of cloth after all. Americans seem to have a particular reverence for their flag, to the extent of having one in almost every classroom.

And whilst the US National Anthem is considerably better than our dreadful dreadful dirge (though I am pleased that the Queen should be saved and, if anyone is going to save her, God is a pretty good choice), I can't see why regarding American Football players who refuse to stand for The Star-Spangled Banner as national traitors.

I have never stood for God Save the Queen as I normally fall asleep during it because it's SO boring, and am scared of hurting myself if I fall over. And I've never sung it, partly in protest at the 4th verse which is blatantly racist.

But there again, I'm a Republican. Please don't get the idea that this means that I am a supporter in any way of the 45th President, a man who has probably done more to destroy what remains of the "special relationship" between our two great nations and greatly damaged the reputation of that office in the view of the vast majority of Britons. A Republican in the UK is one who wants to abolish the British monarchy and replace it with an elected Head of State, albeit a ceremonial one quite unlike the US president.

At some point, I'll raise the matter of the Second Amendment, but I'm not brave enough at the moment.

Hercules wrote: And another one:  Why are Americans so obsessed with their flag and their National Anthem? how are we different as I said above.. we are a nation of immigrants..  of all different cultures.. what unites us.. that flag ... which is a powerful symbol of and for those that came to this country seeking a better life. My Grandfather often spoke of the first time he saw it.. would break down and cry. You all have nothing compatible there in Europe to that experience or feeling. that is why desecration of the flag is such a powerfully passionate and divisive subject. I believe strongly on one side of it.. and do as veteran..... but do obviously see the viewpoint of others who think it is sacred and should not be burned or used as a form of protest.  Protest? Freedom to do so.. that is exactly what that flag symbolizes. Not merely a country.. but a higher notion..an ideal... and that is what the other side fails to recognize IMO. At some point, I'll raise the matter of the Second Amendment, but I'm not brave enough at the moment. nothing to be afraid of there....

no one disagrees there is much special interest money in DC.. 

but the two parties are defined in small part.. 

for so much else differentiates between them..  

in how they approach the pervasive nation of special interests and their money. Also.. you have to note just  which and who are those special interests for they vary vastly between the two parties.

For one says Special Interest as if it is one entity..  it is far from it..  K Street is lobbyist heaven..buying influence.... buying votes.. that is what they do.. but they are from all over the spectrum and most NOT merely business related.  

you see what is going on right this moment is a classic example of that...  are there special interests in play with the Democratic Stimulus bill .. you bet your ass there is...  but whose interests are really being served.. the so called Oligarchy lmao..  oh course not.. they are special interests whose special interest is...

 the common good? Like protecting our children and perhaps putting an end to this damn virus..

compare those special interests to same Special interests (new fgither jets and ships to fight the virus haha) that have Republicans so twisted in knots and finally unable to even come up with a competing stimulus bill... 

As someone who comes from another incredibly diverse country which has had one or the other secessionist movements operating throughout its relatively young history as a republic, I find that our best 'governments' were delivered by multi party ruling coalitions (which necessarily required statesmen consensus builders who could bring parties with huge differences together) rather than 'strong' governments where one party had a majority of seats because these 'strong' governments accepted fat packets of money from the leading industrialists and could do as they pleased for five years without fear of their govt toppling. How would it, until the next election?  These strong govts whether led by Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi or the current incumbent Narendra Modi also perpetrated fear propaganda about how weak govts would lead to the country falling apart.  But for 25 years from 1989 to 2014, we were continuously under coalition govts and also experienced our best economic performance, so I wonder how that happened. 

No, there was corruption in the coalition govts too. But they couldn't take drastic decisions WITHOUT building a multi party consensus because they would have then irked one or more of their coalition partners leading to the collapse of the govt. So the quality of major decisions that did get taken (like liberalisation of India's economy or putting together the nuclear deal with USA) was high. And the rest of the time, there was stability and continuity in economic and tax policy.  Both have gone out of the window in the last few years now that the ruling BJP is not obliged to listen to anyone.

The point here is a strong govt is accountable to no one and can crush pushback from the opposition with impunity.  I find THAT to be less desirable than the logjam of a strong opposition holding back legislation. 

In fact, the US system has built in safeguards against such democratically sanctioned tyranny that makes a two party system look more desirable than it really is.  Considerably more powers remain with the states in the US than in many other democracies, including India.  The three way distribution of power between the President, the House of Reps and the Senate also gives at best a short window of time during which the President may enjoy absolute power and the Midterms quickly arrive to restore balance.  

But particularly BECAUSE you have a Presidential system, a multi party system would work even better, if anything, in the US.  You could choose a President who wins a plurality of EC votes while a more divided mandate between parties in the House of Reps and the Senate would force more cooperation between them. And the threat of there being a third party President would keep both major parties on their toes where today one side convinces liberals that they are their only bet if they want to preserve or further a liberal status quo through the Presidency and the other does likewise with conservatives. 

If you think that the people funding the Democrats are for 'the common good' your kidding yourself, they're still blocking healthcare for all and education, they're the same billionaires lining their own pockets.

BaldJean wrote: I want every American to watch this video and then tell how much of this you actually did know. I suspect there won't be many who knew of these things. I have a degree in history and knew about the historic incidents, but I wasn't aware of most of the many other truly revolting things John Oliver talks about like for example those school textbooks:

I like Oliver but he is missing the point, and his talking points have been openly discussed for months if not years.   Yes there are many things in history most people don't know about, including John Oliver and his "I'm a little smarter than you and here's why"  style.

He is as misinformed as the very people and events he's calling out.   Real history, even recent history, can never be fully grasped by anybody, and anyone who says they know better is lying or misinformed...   because everyone is misinformed.   The difference is that in the U.S. these things are openly and vigorously talked about, which is more than I can say for many cultures.

It's just another Brit who feels so guilty about his own country's past that sniping at America is his next best option.   He is a smart and ethical man, but he should look inward and stop slamming a people who are struggling to come to terms with their past.