What do you think distinguishes the post-9/11 craziness from the Cold War/Red Scare craziness?

My reason for asking is because I believe that "that's unconstitutional!" has been a failed protest message for more like 100 years than 25 years (and there's threads of state violence at the local and state levels that go back far longer). And IMO that is even stronger evidence that words on an ~240-year-old-doc—and the way some interpret the second amendment in relation to those words—is a completely powerless measure against state violence. The United States is not exceptional in that regard. We'll only have a better country if we constantly, actively, choose to vote it that way.

▲

stateofinquiry 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Probably the fact that most of the readership of the article and this site were alive for the former but not the latter. One could equally pin the rise of Joe McCarthy as the moment America started its move to "autocracy". Or when Roosevelt interned Japanese Americans. Or the civil war. Or the Mexican-American war. In fact, the struggle is constant (as mentioned downthread).

▲

ReptileMan 6 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>What do you think distinguishes the post-9/11 craziness from the Cold War/Red Scare craziness?

State capacity. USA prior to the internet and the surveillance state was too big, too populous and too sparse to be effectively administered.

Trump is doing what every other president since WWII wanted to do ... but they didn't have the technology. Just for a moment imagine what USA will look like if you didn't get someone incompetent like Trump right now but Nixon or Johnson. With the modern security state - it would be their dream.

▲

kitku 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I am still amazed by the typical internet American's (Yours also I presume) love for voting, despite having long degraded into a two-party charade.

Your sentiment starts out fierce: "constantly, actively..." and is immediately cut short "... choose to (only?) vote it that way."

You point out that voicing one's interpretations of the 2nd amendment is powerless - but voting, reduced to such a miniscule gesture, is also. The choice between a galloping right wing and a stagnant center-right is no choice at all. American elections are a facade for decisions already made on top. You can't vote it out.

▲

rwmj 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

How (and if) you vote is really the one and only thing politicians care about.

	▲	inigyou 13 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		They care about appearing to care about it. In reality if they don't think you'll vote the right way they just prevent you from voting, like with a vaccine passport or an ID card. (See? Both sides covered)

▲

asdff an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

This is why it is important to vote in primary elections as well.

	▲	crote an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Voting the way you really want in primary elections might be counterproductive. Let's say in the main election 45% of the population will vote for whatever candidate represents side X, 45% of the population will vote for whatever candidate represents side Y, and 10% is more-or-less in the middle. If, during the primaries, side X votes for a far-X candidate, they will definitely lose the middle 10% to a moderate-Y candidate, leading to a strong Y victory. But if side X votes for a moderate-X candidate during the primaries, the main election will be moderate-X vs moderate-Y, and they have a pretty good chance of securing the slightly-more-than-half of the middle they need for an X victory. Of course you now end up with a lukewarm moderate X victor who isn't going to represent your far-X views, but at least you're not dealing with an even worse Y-side victor. The real solution is to get rid of the winner-takes-all system inherently resulting in a two-party election, but Good Luck doing that kind of overhaul!