We were vexed to nightmare by a total slob, his hour come at last, who slouched into Washington with the Great Whore of Babylon.

So why was he let in?

He was let in because the body politic has been degraded to the point where large numbers of people can no longer tell shit from shoe polish.

This didn't just happen last year -- it's been a gradual process of degradation of public affairs, public discussion, national narratives, factual knowledge about the country, about the world. Many have fallen prey to the dislocations of globalization, and have been left without any way of understanding the world rationally. We are sitting ducks for all sorts of rubbish.

Had Hillary Clinton won, what I just said would still be true: Clinton would have made a better president than Donald Trump, but her win would not have disproved that the quality of public discourse was degraded. We would just have been lucky.

And Trump isn't the first. We need not go back to Warren G. Harding (1920) for examples of bad presidents. We have Richard Nixon (1968), Ronald Reagan (1980). and George Bush (2000). Trump may top them all, but he is not a first.

What went wrong? — Banno

Not to distract from your question, but why do you care? Americans have no idea who governs other countries and how they govern. I know that the US is the king-sized world-wide turd in the swimming pool, but if my worrying about it won't change things, why would all the rest of you worrying about it.

For what it's worth, I like my country and feel responsible for what it does. I know from our own national discussions that saying "Trump, what a boob," won't solve the problem. Bitter Crank is right, this has been coming for a long time. At least since Richard Nixon and his buddies formulated the southern strategy to appeal to racial animosities in southern states to break the south away from the Democratic Party.

What went wrong? — Banno

Read Why America Failed: The Roots of Imperial Decline, by Morris Berman.

If you do not feel like doing that, read Berman's blog, DARK AGES AMERICA.

Boomer here. Of the generation getting blamed for it. I can tell you exactly when I saw it go wrong. The Vietnam war. I was a college student. College students got a deferment from the draft. The kids of the working class, the "deplorables" of the day, went to die in the jungle. That was was no joke. Several hundred men -- and it was almost all men -- died every week.

Dropping or flunking out of college was a ticket to the jungle. Professors then as now were liberals. That's when grade inflation started. If you give a kid a C you may be condemning him to a horrible death in a steaming jungle on the other side of the world, in a war that the country was starting to hate.

So they gave out A's. And that was the real start of the split. College-type kids are the elite, non-college kids are fed into the meatgrinder.

All of our politics comes from that. That's when the split between the elite and the deplorables really got bad. In WWII everyone served and everyone sacrificed. After Vietnam only the high school grads served. The college kids were too good for that. That's your elitism and your moral degeneration of the country.

Dropping or flunking out of college was a ticket to the jungle. Professors then as now were liberals. That's when grade inflation started. If you give a kid a C you may be condemning him to a horrible death in a steaming jungle on the other side of the world, in a war that the country was starting to hate.

So they gave out A's. And that was the real start of the split. College-type kids are the elite, non-college kids are fed into the meatgrinder.

All of our politics comes from that. That's when the split between the elite and the deplorables split this country apart. The liberal college kids took over the culture and hate the rednecks. — fishfry

This is the first time I have heard that. But it is an interesting theory, and it makes sense.

What went wrong? — Banno

What makes you think that anything "went wrong"?
We are a nation of ideas Banno and best I know, there is no manual nor map for this road less taken, that we as a collective union have chosen to walk down together. I am interested in what you can see from Australia that appears to have "gone wrong" in the USA that I am not able to see from within her borders.

I am interested in what you can see from Australia that appears to have "gone wrong" in the USA that I am not able to see from within her borders — ArguingWAristotleTiff

We became a torture regime. We've been at war in half a dozen MIddle East and North Africa countries since 2001. We spy on all our citizens. I hope this isn't new information for anyone.

I agree that it has taken years; the Marshall Plan strikes me as a highpoint positive contribution, a plan that made both economic and moral sense.

Perhaps Trump's election will shock folk back into reality, in a way that would have been delayed had Clinton won.

We became a torture regime. We've been at war in half a dozen MIddle East and North Africa countries since 2001. We spy on all our citizens. I hope this isn't new information for anyone. — fishfry

How about we judge the nation based on a totality of her citizens actions rather than based on one aspect alone.

I don't care that much. Where's the Reader's Digest version?

So is identity politics a symptom or a cause?

Any sources for this? Also my first time ever hearing anything like this and am very curious to see it backed up.

How about we judge the nation based on a totality of her citizens actions rather than based on one aspect alone. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Never mind that torture thing! We're really good people!

And those wars? Nothing to do with us. That's the volunteer army. We barely even heard of them. Illegally invaded half a dozen countries since 9/11? Hey we're Americans, we're the world's policeman.

My God man. What are you saying? Do you know any history? We killed a million people in Iraq. Our invasion of that country is an international war crime by the standards of the Nuremberg trials. You are unaware of this or think that our being Americans makes it ok?

From what I can piece together, the main issue was that the societal bottom was essentially kicked away after the economic miracle of the post-war boom, entrenching inequalities, stalling social mobility, and upwardly distributing the means of capital accumulation. The effects of these dynamics were themselves 'covered over' by the expansion of credit and a relatively well-functioning economy, but which nonetheless fueled rising household debt that was not, importantly, coupled with a rise in real average income, leaving households ever more vulnerable to contingent life shocks, and ever more incapable of doing anything about such shocks. Any wonder why the electorate is so 'angry?'.

And then of course, there's the racial component of America's fucked up social dynamics, with the above economic considerations differentially and disproportionally affecting black Americans, who, starting at the bottom of the social ladder after and because of slavery, have largely been forced to stay there as a result of that kicking-away of the bottom. Even the expansion of the credit market mentioned above was largely for the benefit of whites, who, because of their better economic position, were extended loans denied to blacks, which afforded them the ability to buy suburban houses while blacks languished in cities which have been chronically under-maintained and over-subject to policing - this 'white flight' feeding back into, and amplifying the very differential economic dynamics that led to it in the first place.

And from here, feedback loops have continued to amplify: differential geographic distributions have in turn allowed politics to peddle itself to like-minded and closed communities polarizing the political landscape and destroying the basis of democracy, leading in turn to identity politics which, far from being a cause, is a symptom of the political-historical dynamics of the US. And of course the fact that the US is ever more transforming into a plutocracy - with corporations now granted the standing of 'people', coupled with the systematic undermining of labor law and class action claims, and corporate donations essentially now being legal bribes - has more or less dismantled the public-oriented focus of governance in the US for the sake of private interests. And this being only the most rudimentary of sketches of American decline.

Trump is simply the logical outcome of years of the festering wound that has been American social and political dynamics, and I agree that Hilary's election would have simply prolonged the mis/non-recognition of these issues.

I believe that Christopher Lasch diagnosed all of it in The Revolt of the Elites and the Betrayal of Democracy--published in 1996.

Everybody else--including the "experts"--is still scrambling to figure out what has happened.

One factor that hasn't been mentioned, but which is probably impossible to quantify, is the nefarious influence of various interest groups and 'think tanks' and PACs which are pulling the strings behind the scenes. I'm not into conspiracy theories but I think interests like the Koch Bros and also, probably, a lot of others who none of us will ever know the names of, are gaming the system for their own advantage. One of the cardinal facts is that the disparity between the very rich and everyone else, is wider than at any time except for right before the Depression. So these interest groups plant fake news - there really is a lot of fake news, but it's not coming from the media that Trump is always complaining about. It's the stuff that filters out through late night TV, social media, and 'think tank' publications. Part of that is the 'war on truth' - the obvious war on the truth of climate change being an egregious example. But there are many others, mainly aimed at loosening regulations, cutting taxes, and eliminating anything which stands in the way of the pursuit of the Holy Dollar (which is exactly what the incumbent is doing.)

The SMH has a good column by Peter Hartcher today on the idea that the USA has gone completely post rational. You have people lining up to take down the Affordable Care Act, even though they or their immediate loved ones might owe their lives to it.

Another egregious example is the mass murder epidemic, and the inevitable response that 'nothing can be done about it', in the one country where it continues to happen.

Examples are many. Confusion, misinformation, spin, lies, half-truths and untruths piled deep like snowdrifts in a Northern winter. And plenty of people not sufficiently educated to tell truth from lies.

America is great and has greater days ahead. Counting it out doesn't change things.

What went wrong? — Banno

The Marshall Plan spent $132 billion 2017 dollars between 1948 and 1952 to rebuild European economies after WWII. The United Kingdom received about 26% of the total, followed by France (18%) and West Germany (11%). The plan was both humanitarian and strategic.

Prior to WWII, France and the United Kingdom were the two leading colonial powers. The US was not an "also ran" prior to WWII, but the French and British umpires were still intact and functioning. After WWII, the France and the UK were no longer in a position to maintain hegemony over large parts of the world, especially the Middle East. US policy was clear after WWII: Control over Middle Eastern oil was a non-negotiable priority. It isn't that the US didn't have any oil -- we had a lot of it -- but we wanted to make sure that we had control over their customer base.

Oil and communism steered US policy for decades. I hasten to add that our competition and conflict with the Soviet Union was substantive, not merely symbolic or cultural--not that anti-communist policy was always well founded. The domino theory in Vietnam didn't hold water, but East/West competition and conflict was still quite real.

Euro-Japan-American capitalism required a clear defense around the world. We were in a position to provide it, and we did. The demise of the Soviet Union didn't solve all our problems. World-wide Capitalism still needed its champion and defender. Thus it was that we were targeted by conservative Arab/Islamist agents on 9/11. It might have made more sense for the US to attack and conquer Saudi Arabia than Iraq, but for various reasons that didn't seem like a good idea (apparently -- I wasn't included in the White House planning.)

Middle East management has become a debacle, but not because we were cruel and weak. Bad strategy was pursued, unworkable goals were embraced. It was a mess waiting to happen, and it happened very expensively.

Our conflict in the Middle East was not a culture war. It was in the defense of the world-capitalist-operation that we were there, to make sure vital energy supplies were not disrupted.

So, Australians may feel that with Donald Trump we have gone to hell in a hand basket. Don't be too critical, though. As far as I know, you all are part of the same Euro-Sino-Japan-American economic structure that the rest of us are part of, and there are no guarantees of anyone's continued prosperity. If the Economy of China contracts severely, we will all be up to our eye-balls in fresh worries.

(There is a lot of epiphenomenal cultural crap going around, and Australia is privileged to be as much a part of the crap circuit as we are.

The SMH has a good column by Peter Hartcher today on the idea that the USA has gone completely post rational. You have people lining up to take down the Affordable Care Act, even though they or their immediate loved ones might owe their lives to it... — Wayfarer

I don't see anything in the column that suggests that there has been some rupture from rationality and leap to "completely post rational".

I see the column saying that Americans are now divided completely along party affiliation lines. Education, age, race, sex/gender, religion, etc. no longer predict voter behavior. Identity as Democrat or Republican now completely predict voter behavior.

But polling is not an exact science, and there are always exceptions, right? The good news is that I have a convenient exception to use as an illustration: me. I identify as Democrat, but I do not blame everything on Republicans, oppose anything Republicans support, seek to undo anything that Republicans do, etc. Contrast that with the voters used as examples in the column: they oppose the other party in any way and support their own party in any way, even if it means they lose their health insurance.

The column arrives at this conclusion:

"We are now really right on the cusp of a real fracturing of the political system and a reorganisation of the parties," says Hetherington.

When irrationality and dysfunction prevail and good government is impossible, perhaps it's time."

What that conclusion leaves out is the possibility and threat of secession. Rather than the party system getting a shake-up, the United States of America might break up.

For anybody who does not know what I mean about secession, here's an article from only 2 months ago that is evidence of the possibility and threat of secession: Group files another 'Calexit' initiative in push for California's independence .

Speaking of Morris Berman, I believe that I have read that he says secession might be a good thing, the only solution, or something like that. I am not necessarily saying that I agree. But it further illustrates how the most keen observers see the U.S. as extremely divided politically.

That's your elitism and your moral degeneration of the country. — fishfry

And when the British empire dominated, it owed it's success to egalitarianism and a disdain of elitism? Which monarch do you think was the most common?

At least since Richard Nixon and his buddies formulated the southern strategy to appeal to racial animosities in southern states to break the south away from the Democratic Party. — T Clark

Bingo.

REDMAP gets an honorable mention. I believe we are the only democracy on Earth that allows elected officials to draw electoral maps.

I don't see anything in the column that suggests that there has been some rupture from rationality and leap to "completely post rational". — WISDOMfromPO-MO

The title of the article on the SMH Homepage is different to the one on the article page - it's 'The moment US politics moved beyond reason' - that is what I paraphrased as 'completely post rational' to highlight that it's even more egregious than plain old 'post truth'.

I was just watching a pressroom exchange between Sarah Huckabee Sanders, where a reported asked 'why does the President keep saying that the US is "the highest taxed nation in the world?" when we're not?' And she answers, straight-faced, 'what he means is we have the highest corporate tax rate.' The reporter says, 'that's not what he said, though' - to which she responds, 'but that's what he meant.' Then cuts him off.

So the press secretary of the President can now adjust Trumps' untruths on the fly, off the cuff, and we're supposed to accept that this is OK. Total disregard for facts is 'post -rational'. No question.

The title of the article on the SMH Homepage is different to the one on the article page - it's 'The moment US politics moved beyond reason' - that is what I paraphrased as 'completely post rational' to highlight that it's even more egregious than plain old 'post truth'. — Wayfarer

I think that that is misleading. I would say "moved completely beyond reason".

Or was voting for the same party every election based on your sex/gender, race, etc. within reason?

Reason, it seems to me, would mean weighing every option and acting according to the one that you rationally conclude is in your best interest. I do not think that voting for Democrats because you are a woman, Republicans because you are Southern Baptist, etc. ever fell within reason.

Then again, I do not have a PhD in history, but I doubt that a period characterized by what is being called reason can be found anywhere in the past in the U.S.--or anywhere else.

REDMAP gets an honorable mention. I believe we are the only democracy on Earth that allows elected officials to draw electoral maps. — Srap Tasmaner

Coincidentally, I was discussing that a few hours ago with somebody.

I said that liberals/progressives/Democrats are spending their energy and other resources on the wrong thing if they want to abolish the Electoral College. Gerrymandering, not the Electoral College, is the problem, I said.

A solution that I thought of many years ago goes like this: amend the U.S. Constitution to say that every congressional district must be drawn with at least one right angle.

I do not know if one right angle in every congressional district on the map would work, but something needs to be done about the gerrymandering. I believe that more than anything else it is why the U.S. is so divided politically and government is so gridlocked at the state and federal (and probably local) levels.

Euro-Japan-American capitalism required a clear defense around the world. We were in a position to provide it, and we did... — Bitter Crank

As far as I know, every scholar interested in the topic traces "development"--you know, Third World development; the policies, programs, interventions, etc. that have comprised the West's attempts to "develop" the economies of the "Third World"--back to Harry Truman's inaugural address in January, 1949.

Do you think that development, including the U.S. Peace Corps, has, by design, been part of that defense of Euro-Japan-American capitalism around the world?

Do you think, as many scholars do, that "development" has been a disaster? A disaster worth mentioning alongside things like the invasion of Iraq?

It's interesting that the rebuilt Europe went with social justice policies that where never taken on by the USA - universal health care being the most obvious and costly example.

The myth of the self-suporting individual strikes me as a potent source for this; in a world were each man (!) looks out only for himself, any common, shared wealth is abhorrent. Support structures that allow folk to get back on their feet after adversity never developed in the US, leading to what you describe as the "societal bottom (being) essentially kicked away".

Do you think, as many scholars do, that "development" has been a disaster? A disaster worth mentioning alongside things like the invasion of Iraq? — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Of course it would depend on what we mean by "development". Here's two examples: Land-O-Lakes, headquartered in Minnesota, has a dairy promotion project in rural Uganda. They are encouraging milk production for export to places like Saudi Arabia. (It would be products like yogurt or cheese, not raw milk). Good? Bad?

I'm not sure that export dairy is what Ugandans need. I like the idea of very small dairy or meat operations (1 or 2 cows) where a family can raise it without too much difficulty. But a dairy herd is quite demanding, given the climate and so on.

I read an article about a disastrous development project by a large Swedish charity on Lake Turkana in Kenya to promote fishing. It was a total failure because the Swedes had evidently overlooked the fact that the people they were working with were cow herders and loathed fisherman. Nobody died, but it was a total waste of money and effort.

Another project in Uganda is promoting the growing of passion fruit as a local crop because it is high in vit. A and C, neither overly plentiful in the rural Ugandan diet. Another development project is training rural women to be health promotion workers--information providers, basically. These are sustainable and fit the local culture.

Development can end up being destructive and counterproductive. It depends on a lot of different things.

Wayfarer It's interesting that the rebuilt Europe went with social justice policies that where never taken on by the USA - universal health care being the most obvious and costly example.

The myth of the self-suporting individual strikes me as a potent source for this; in a world were each man (!) looks out only for himself, any common, shared wealth is abhorrent. Support structures that allow folk to get back on their feet after adversity never developed in the US, leading to what you describe as the "societal bottom (being) essentially kicked away". — Banno

Oversimplification.

If you want a brief source that tells you a lot of the story, take a few minutes to read A history of why the US is the only rich country without universal health care.