Display:
Few nations (and I suppose, few individuals) have found it possible to come to terms with all the worst parts of themselves, so I don't think it is by any means a uniquely USian problem.

The exceptionalism grates on me, but I don't think it is easy to fix. It is a deep rooted ideology, taught from kindergarten on. Now, it should be noted that most countries are the same way, it's probably only the US and China (maybe Russia too) that are large enough to sustain the myth in such a comprehensive manner. I guess I would recommend that open-minded individuals from the US should examine Chinese exceptionalism and perhaps it will throw some light on their own ideology.

However, I think for me the sheer amnesia (which again certainly occurs in my own country also) is for me the really scary part. Whenever Iran is discussed, particularly on dKos, it seems there are plenty of commenters from the US who don't remember how the Iraq saga unfolded and continually make the same remarks:

"There's no solid evidence that the Bush admin wants war. There's other people involved in this, how can you say Bush is the prime mover, everyone agrees Iran is a problem."

They don't seem able to remember saying the same things over Iraq or if they do, their attitude is so ahistorical as to think that what happened last time is not relevant to what is happening now.

by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Wed Mar 15th, 2006 at 03:44:37 AM EST
Metatone, you're on a roll today!

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Wed Mar 15th, 2006 at 09:16:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Heh, I've a long way to go before any of my rolling comes up to your prolific standards, DoDo.
by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Wed Mar 15th, 2006 at 10:11:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
your prolific standards

Heh, you say that while I am semi-absent for months and barely publish even a diary a week on average (minus the train diaries)... DeAnander is a frontpager-in-hiding, but I come pretty close.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Wed Mar 15th, 2006 at 10:38:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Alternatively, taking the bad pun route...

Does that make me ET rolling stock?

by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Wed Mar 15th, 2006 at 10:12:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Sure! I'll train you :-)

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Wed Mar 15th, 2006 at 10:36:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't know about rolling, but maybe ROTFLing stock.

guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Mar 15th, 2006 at 10:37:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
particularly on dKos, it seems there are plenty of commenters from the US who don't remember how the Iraq saga unfolded and continually make the same remarks:

"There's no solid evidence that the Bush admin wants war. There's other people involved in this, how can you say Bush is the prime mover, everyone agrees Iran is a problem."

You have got to be kidding,,,are you saying the majority, no, there are any comments on Dkos along these lines.  My God, I might go back if that were true--ie. if there was any sense of balance on Dkos.  If you wouldn['t mind giving my a url on this, I would love to check it out--in other words, it's hard to believe it's true.
by wchurchill on Thu Mar 16th, 2006 at 03:07:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Not the majority, but quite a few voices sounding just like you. If you pick your issues you will find quite a few voices in concert with yours on dKos. Just think about the ones that rely on the goodness of America, particularly when dealing with perfidious foreigners and you'll be off to a good start.
by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Thu Mar 16th, 2006 at 04:35:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I believe there was quite a ruckus on kos a few weeks back when McJoan (a front pager) did exactly that, posting a long piece warning about the dangers of Iran with no seeming awareness of recent history. However, she was torn to pieces by Americans who happily seemed to retain the memory that this was exactly how we'd begun the Iraq debacle and scoffed at her willingness to swallow the lie.

It was probably that fight that prompted this because it was so memorable (amd memorably bloody - McJoan didn't post for weeks after).

I think the real problem is their tradional media. TV is staunchly republican when it's not positively neo-conservative. The sunday talk shows are laughable models of (un)fair and (im)balanced.

Meanwhile the two major national papers, the NYT and the Washington Post seem incapable of printing anything without checking it first with the WH.

So the background noise is all right wing and the cultural consencus is always endorsing GOP talking points. It really must seem like the Brave New Blue Pill World over there and unless you really make an effort it must seem overwhelming.

It's easy to mock here in Europe where we have such diverse media. Reaching your own opinion doesn't require effort, just willingness to look. I admire the fact that there are still 48% strong enough to resist at the last election when every medium was telling them to succumb.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Thu Mar 16th, 2006 at 01:21:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Hi Helen, good to see you as a new poster on ET, and welcome.

I would have to respectfully disagree with your charectarization of the American news media.  While I'm sure there are examples of conservative leaning articles in the NYT and WaPo, those two papers lean pretty strongly to the left.  (btw, there is no question in my mind that the average poster on Daily Koz would agree 100% that NYT and WaPo check everything with the White House.)  Of course this is my opinion, and I realize that any example I might choose can be criticized as not reflecting the opinion of the a paper in general,,,but I would point out that the last time the Editorial section of the NYT recommended a Republican for President was in 1952.  That means that when Ronald Reagan was elected to his second term in 1984, and 49 of 50 states voted for Reagan,,,Minnesota being the home state of Walter Mondale being the exception,,,,that the NYT went with Minnesota and Mondale.  This seems like an Editorial Board that is pretty clear on their political views, does it not?

The Wall Street Journal Editorial page is certainly very conservative.  And the Chicago Tribune is conservative, though forced to be balanced because they are in a "blue" state (Illinois), and a "blue, blue" city (Chicago).  

I would argue that the bastion of Conservative thought tends to be radio, and specifically "talk radio", where though there are a few liberal talk shows, this media is very dominated by the right.  Air America is trying to regain some balance in this area, but it's been a difficult fight so far--they are making headway in some cities.

As to the big Sunday talk shows, ABC's George Stephanopolis certainly does not lean toward the Republicans--a former member of the Clinton administration.  Tim Russert seems pretty balanced.  The Fox show is very new compared to ABC, NBC, and CBS in terms of Sunday Talk shows.  These big 3 have been around for, say 50 years or so.  Fox' Sunday Show, maybe four years?  something like that.  Fox is of course conservative.

Though the blogosphere has sites representing all parts of the political spectrum, IMHO the views from the left are dominating that,,this,,,media.  Though certainly there is choice.  And I would argue that just like in Europe,

here in Europe where we have such diverse media. Reaching your own opinion doesn't require effort, just willingness to look
Americans have plethora of opportunities to be updated on news and opinion.  In fact, with the Web, Americans can even read what Europe thinks,,,and even blog about it,,,just as a number of Americans do here on ET.
by wchurchill on Thu Mar 16th, 2006 at 03:45:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series