The New York Analysis continues its multi-part examination of “American Disintegration,” a look at the rapidly declining fortunes of the United States over the past several years. Today, we review the frayed unity of interests of the population.
Black vs. White. Rich vs. poor. Republican vs. Democrat. Conservative vs. Liberal. Young vs. Old. Male vs. Female. Straight vs. Gay. Workers vs. Management. Employed vs. Unemployed. Native born vs. Immigrant.
Over the past several years, it appears that every division in American society has grown deeper and more virulent. While the U.S. has always had these separations, there was a series of common goals that kept the nation united. Prosperity based on individual work and effort. The benefits of limited government. A dedication to personal freedom. An understanding that the world is a dangerous place. A general appreciation of the Judeo-Christian ethic. A devotion to the Bill of Rights and adherence to the Constitution.
Extraordinary new capabilities, including non-broadcast television and the internet have allowed candidates and political parties to build direct appeals to particular interest groups, rather than to a broader national consensus. This approach has been successfully employed by “Progressive” politicians, resulting in the total capture of the federal government by the hard left in 2008. Their victory, and their total domination of both houses of Congress for two years, allowed newly elected President Obama to fulfill his pledge to “fundamentally transform” America.
Seizing on the divisive tactics that led to the momentous 2008 victory, the new Administration and its allies, quickly pursued an agenda that appealed strictly to the interest groups that swept it into power. Little to no effort was devoted to comprising with groups outside of its political base.
Constitutional procedures and rights were significantly ignored in the drive to quickly enact a very different agenda for the nation, one that essentially rejected the individualism that formed the original American character, replacing it with a greater emphasis on a powerful central government cast as the ultimate provider for the people.
Clear examples of their hyper-partisanship can be seen both in the Administration’s use of the White House web site http://www.whitehouse.gov/ ,which has been dramatically more partisan than any of its predecessors, and in the extreme tactics of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who eliminated all efforts to work with Republicans or even more moderate Democrats.
It’s levitra in canada more than the endorphins – it’s about feeling good about yourself. Dapoxetine ingredient see over here cheap viagra tablets can control early ejaculation. levitra generika probe What is average ejaculation time? There is no such treatment with the help of a surgery. The purchase cialis modes of transmission vary depending on the body state and the last meal.
More so than any predecessor, the current occupant of the Oval Office has sought to demonize his opposition. His speeches cast Republicans as more of an enemy than any foreign threatening power. A prime example: the Administration’s Homeland Security Director issued a paper claiming that returning veterans, generally more conservative politically, were more of a threat to national security than al Qaeda.
Most tragically, the President has utilized racial tensions as a tool to rouse a part of his base support, rather than employ his historic role to finally end whatever remnants of racism that exist. It is difficult for even his most ardent partisans to deny that race relations have deteriorated during his administration. Mr. Obama’s statements about the Trayvon Martin affair, his statements concerning the Ferguson shooting, and his embrace of racial extremists such as Al Sharpton have all set back the cause of improved relations.
This hyper partisanship has led to a number of scandals. The failure to prosecute clear cases of voting abuses, the unlawful surveillance of journalists who have criticized the White House, the use of the IRS to intimidate political opposition, and the direction of stimulus funds towards friendly contributors are clear examples.