Comment by Eddy_Viscosity2

2 hours ago

I don't think that's true. Lots of countries out there led by thugs. It used to be that the US stood out because it took the law seriously and believed in its ideals to do the right thing (not that it always succeeded, but it did its best). Looks like that time has passed.

> It used to be that the US stood out because it took the law seriously and believed in its ideals to do the right thing

I think it looked like that, because the US always been very effective at propaganda, and until the internet and the web made it very easy for people to communicate directly with each other without the arms of media conglomerates. It's now clearer than ever that US never really believed in its own ideals or took their own laws seriously, there are too many situations pointing at the opposite being true.

  • I’m an American and I can safely vouch that myself and most of the people I know deeply believe in the American ideals that have been presented as gospel for decades—fair play, hard work, rule of law, loving our neighbors (regardless of legal status), and to a one, believe that as soon as you swear your oath at the immigration court, you’re an American, regardless of the circumstances of your birth.

    The situation we find ourselves in is that the American of today does not represent us well. I have hopes for the future, but time will tell.

    • > and I can safely vouch that myself and most of the people I know

      That's great, too bad none of those people sit in positions of power or anywhere near your government, because from the outside for the last two decades or more, those ideals are not visible to us at all, neither when we look at the foreign policy nor internal.

      I'm sure the tides will eventually turn, but we're talking decades more likely than years, since it's been turning this direction for decades already, and I don't see it tipping the balance in the other way even today or the near-future. GLHF at the very least, I do hope things get better for everyone.

    • If only the US would apply those values to their foreign policy, unfortunately the US voters don't care enough about that.

    • >rule of law, loving our neighbors (regardless of legal status)

      >The situation we find ourselves in is that the American of today does not represent us well.

      The system can't represent a contradictory set of ideals.

    • This is exactly the kind of bright eyed idealism that American propaganda produces. I say that as an American who grew up inside the system. The schools shape you into a patriotic silhouette, convinced your country is the shining exception of human history.

      Then the internet arrived and cracked the smooth surface. Suddenly the world was not filtered through textbooks and morning announcements. You could see the contradictions, the omissions, the parts of the story no one wanted to say out loud. The myth began to thin out.

      And the blindness is intense. Just look at the parent poster. He lists all the noble ideals he and “most people he knows” supposedly embody, as if declaring them makes them true in practice. It becomes a kind of self portrait disguised as a national portrait. The assumption is always that the country has drifted away from the people, never that the people have drifted away from their own claimed principles.

      He says that the America of today does not represent him, but never considers that it might represent us all far more than the flattering story we prefer to tell ourselves. The gap is not between the country and its citizens. The gap is between reality and the myths individuals cling to in order to feel morally uncomplicated.

      Because once the slogans fall away, nations are not noble and people are not consistent. We are collections of private contradictions, unfinished thoughts, and hidden struggles. We carry more inside than we ever admit.

      And in the end, a human is just that. A quiet tangle of secrets pretending the world makes perfect sense.

  • I'm skeptical things would have lasted this long if the "US never really believed in its own ideal or took their own laws seriously". I think you're letting your cynicism for this moment run away with you.

    • American involvement in the Nuremberg trials set the stage for the modern era of international law. It began with the United States, along with the allied nations, constructing a post-facto legal definition of crime against humanity that somehow included the Holocaust but excluded both the American campaign in Japan and various Russian war crimes on the Western Front. It’s not cynicism to point out the clear hypocrisy.

      1 reply →

> used to be that the US stood out because it took the law seriously

The US looked like it stood out but it has its own internal and external legal problems such as slavery, Native American repressions, the legacy of slavery, anti-Asian policies, coup-ing foreign countries, etc etc etc

  • We are a country made up of apes, just like all the others. Nothing is perfect, and us constantly fucking it up doesn't mean we didn't care about it, as a nation.

> It used to be that the US stood out because it took the law seriously

The US took everyone's gold under the bretton woods system, and then Nixon "temporarily" ended dollar gold convertibility when France asked for it's gold back.

Not sure about that. Internally, maybe it was true at some point, cannot say, but if we look at the US as an international player, when exactly was it ready to sacrifice its own interests for any kind of justice or greater good? And if you are not ready to pay the price, then all this talk of a higher moral ground is just that, an empty talk.

  • I don't disagree, but I think there was a genuine perception by many people that the US were the good guys. The change is that its not even trying to pretend to be this anymore.

The US has always been led by Thugs. If you think they ever took international or humanitarian law seriously they would not be scared to join the ICC, and you've only been paying attention to propaganda, not what the US has actually been doing since the inception of those laws.

> It used to be that the US stood out because it took the law seriously and believed in its ideals to do the right thing

The "The Hague Invasion Act", where the US authorizes itself to invade an ally (the Netherlands) to break war criminal suspects out of prison, was signed in 2002. The US has always been a "rules for thee but not for me" type of place and the digital sanction discussed here fits in a long line of behaviors by the US government. Trump has changed the scale and intensity of it all but the basic direction has always been the same.

  • Well the fact that they made a law to enable this is a sign of at least some belief in the law. These days Trump would just do the invasion regardless of what the law says, and get away with it. Case example: ordering the navy to blow up Venezuela boats.

Remember all the thuggery and whatever we are seeing now was happening back then.

What has changed is we know about it.

> It used to be that the US stood out because it took the law seriously and believed in its ideals to do the right thing

You're in a bubble.