Smart Article...:blankspace:

Off Topic
#41

Yep…although the term “wedge issue” might need a definition. If so, let me know.

But I’d say somewhere during my adult lifetime the discussion of immigration (as in levels of, vs. other aspects tied up with the topic) went from “oh, I see they are thinking of passing a law to XYZ immigration, I am generally [for | against] that”, to "Arrggg…immigration!!! Why won’t you see things my way!!! Arrgghhhh!!!".

This switch may have occurred as result of Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 under Reagan, but I’d have to do a little more digging. I was in college then and probably less concerned with current affairs, but I definitely don’t remember any heated arguments or demonstration or whatever. But with regard to immigration vis-s-vis being a wedge issue, I’d say somewhere in early '90s was a tipping point.

As to “Civics, citizenship, and the Constitution…” etc., again, I was taught all this growing up in suburban Chicago while it was being run by the Daley Machine, i.e. when being a gangster was a respectable living. It came from al;l sides: parents, teachers, neighbors, clubs & organizations (e.g. BSA, Kiwanis, AMVets, etc.), TV and Media. Informal survey of my nieces/nephews indicate about 50/50 split as to how much of this was taught/available (one couldn’t give me 1st 3 words of Preamble). So grade schools seemed to started de-emphasizing civics, etc. somewhere between 1980 and today. Maybe a result of emphasis on teaching to the test? I don’t know.

This clarification on my part won’t matter if I am interpreting your posts correctly. If so (I really don’t want to put words in your mouth) you appear to think that American (or any particular group) values are determined by asking the group at the current time “what are your values?”, in other words they are fluid and time dependent. That’s not how I see it, though…values should be fundamental to an organization, something people can count on through time, and generally static, not fluid.

It’s like making a table. And then years later, a leg busts and has to be replaced, and then a few years after that another one. And then someone lights a fire on the top of it so it needs to have a new top. Is it the same table anymore? It’s still a top with 4 legs sitting in the same place as it was, but IMO it isn’t the same thing as was originally created.

In America’s case, which was a very unique thing at the time in that it was a country founded on ideals and values and principles, not preexisting borders or by tribal, ethnic or racial uniformity, and those ideals and values and principles were laid out by our founders and framers; they are what they are. And if you were willing to move here (nowadays you have to follow a process, but not back in the day, of course) and subscribe to those values and principles, that’s what made someone an American, and what made America. (cue national anthem and tear-in-eye).

3 Likes
#42

Seriously though!
There’s a whole podcast on what a mess of incoherence the 2nd amendment is if you try to actually break it down.
https://www.npr.org/podcasts/481105292/more-perfect

I’m pretty sure it’s the episode called “The Gun Show” but if you’re interested in the Supreme Court you should listen to ALL of the episodes. This podcast is by the folks who make Radiolab. They’re really good at examining as many perspectives as possible IMO.

Wikipedia points out the issues that were present from the beginning.

"There are several versions of the text of the Second Amendment, each with capitalization or punctuation differences. Differences exist between the drafted and ratified copies, the signed copies on display, and various published transcriptions. The importance (or lack thereof) of these differences has been the source of debate regarding the meaning and interpretation of the amendment, particularly regarding the importance of the prefatory clause.

One version was passed by the Congress, and a slightly different version was ratified"…

I’m almost hesitant to even mention this since it’s such a sensitive topic here. I’m hella conflicted about the subject in a lot of ways, but what I’d like to highlight is that unclear communication breeds discontent.
You can even see the macrocosm reflected in the microcosm in the recent threads here about clarification of rules and expectations. Unfortunately common sens

It may seem pedantic at times, but English is a tricky language and you have to be very careful about what you say and how you say it lest you be misunderstood, then chaos ensues. This is why punctuation is important and as much as I hate to admit it, the oxford comma.

#43

That’s because Americans (well, American corporations) actively try to export our culture through commerce, media, etc. We’re good at it, and we make tons of money doing it. We’re at the top of the cultural food chain.

1 Like
#44

Thanks to cable TV and the internet, news media is under intense, ever-increasing pressure to hold onto readers, listeners, viewers. Our notions of standards from decades past (themselves sort gentlemen’s agreements from a bygone era where the barriers to entry were exponentially higher) don’t work in the present environment where hitting print/post/broadcast deadline is pretty much the motivating factor in getting paid. As a consequence of this and the availability of near-instant metrics online, media reacts with unnerving swiftness to whatever produces results, self-tuning to what their readers/listeners/viewers want to hear. A smaller slice of the pie for each outlet means that this feedback cycle leads to carefully developing a style for whatever demographic you can attract.

The meme-ification of issues has a lot to do with this. Political affiliation is increasingly a part of self identity with shades of sectarianism, thus we seek out that which we wish to hear and now have an array of truths that please.

I’ve yet to hear the media give serious voice to the notion that Trump isn’t legitimately the president as a result of this fact. Juxtaposed with the statement everywhere I’ve seen it has always been that he carried the Electoral College.

Of course it would take a Constitutional Amendment to change this - it 's been done before with United States Senators. One suspects there’s not a lot of interest in doing this, however, since recent history has shown that the Electoral College votes disproportionately favor a specific political party relative to how Americans actually vote.

1 Like
#45

Couldn’t agree more. In fact most spoken/written languages, really. It’s all to easy to know what you mean, and think you communicated it effectively.

[quote=“tombakerftw, post:42, topic:36198”]
but if you’re interested in the Supreme Court

I am a bit of a SCOTUS fan-boy (I read SCOTUSblog for fun), so I’ll take you up on that.

#46

Boy howdy

1 Like
#47

and:

#48

I’d say that I’m fairly comfortable with the concept, but as a counterpoint to the concept of a time before these wedge issues existed: I would argue that the ISSUES always did exist, but those who were on one side of the issue generally held all the power, in whether or not to even allow for debate on the topic. The fact that we now have the capability to argue whether one or the other is wrong is indicative of the progress of society.

The reason I ask/point these things out, is that If you used your time machine to ask George Washington what he thought of the ‘Values’ of society during the mid 80s, he’d likely have a coronary. legalized abortion, women voting, people besides rich white men walking around like they owned the place. Personally when I think of the 1980s I think of Miami Vice, Madonna’s Material Girl and Gordon Gekko (which are generally all ‘later’ 80s). None of which are exactly what might be held up as ‘traditional values’.

Society, culture and values are inexorably intertwined and the drafters of the constitution (arguably the core of what we are really discussing here) left MUCH to be interpreted. As we find the power of marginalized people rising, so do the arguments that they are able to articulate. I find that these people have real and legitimate concerns that warrant debate with the result being a shift in our culture and values.

To partly move the discussion back to where I think you’re coming from. I do personally believe that when immigrating to the united states that people should be expected to merge into our culture and not the other way around. That said, culture/society/values are and always will be flexible.

I’m not sure that I follow your table analogy, but does it matter if it’s the same table? If it holds my plate and drink the same, then does it matter? What if I told you that 98% of YOU (and me too!) is new every year? Does it make a difference then?

1 Like