There is blowback from these actions. Much like the blowback from intelligence operations it often manifests in unusual ways. For example, deposing the elected leader of Iran through Operation Ajax led to the coup by religious extremists, and funding the Mujahideen in Afghanistan led to the rise of the Taliban and Al Qaeda.
Right now the blowback is in the form of a total and utter lack of faith in the political elites by the majority of the population. The military has overwhelmingly more approval, and 23% of the population says that they would support a military coup.
If people don't feel that their votes actually matter... Well, I don't want to think about what happens if the world's largest democracy becomes a non-rational actor.
You're right, this is an upper class attempt to clamp down on the lower classes and keep the societal wheels turning. I don't understand the desire to give tickets, but it probably comes from the warrior mindset in law enforcement culture. It's about personal dominance.
Note that I also have relatives in law enforcement. This isn't an indictment of all police. There are many good people in law enforcement. But in aggregate there certainly has been a lurch toward aggressiveness.
Well, I don't want to think about what happens if the world's largest democracy becomes irrational.
Oh, hey, don't forget that we have 300M privately-owned guns distributed throughout the country, and have plenty of veterans around with combat experience.
If America snaps, it isn't going to voluntarily commit itself for psychiatric evaluation. It'll be a full-on schizophrenic break, with lots of bloody bodies.
I humbly suggest that a congressional approval rating of 11% and a congressional re-election rate of 95% are not the sort of incompatible numbers that promote continued sanity.
> I humbly suggest that a congressional approval rating of 11% and a congressional re-election rate of 95% are not the sort of incompatible numbers that promote continued sanity.
There is actually a logical explanation for that.
The people in corn country want ethanol subsidies. The people in Hollywood want draconian copyright laws. The people in coal mining districts don't want clean air laws.
So the Congressman from Iowa votes for draconian copyright laws in exchange for the Congresswoman from California voting for ethanol subsidies and every terrible thing which is bad for the whole country nevertheless comes to pass, causing the approval rate for Congress to fall below that of Vogon poetry and dirty latrines. Yet everyone is satisfied with their own member of Congress because they got that thing the district cared most about getting.
Fixing that is probably going to require some kind of structural change (like proportional representation in the House of Representatives).
> Fixing that is probably going to require some kind of structural change (like proportional representation in the House of Representatives).
Can you define what you mean here? I was under the impression that the House is proportional to population, and that the Senate is not. Unless, do you mean direct populace voting on Congressional acts, as opposed to the indirect representation we have now?
The number of seats in the House is proportional to the population (or it was, until there would have been "too many" seats and they... look it up, it's crazy), but the seats each have a "district" where the people in that district elect one specific representative.
As a nation, we have had it very good for a very long time. Economic growth is considered a given, there is a social safety net, and major conventional war is widely thought to be an impossibility. We would not fare well if there was a societal breakdown.
I would predict the military and national guard would step in to stop domestic unrest if the national societal fabric unravelled. But what we really need is to convene a new Constitutional Convention, which will never happen unless there is blood in the streets, at which point things will already be very far out of hand.
I'm actually convinced that this is already happening, and the first eruptions of populist anger (Occupy, Black Lives Matter, the Tea Party) are being stamped out. For example, the National Guard was mobilized not long ago in Maryland to quell the population.
If your foil hat is made of the correct metals (and mine probably is), you may have noticed that government agencies and paranoid citizens alike have been quietly preparing for armed rebellion for at least a decade.
Ignoring entirely the Chicken Little bleating from the professional rabble-rousers and conspiracy theorists that say stuff like "ZOMG why do Post Office and Agriculture needs all teh ammos?!", the mistrust-of-government businesses are booming, and many of the fnords in the mainstream media point to a coordinated propaganda campaign against not just people who defy government, but also against those who merely question it too deeply.
When I take off the foil hat, everything is still okay. It isn't good, but it isn't irretrievably broken, either.
I used to believe more easily that I wasn't really living in the real world when I had the foil hat on. But lately...
I was thinking that Martin O'Malley struck a deal with the Democratic Party to be the hand that Hillary Clinton claps against through the primary season, in exchange for a high level executive position in her government. Bernie Sanders is running for the Democratic Party nomination only because running for PotUS as an independent is futile. He was never given any benefit from the party large enough to convince him to give Clinton her the title shot with only token resistance. And he's so unexpectedly popular that they can't squeeze him out of the media coverage quietly enough to make him drop out.
And then I go to take off my foil hat, and find that I thought that stupid conspiracy theory up bareheaded. When I actually put the foil hat on, it just gets ridiculous.
Something is very wrong when my rational mind notices "there should be more people up on that stage contesting the nomination now, months before the early states start to pick," and comes up with a completely plausible explanation that is rather blatantly anti-democratic. I can't tell if my BS detector needs to be recalibrated, or whether US politicians have just stopped putting forth reasonable efforts toward passing it off.
You don't even want to hear my theories about the Republican Party nomination races.
I'm not convinced a foil hat is necessary. The rise and fall of both nations and civilizations isn't the exception. It's the rule.
Whether from pressures from within or without, states inevitably degrade or even collapse. One of the typical patterns of collapse for a democracy is regression to dictatorship. It's not implausible.
Now, when looking at the nation as it is, rather than as it could be, I'm rather comforted. By all appearances the government continues to provide basic services, the military has unwavering loyalty to the civilian government, and the government is run by politicians chosen by popular election.
But government deficits are exploding, the sovereignties of the world are gobbling up private debt to prop up large financial firms, and the financial sector is so disconnected from the real economy that it has become one giant martingale that is due for a 25% downward correction.
What worries me most is that previously, there could be no permanent dictatorship. The United States has both the power and the infrastructure to become one. A few legal judgements here, a few electoral tweaks there, and our democracy becomes mere government theater, advertising that distracts us from the actual sovereigns and their interests.
I believe the current pattern of creeping statism from the left and steady erosion of Constitutional protections from the right are a lethal combination for a democracy.
There's some paranoia here, sure. But I find that when dealing with political matters recently, a healthy dose of skepticism is warranted.
Right now the blowback is in the form of a total and utter lack of faith in the political elites by the majority of the population. The military has overwhelmingly more approval, and 23% of the population says that they would support a military coup.
If people don't feel that their votes actually matter... Well, I don't want to think about what happens if the world's largest democracy becomes a non-rational actor.
You're right, this is an upper class attempt to clamp down on the lower classes and keep the societal wheels turning. I don't understand the desire to give tickets, but it probably comes from the warrior mindset in law enforcement culture. It's about personal dominance.
Note that I also have relatives in law enforcement. This isn't an indictment of all police. There are many good people in law enforcement. But in aggregate there certainly has been a lurch toward aggressiveness.