City on a Hill

[thegunguy]

I hate to reference Wikipedia, but if you're unfamiliar with this phrase in American politics then their article is worth a read, though there are some older historic uses I remember from grade school that should probably be included. This was taught along with White Man's Burden (again, wikipedia) as examples of western (and specifically) American arrogance, though back then we were still taught that the leaders of the US truly wanted the best for the people of the world, and believed in their ideology as a tool for liberation for all people. They were just misguided, you see...

It turns out some people in the world seem to think we are the example to the world that our ancestors wanted us to be. If you haven't watched any of the footage from Hong Kong (where protests have apparently been going on for 11 weeks as a write this), then this is an excellent summary with links to news sources. The main argument of the video is that domestic politics is focusing on irrelevant stuff while missing the big picture in the world, but the use of Hong Kong as his example makes my point pretty well:

I've included a local copy in case Youtube eventually bans Tim Pool. As of now he's just been demonetized and deranked.

Hong Kong Protesters Fly US Flag, Sing Our Anthem, While We Complain About Chris Cuomo.mp4

Contains a wonderful summary of how the USA is viewed in other parts of the world.

notechtyranny.com

A sad and chilling image from those protests, also referencing the impact our unique attitudes have had on members of other nations:

 

[Ashoka]

You are the light of the world.


In the forests of the night;
What immortal hand or eye,
Could frame thy fearful symmetry?

 

[Ashoka]

The US is the last bastion of freedom, and the walls are crumbling.

 

[Bikerdoc]

You are right.

 

[grampster]

OK, chew on this a bit. There are 320 million Americans. The radical loudmouths and demonstrators from both far edges of the political spectrum make up a very very small percentage of those 320+ Americans. Three points I would make: A. The media and Hollywood makes that small radical fringe seem to be mainstream by promoting it for ratings, exposure and money. B. We probably have more to fear from the Willfully Ignorant to whom voting is like breathing; they don't consciously and with deliberation and knowledge do it. They just vote like they breath; unconsciously. Been a Democrat? Vote Democrat without actually understanding the ramification of that vote. Rote Republicans are the same, though I think less dangerous to the Republic. Then there are those who support fringe candidates or don't vote. Are there enough of those to represent a danger to the Republic. I lean in that direction. C. I am for voter ID. I also believe one should be sentient and understand why one votes. I am not opposed to a 3 question test. If you are too uneducated to be able to answer 3 innocuous questions, no one is to blame but you and you shouldn't vote. The Republic depends upon voters who understand the issues. I don't believe that is bad discrimination nor is it voter suppression as the only one responsible for not be qualified to vote is the person who is too stupid to be able to answer 3 questions. One can reverse that situation by gaining an education. Last time I looked it was tax payer supported...no tuition needed.

 

[Ashoka]

I think any test harkens to Jim Crow and is not only bad for optics, but easily subject to abuse.

A much better requirement would be for taxpayers and US military members to be able to vote. If one literally contributes nothing to our Republic, why should they have a voice?

 

[Taliv]

I think any test harkens to Jim Crow and is not only bad for optics, but easily subject to abuse.

A much better requirement would be for taxpayers and US military members to be able to vote. If one literally contributes nothing to our Republic, why should they have a voice?

close, but more precisely, people who receive benefits from the gov that they didn't directly contribute to (e.g. social security doesn't count) shouldn't be able to vote. i.e. if you receive disability, welfare, etc, it's not morally right for you to vote that someone else be forced at gunpoint to give you their money. corporations and their officers and board should similarly not be allowed to contribute to campaigns if they receive any subsidies, etc.