Why neither my wife nor I will vote for Trump or Biden

[81usaf92]

"For before the destruction of Carthage the people and senate of Rome together governed the republic peacefully and with moderation. There was no strife among the citizens either for glory or for power; fear of the enemy preserved the good morals of the state. 3 But when the minds of the people were relieved of that dread, wantonness and arrogance naturally arose, vices which are fostered by prosperity. 4 Thus the peace for which they had longed in time of adversity, after they had gained it, proved to be more cruel and bitter than adversity itself. 5 For the nobles began to abuse their position and the people their liberty, and every man for himself robbed, pillaged, and plundered. Thus the community was split into two parties, and between these the republic was torn to pieces."
Sallust, The War with Jugurtha, Chapter 41.

After Cannae very few opposed Fabian’s “Never surrender” position. Defeating Carthage was more important to the Roman soul than saving the city itself. But it’s odd to see that the Romans go from that position to giving into a decision between three wealthiest men in Roman history fighting for power less than a hundred and fifty years later.

Too many people dismiss this possibility for the Americans because we are too civilized or modern compared to the Romans. Yet once the Wall came down we increasingly have come closer and closer to extremists running the country because of the feeling that the government was too corrupt.

 

[Tidewater]

After Cannae very few opposed Fabian’s “Never surrender” position. Defeating Carthage was more important to the Roman soul than saving the city itself. But it’s odd to see that the Romans go from that position to giving into a decision between three wealthiest men in Roman history fighting for power less than a hundred and fifty years later.

Too many people dismiss this possibility for the Americans because we are too civilized or modern compared to the Romans. Yet once the Wall came down we have increasingly have come closer and closer to extremists running the country because of the feeling that the government was too corrupt.

Exactly.
As long as we had the Soviet Union as the exterior threat, the country was unified (to a certain extent).
Now that that external threat is gone (or diminished), centrifugal forces come into play.

 

[AWRTR]

Exactly.
As long as we had the Soviet Union as the exterior threat, the country was unified (to a certain extent).
Now that that external threat is gone (or diminished), centrifugal forces come into play.

Are we to the point that even a new external threat wouldn’t reunite us?

 

[JDCrimson]

If we cant unite behind defeating Russia, then I would say so...

Are we to the point that even a new external threat wouldn’t reunite us?

 

[Tidewater]

Are we to the point that even a new external threat wouldn’t reunite us?

Not sure. It would depend.
911 was not that long ago, and there was a remarkable unity after that. That lasted until the debate over invading Iraq.

 

[81usaf92]

If we cant unite behind defeating Russia, then I would say so...

Well.. how much of a direct threat is Russia to the mainland USA is the problem. In the Cold War we had several instances where all out war could have happened at any given moment such as the Cuban Missile crisis, the U2 incident, and the constant issues with West and East Germany. Right now the odds of the US directly having to fight the Russians is slim to none.

To continue the Roman analogy… it’s more or less Caesar’s war in Gaul or Crassus’s conquest of Parthia. Yes most Romans saw it as a war against historical rivals but there really wasn’t this life and death feeling if they lost. There was also the element of partisanship since Crassus, Caesar, and Pompey were effectively ruling Rome and the Senate was far less powerful by comparison. Compare that to the struggle with Hannibal a hundred years before and you start to see the difference between an enemy that is truly capable of destroying you and one that isn’t.

 

[81usaf92]

Not sure. It would depend.
911 was not that long ago, and there was a remarkable unity after that. That lasted until the debate over invading Iraq.

Yeah I think 9/11 was probably the last time we were really united against an enemy but that waned quickly after we took Kandahar. The it entirely evaporated once Bin Laden was killed.

Democracies don’t usually do well in long wars compared to dictatorships/authoritarians. Especially when survival of the nation isn’t a question about the outcome.

 

[Isaiah 63:1]

Exactly.
As long as we had the Soviet Union as the exterior threat, the country was unified (to a certain extent).
Now that that external threat is gone (or diminished), centrifugal forces come into play.

Agreed, but it doesn't have to be so. We've lost our sense of purpose and of what used to make us a nation (as distinct from a country, which is really all we -- lacking much if any sense of what binds us together -- now are). That's a failure of leadership, beginning with GHWB -- who failed to grasp what the new world order he referred to really was; i.e., a long, slow reversion to the status quo ante Bretton Woods -- and continued, with occasional meanderings, by every single president since.

There is good news, however (sort of). Events that make a nation can recur and, given geopolitical and demographic trends, are probably on the cusp of recurring to/for the US. If the right leader is around, s/he can forge the nation anew. The bad news? Such events are usually not fun...