What are the reasons for many American's self loathing?

[clyde621]

Felix and FactFind I think you have hit the nail head right on. Too much is based on feelings and what is suppose to be fair and not fair. Good jobs on spelling this out.

[workinwifdakids]

I must recommend Evan Sayet's speech, "Regurgitating the Apple: How Modern Liberals Think."

Here's an MP3. Right-click to save, and listen to it. Twice. Take notes, even.

[Frosch]

I don't want to minimize the contributions of the left, but a lot of this started with
WWI. There was a huge surge of cynicism and nihilism after the war. The government,
and even society and all of its institutions were viewed with suspicion and contempt. It
was something new in the world, or at least in the West.

[mekender]

I don't want to minimize the contributions of the left, but a lot of this started with
WWI. There was a huge surge of cynicism and nihilism after the war. The government,
and even society and all of its institutions were viewed with suspicion and contempt. It
was something new in the world, or at least in the West.

and it grew worse with WWII and all the millions of children left home alone to fend for themselves while dad was at war and mom had to work... some of those children went on to become the hippies of the early 60s and the huge anti war / anti government movements that started then...

[cu74]

There is obviously not a single, or simple, answer (else we here at the GunCounter would have corrected the situation ). IMHO, collectively you guys have pretty much nailed it.

Specifically, I think Felix is spot on for some of the underlying basics. I also think Mike's feeling and fairness is in large part a result of the academic/teacher and taught reasons put forth by factfind and QuietMan. (I don't denigrate the posts by others - I just don't have time or the smarts to blend it all in here.)

We have a generation, or more, of people who have led a pretty soft life here in the greatest nation on earth. They have not been forced by hardship to developed a personal sense of self reliance. These people, accustomed to being given almost everything, are readily willing to accept the basic tenets of character and personal beliefs offered by someone else. They have therefore been shaped as human beings by the government school system and by the university "elites".

We as a nation are in deep shiite..................

[Joe ex PNG]

I don't want to minimize the contributions of the left, but a lot of this started with
WWI. There was a huge surge of cynicism and nihilism after the war. The government,
and even society and all of its institutions were viewed with suspicion and contempt. It
was something new in the world, or at least in the West.

and it grew worse with WWII and all the millions of children left home alone to fend for themselves while dad was at war and mom had to work... some of those children went on to become the hippies of the early 60s and the huge anti war / anti government movements that started then...

Also, one cannot forget the effect the Great Depression had on our culture. True, during the post WW1 years we were very close to the amoral me first culture exemplified in the 60's. The Depression did stop that for a little while. However, with the New Deal, many of the so called 'Greatest Generation' would have a high level of trust in government, of government help as a good thing, that government programs were necessary, and big government was to be desired.

[1991A1]

Great responses. Here's one of my theories:

I think fighting is in our DNA. Americans, whether or not they will admit, it love good scrap.
I wonder if it is not a pussified manifestation of that. They have created an enemy to oppose, but that enemy really isn't the threat that other REAL enemies can be. But it fills that need to be a warrior (for peace, or justice, or equality...well, you get the picture).

[Scott Free]

When Americans, by and large, accept a flawed view of reality (metaphysics) and an erroneous way of thinking (epistemology), it prevents them from being able to refute evil, morally. (Rather than paste it all here, I recommend that you have a look at this article on Villany. RTWT -- all 5 parts. Its quite readable and not that long -- well, it beats having to read Atlas Shrugged all the way through...)

By the good being unable to refute evil -- let's say, socialism -- morally, the socialists (the evil) win. Take our recent "hero", Joe the Plumber. Here, Joe says that he doesn't like the idea of Obama taxing those who make over $250K because its "unfair" and it defeats the "American Dream". His little bout with The Messiah had two parts to it -- and the "conservatives" can't smash the bad guys' argument in either case.

Here's the first problem that Joe has: Why is the $250K figure "unfair"? I mean, the entire progressive tax system is weighted against the wealthy -- regardless of how they've come by their wealth -- and has been since it has been implemented. To a liberal, Joe's just bitching because he is getting pinched. And they'd be right (from a consistency standpoint) because Joe isn't complaining about the tax code in principle -- he's just complaining that Obama's arbitrary number happens to apply to him. I mean, would it suddenly be "fair" to Joe if Obama upped the limit to $350K? Someone's got to pay the taxes in this country, right? So it's "unfair" to Joe unless Joe gets a deduction? Unfair to whom? Unfair defined by whom? So how do you KNOW that its "unfair"? Unfair is Joe's opinion -- and the Left eagerly points out that he just doesn't like having to pay his "fair" share.

And what about the "American Dream" for the poor? Why should you live in a house that $250K a year would buy when there are needy people all throughout America? Can't you do with less in order to help your brother? Regardless of your being a liberal or conservative, isn't giving to the poor and the needy more moral than conspicuous consumption? Who can argue -- who will argue -- with that? Isn't that what your children are taught in school? And after all, we have a Constitutional Amendment, fer Chrissakes, that authorizes an income tax, provides no ceiling on the tax and that says nothing about it being a progressive, flat or a VAT tax. It's a veritable social compact, for cryin' out loud, right? Moreover, the tax code has been in place for decades and the message implicit in the code is that the productive pay the way for the unproductive -- and no one has complained about the morality behind it. (Well, except for the "greedy" rich, of course. But Warren Buffett's proof that even the greedy rich will regurgitate the party line -- if he gets enough tax deductions...)

The result: Joe may be upset but a) Joe knows that the country HAS to collect taxes in order to run and b) Joe can't prove that the morality behind the tax code is wrong -- so while he doesn't agree with the Left's version of the tax code, he cannot morally refute it.

Second problem: The Messiah "doesn't want to punish [Joe's] success" but he "just want[s] to make sure that everybody that is behind [Joe], that they have a chance for success too. When you spread the wealth around it helps everybody."

And who can argue with the morality behind this statement? Who would deny that fairness and equality -- especially income equality -- are worthy and desirable goals in a moral society? So why should Joe's success impinge on the aspirations of those "behind" Joe? There are so many in this country that need help and who is Joe to deny them that help by selfishly wanting to keep money that should go to his fair share of taxes, which would be used by the State to unselfishly help those behind Joe? The liberals' morality believes that its the State's responsibility to care for the individual and the morality of Christianity professes the necessity of the "able" to care for the "poor" (though, of course, not bothering to define "the poor".) Well, that pretty much encompasses most of us -- so who can morally refute such a demand?

Now, I've heard that anywhere from 30% - 38% of Americans currently pay no income taxes right now, and while I'm sure that the percentages have changed around over the years, I would be willing to bet that there have always been at least 20+% of Americans that haven't been paying income taxes for at least the last 50 years. So, again, why is Joe complaining about the moral responsibility of productive Americans to care for their poor brothers and sisters? What else have we been doing with the tax code for decades if not "spreading the wealth around" for the benefit of the "poor"?

How can you morally challenge something so subjective absent an objective standard (such as a definition) of your own? Answer: when you accept your enemies' morality, you can't. And that's one reason why Joe -- and most other "conservatives" -- cannot morally refute socialism. They talk about freedom but, well, they also believe that they really have to regulate "certain businesses" (i.e., certain people) because they fear "unfettered" capitalism or they believe that a given group of people need subsidies to help maintain their "family farms" or that couples with children need a deduction for child care that couples without children don't get or that the tax code needs to make an exception for the manufacturers in the highly competitive automobile market to retool or that the economy will collapse unless the government bails out the mortgage industry.

Oh, the conservatives are just as magnificent a bunch of rationalizers as the liberals. But regardless of which group is running things, the fact is that freedom has a price. And when you cannot morally refute socialism, you pay that price and wind up with two socialists as candidates for the office of the presidency. One is simply more honest about it than the other but rest assured: they both accept the same morality. From Rand, here is a summation about the importance of morality in politics and where we are because of it:

In spite of all their irrationalities, inconsistencies, hypocrisies and evasions, the majority of men will not act, in major issues, without a sense of being morally right and will not oppose the morality they have accepted. They will break it, they will cheat on it, but they will not oppose it; and when they break it, they take the blame on themselves. The power of morality is the greatest of all intellectual powers—and mankind’s tragedy lies in the fact that the vicious moral code men have accepted destroys them by means of the best within them.

[FelixEstrella]

Nice write up Scott Free. And the left has a great way of calling those of us who do believe that business regulation is bad, that the progressive tax is bad and that a "rising sea raises all boats" as radical extremist rightwingers.

[Scott Free]

Yeah, Felix, a rising sea raises all boats -- even in a tsunami...