I’ve always been content to have been born in the United States. It’s a fine country for the most part, and I have enjoyed a good life, albeit not without some personal travails along the way, for all of the years that I have lived in it. I’m sure there are other countries that I could have also been happy with, but as a country to call one’s own, America has been as good, I suppose, as any and, undoubtedly, a lot better than more than a few.
But if the country is so good, why are its people so distasteful to me? That’s the question I’ve been contemplating of late. Here are three specifics:
o The Death Penalty – I have long been an opponent of this form of punishment for heinous criminal conduct, and for just as long I have been in the minority with that attitude. The majority of Americans still support capital punishment, in spite of the fact that it is now generally regarded as almost impossible to execute anyone under what can be considered humane conditions, and in spite of the evidence that suggests that some of the condemned were wrongly convicted and/or wrongly sentenced, and in spite of the fact that the societal cost of actually executing a criminal (factoring in the costs of appeals and extended incarceration while awaiting execution) is significantly greater than a sentence of life in prison, and in spite of the fact that as a deterrent the evidence is at best mixed as to whether it works, and, most significantly for me, in spite of the fact that the bulk of the civilized world now rejects capital punishment as immoral and inhuman. In fact, the United States is now only one of six countries that still allow executions as a commonly used form of punishment. (The others are China, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and North Korea. Could there be a more unattractive group to be part of?)
And yet, even with all the reasons to stop using the death penalty, the American people continue to support, if not demand, its continued existence. And the support for it is so strong that even in the immediate aftermath of the botched execution of an Oklahoma inmate last month, President Obama could not speak in condemnation of the practice, instead hemming and hawing his way into a plea for consideration of its effectiveness and urging a study of the issue. (A profile in courage his press conference most decidedly was not.)
o The gun culture – Yes, I know it’s in the Constitution, the Second Amendment thereto to be exact. And I know that the Supreme Court (on a couple of those narrow 5-4 votes) has declared that the constitutional provision allows individual ownership of guns with only minimal restrictions. But the American love of guns goes beyond anything intended by the founders or even by the five justices who ruled as they did in the 2008 Heller and 2010 McDonald cases that secured that individual ownership right to all Americans.
How many school shootings and workplace killings and movie theater massacres must the country endure before some form of modest control over the ownership of guns can be legislated? I hate the ease with which guns can be used by those with deranged attitudes about whatever topic causes them to “go postal,” and I hate the fact that the strength of the gun culture intimidates most politicians from enacting rational gun control legislation.
Is it really un-American to oppose gun ownership? Are we really that much more enlightened on the subject than Great Britain, where gun ownership is severely restricted (and murders per capita are far lower than the United States) or Canada, where there is no legally recognized right to own guns (and murders per capita are miniscule) or Australia, where gun ownership is heavily regulated (and murders per capita are far lower than in the U.S.)?
o The rejection of scientific evidence – I’m thinking specifically of climate change here, but the topic can apply to an array of other subjects (teaching creationism in school on an equal level with evolution is one that comes immediately to mind) on which many Americans are insistent on denying the validity of scientific study. Just last week, a new report on climate change, issued by a collective of scientists and government agencies, suggested that we may have passed a tipping point in the ever-increasing effect of human-made causes of significant changes in the world’s climate. The effects in the United States of these changes will be largely negative, but the reaction from many Americans ranged from a rejection of the evidence to a claim that it was all politically motivated.
One poll found that 44% of Americans (of which, I must note, the vast majority identify themselves as Republicans) do not believe the report or otherwise discount the significance of any change in the world’s climate. In another poll conducted last year, the United States ranked last in considering climate change to be a major threat to its country’s welfare. (Only 40% of Americans considered it to be so, as compared to 54% worldwide.) The latest scientific study indicates that severe weather will be increasingly more common, that temperatures will continue to rise at an accelerated rate, and that sea levels will make many coastal regions uninhabitable within this century.
And yet, in spite of this evidence, no less a potential presidential candidate than Republican Senator Marco Rubio just this week announced that he doesn’t consider the evidence on global warming alarming or even legitimate. When you’re running for president (or even thinking of running), you don’t make such statements, flying in the face of the vast consensus of scientific study, unless you firmly believe that most of your potential constituents don’t believe in the studies.
So there it is. I live in a country that is populated with people who are diametrically opposed to what I espouse and believe. It leaves me to ponder if it’s possible to love your country but not its citizens.
Ed,
Do you like the people who agree with you?
Ed, your issues with the USA come from living inside a liberal bubble. You work in a liberal environment at a liberal institution in a very liberal State. You hold to several tons of liberal ideals and even teach them. You consider yourself a liberal. You are a bubble dweller.
There are many lists of ideals on which liberals disagree with conservatives. Pick one. How many times do your own ideals cross over? Thought so.
The USA was founded as an experiment in self-governance in which the founding documents placed severe restrictions on what the government could and could not do, reserving all other rights to the people and the states. That didn’t last. I’m mostly in favor of consumer protection and protecting the commons, but take a look at some of it and OMFG!
It’s very hard to see a reason for most legislation and regulation, other than full employment for consulting firms. Just finished reading “Capitol Punishment: The Hard Truth About Washington Corruption From America’s Most Notorious Lobbyist” – By Jack Abramoff (recommended by the way), which makes me even less confident in how our nation is being governed. We muddle through pretty well, but I like to imagine what would be possible with a lot less government based friction.
Americans believe in the Death Penalty because they have an unrealistic expectation about the reliability of our System of Justice. Should we lower our expectations, or raise the quality of the system? Hmmm?
The 2nd amendment is not about hunting bambi or shooting burglars. It’s about changing government when the time comes.
Perhaps you’ve noticed the dramatic reading of the Declaration of Independence as prelude to recent Superbowls. It includes these words: “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” This is what conservatives see as the goal of liberals with each redundant gun control law proposed.
If you think that’s silly, that the combined might of our armed forces vs a bunch of conservatives with deer guns is no contest; there is exactly one word to say otherwise: Afghanistan.
AGW – Anthropogenic Global Warming was the term before it started being called “Climate Change” because so many people were caught lying about the data.
Is the earth’s climate changing? Always has always will.
Is human activity a factor? Of course, but I can’t tell you If it’s 1% or 90% – and neither can you.
Did atmospheric CO2 triple since the dawn of the industrial age? Yes but it’s still less than 0.04% of the total
Is the vast majority of climate research science government funded? Yes. An important point. Most scientists now live inside the liberal bubble, because their funding is government based. Government workers are even more liberal than journalists, especially those who approve research grants. You get the scientific results you pay for most days.
Did AlGore™ expect to make billions from a Carbon Exchange Market? Yes.
Do all scientists agree with “the Consensus”? No.
At least 31,000 degreed scientists say the AGW hypothesis has not been proven to their satisfaction: http://petitionproject.org/
Do computer projections of atmospheric temperatures agree with each other? No.
Do computer projections of atmospheric temperatures agree with actual measurements? No.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/02/95-of-climate-models-agree-the-observations-must-be-wrong/
http://seeker401.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/roy-spencer-ipcc-models1.jpg
Thanks for the straw target, I needed that this week.
Yes. It is absolutely possible. Of course, “but not its citizens” is a little too broad a statement for me. Over the last year, my job was to provide services (usually emergency ones) to American citizens in a certain foreign country. The vast majority of these people either caused their own problems/emergencies or could have easily avoided them with a little common sense or a modicum of effort. I encountered a great deal of people through that work that I did not love. But I was and continue to serve our country for several reasons, one of the principal ones being my love of the country. Even before this experience, I used to say that I love people as a group, but the individuals I encounter cause me to reevaluate that sentiment daily… usually while driving. 🙂
Certainly something to consider, Ed. I am on my bi-annual journey into South Georgia to visit my 7 year old twin grandsons. At their baseball game the other night the subject of guns came up and one of the moms had her gun in her purse and another one of the fathers had his in his pocket. My boys birthday party was last Friday and they each got about 8 toy guns for gifts. I think the 2nd Amendment is alive and well and you/we better start “loving” our citizens. Looks like pretty soon they will all be packing!
You eloquently expressed my thoughts and fears. It’s hard to be optimistic today.
Ed, I replied to this post last week and it seems to have disappeared.
Fred
Delayed response, Ed.
I do not think it is possible to love a country without loving its people. How could you? It is people who define the country.
A country or nation is much like a corporation. What is a corporation? it is a group of people with a defined mission, objectives and governance system. Without its people, there is no corporation.
You may love what the country stands for, its ideals and values, but dislike (not love) particulars about it. In the aggregate, since you are still living here and are more than reasonably happy, you probably love the country (and its citizens more) than you dislike it.
And by the way, I share your opinions on our citizens narrow visions and shortsightedness regarding the issues you raised. On the whole, the people are still great – most of the time.