The Collapse of America

[KrisKramer]

If America collapses, it will collapse because Americans can no longer agree that they want to be one society, together, including everyone who lives here, with a government that represents all of us. That is the danger of partisan "us versus them" polarization.

America did not collapse during the Great Depression. It did collapse during the Civil War. Adversity does not kill a country if it unites to overcome it. A house divided against itself cannot stand.

I agree to an extent. And when the government DOES NOT represent all of us, America will collapse.

I'm not sure that's true. At one point, a significant percentage of Americans were slaves, but America did not collapse because of that. For a very long time, blacks were not slaves, but they did not have very basic rights, e.g. the right to eat at restaurants, stay at hotels, vote in elections without fear, but America did not collapse because of that either.

Right now, I think we have some polarized minorities who feel like burning it all down if they don't get their way. That can't be good.

Very true.

I would add on the question....

When has America supposedly represented all of us?

If we go back history women, African Americans, Japanese Americans at one point.... all these people at times or.others have lived in the USA and not been represented by "their government ".... the idea that USA government has ever worked for everyone is a very wrong thought.

[Grace]

Normally, the wealthy do not take money from the working class and redistribute it to the poor, why would they do that? The wealthy have most of the money in nations like this. In modern America, the top 10% of Americans own 77% of the wealth. If the top 10% of Americans want to redistribute wealth to those less fortunate, it's going to be their wealth, not the wealth of "working society". Or it will just be printing money so our grandchildren can inherit our debt while the rich continue to own more and more of American wealth.

Perhaps I wasn’t clear in my prior post, but when referring to the powerful elitist, I was referring to government elitists, who impose laws upon the people by taxing them. The wealthy can afford the taxes; the poor have access to many government programs. However it is the middle class that suffers the most from elitist imposed governmental tax policies.

I don't think right-wing media should be considered "the main media sources". But I agree that they are doing a lot to undermine the legitimacy of American government in the eyes of a lot of people.

I wasn’t talking about right wing media, but was talking about mainstream media, such as CNN, MSNBC, NY Times, etc. These outlets are no more than propaganda arms of the Democrat party. I could give many examples of their lies purported in the last four years, lies that undermines everything our nation is about.

[Bootstrap]

Saw this somewhere.

First we overlook evil
Then we permit evil
Then we legalize evil
Next we celebrate evil
Last we persecute those who still call it evil.

And yet, people who identify with both "sides" have a really hard time calling out evil on "the other side", and often come to see morality largely in terms of "my side is good", "your side is bad". There's plenty of evil to go around, it seems to be bipartisan.

And hatred is one of the scariest forms of evil. Not just hot hatred, but also the icy, freeze-them-out hatred. When political differences keep people from wanting to visit relatives or be in the same church, you know we have a problem.

Fire and Ice
BY ROBERT FROST

Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I’ve tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.

[Bootstrap]

I don't think right-wing media should be considered "the main media sources". But I agree that they are doing a lot to undermine the legitimacy of American government in the eyes of a lot of people.

I wasn’t talking about right wing media, but was talking about mainstream media, such as CNN, MSNBC, NY Times, etc. These outlets are no more than propaganda arms of the Democrat party. I could give many examples of their lies purported in the last four years, lies that undermines everything our nation is about.

I get much of my news from the New York Times. If you spent a week getting all of your news from the New York Times, I think you would be struck by how little anger and outrage there is, how much information, how even-handed they are in their reporting compared to Fox. Yes, their reporters tend to be liberal, but they are also professional reporters trying to do their job. You will find plenty of criticism of Biden and the border situation in the New York Times.

With Fox, you always know exactly how you are supposed to feel about any given political figure. The emotion is right on the surface, the language of propaganda is all over it. Roger Ailes, DIck Cheney, and Rupert Murdoch created Fox specifically to represent the views of a political faction. On Fox, you are taking sides, the "other side" is not just wrong, but worthy of contempt.

I think Rachel Maddow is a lot like that on the left. I don't think the New York Times is. Mutual contempt can kill a marriage, it can also kill a nation. I think we should actively shun any news source that wallows in contempt. No matter which side. And we should be careful not to minister political contempt to the people around us.

That doesn't mean we should be soft on facts or policy. We should diligently seek truth. But truth is not rooted in contempt.

[Ken]

I don't think right-wing media should be considered "the main media sources". But I agree that they are doing a lot to undermine the legitimacy of American government in the eyes of a lot of people.

I wasn’t talking about right wing media, but was talking about mainstream media, such as CNN, MSNBC, NY Times, etc. These outlets are no more than propaganda arms of the Democrat party. I could give many examples of their lies purported in the last four years, lies that undermines everything our nation is about.

I get much of my news from the New York Times. If you spent a week getting all of your news from the New York Times, I think you would be struck by how little anger and outrage there is, how much information, how even-handed they are in their reporting compared to Fox. Yes, their reporters tend to be liberal, but they are also professional reporters trying to do their job. You will find plenty of criticism of Biden and the border situation in the New York Times.

With Fox, you always know exactly how you are supposed to feel about any given political figure. The emotion is right on the surface, the language of propaganda is all over it. Roger Ailes, DIck Cheney, and Rupert Murdoch created Fox specifically to represent the views of a political faction. On Fox, you are taking sides, the "other side" is not just wrong, but worthy of contempt.

I think Rachel Maddow is a lot like that on the left. I don't think the New York Times is. Mutual contempt can kill a marriage, it can also kill a nation. I think we should actively shun any news source that wallows in contempt. No matter which side. And we should be careful not to minister political contempt to the people around us.

That doesn't mean we should be soft on facts or policy. We should diligently seek truth. But truth is not rooted in contempt.

The NYT has been taking the lead on putting Democratic Governor Cuomo under the microscope and has uncovered most of the new scandals about sexual harassment and his deceptions and lies related to Covid data in nursing homes. They have several reporters working full time on the "Cuomo Beat" looking for more. Pretty much all the recent scandal reporting on Cuomo originated in the NYT and is just getting repeated elsewhere. Not something you would expect to happen if they were simply a Democratic mouthpiece. Democratic politicians tend to get just as frustrated with their coverage as Republicans.

If they have a bias I would say it is not so much a leftist bias as an urban and wealthy one. Their readership is primarily wealthy and urban and they tend to do stupid articles where they take "safaris" to the hinterlands to interview voters in places like Iowa to find out what rural folks think. They usually just go to places like rural Iowa or Wisconsin diners and interview old white conservative folks which gets boring and predictable. It would be much more interesting if they did things like say...go interview the Hispanic abuelas in the comedors in south Albuquerque about what they thought. Or Black farmers in Mississippi. But they never do that sort of thing.

[Sudsy]

Hey, getting into politics again. Wrong forum !

Basically why should this concern believers who are ambassadors of another country ? Be anxious over nothing. God is still in control overall and we can be at peace knowing He is. What becomes of America will be whatever God allows to occur in His overall plans.

[RZehr]

Sigh. I see a bunch on irrelevant data. And an offer to bunny trail.

You claimed America is in decline and collapsing. I provided data showing that health, education, poverty, democracy, and peace have all improved dramatically over the past century.

But fine, forget the data. Can you answer the question and tell us when you think America was at its peak? What year or decade? Who was it better for? And by what metric are you making that judgement?

That should be easy enough to do. If we are currently in collapse. Then surely you can point to the time in our past when we were at our peak?

I'm not actually married to the idea of a "collapse" per say. Although I do lean toward that belief as an eventuality. But what that collapse looks like, well, what exactly constitutes a "collapse" vs. "decline" vs. some other word? What is the exact metric that defines "collapse"? I have no idea.
I actually didn't know what exactly to put in the thread subject line. I admit I went with "collapse" partially because of the provocativeness of the word (at minimum I was aware it would be a sort of lightning rod) and partly because I just didn't know what else to put there.

If America is not currently in a decline, then I think the things I mentioned in the OP are will be major reasons that will bring about the decline. About the idea that a time in the past must be better than now being necessary? If America is doing a "dead cat bounce", then we still have some upward momentum to go. But that doesn't change the long term prognoses. And yes, I know that we don't know for certain what will or will not happen in the next 50 years.

You seem to be fighting a nonexistent shadow of MAGA theory in my OP, wanting to engage in some politically liberal/conservative, past vs. present juxtaposition. That isn't what I'm saying. I'm not saying that people today have it worse than years past. I am thankful for the data such as you shared, that highlight the good things that are going on.
I am saying the country is hewing toward values that will not bear good fruit, at best. At worse an eventual collapse. Do you think a society that loses its work ethic, its family units, its religion, its national unity is going to become a stronger, healthier, more prosperous nation because of these loses? All things else being equal?

In a nutshell, the reason for this thread was to spell out or tie together some of the long term societal problems that this country will have to deal with. And less so about the collapse of America as a nation and less so about past comparisons, and less so about the good that is going on in comparison to the past.
I didn't really know what to expect as far as where this conversation would go, although to be honest, I did expect someone to bring up the good things. That is where I normally focus, but these changes in are not good. To be industrious, to have family, to by loyal and self sacrificing are traits that transcend America. They are values that are from God for our own good. And any country that rejects these things, do so at their own hurt.

In short, I am not trying to make America great again. I am trying to seek the prosperity of the city (Jeremiah 29:7). Even though prosperity of the city isn't my primary mission in life, these topics do dovetail with Gods will for mankind. Industry. Family. Religion.

[Ken]

Sigh. I see a bunch on irrelevant data. And an offer to bunny trail.

You claimed America is in decline and collapsing. I provided data showing that health, education, poverty, democracy, and peace have all improved dramatically over the past century.

But fine, forget the data. Can you answer the question and tell us when you think America was at its peak? What year or decade? Who was it better for? And by what metric are you making that judgement?

That should be easy enough to do. If we are currently in collapse. Then surely you can point to the time in our past when we were at our peak?

I'm not actually married to the idea of a "collapse" per say. Although I do lean toward that belief as an eventuality. But what that collapse looks like, well, what exactly constitutes a "collapse" vs. "decline" vs. some other word? What is the exact metric that defines "collapse"? I have no idea.
I actually didn't know what exactly to put in the thread subject line. I admit I went with "collapse" partially because of the provocativeness of the word (at minimum I was aware it would be a sort of lightning rod) and partly because I just didn't know what else to put there.

If America is not currently in a decline, then I think the things I mentioned in the OP are will be major reasons that will bring about the decline. About the idea that a time in the past must be better than now being necessary? If America is doing a "dead cat bounce", then we still have some upward momentum to go. But that doesn't change the long term prognoses. And yes, I know that we don't know for certain what will or will not happen in the next 50 years.

You seem to be fighting a nonexistent shadow of MAGA theory in my OP, wanting to engage in some politically liberal/conservative, past vs. present juxtaposition. That isn't what I'm saying. I'm not saying that people today have it worse than years past. I am thankful for the data such as you shared, that highlight the good things that are going on.
I am saying the country is hewing toward values that will not bear good fruit, at best. At worse an eventual collapse. Do you think a society that loses its work ethic, its family units, its religion, its national unity is going to become a stronger, healthier, more prosperous nation because of these loses? All things else being equal?

In a nutshell, the reason for this thread was to spell out or tie together some of the long term societal problems that this country will have to deal with. And less so about the collapse of America as a nation and less so about past comparisons, and less so about the good that is going on in comparison to the past.
I didn't really know what to expect as far as where this conversation would go, although to be honest, I did expect someone to bring up the good things. That is where I normally focus, but these changes in are not good. To be industrious, to have family, to by loyal and self sacrificing are traits that transcend America. They are values that are from God for our own good. And any country that rejects these things, do so at their own hurt.

It is more a general notion of optimism vs pessimism.

I teach HS students and constantly encounter a lot of highly motivated and amazing kids doing far more than I ever recall kids doing decades ago when I was that age.

By all indications, organized religion is indeed declining in this country. But I'm not sure that is a bad thing because so many of the big denominations were so ossified and hidebound and more interested in perpetuating their own institutions and fiefdoms than serving God. 13 years living in the Southern Baptist epicenter of Waco TX taught me that. I truly think there is a cleansing needed. Maybe this past election will lead some churches to revisit the extent to which they have tied their fates to politics and get back to serving God not seeking political power. There are millions of Americans who basically sleepwalk through church more out of habit than anything else. Numbers aren't everything. Are we talking about a crisis in the country writ-large? Or a crisis in organized institutional Christianity? Because they aren't the same thing.

As for the rest? I'm just not convinced that society is collapsing. Not morally or ethically, not economically, and not socially. Changing yes, at phenomenal speed. But I expect a big rebound as we emerge from this pandemic probably starting this summer. As a parent I have to be somewhat optimistic about the future and I think all my kids have the potential for bright futures that will probably look a lot different from mine or my parent's generations. That is the way that things have always been.

[Bootstrap]

Hey, getting into politics again. Wrong forum !

Basically why should this concern believers who are ambassadors of another country ? Be anxious over nothing. God is still in control overall and we can be at peace knowing He is. What becomes of America will be whatever God allows to occur in His overall plans.

To me, one of the main reasons this should concern believers who are ambassadors of another country is this: we are being told that Christians need to sign up for one of the partisan sides, that one of these partisan sides is needed to save America, that it is good and proper to have contempt for people who are not on that side, that the success of a particular political faction is crucial for Christians.

No. None of this is true. That's not the Gospel. Christians do not live in contempt. In the Kingdom of God, our real concern is how best to be salt and light to the world around us. That requires rejecting the political narratives that people are using to try to redefine what Christianity is and what Christians are about in this world.

[Sudsy]

Hey, getting into politics again. Wrong forum !

Basically why should this concern believers who are ambassadors of another country ? Be anxious over nothing. God is still in control overall and we can be at peace knowing He is. What becomes of America will be whatever God allows to occur in His overall plans.

To me, one of the main reasons this should concern believers who are ambassadors of another country is this: we are being told that Christians need to sign up for one of the partisan sides, that one of these partisan sides is needed to save America, that it is good and proper to have contempt for people who are not on that side, that the success of a particular political faction is crucial for Christians.

No. None of this is true. That's not the Gospel. Christians do not live in contempt. In the Kingdom of God, our real concern is how best to be salt and light to the world around us. That requires rejecting the political narratives that people are using to try to redefine what Christianity is and what Christians are about in this world.

Well put and I agree however it seems to me it goes beyond concern and often gets into being anxious that this is happening. So, is there a better way to address this without being drawn into these arguments that answers are found in government and not in Jesus ? Would striving to keep the focus on Kingdom Life and how it can be experienced now and in eternity, regardless of what is going on in world we live in, be a better way of exposing this darkness ?

I realize not everyone here is from an Anabaptist belief and the primary focus on God’s redeeming work in the world is the lived out example of the Christian community as an alternative sociopolitical reality and the state has no divine status and is not worthy of allegiance and attention. To me, a starting point would be to pray for God to work in the State to allow us peaceful lives (as scripture tells us to) but beyond that and regardless of what happens, we don't participate or even follow what the State is doing.

I can share the Gospel without any knowledge of what the State is up to. I believe this State awareness is a trick of the devil that gets us off mission. Souls are dying without Christ while professing Christians argue politics and other earthly, temporal events.

Again, I like the way you stated the kind of concern we should have. I'm just thinking there must be a better way to address it.