By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Current leadership is failing to uphold American values, prioritizing corruption and incompetence over global security and alliances. The administration’s actions, including the ridicule of Ukraine’s leader and the abandonment of international partners, are causing widespread discord. Domestic policies targeting vulnerable populations and promoting hate are equally alarming. This unacceptable behavior necessitates stronger action from elected officials and citizens alike to restore American principles.
Read the original article here
The question, “Since when did we abandon our democratic partners in favor of dictators?” is a complex one, riddled with layers of historical context and present-day anxieties. It’s not a simple case of a sudden shift, but rather a gradual evolution, a slow drift away from consistent support for democratic ideals.
The assertion that this abandonment is a recent phenomenon is easily challenged. The US has a long and complicated history of supporting authoritarian regimes when it served strategic interests, often at the expense of democratic partners. This pattern isn’t confined to a single era or administration; rather, it’s a recurring theme throughout American foreign policy. We’ve seen it in various points in history, from supporting dictators during the Cold War to engaging in questionable alliances in various parts of the world. The supposed dedication to democracy has often been selective, prioritizing geopolitical gains over ethical considerations.
The argument that the media plays a significant role in this trend is compelling. The normalization of incompetence and dangerous behavior by certain figures and political actors – achieved through either deliberate manipulation or a lack of critical scrutiny – has blurred the lines between reality and propaganda. A complicit, or at best, complacent media landscape has allowed the narrative to shift, obscuring the detrimental effects of these choices. This isn’t solely a right-wing phenomenon; the idea of ‘both-sides-ism’ can also lead to an ineffective and harmful normalization of dangerous behaviors, allowing harmful tendencies to gain further influence.
The rise of a certain type of populist leader, characterized by a disregard for democratic norms and institutions, has further exacerbated this problem. The election of such a figure is not an isolated event, but rather a symptom of deeper societal issues, such as growing economic inequality and political polarization. It’s a symptom of a society where resentment and misinformation easily prevail over rational discourse and genuine understanding. The election of such a figure is a stark warning sign that something within the existing system has gone awry.
The suggestion that the problem started with the impeachment of a particular president is too simplistic. The impeachment proceedings, while highlighting serious misconduct, merely brought to light long-standing issues. These issues include the willingness to prioritize personal gain over national interest and a pattern of foreign policy that has, at times, favored transactional alliances with authoritarian leaders over sustained relationships with democratic partners. The impeachment wasn’t the root of the issue, but rather a significant, if not surprising, event along the path.
The argument that the shift happened during a specific time period misses the bigger picture. The underlying concerns stretch back far earlier, possibly even to the founding of the nation itself. The initial limitations on suffrage and the existence of the Electoral College illustrate the inherent tensions within the American experiment, suggesting a commitment to democracy that has always been, at times, considerably less than complete. The historical record points to a long history of political and social decisions that have continually hindered the pursuit of full democratic participation and equality.
Furthermore, the claim that the problem lies solely with the electorate is overly simplistic. While voters bear responsibility for their choices, the existing political and media landscapes play a crucial role in shaping those choices, providing either a distorted reality or an incomplete perspective. The system itself is often partly to blame, as it can make it challenging for responsible voices to gain enough traction to counter the effect of more powerful, or simply more amplified, voices. This is a feedback loop: a broken system generates frustrated people, and the frustrated people may unintentionally enable a further breakdown of the system.
Ultimately, pinpointing an exact moment when the abandonment began is a misleading simplification of a much more complex and evolving situation. The issue is rooted in a pattern of behavior stretching back far longer than any single event or election, reflecting deep-seated contradictions in the American ideal of democracy and its application in both domestic and foreign policy. The present crisis simply demonstrates the long-term consequences of such contradictions. It shows how long-standing patterns of behavior, coupled with significant shifts in the political and media landscape, can lead to the erosion of democratic ideals and values, and thus, to a dangerous departure from our supposedly core beliefs and values.