A Great America - What Does That Mean?

[_honorentheos]

Setting aside the obvious dog whistle nature of Trumps slogan, I find myself unsure what it would mean to see it fulfilled in a way I agree with the outcomes. What does a great America look like to me?

- Revamped prison system and a low incarceration rate and privatization kicked to the curb side?
- Useful, valuable post secondary education opportunities that don't leave people crippled by debt?
- Heavy investment in developing and implementing a 21at century infrastructure?
- Fewer Americans being killed in violent acts?
- Fewer people being killed by American acts of violence?
- Finishing first in primary and secondary education test scores against all other nations?
- Less sense that the treadmill of life has to be ran on just to stay caught up?

I don't know. But I'm not sure how people who buy into the slogan believe America wil be "more great" if their candidate is elected.

[_subgenius]

I don't know. But I'm not sure how people who buy into the slogan believe America wil be "more great" if their candidate is elected.

The underlying idea of America is that one makes "greatness" according to their own abilities and in as much as those same abilities find favor in their community. So, while there may not be a guarantee that "your" idea of greatness will be fulfilled, there will be an environment where it will be offered the opportunity to be fulfilled.

[_ajax18]

I think it refers to the general standard of living we once enjoyed as a country compared to other countries in the world. That standard has been declining for so long that this generation is the first to do worse than their parents.

[_Kevin Graham]

subgenius' response proves just how sad he and his fellow Republicans really are, by perpetuating this myth that Ronald Reagan was a great President.

Reagan was a dementia-ridden actor who spent most of his life as a corporate whore, whose only real talent was reading scripts and selling poison. Both literal and figurative.




And he was a pathetic puppet of Wall Street who with one hand behind his back nearly destroyed the middle-class. Yet, American was great because of him? Because idiots like subgenius remember those years masturbating to movies like Red Dawn and Rocky IV.

Here is Merryl Lynch CEO Don Regan ordering actor Ronnie to "speed it up" during a speech. You could almost see the puppet strings behind his back.

Let's make American great by electing a leader who isn't owned by Corporate America. Only Bernie Sanders fits that description.

[_Some Schmo]

The underlying idea of America is that one makes "greatness" according to their own abilities and in as much as those same abilities find favor in their community. So, while there may not be a guarantee that "your" idea of greatness will be fulfilled, there will be an environment where it will be offered the opportunity to be fulfilled.

So in other words, what makes America great is the same damn thing pretty much every other first world country has, and in most cases, are doing it better.

Wow. Go America. Rah. Rah.

What's hilarious is you bringing up Reagan, who was largely responsible for initiating the opportunity and economic decline we see today. If we wanted to make America great again, we'd have to get back what Reagan destroyed.

[_subgenius]

So in other words, what makes America great is the same damn thing pretty much every other first world country has, and in most cases, are doing it better.

Not really "in other words" but I understand your cynicism, the reign of Obama has instilled that in most Americans.....
But I believe Trump agrees with you - our current administration has been unable to accomplish much and has degenerated what it is we "has" when compared to the progress other countries have made. Thank you for your agreement.

Wow. Go America. Rah. Rah.

Yep, they elected Obama......rah

What's hilarious is you bringing up Reagan, who was largely responsible for initiating the opportunity and economic decline we see today. If we wanted to make America great again, we'd have to get back what Reagan destroyed.

Um, not sure how you drew this conclusion except that it was without any sort of history lesson or economic fundamentals. Perhaps you should ask Bill Clinton if he agrees with you.

[_EAllusion]

su

Here is Merryl Lynch CEO Don Regan ordering actor Ronnie to "speed it up" during a speech. You could almost see the puppet strings behind his back.

Let's make American great by electing a leader who isn't owned by Corporate America. Only Bernie Sanders fits that description.

This is so misleading.

Don Regan was Reagan's chief of staff. Giving him advice on the logistics of speeches is part of his job. There's no modern president who hasn't received similar direction on speeches. That doesn't mean they are puppets of those people. It means they aren't a one-man show. If the problem is simply that Reagan had people who are important in the financial sector in high posts in his administration, that's also true of all modern presidents.

This criticism could equally be lobbed at Obama who both can easily be found getting stage directions and having major financial players both be major donors to his campaign and existing in high posts in his administration. Your posting history already tells us that you don't have the same attitude towards him. It's actually eerily similar to the right-wing meme of Obama being a puppet of speeches written on teleprompters for him, which is also ridiculous.

God Micheal Moore is a hack.

[_honorentheos]

The underlying idea of America is that one makes "greatness" according to their own abilities and in as much as those same abilities find favor in their community. So, while there may not be a guarantee that "your" idea of greatness will be fulfilled, there will be an environment where it will be offered the opportunity to be fulfilled.

That's certainly at the heart of what America is supposed to stand for - opportunity, fairness, a shot to improve one's situation regardless of what class one is born into.

It's also interesting that while most Americans seem to feel there has been a loss in how fair that shot at creating a better life actually is, it's one of the places where the nation divides as well. They usually express it differently, with the right decrying the perception their freedoms are under attack and the liberals are putting the yoke on everything with big government. The left's expression of this usually focuses on economic and racial differences, and how they believe certain people are handicapped at birth or by the economic power structure itself.

So, perhaps a little more detail in what you think it means would be informative as to what you think a reincarnated third-term Reagan would bring to the country that would actually make the nation great again, in your eyes? Because clearly both sides agree there is a barrier to access opportunity that they feel should not be there, but also clearly disagree on what that even means.

[_Some Schmo]

Um, not sure how you drew this conclusion except that it was without any sort of history lesson or economic fundamentals. Perhaps you should ask Bill Clinton if he agrees with you.

LOL

You're an idiot. Clinton made what Reagan started even worse. And then there was Bush with his "war on a credit card" spending. And you want to blame Obama. Yeah... you're an idiot.

You're the one that needs a damned history lesson.

[_EAllusion]

Obama's speeches during his presidency have been completely laden with "equality of opportunity" rhetoric in order to achieve financial success through hard work and good fortune. It's something that he genuinely believes in and you can see it in the people he appoints and positions he takes. A lot of his approach to welfare is mediated through attempting to level inherent disadvantages to create equal opportunities. This explains his education policy, for example. This is the stuff of moderate-right behavioral economics.

If "make America great again" was simply about phrasing the American dream in terms of meritocracy inside of a fair environment, you'd think people who like that phrase would love Obama's speech-writing style. It's one of his most consistent themes. Maybe their complaint would be about Obama failing to live up to the promise of his speeches.

They do not, though. Because that's not at all what that phrase is about. The phrase is principally just a limbic grab and the notion that things have gone wrong and they want them better. That's it. It's not about policy or political philosophy. It's about appealing to people's sense that something has gone terribly wrong and needs to be fixed to return a sense of national pride. On top of that, there's a dog-whistle to the tribal idea that America is in the hands of a dangerous "other" and needs to be taken back from them. For some, there's a racial tinge to this where one of the defining characteristics of the "other" is racial minorities.