Is It American to not trust government?

 

This essay rant is my own invention and property, Jim Wells

 

Can it be that some of the greatest Observations pre-date empirical evidence to support them? Is this the realm of prophets or special genius?

 

I claim no prophecy or genius but still intend to write on a subject which may be considered political, especially in a climate where almost any subject seems to be a politically partizan territory of some kind. I offer some key Observations to support my humble theory about the lack of trust in American government.

 

Observation 1. The Europeans seem more ready to trust their governments as a line of protection from excessive corporations or businessmen, whereas the Americans are much more ready to trust their corporations to protect them from an overreaching government.

 

To the Observation 1, I add that there is a strong climate of fear among Americans which includes distrust of corporations, government  the fourth estate of the media, too much or not enough religion and more.

 

Observation 2. The movements to educate children can generally be said to offer the young good reasons (based on reason) for making various decisions about the value of things. Religious education includes the spiritual notion that the best decisions come from belief in the word of an all powerful being.

 

To the Observation 2, I add that general or ‘liberal arts’ education is not considered oppositional to religious education unless the empirical method of finding good reasons for making judgements seems to run counter to the religious education, religion being less flexible than the experimentally, reasonably, empirically derived good reasons as they change as part of an ongoing process.

 

Observation 3. The collective shared experience of the ‘hive’ or group of Americans is from inception anti-government and self-centered. The core and genius of the American hive was rebelling from a royal system which was regarded as doing well when the royalty stood for humanistic ideas and poorly when the royals like an unconcerned father/king was seen as mean. After the successful rebellion from clearly mean royalty the European descended peoples on the East coast of North America had two centrifugal forces or pulling apart forces that would remain during it’s important initial growth century.
---
Before the last gasp of English control ended after 1815 the way became clear for America to unite behind a clearly idealistic government invention,  conceived of by war heroes and wise leader farmers or lawyers with strong connections to the peoples liberation feeling of the day. This union of the states covering the vast central portion of the East Coast became the beacon of hope to other Europeans who felt discriminated against, locked into a class or who were willing and able to relocate for profits.

 

The unresolved conflicts in the new union such as slave people who became a great profit center and the people who lived on the continent first but were not so invention or scientifically oriented, conflicts with these peoples were underlying issues that along with the exclusion of women from voting, were bound to surface with time.

 

The dark-skinned slave people shipped from Africa were living in the middle of the white European culture not just as workers in the fields but as workers in the very homes of the white owners whereas the native people went from being considered benevolent and peaceful to powerful enemies as it became clear that the ever expanding European population, considered their homes to be white property to be bought and sold.

 

Most of the poorly educated masses of whites from Europe considered both the slaves and the natives as somewhat less than human. The dark side of being human resulted in those considered less than human would end up murdered in wars or genocide. Slaves because of their ambiguous position were neither were human or subject to mass genocide, slowly and painfully began to be seen as human by about half of the now firmly established United States citizens after about 200 years.

 

Thus the new North American union of the United States had two historic freebees going for them which eventually would work against them.

 

Factor 1. Free unfettered land without any need for defense against neighbors or standing armies to protect colonies for about the first hundred years supported inward focus not outward.  Those (generally without regard for a slave past) who were willing to take guns needed for the wilderness and leave the comforts and advantages of civilization behind for a while could claim a good life after much hard work. The values of guns and hard work with virtually no knowledge of foreigners and not so much education became ingrained in this hive. Living far from Ocean going ports, for the most part they had to live with the vagaries of the climate on crops and had a poorer economy compared to those who stayed near the big ports where a generally more predictable expanding and stable economy resulted.

 

Factor 2. While at first the concept of ‘union’ was strong and after the first hundred years inspired many in the industrialized North to fight those who would protect the idea of home and their choice to still keep slaves, attempted to not be unionized any longer. The union concept won the war to keep the states united and further contributed to poverty and thus weak education in the Southern and many of the more rural parts of the United States. The union won the civil war but in a real sense lost the battle for the minds of the rebels.

 

Historians say that Lincoln would have worked against a punishing peace for the South and he was shot at the end of the war. It seems to me that without Lincoln on the scene, the by now business-centered victorious North enacted policies to cripple the would-be competitive South.

 

The civil war battle could be said to have strengthened the anti-union forces/influences of those who felt the loss of a ‘way of life’ even more. On top of this some Northerners from the strange religious cult basically thrown out of Europe for their intolerance had in effect become the moral voice of the union stressing the need to physically control people not companies from their bad habits. A few intellectual transcendental authors did inspire an opposing idea with many of those who could read. The reasons for the puritanical and non-sensical prohibition of alcohol for the whole United States certainly did not come out of the Southern civil war losers hive.

 

The prohibition laws caused the refinement of the anti-union idea to a much more grass-roots level. Networks of booze suppliers used the automobile which gave the poor the distribution advantages previously shared only by large business interests. A brotherhood in the South developed which understood that the governmental forces of control could be surmounted with secrecy and bold action. In the North gangs which controlled the distribution of booze fit much more easily into the business model of the economy and just changed focus like any company does when one revenue stream weakens, as prohibition was ended.

 

The mainly Southern confidence and esprie de cor was then socked right on the nose again when a few decades later in the sixties, laws supporting the idea of the humanity of African descended people were passed. Various ways of asserting the supremacy of whites in daily life were denied to the former rebels, still suffering from a very retarded educational system.

 

I maintain that during the post civil war Century many union supporters in rural areas all over the states began to identify with the South which upheld the idea of pride in lost principals and resistance to national government restrictions.

 

Like prohibition, the civil rights acts and the increasing pressures to follow the new laws along with successful business/corporate schemes to co-op the anti-government sentiments to work for their own anti-government agenda based on dislike of regulations began to coalesce and overnight the rural and Southern areas became anti-regulation Republicans instead of the old homey Democrats who championed the poor (whites).

 

The successful fusion of business interests with the rural, less educated poor made that group almost totally vulnerable to clever Wall Street style manipulations which included the new invention, a comfortable smooth public relations campaign. The  strongly American advertising industry artfully began teaching ideology and philosophy in the mix of buy, buy, buy. Intolerant religion and political campaigning mixed, leading to evermore corporate centered politicians voted into government and working to destroy the beast from within. This was a construction which put Reagan and two Bushes into the Presidency and greatly inhibited any meaningful controls on the underlying the economy, which Democratic presidents could enact if they so desired.

 

The new pro-poor whites and squeaky clean modern humanistic corporation image, Republicans, took over the administration of the American scene from school boards to Congress and the Supreme Court, undoing the results of the New Deal, civil rights and the modification of chauvinistic measures. This anti-government revival spawned a new sanctification of many less establishment and potentially violent gun toting types. Militia bands, survivalists and various off the grid bands strongly supported by the NRA, formed all across the large the mostly empty parts, the Southern, and severely impacted places like Michagan, in some rust bucket states.

 

The vast switching of party identity leading to a profit motivated, mainstream media with no incentive to investagate wrong doing either in government or corporations for the news-as-entertainment benifit of those who really aren’t that interested in trying to keep up on difficult subjects. Now we can see a bold attempt by the very wealthy to buy-up the media, to keep it’s over-all focus on government faults and corporate polish. At this time the direction does seem to be, an ever fearful, under-educated and with no reliable news sources on important issues, very polorized and confused or showing blind certainty, public which by the way, left or right is anti-government.
---------------

Observation in Aug 1981
The government fired everyone of the skilled workers in one industry. It's true, Reagan fired all the Air Traffic Controler on the 2nd day of their strike.
    Killed the chicken got the attention of the monkey - from the Chinese.  If you kill the chicken in front of the monkey, the monkey pays attention, behavior changes.

----
Michael Moore on the death of the middle class - Michael Moore gets people mad or People get mad at Michael Moore .
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/08/05/1003695/-30-Years-Ago-Today-The-Day-the-Middle-Class-Died

 

http://www.alternet.org/economy/banks-america?paging=off  Escow
-------------------