
Why are Americans so angry? - elorant
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35406324
======
russnewcomer
Maybe I'm just too skeptical of these types of stories coming from generic
polling, but I will say that I don't have a high degree of confidence in
polling done by random phone calls (the CNN/ORC poll listed says that on page
14 [1]). My wife frequently answers the political poll questions when people
call, in part because she feels sorry for the poller. Answering those calls
can take 15-30 minutes. So you're depending on the results of people who have
15-30 minutes to answer 35 questions about the government. I feel like there's
a selection bias at work there already, and you're assuming that people will
give thoughtful answers to the questions, that the order of questions doesn't
affect responses, etc, etc, etc. You're depending on 1018 people who actually
may not be statistically relevant, since America is a big, big country, to
drive your thinking on that country.

Plus, would the responses to the surveys be different if the word
'disappointed' was used instead of angry? And would the perception of the
responses be different?

Secondarily, and this is far more anecdotal, but I am friends with a fairly
wide swath of people via social media, from conservatives to libertarians to
liberals to progressives. The key takeaway that I have from watching all of
their posting and all of their interactions is that people are angry at
others. And people have always been easily angered by others, it's just that
the modern American landscape allows for a) easier access to others and b)
easier access to well-written, rational condemnation of others than can be
easily shared. But reading through my feed,

Maybe Americans aren't actually angry, but since it's easier to construct
understandable stories using language like anger, Americans feel like they
should be angry?

[1][http://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/29/politics/cnn-orc-poll-
full...](http://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/29/politics/cnn-orc-poll-full-results-
obama-approval/index.html)

~~~
IanCal
> You're depending on 1018 people who actually may not be statistically
> relevant, since America is a big, big country, to drive your thinking on
> that country.

It's a problem if they're badly sampled, but the sample size you need is
doesn't really change as you increase your population, as long as your
population is a lot bigger than your sample size. If 1000 people would be OK
for a population of 1M, then it should be just as good for a population of
100M.

I don't think this really invalidates your point, it's just a misconception I
see a lot.

[http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm](http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm)

~~~
jndsn402
I don't disagree with the math, but wouldn't it be the case that it's easier
to get a biased sample from 1000/100M people than 1000/1M people?

For instance, maybe your sampling ignored a particular region of the country
or socioeconomic strata etc.

~~~
chimeracoder
> I don't disagree with the math, but wouldn't it be the case that it's easier
> to get a biased sample from 1000/100M people than 1000/1M people?

It's not the population size that matters; it's the variance in the underlying
population.

Mathematically, the sample size needed to construct an n% confidence interval
for a normal distribution is independent of the population size (the first
derivative is zero).

------
onetwotree
The really shocking bit of data is near the end -- many Americans would be
deeply upset if their child were to marry someone of the opposite political
party. This is making politics _way too personal_! I'm not sure how the
country is going to recover from this state of polarization. The media isn't
helping, and none of the current crop of political candidates seem to be
addressing the need to rebuild the American consensus held in past
generations, although this might change once the primaries are over.

~~~
baldfat
I have switched from a life long moderate Republican to a moderate Democrat. I
think most of my friends think I am now going to Hell and I am a Hillary
lover. I tell them that Republicans have no room for moderates. They make the
craziest things up about Common Core, Environment and the nation's Safety Net.
They have no idea how crazy they sound.

~~~
humanrebar
> I tell them that Republicans have no room for moderates.

Consider that the Democrats want no restrictions on ultra-late-term abortions.
I think there's plenty of blame to go around here.

~~~
rwmurrayVT
I think you're looking at that very wrong. They want people to be able to
decide what they do with their own bodies. That's leaves the maximum amount of
room for everyone's opinion.

You don't want it? Don't do it.

~~~
humanrebar
> They want people to be able to decide what they do with their own bodies.

I actually understand the argument. For all the rest of you know, I actually
wrote the above response myself (I didn't, but I could have).

The counterargument is that there are absolutely two people involved if a
woman decides to abort on her due date. Even in liberal Western Europe
abortions must be performed before certain gestation dates.

Now, this sort of absolutism makes a kind of logical sense. The kind that also
makes legalization of heroin a defensible position. And there are smart,
compassionate people who want to legalize heroin. Just not the President and
every candidate in the Democratic primary.

Point being, there's no room for compromise on the abortion issue from the
left. We could be talking about eight months versus seven months, what counts
as a "medical exception", what forms of enforcement are fair, etc. But we're
not. There's absolutely no room for compromise.

~~~
DanBC
> Point being, there's no room for compromise on the abortion issue from the
> left.

Did you mean left? There's lots of discussion on the left about what time
limits should be set; or how many doctors you need to persuade; or what
conditions could extend the time limits; etc. But from the right there's a
blanket "no abortion, ever, for any reason", with fucking stupid comments like
"First of all, from what I understand from doctors, that's really rare. If
it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole
thing down. But let's assume that maybe that didn't work or something. I think
there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be on the rapist
and not attacking the child."

~~~
humanrebar
My actual point was that the left is uncompromising _as well_. There are
certainly absolutists on the right.

The fact that you brought up a foam-at-the-mouth comment from a disgraced
former politician seems like a point for the there's-too-much-partisanship-on-
the-left-too column.

There is actually common ground on the abortion issue, perhaps counter-
intuitively. There is overwhelming support for reducing abortion rates, for
example. The American people would absolutely be OK with a compromise that
includes education, increased access to birth control, _and_ bans on abortions
after, say, 8 months of gestation.

~~~
DanBC
You've mentioned this 8 month thing a few times. You probably need to know
that there are good reasons why a woman might need to get an abortion at 8
months.

[https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22129580-200-the-
worl...](https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22129580-200-the-world-needs-
to-talk-about-child-euthanasia/)

Listening to anti-abortionists you'd think the woman just found the pregnancy
inconvenient, when the reality is that the woman is going through an intensely
traumatic time and having to cope with the loss of a much wanted child.

------
yasth
The data [1] is pretty noisy, but dissatisfaction with "the way things are
going in the US" is pretty common in (presidential) election years. This
shouldn't be shocking, all of the media is basically talking about how things
are going wrong.

[1][http://www.gallup.com/poll/1669/general-mood-
country.aspx](http://www.gallup.com/poll/1669/general-mood-country.aspx)

~~~
mtviewdave
I don't see how the page you linked to supports your thesis. It doesn't call
out, or even discuss, election years. 1996 looks to be better than 1993, 1984
better than 1981.

~~~
yasth
You can't compare across 4 year periods (General economic noise will swamp the
signal), but instead look at declines in the run up. Basically take the first
derivative.

------
buckbova
Ridiculous hit piece based on dubious poll results.

There's a lot of angry people in this world. I remember quite a bit rioting in
France, revolting in Syria, revolting in the Ukraine, etc.

> When asked if they trust the government, 89% of Republicans and 72% of
> Democrats say "only sometimes" or "never" . . .

I'm in the never group and for obvious reasons. Governments abuse the power we
give them. And that doesn't make me angry, but smart.

~~~
DanBC
You might want to compare other indicators of anger. US has high murder rate,
for example.

~~~
buckbova
Doesn't look to be anywhere near the highest. South America and Africa seem
pretty darn angry.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intention...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate#By_country)

------
Zikes
This list is rather incomplete. As an American, I'm angry because:

1\. I'm 31 years old and not even halfway through paying off my student loans.

2\. I can have anything taken away from me at any time with little to no legal
recourse.

3\. My constitutional right to privacy and to refuse unreasonable searches no
longer exists.

4\. If I am ever charged with a crime, I will face a justice system that is
entirely stacked against me, and regardless of the crime or my guilt I will be
coerced into agreeing to a plea bargain.

5\. A cop could shoot me in the back in broad daylight, on film, with
witnesses, and most likely only wind up with a paid vacation as punishment.

6\. If I ever become suspect in a crime of national security I will likely be
tortured, physically and psychologically, for years at a time.

7\. My government is torturing people right now, and the most I can ever hope
to do about it is to eventually elect someone that will put a stop to it.

8\. My government is supporting the monopolization of internet services and
suppressing initiatives to make internet service fair and reasonably priced.

9\. Every new copyright law is designed to further suppress fair use.

10\. Institutionalized bribery and corruption at every level of government
means that without money, my voice will likely never be heard.

~~~
golergka
> 1\. I'm 31 years old and not even halfway through paying off my student
> loans.

Why did you take them?

Disclaimer: I'm not an american, and this is an honest question. I always see
that about US and don't understand why people get angry at someone else for
their own decision.

~~~
Zikes
The entire time I was growing up, I was told it was "college or bust". I was
never told that it would be "college _and_ bust", but that seems to be the
reality.

Kids were told over and over that a college degree would ensure their future
success, that they'd be practically guaranteed to get a career that made
paying their student loans trivial, on top of a nice house and a car because
that's the American Dream, isn't it?

It's easy as an adult to look back on it and say "wow, that was a big
mistake", now that I know how jobs and the economy actually work, but first we
had to unlearn everything our parents, teachers, career counselors, and
college financial advisers told us in the first place.

------
mturmon
Fear. Fear of being left behind by the economy, fear of being encroached on by
immigrants, fear of terrorist attack.

Not all fears are justified and proportional, but it's easy to turn them to
anger.

~~~
arethuza
I'm sure I read a study a while back that found that people who have "right
wing" views are more afraid - and this certainly agrees with my experiences in
the UK (particularly Daily Mail readers).

The US is rather more "right wing" than places like the UK so perhaps that
leads to more fear?

And as the wee green beastie said:

"Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate.. to suffering ..."

Edit: I think this is it:

[http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/07/biology-
ideology...](http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/07/biology-ideology-
john-hibbing-negativity-bias)

 _" political conservatives have a "negativity bias," meaning that they are
physiologically more attuned to negative (threatening, disgusting) stimuli in
their environments."_

~~~
mike_hearn
According to Sowell's "Conflict of visions" theory, the primary difference
between people with right wing vs left wing views is their intuitive
assumption about the span of human nature.

If you believe that human nature is malleable, perfectible and essentially
good, then you tend to assume that the span of human potential is very large,
i.e. the gap between the best of us and the worst of us is large. Sowell shows
how this leads through basic logical deduction to left wing views.

On the other hand if you believe that human nature is essentially fixed,
unchanging over time and flawed, then you assume that the span of human nature
is not very large, and the gap between the best and the worst is not that big.
This leads by logical deduction to right wing views.

So it's perhaps not so much that right wing people are more "afraid" per se,
but rather, that they tend to be quicker to assume that as there's no way to
fix 'enemies' by raising their human nature to a higher level, you may as well
put in place systems that protect society from them. Whereas people with more
left wing views may tend to assume that you can in fact negotiate and debate
people away from being your 'enemies' and thus, they appear to be less
fearful.

The above description makes left wing views sound superior to right wing
views, which was not my intention. In fact Sowell's book lays down an
extremely fair and balanced description of both right and left wing beliefs
and assumptions, with IMHO no discernable bias between them.

~~~
dragonwriter
> The above description makes left wing views sound superior to right wing
> views, which was not my intention.

It certainly wouldn't be _Sowell 's_ intention (you don't get to be a Hoover
Institute fellow with that kind of attitude.)

> In fact Sowell's book lays down an extremely fair and balanced description
> of both right and left wing beliefs and assumptions, with IMHO no
> discernable bias between them.

As I understand it, _A Conflict of Visions_ is the first part of a trilogy
whose overall thrust, as I understand, is an attack on the "unconstrained"
vision (the one you ascribe to the left wing -- not sure how accurate that
reflects Sowell); though the first volume is mostly stage setting and the
serious attacks are in the other two volumes.

From your description, it may be fair and balanced (though, given everything
else I've seen from Sowell, I wouldn't expect that except in the Fox News
sense of "fair and balanced"), but it doesn't seem at all _accurate_ of the
difference between the left and the right (it might better explain some of the
difference between the libertarian and the authoritarian -- though I would not
describe it, even there, as the _dominant_ or _sole_ basis for either view --
and certainly its not unheard of for right-libertarians, especially American
right-libertarians, which Sowell certainly is, to conflate the left-right and
libertarian-authoritarian axes.)

~~~
mike_hearn
Yes, there are other books I have not read. I didn't know anything about
Sowell before reading ACOV and was surprised to learn he is some sort of arch-
conservative. You wouldn't know it, from the book.

I found the theory to be accurate in the sense that it appears to have great
predictive power, and provides reasonable and internally consistent
explanations for a variety of observable political dynamics. Additionally, the
book was recommended to me by someone who thought it explained the Bitcoin
block size civil war, and I found it to be remarkably predictive of people's
attitudes, philosophies and chosen tactics, despite that it was written in the
1980's. So to me it seems like the best explanation yet.

------
double0jimb0
I wonder why "Bathed in pervasive, inescapable advertising scientifically
tuned to elicit feelings of inadequacy while being bombarded by fear-driven
news/politics" didn't make this list?

~~~
david927
That's right. And there's more.

 _" Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not
as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires."
Steinbeck_

That worked for decades because people truly believed it, but they're seeing
behind the curtain now that it's not getting better -- it's getting worse.
That future, that they assumed would reach them too, somehow, someway, is
gone. The reaction, for some, is anger.

~~~
marknutter
I absolutely _hate_ this quote; it gets parroted all the time as a smug and
flippant criticism of the American Dream.

Isn't it a _good_ thing that people see themselves as temporarily embarrassed
millionaires? How is that any different than seeing yourself as a temporarily
embarrassed rock star, or astronaut, or breakthrough scientist, or famous
artist, or successful entrepreneur? Is it such a bad thing that we're a nation
of dreamers? Go ahead and tell a child that they shouldn't have big dreams
because it's silly to believe they might come true, because that's essentially
what Steinbeck is doing to the poor in this quote. See how smug you feel then.

Or should we do like the Europeans do and set low expectations rather than
suffer the pain of not meeting higher ones? They say that the Danes are the
happiest people in the world _because_ they nave notoriously low expectations.
I'll take naive optimism over pragmatic pessimism any day of the week.

~~~
vkou
No, it's not.

Not everyone will become a cosmonaut... Or a rock star. That's just a fact.
The problem isn't the dreaming - the problem is acting against your own best
interests, and spending your political power on chasing lottery tickets.

See: The 2008 election's obsession with Joe the Plumber, and his concern for
taxes on people making over $250,000/year. He didn't make anywhere close to
$250,000...

And never will.

~~~
marknutter
So because not everyone will become a cosmonaut, nobody should try? Think for
a second about what you're saying. Would you honestly tell a child "sorry kid,
the chances of you going into space are pretty slim, so why don't you aim a
bit lower.".

The great thing about big dreams and lofty goals is that _even if you don 't
reach them_ you often end up in a better situation. So sure, Joe the Plumber
may not have made anywhere close to $250,000, but he made a hell of a lot more
than someone not working at all, right? And yeah, little Sally may not become
a cosmonaut, but she may land a gig working at SpaceX as an engineer and be on
the team that eventually successfully executes a manned mission to Mars.

I'm sorry, but this is what's so great about America. When I hear people,
especially foreigners, make fun of the American Dream I can't help but think
it's just sour grapes.

~~~
auntyJemima
"especially foreigners"

You realize most foreigners come here for the American dream, right? I don't
know about you but look around. Many Americans, including myself, don't
believe in that made up non-sense.

It was a period in world history where everything lined up. In the 50s to 70s,
there was enough population but not too much, great economic expansion, and
opportunity to be found.

As a generation that grew up with 9/11, two wars, an economic crash unseen in
decades, unemployment, and now college debt, don't tell me that I'm not
optimistic because that's the only thing I'm running on these days. The dream
is dead (never probably existed), but doesn't mean we need to flush all our
hopes into the toilet either.

~~~
marknutter
"especially foreigners"

I should have been more specific, but I'm obviously not talking about
foreigners _who come to America for the American Dream_. I'm talking about
foreigners who criticize the American Dream despite having never came here to
try to pursue it themselves.

And I happen to know a lot of foreigners who came here for the American Dream
_and actually attained it_. They are its staunchest defenders, in fact.

------
mc32
It's better for people to be angry and express frustration such as through
occupy, blm, rural anti federal blm, anti open borders, etc., rather than
allow things to simmer unnoticed and then suddenly erupt. These movements
allow politicians who want to take notice to do so and address grievances
slowly with input and participation from others, so that the outcomes are at
least marginally palatable, rather than intractable.

~~~
davidw
It'd be even better if they did whatever they were doing peacefully, without
guns. That armed refuge occupation here in Oregon is costing a ton of money.

~~~
humanrebar
It's odd that you call that out as violent and not the demonstrations in
Ferguson.

~~~
doktrin
What's odd is that you immediately try to insinuate some kind of nefarious
bias because s/he didn't cite an incident that lines up with your political
leanings.

The parent is clearly _in Oregon_ , so it's not exactly super duper weird that
they mentioned a recent, relevant action in their own back yard.

~~~
humanrebar
It's odd that you went straight for "nefarious". I didn't actually think that
at all. I assumed cognitive dissonance, actually. Mostly because _everyone_
experiences it, myself included.

I think I was mostly vindicated. We tend to assign more importance to events
that are both recent and geographically close to ourselves. The events in
Ferguson or the shooting at the clinic in Colorado probably had more of an
affect on the collective American psyche.

~~~
davidw
I wrote about it because _you mentioned it_.

~~~
humanrebar
I didn't mention Oregon. Some GP comment mentioned eruptions and
demonstrations. You picked out the Oregon one especially as being especially
problematic in your mind.

I was trying to point out that _we_ are the problem because _we_ have our
usual stalking horses and have no real way to track what the biggest problems
actually are.

The Oregon thing is certainly newsworthy. I'm not sure it frames America's
thoughts as much as the shooting in San Bernadino, say.

If you feel unfairly singled out, I apologize. That's wasn't my intent.

------
aaroninsf
There is only one two word answer on the national scale: income inequality.

The dysfunction of current capital accumulation is driving roiling discontent:
witness the 'unlikely' (not) success of Trump and Sanders.

Prediction: it's going to get worse before it gets better.

The drama IMHO this go around is that last time we had a populist backlash
(100 yeas ago), it was not actively monitored and suppressed by a
comprehensive suite of behavior analysis and sentiment management
professionals.

I predict the existence of those things now is going to keep the lid on the
pot a lot longer than previously. When it does blow off, it might be a lot
more destructive. Where we once had a boiling pot, now we have a pressure
cooker.

As with other systemic ills (e.g. climate change), the individual players are
trapped in the necessity of maximizing for their perceived local best
outcome... unable, even when very aware of it, to accept short term or
proactive losses in the service of avoiding a catastrophic systemic failure...

Interesting times, etc. :(

------
rrauenza
Because it's the narrative the media can use to generate interest and clicks
--> [https://medium.com/@parkermolloy/5-things-the-media-does-
to-...](https://medium.com/@parkermolloy/5-things-the-media-does-to-
manufacture-outrage-ba79125e1262#.53cm4mmsk)

------
IanDrake
I hate to see how race (as percentage of population) gets mentioned under the
topic of immigration, as if the two are inextricably linked or represent our
general anger. I live in New England where (IMO) race tends to matter little,
however _culture_ still matters a great deal.

In fact, I'd say that we have a major cultural battle going on in the US. The
media has seen fit to assign cultures to races, but that's just for
convenience at great cost to the rest of us.

Even worse, I fear that many of the cultures at war want the exact same thing,
but don't agree how to achieve it. In any event, the media is doing a fine job
of radicalizing people based on race and income, neither of which represent
cultural beliefs.

For example, I think we need to teach everyone how to speak English properly
and you may think that's aimed at Hispanics. But it's not. It's aimed at
people who speak gangster, girls and boys who can stop saying "like" every
other word, and yes, all manner of other people who can't speak proper
English.

Just like the Internet has common communication protocols, so must citizens
for our nation to succeed. We all want our nation to be healthy, which is our
common cause, and this is one thing I think would help.

When framed in this way, it's not about "those Mexican immigrants speaking
Spanish" it's about everyone who can't participate in our economy because
they're communication skills are lacking.

------
arca_vorago
They partially answer their own question, with... "seems to only be working
for the insiders with money and power, like those on Wall Street or in
Washington,"

They key point they are missing out on though is that because the corruption
and cronyism is more blatant, more Americans are starting to realize how
pervasive it has become and that justice isn't being served on behalf of the
people.

08 crash and libor scandals are a perfect example. People should have been in
jail, companies nationalized, assets frozen and investigated for frauds, the
SEC pumped up, and a AG and various DA's should have gone into frenzy attack
mode... but they didn't, because they were part of the insider group!

By undermining justice, and hence, our Constitution, the public will
increasingly become agitated because without justice there can be no peace.

Here is the danger though (warning, put your tinfoil on), I think that what is
being done is a systematic corruption of our countries constitution in order
to pave the way for the global governance model. When things get worse, and
puppets for the elite will start talking about how America is a young country
and had it's chance and it's model is failing and therefor it should just join
a EU model supranational government structure, _thats when you will know that
the state of our country is only half due to incompetence, hubris, or apathy,
and that the it is a deliberate strategy being employed by the AngloSaxon
dominance group who honestly I don 't think ever forgave America for the
revolution._

Britain isn't the ally we think she is, mark my words.

------
mjevans
One point that the BBC article doesn't cover is where exactly the 'middle
ground' is. The language is still framed from an entirely American Politics
perspective of there being two parties and no other reference points.

Lost is the fact that both American parties are fairly far to the right. Also
lost among the message of anger is the point that they glossed past. The
'Washington' (DC) insiders /are/ the political parties.

------
bbarn
They left off the number one reason I think people are angry - the feeling of
being powerless to change any of the examples given.

------
tosseraccount
C'mon. The number one point was stagnant median income for last 35 years. Do
all the projection of your ideological biases and deconstruct the article to
fit your views that you want to.

Bottom line is change hasn't helped the middle class wallet. It's no wonder
people are backing Trump and Sanders. The establishment just doesn't get it.

------
dawnbreez
My two cents:

One, we are terrible at handling relationships, and emotions in general. A lot
of psychological research is basically ignored, and we're talking basic stuff
--things like how depression happens, how to handle anger, what a bad
relationship looks like.

Second, we're in the unusual position of believing that we're economically and
socially mobile--that the poor can become rich--and also being constantly
given examples of how hard it still is. We chase an American Dream of being
the self-made, self-sustaining free human being, but are constantly reminded
that failure sits just behind us and that even the best of friends can trip
you up.

On that note, we're also terrible at coping with failure.

------
jqm
Weren't Americans (or at least their ancestors) generally dissatisfied with
their lot in the first place and that's why they became Americans?

I don't know that dissatisfaction and mistrust is genetic but I'm guessing it
probably gets passed on culturally, at least to some extent.

~~~
tedks
Weren't British (or at least their ancestors) generally dissatisfied with
their lot in the first place and that's why they wrote the Magna Carta?

I don't know that dissatisfaction and mistrust is genetic but I'm guessing it
probably gets passed on culturally, at least to some extent.

------
winkle
Let's all agree to be happy instead of angry. You can only control your own
actions and emotions. Be grateful what you have instead of focusing on what
you don't.

------
ycombo500
Middle class america is in a reverse depression - every other class is doing
quite well.

------
draw_down
The way our country works, it becomes harder and harder for normal people to
get by. Some Americans think this is the fault of immigrants. Some have other
ideas.

------
ohitsdom
WE'RE NOT

------
newobj
Oh god, let the HN theorycrafting begin.

------
GizaDog
The common rule is that "no one thinks the same thing" unless there is a
traumatic mind altering event that aligns people for a short period of time.
Media, government, corporations, friends and family are all competing for
attention to some degree.

Puppet masters know this all to well.

------
6stringmerc
The article does a good job hitting several 'topics' in the conversation,
which is a reasonable place to start. As a collective emotional response,
"anger" in the US population likely has a lot to do with rapidly changing
social adaptations, acceptance, and transition which is frequently in direct
conflict with traditional identity values - thus, a pretty understandable
survey answer. Start broadening the perspective to include economic conditions
(inequality, labor force participation) and it's not really a pleasing long-
term outlook on an intellectual level.

For some reason, I can't quite shake the mental image of a cornered rat - its
survival instinct response might be classified as 'anger' but the context and
conditions are relevant in the grand scheme of things.

------
rms_returns
As a non-US citizen who just casually observes US news like an outsider, I can
think of the below reasons:

1\. The technology industry and EFF is very upset because of the ongoing
patent-trolls issue. Only recently, a technoloy company was extracted of $625
million by the East Texas jury. Similarly, Oracle is trolling over its Java
patent on a matter as trivial as the Java API. These two incidents are enough
for the technology community to lose faith in POTUS/SCOTUS.

2\. The second group which is not happy is the entire populace who like an
open market and free competition. Power users who understand it know that Net-
neutrality is harming it a lot. Again, POTUS/SCOTUS is not listening to this
problem, but has turned a blind eye to it.

As an outsider, my assessment could very well be observed, but I do think that
these issues have enough potential to cause a feeling of anger and distrust in
a lot of Americans (if not all). Ignorance or inactivity on part of
POTUS/SCOTUS is only going to aggravate it.

~~~
golergka
> The second group which is not happy is the entire populace who like an open
> market and free competition.

What? Since when did US blue collar workers liked open markets and free
competition with their 3rd world counterparts?

