A Nation based on disunity will not for much longer lead the world stage.

Our country is at the greatest crisis since the Civil War. It's become clear to all of us that the Federal Union is at a brink. Neither Democrats, nor Republicans or the people who support the main ideologies governing the nation can agree on anything, or even agree to disagree for that matter. In such a situation, it's clear that the deterioration of the union will only increase and the fantasy that it will heal once we remove Trump is a fantasy that ignores the political fight that led to him and the circumstances therein, which haven't resolved themselves.

I'll briefly outline the disagreement that led to Trump and the present situation in the US.
In essence, over the past 25-35 years the Federal Government has ignored all of its social and domestic responsibilities. The Welfare programs were underfunded, the roads were virtually ignored. Education ranks had been steadily decreasing and as one article put it: The cosmopolitan view did not extend to all, but rather to a select few. This outcasting of Americans would pave the way for what was to come.

And on the Left side, rather than focus on its domestic responsibilities it cared more for 'social projects' such as green energy, renewable energy and so forth. Universal "health care" and other things that were not the nation's interest or priorities. It is clear that the Republic was being taxed without representation.

We live in a moment, not too dissimilar to the Framers under the British Rule. Neither side is being represented, and neither side cares to appreciate the other side's argument. Not to mention the canceling out of all other alternative arguments and you've got a nation that is fractured.

Blaming it on Trump, is the easy way out. For a federal government that for the last 35 years has refused responsibility. We can no longer afford this fractured, obtuse and ineffective government. We need a unified government, that can unify the people around the common cause of our nation, of our purpose to the betterment of everyone in our civil society.

It's clear that Democrats nor Republicans can grant this. Hence, my argument that an Empire to centralize the people is what's needed. The American Empire will be born from the ashes of failed democracy.

 

I don't care if we survive as a nation. Whatever follows will be better.

 

That's the goal of the Leftist and Globalist...

 

I humbly disagree that the goal of the Left is a unified Empire. At best, Left unity is to the exclusion of all right and center-right views. One could argue the same for the reverse, and of the course of human history. But that goes to the point: Both sides are eternally against human will and human potential, and that Empires are the ideal state for human living and civil rights.

 

So what you're saying is, we need an Empire instead of democracy. People should have no say in what their government does. Leave it to the dictators. Let the elite and special interests court the emperors undisturbed by the peasants. Political parties have divided us because voters expect them to act like dictators. They think they can lord it over the other side, only to find the other side uses the same tactics against them. One of the problems is that politicians don't do what is popular: support policies that have a broad consensus.

 

Actually, throughout history it's very difficult to bribe a emperor/king/head of State. The reason being should be plainly obvious: He's already Head of State. There's nothing more to bribe him with. More money? His title probably earns enough royalties to last him a lifetime. And on the note of why I want Empire, I wholly profess that a part of me concurs to the viewpoint that average civilians should not have political voice or power(we see this, in the average politician elected.) The people do not often get to select one among their peers, but rather one who pokes his or her head amongst their peers, often both unknown and untested and whose ideas are not based on that 'broad consensus' but of their own opinion. This is true in any system of government.

Where the Empire thrives, is that this 'system' of poor choices is replaced by an executive head of his country who can now lead the nation without political necessity. He bows to no one, he owes to no interest. Nor can the people squabble over political influence.

In short sum, the people lack both the knowledge and the desire to properly make political decisions and so they shouldn't make those decisions any longer. Our poor state of Congress is a reflection of democracy's failure.

 

While I'd be okay with the idea of an American empire if I was in charge of it, any other person makes me think that would be worse than what we have now. Your analysis is correct, the government no longer reflects the will of the people, but making the government more powerful and less reflective of the will of the people is not a recipe for improvement. The main problems these days are a Congress that doesn't have to answer to the people, an executive branch that refuses to answer to Congress, and a judiciary that refuses to answer to anyone. The solution to all of these problems is more democracy, not less of it.

 

Sorry, but that's just insanity.

 

I don't think that it is the State of Government that enables(or disables) said government to reflect the will of the people. Let's say for example that the American Empire continues respecting human rights and decency, and that let's say we move in a Sweden/Switzerland-like direction for more financial benefits for the middle class. If the economic state of America is elevated in exchange for no longer lifting an ineffective finger to try and work the government, I think most citizens would be rather pleased with it.

Specifically our country in general: Over the last dozen elections, a repeated pattern has occurred: The percentage of voting population is barely over half of the country. And at that, political knowledge and discussion is far below par for what it should be. Do we really want 'more democracy' for more people who are A: Burdened by civil domestic life and B: Intellectually unequipped to make major decisions in the first place?

Rather than burden the citizen with the 'responsibility' of making a selection that he/she is incapable of making(and as you point out, the only reason to make the decision/get involved in politics is to grab your own share of power, because of a lack of trust in others.), it's better to delegate those responsibilities to the government itself, and have the citizen focus exclusively on his/her domestic and civil value.

Democracy is chaotic and destructive. Authoritarianism is stable and controlling. The key is to make sure it's not too controlling so as to violate rights. And I make that pledge that I won't violate rights.(Or to be more specific, rights as spelled out by law. I don't think "anyone" has the right to be here. I'm even willing to extend that to American citizens. It is a privilege to be afforded citizenship in a country, and that privilege should be more governed then it is.)

 

The country has gone to hell because of endless wars in the middle east, waste fraud and abuse of government programs, and illegal freakin immigration.

Fix those 3 issues and everything will be fine. Trump is working on two.

 

Agreed, these are the main issues. And finding an agreeable solution to all of these is the issue. But the neocons and Liberals both deny progress on numerous fronts. The neocons would rather waste money and men/women on bases and locations and the Liberals would rather spend money on non-US Citizens, than actual citizens thus starving the people who actually FUND these programs.

This is why my anger has reached a boiling peak. The people deserve to be served by a government for and by the people. And it's clear that we cannot in current form attain that.

 

Some people sure have become pessimistic *******. America is much stronger than such weaklings, and will long Outlast them.

 

Will Trump's fans soon begin to reject Trumpism?

They already have. They refuse to talk about what Trump is saying and doing. They refuse to talk about his wall. They refuse to talk about the Constitutional crisis Trump has caused. They don't want to talk about Trump's end run around Congress. They don't want to talk about Trump's attack on the Separation of Powers principle within our Constitution. Republicans used to hold the Constitution sacred and they strongly opposed liberal changes to the meaning of the Constitution. Now Trump is trying to change the Constitution. Trump's fans don't want to talk about that either.

Trump's fans don't want to talk about Trump. Where is their support? It's gone. Trump is finished.

They don't want to talk about that, either.

 

Trump may very well be finished(he wasn't an effective politician to begin with), but like I'm saying: Finishing Trump isn't fixing anything, it's just getting rid of your favorite boogeyman. We'll be here in 2024 with the same problems unresolved.

 

C'est la vie. Empires come and empires go.

 

"Excessive Partisanship" is the root cause of our problems, and IMO, "EPD" is the most common mental illness in the United States.

What are the symptoms of EPD?

People with EPD are generally IRRATIONAL and UNREASONABLE.

 

Thank you. However, I seriously doubt Trump will be the GOP candidate in 2020. There are definite signs that the GOP leadership is getting weary of Trump's antics. They will find someone better to run in 2020.

 

I truly think what’s going on is the dumbest people have the loudest voices. That coupled with the left and the right fear mongering the Fringes to make all the left or all right evil based on The fringes. In talking to people on here most people are around the middle yet we all think each other is a nazi or a SJW because the media has made it seem like there is a gulf between us.

“The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.”
Charles Bukowski

 

Same is true for all other forms of government. In fact, Plato argued that governments are cyclical in nature. I can't disagree with that sentiment. However, Empires do have a longer lasting form especially if said Empire can respect human rights. UK/Japan are examples of transitional governments that kept the Empire.

 

@AmericanNationalist

The United States cannot survive as an Empire, because we have three major population centers that are all, culturally, very different from one another. You have the Northeast and Southeast, really two shifting coalitions of even smaller subcultures, and now a third major geographic entity is forming in the Southwest.

It seems to me that you're consciously channeling Bonapartism, but it must be noted that Napoleon III came to power on his popularity among the rural poor, the most dominant social class in France, at least in terms of population, and his popularity in the military. Even still, his problem is that he was becoming more and more unpopular among urban population, which by this time was very different, culturally, from the rural population. This unpopularity pushed him into a corner where he felt it necessary to solve the Prussian problem for political reasons.

An American Emperor would need two secure popular support from at least two of our three major population centers. Now, this is certainly possible, depending on how our Southwestern culture comes to define itself politically. While most American Latinos these days do tend left, I think that in terms of more significant cultural issues they align more closely with American Southeastern culture.

But there's an even larger problem, American popular myths don't lend us well to the installation of an official Emperor. They do lend to the rise of super-Presidents such as Jackson, Lincoln, and FDR, who are able to dominate and unify the political class (...well, kinda in the case of Lincoln). That, I believe, is the road that we're going to go down.

It's clear that the Neoliberal political class that has dominated since the 70s is finally faltering.

 

The US is not an empire.

 

We're equivocating a bit in this thread.

I suspect that the OP is using the word "Emperor" in the Bonapartist sense, whereas Richard the Last is using the word "Empire" in the geopolitical sense.

In the latter sense, we absolutely are an Empire, and have been since shortly after our founding. Indeed, I would argue that we have been Imperial since long before our founding.

 

So you are suggesting that the UK and Japan would still be considered empires? Empires in any form don't last very many centuries.

 

Tell that to the OP. I was simply using his terminology.

 

Words have meaning. The United States is not an empire.