Thanks for this Patrick. I agree wholeheartedly with the need for humility, compromise, respect and good faith attempts to understand other people's positions. I don't want to live through a violent separation, not do I want my offspring to, and I'm intrigued by the concept of letting states have greater autonomy, but not sure how much that would really prevent us from becoming farther and farther apart culturally. In any case, great food for thought and I'll give you an amen!
America never did have any unifying common ground other than diversity, statue of liberty don't tread on me exiles, wild frontier entrepreneurism, covered wagon manifest destiny - freedom and democracy.
The US is held together by congress, and congress is held together by lobbyists. The US is virtually over already as it once had been, and remains together now because it serves international commerce, just as the USSR has ideologically been over for some time and is held together by an industrial mafia. It's just not as blatant in our case because the congealing ideology was more nebulous.
I somewhat shudder to imagine any whole-hearted efforts to restore it at this point, given the current context of extremely disparate values by which one might attempt to declare common ground, or even embracing the truth, that we are essentially nothing more than a global corporate conglomerate at this point, as if that were something worth preserving.
My beef with this piece, and many others like it, is the claim that "both sides keep getting more extreme." This is just not true. If you look at the stance of the Republican Party, Christian conservatives, the Tea Party etc, yes it's true in their case. But has the Democratic Party/liberals/the left gotten more extreme? No, they have moved steadily rightward. Well, not the LEFT, which scarcely exists, but the Dems and liberals. Yes, there are two sides to the culture war and both sides are being stoked by extremists and by those looking for ratings, likes and clicks--and I suspect, by the real enemy of the 99% of both Red and Blue, the 1% who run everything for the singular goal of getting ever richer. They need us divided, and they're succeeding handily in keeping us divided. On the liberal side, it's not by pushing us to some kind of Marxist extreme--it's by carrying on endlessly about Trump and his latest tweet, or DeSantis, keeping us stoked by emotionally arousing but insignificant developments.
I'm internally conflicted around the use of A.I. chatbots. I see them as often making severe errors, and also as dangerous in other ways. Nevertheless, they sometimes help me get a sense of certain topics without spending a great deal of time doing research.
This article got me to thinking about the distinction between a nation and a state.
So I asked ChatGPT for help.
Me:
"Some people believe that there is an important distinction between the words "nation" and "state" Yet nation states are somehow both. I'm a bit confused on this. What's going on with this distinction?
The terms "nation" and "state" are often used interchangeably, but they have different meanings and implications."
ChatBot:
"A nation refers to a group of people who share a common language, culture, history, and/or ethnicity. A nation can exist without a state, as is the case with the Kurdish people, who have their own distinct language and culture but do not have their own independent state.
A state, on the other hand, refers to a political entity with a defined territory, government, and population. A state may or may not have a shared national identity among its citizens. For example, the United States is a state with citizens who come from a variety of different nations.
A nation-state is a political entity that is made up of a single nation that shares a common language, culture, history, and ethnicity, and is governed by a single government. Examples of nation-states include Japan and Iceland.
However, not all states are nation-states, and not all nations have their own independent state. For example, Canada is a state made up of two distinct nations, English and French, while the Kurds are a nation without their own independent state.
In conclusion, while the terms "nation" and "state" are often used interchangeably, they have distinct meanings and implications. A nation can exist without a state, and a state may or may not have a shared national identity among its citizens. A nation-state is a political entity that is made up of a single nation and is governed by a single government."
>>>
By this definition from ChatGPT, the USA is a state ... but not also a nation state.
As a state, the USA was established as a secular state -- by which I mean it has no state religion. There is a very basic division between the "nations" of those who would prefer a religious state to a secular state -- and in this way I believe we have more than one nation in the USA. We're not all committed to religious pluralism. Not by a long shot. And many of the features of the "culture war" seem to me to be these two tectonic plates (cultural metaphor) moving in opposing directions, resulting in frequent cultural earthquakes.
Many deeply religious people are contemptuous of religious pluralism generally, and are especially contemptuous of the notion that it is valid to eschew all religion. Their political views are their religious views -- on abortion, LGBTQ matters, etc., etc.
I believe that if America (USA) splits up it will be on this fault line, most basically -- though it may be said to be about "reproductive rights" or matters of sex and gender.... The great divide in America is between those who regard secularism--which is necessary to religious freedom--as a fundamental right and those who find secularism unacceptably repugnant.
Religious freedom requires the right not to follow any religion. It includes both freedom of religion and freedom from religion.
I'm still reading, but pausing for a moment to comment on one passage.
"He notes that the left sees similar threats in legal attacks by the Trump Administration on California sanctuary cities protecting immigrants, and understands there are sharply different views on gun rights and sexual preference."
It's not a huge big deal, but the phrase "sexual preference" has been replaced by "sexual orientation" in recent decades, at least by those who support lesbians, gays and bisexuals in being true to their own nature. The word "preference" suggests one chooses one's orientation as a matter of "taste". The word "orientation" does not suggest this. Many gay, bi and lesbian people experience the phrase "sexual preference" as a signal the writer or speaker is heterosexist and/or homophobic.
Thanks for this Patrick. I agree wholeheartedly with the need for humility, compromise, respect and good faith attempts to understand other people's positions. I don't want to live through a violent separation, not do I want my offspring to, and I'm intrigued by the concept of letting states have greater autonomy, but not sure how much that would really prevent us from becoming farther and farther apart culturally. In any case, great food for thought and I'll give you an amen!
America never did have any unifying common ground other than diversity, statue of liberty don't tread on me exiles, wild frontier entrepreneurism, covered wagon manifest destiny - freedom and democracy.
The US is held together by congress, and congress is held together by lobbyists. The US is virtually over already as it once had been, and remains together now because it serves international commerce, just as the USSR has ideologically been over for some time and is held together by an industrial mafia. It's just not as blatant in our case because the congealing ideology was more nebulous.
I somewhat shudder to imagine any whole-hearted efforts to restore it at this point, given the current context of extremely disparate values by which one might attempt to declare common ground, or even embracing the truth, that we are essentially nothing more than a global corporate conglomerate at this point, as if that were something worth preserving.
My beef with this piece, and many others like it, is the claim that "both sides keep getting more extreme." This is just not true. If you look at the stance of the Republican Party, Christian conservatives, the Tea Party etc, yes it's true in their case. But has the Democratic Party/liberals/the left gotten more extreme? No, they have moved steadily rightward. Well, not the LEFT, which scarcely exists, but the Dems and liberals. Yes, there are two sides to the culture war and both sides are being stoked by extremists and by those looking for ratings, likes and clicks--and I suspect, by the real enemy of the 99% of both Red and Blue, the 1% who run everything for the singular goal of getting ever richer. They need us divided, and they're succeeding handily in keeping us divided. On the liberal side, it's not by pushing us to some kind of Marxist extreme--it's by carrying on endlessly about Trump and his latest tweet, or DeSantis, keeping us stoked by emotionally arousing but insignificant developments.
After reading this article from Charles Eisenstein I had the insight that readers of this article might find this of interest.
https://charleseisenstein.substack.com/p/a-major-life-change
I'm internally conflicted around the use of A.I. chatbots. I see them as often making severe errors, and also as dangerous in other ways. Nevertheless, they sometimes help me get a sense of certain topics without spending a great deal of time doing research.
This article got me to thinking about the distinction between a nation and a state.
So I asked ChatGPT for help.
Me:
"Some people believe that there is an important distinction between the words "nation" and "state" Yet nation states are somehow both. I'm a bit confused on this. What's going on with this distinction?
The terms "nation" and "state" are often used interchangeably, but they have different meanings and implications."
ChatBot:
"A nation refers to a group of people who share a common language, culture, history, and/or ethnicity. A nation can exist without a state, as is the case with the Kurdish people, who have their own distinct language and culture but do not have their own independent state.
A state, on the other hand, refers to a political entity with a defined territory, government, and population. A state may or may not have a shared national identity among its citizens. For example, the United States is a state with citizens who come from a variety of different nations.
A nation-state is a political entity that is made up of a single nation that shares a common language, culture, history, and ethnicity, and is governed by a single government. Examples of nation-states include Japan and Iceland.
However, not all states are nation-states, and not all nations have their own independent state. For example, Canada is a state made up of two distinct nations, English and French, while the Kurds are a nation without their own independent state.
In conclusion, while the terms "nation" and "state" are often used interchangeably, they have distinct meanings and implications. A nation can exist without a state, and a state may or may not have a shared national identity among its citizens. A nation-state is a political entity that is made up of a single nation and is governed by a single government."
>>>
By this definition from ChatGPT, the USA is a state ... but not also a nation state.
As a state, the USA was established as a secular state -- by which I mean it has no state religion. There is a very basic division between the "nations" of those who would prefer a religious state to a secular state -- and in this way I believe we have more than one nation in the USA. We're not all committed to religious pluralism. Not by a long shot. And many of the features of the "culture war" seem to me to be these two tectonic plates (cultural metaphor) moving in opposing directions, resulting in frequent cultural earthquakes.
Many deeply religious people are contemptuous of religious pluralism generally, and are especially contemptuous of the notion that it is valid to eschew all religion. Their political views are their religious views -- on abortion, LGBTQ matters, etc., etc.
I believe that if America (USA) splits up it will be on this fault line, most basically -- though it may be said to be about "reproductive rights" or matters of sex and gender.... The great divide in America is between those who regard secularism--which is necessary to religious freedom--as a fundamental right and those who find secularism unacceptably repugnant.
Religious freedom requires the right not to follow any religion. It includes both freedom of religion and freedom from religion.
I'm still reading, but pausing for a moment to comment on one passage.
"He notes that the left sees similar threats in legal attacks by the Trump Administration on California sanctuary cities protecting immigrants, and understands there are sharply different views on gun rights and sexual preference."
It's not a huge big deal, but the phrase "sexual preference" has been replaced by "sexual orientation" in recent decades, at least by those who support lesbians, gays and bisexuals in being true to their own nature. The word "preference" suggests one chooses one's orientation as a matter of "taste". The word "orientation" does not suggest this. Many gay, bi and lesbian people experience the phrase "sexual preference" as a signal the writer or speaker is heterosexist and/or homophobic.