Aside from the obvious fact that US policy affects the entire world, and especially its close western allies (like Canada, UK, Australia etc), for me personally this is a big part of the fascination. Australia had an election earlier this year, it took 8 weeks start to finish and it was fucking boring. No one called anyone else a fat pig. No one had any scandals relating to deleted classified emails. 100's of millions of dollars weren't gathered in war chests. It was depressingly civil and straight forward in comparison. I read the other day this US election cycle will have lasted 597 days from start to finish. Its a spectacle (especially so this time round) and one which western media just fucking laps up. Would i want our elections to last almost 2 years? Fuck no. But god damn is it fascinating to watch yours.
And this is sad, but true. I agree with you. In 1960, there was a famous Presidential debate between then Senator John F. Kennedy and Vice President Richard Nixon. As some of you I'm sure know, those that viewed the debate thought Kennedy won, those that listened on the radio thought Nixon won. Kennedy later credited the new medium, television, with playing a substantial part in his election. The US electorate chose looks over substance. This election, the media not only is influencing the election, not just by their coverage of primaries, but have in essence chosen the nominees - both of them (to hear one complain about how the media helped the other is ironic). So now we have a media that not only chooses our choices, but makes the final choice. This is not journalism. This is large media conglomerates choosing a President that will be friendly to their financial bottom line. That scares the hell out of me. I really hope someone, somewhere, realizes the insanity in not having an independent press (one of the things our Founding Fathers thought was an absolute requirement for democracy) and takes some major strides to return at least our news organizations back into news organizations or in the alternative, starts charging the shit out of them for use of the common airwaves that belong to all of us. If we start charging for that use, I'd even say we need to go further and charge retroactively for the last twenty years or so. I'd place the rate at just above what it would cost to give me good hour of news and keep things as they are the other 23 hours.
The democratic media wanted Clinton all the way. The republican media did not want Trump. More like they gave in to him. I can't even count how many right wing articles I saw in the early stages of the primaries blaming Trump on SJWs. And I do think the SJWs played a role in Trump, but it's only a fraction. The real reason is that Republicans have been doing poorly with minorities and women for a long time. Jeb Bush and all those guys built their campaign strategy around that, but they had already given birth to an orange haired monster. They just didn't know it yet.
Doesn't this say more about the US mindset/education than it does Canada's? We know your states and capitals and the gyst of your politics. Same with lots of countries in Europe (and they us). But so many times if I'm speaking to an American in America they more than likely can only locate America on a map. In fact, when driving through I've noticed that it's hit and miss that someone will be able to direct you how to get to the next state from where you're standing. It's a weird geographic isolationism. Actual conversation I had with a waitress in northern Michigan when driving from Calgary to Sarnia (southern Ontario): Me: Hey how do I get to the I-95? Waitress: Where are you coming from? [Sidenote: No idea why she would ask this question.] Me: From Calgary. Waitress: [Pause] Is that in Wisconsin? She then had no idea how to direct me. Bear in mind, this was a diner on the side of a highway. That kind of interaction has been more common than not when I've been driving through the US. It's scary when you think that a big chunk of the States doesn't have the first clue about their largest trading partner, their longest border or any of our culture.
This is getting tiresome. If you asked a random Canadian about European politics they have a general idea about the EU and trends towards social welfare programs. If you asked them for a nuanced opinion on the politics of Norway, or even France they don't have a clue. Probably couldn't even coherently differentiate the two. I don't know what your story about some idiot you met is supposed to show. Your media thoroughly covers the American election. Our media does not cover yours. That's the main reason.
It's just the natural conclusion of what Pulitzer and Hearst started in the late 1890s. They stirred lots of radical anti-Spanish sentiment to sell newspapers because they were in direct competition, not to mention both were arch Imperialists who believed America must "civilize" other nations. Cue the explosion of the USS Maine in a Havana harbor and of course everyone said it was a Spanish mine (possible, but evidence also points to improperly stored, highly explosive material that just sparked), and thus began the Spanish American War. But hey, we got the Philippines (we gave that back to them after World War II when Imperialism fell out of favor for some reason), Guam, and Puerto Rico. Point is, this shit isn't new. It's been going on for literally a century now, and I could even go back and find pamphlets trying to extol the virtues of a strong union with a constitution and a confederation of states back in the late 1700s, when they were still debating whether to even ratify the constitution. As long as there is media, there will be bias. On top of that, sometimes bias is necessary. Meaning: you can't give every crackpot theory and crazy tinfoil hat wearing psycho equal time as if their stories are valid, in the interest of "being impartial." We've seen a lot of that recently, with the media catering to complete fucking lunatics ranting about utterly stupid shit because "we have to be fair." The result will be that, even if Hilary wins, people will riot and call for Trump to sue because clearly she will have stolen the election, and it wasn't that he is an orange pile of garbage people don't want running their nation.
I didn't say a nuanced opinion of internal politics. I said knowing the most basic shit ever, like the fact that we have provinces and premiers. But thank you for illustrating my point that some Americans are ignorant.
I mean anyone wants to try and become the world's preeminent super power I'm not sure we'll care to stop them(fucking come at me bro!). I think it's part narcissism part American rugged individualism that our average citizen doesn't care to focus on global issues in the capacity outsiders think we should. Take care of your own damn self first and then we can turn to care for things beyond that. I get the disconnect between this and the fact we've inserted ourselves on a political/military role worldwide for quite some time. I think this is just the disconnect between the average citizen and the political leaders that want to be part of influencing world policy. It makes it look more out of place since politically we are the most influential. Having lived abroad the strangest thing for me was foreigners who really got twisted up in this whole argument. The feeling of them having this huge chip on their shoulder about it came to be pretty off putting. Hey you work sourcing materials for car dashboard displays why are you frothing at the mouth at the bar about how Americans act? Let's step back and enjoy the fact we live in amazing times. No need to get bent out of shape brother. This is why I enjoyed Aussies the best. I don't think I ever met one that took this subject, or any subjects too seriously.
Americans in fly-over states (or in general, I guess), tend not to care how other countries run, or who's in charge of them for one simple reason: It doesn't affect their daily life in any way. Not that they can see anyway. Sure, foreign policy may affect things like gas prices, or consumer goods, but not enough that they feel they should start caring about places thousands of miles away that they not likely to ever see. Then there's this: I guarantee most people in Portugal don't give a flying fuck about the internal politics of Romania, and that's far closer together than LA to NY
Your average American knows where Toronto and Paris are. Your average Canadian doesn't know how European nations leverage local and federal divisions of power. I don't even know what your point is other than to spew some contrived bias. If it's just that Canadians know more about American politics than vice versa then no shit. I've lived abroad as well and the anti-American sentiments really do get ridiculous sometimes. Like the idea that Americans are the dumbest people ever. It doesn't really make me feel embarrassed to be an American, it's just strange and off putting. You meet people sometimes who feel a need to make a statement about it towards you, and it's just kind of annoying, but then they're even more upset if they find out you don't actually care about their opinion very much.
Well I wouldn't say its an ignorance thing - but think of it in terms of information. The US exports its media and culture more than any other country in the world. How many movies/TV shows, etc. are set in Winnepeg and Calgary vs New York and Los Angeles? So the information exchanged is predominantly US-centric, then it stands to reason that the Americans would mostly know about America and non-Americans would know more information about the US as well. How much does the average Canadian or European know about whats going on in the Central African Republic? Does that mean they're ignorant? Of course not. Its about the relative abundance and availability of information. There may also be an underlying component of envy as well. Most European nations have passed their zenith on the world stage.
Totally agree. The media has turned news and election coverage into entertainment, and those in charge of it have agendas and treat it as a marketing tool. The news networks might as well be billboards on the side of the road that say "vote for ___!", except people treat news channels as, well, news, not marketing, so it's much more effective. Combine that with the polarizing coverage, and the fact that people tend to only watch what they agree with, and you get people that feel like they're informed... but they only have a very small, slanted slice of anything that could be considered "well informed"..
So in a truly impartial media, shit like this should be treated seriously: https://twitter.com/drudge/status/784121449606852608 https://twitter.com/drudge/status/784130444614705152 Point is: yes media is biased, but sometimes it has to be a bit biased to keep the lunatics at bay. We have a situation where every backwoods dumbfuck thinks their opinion is as valid a piece of "news" as scientific research, and if a news company ignores this stupidity it is labeled biased. On a related note: this is what happens to journalists who are critical of Trump: http://www.newsweek.com/epileptogenic-pepe-video-507417
Re: the media being so lame. I agree, but I find there's a huge distinction between TV and print. Print has the usual biases (obviously excluding straight up tabloids or cable TV news websites), but I find almost all TV "journalism" to be completely shameless (BBC, PBS and often al Jazeera being exceptions). You know that feeling you get when watching an 'awkward humour' comedy, like when Michael Scott or David Brent has a particularly cringe worthy scene on The Office? I get the same feeling during the rare times I actually turn on a TV news channel. In both cases, all I can think is "How the fuck do they do this with a straight face?", but for completely different reasons. But I find there is still good-to-excellent print reporting, if you take the time to read and critique and then read opposing pieces and make a relatively informed (need time for porn, too) opinion. All of which leads me to a grossly overlooked factor: us. We're all quick and for the most part correct to point out the blatant greed, corruption and hypocrisy in politics and media, but what about us -- here on this board and in the general population -- and our complacency, blind allegiance, and outright ignorance? Yes, TV journalism is sensational and clearly only trying to make money, but people keep watching, even people who recognize its awfulness, right? We're the reason the ad people keep supporting the yapping head people, so why do we never seem to take any blame? The solution is obvious, but it's the opposite of quick and sexy: education. Critical reading, identifying cognitive biases, steel-manning opposing arguments, and many other 'how to think' concepts should be part of an Identifying Bullshit 101 class along with Math, English and History. And the beginning of each year should start with this speech. I sometimes think TV journalism would be a full notch better if Bullshit was both widely acknowledged as a strategy and allowed to be said on air. Imagine if journalists could actually respond, "Sir/madam, what you just said is clearly bullshit for the following reasons." I also think that the founding fathers assumed everyone would always prize knowledge and education as much as they did, so they didn't think to over-emphasize its importance in the constitution, which could have made a difference in the long term. Re: 'Mericanism Of course almost no one has intricate knowledge of other countries (or often even their own). The difference, I've found, on here and in real life, is that Americans seem uniquely proud of their ignorance, and they're happy to state it, as if it's a virtue. I'm not the most well-travelled guy, but in the little I've done, I've found the bolded sentiment below consistently comes from the same population, and most others would be embarrassed to hear their countrymen say it, even if it was true.
It's not a virtue. I wish more Americans had greater consideration of foreign policy, or just all around knowledge of culture and history. But it's kind of like the friends you have who hardly watch the news. Sure, they should follow the news and be better informed, but it's not necessarily a big deal. I don't know if the founding fathers assumed everyone valued knowledge. Funnily enough, people like Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson wrote some pretty slanderous things about the general public of their own time. The founders were also not above manipulating a narrative to push their agenda. To convince the colonists of the need for a revolution they came near the point of outright lying at times. Rather than the clean cut good vs evil of Mel Gibson's patriots the early Americans were a lot of a belligerent drunks prone to outrage or starting a fight over the slightest provocations. Yes, we've always been a violent country. In the early days after the British left there was an armed rebellion just because some people decided they didn't want to pay taxes on their whiskey. Fortunately the founders were the most progressive intelligent intellectuals of their time. Even if some of them did own slaves while being fully aware of their hypocrisy, but that's another story.
Well aside from the lack of communication infrastructure and logistics of doing so at the time, its partially the reason we have a representative democracy instead of a direct one. I dont think they would have enjoyed a bunch of illiterate farmers making the weeks' long trek to Philadelphia to bitch and moan during the convention.
I wonder if in some ways the age of information has actually been a bad thing. American politicians have always pandered to jackasses to get their vote, but once they were in office they didn't (usually) act out those beliefs. Now, if you want to pander to these people you need to have the record to back it up. I think that's partially why Cruz came in second to Trump and Kasich was such a distant third. Or maybe it is just total disgust with the establishment. But while I think Trump has manipulated the media, like saying something just a little outside of people's comfort zones to get demagogues to throw a tantrum so he can take the high ground, he really did believe in the birther nonsense and I think actually believes that Mexico is 'sending' its people.
True, but that's not the point I was making. You used to be able to pander to religious fundamentalists without being one yourself. These days you have to actually believe in that shit, or at least it's really hard to cover your tracks. That's why Cruz finished second in these primaries and Santorum second 4 years ago. Some of the republican candidates might have jumped on board with the crazier things Trump has said because they're popular, but they knew fact checkers would rip it to shreds so they wouldn't do it. However, information is a double edged sword and some people vote on their emotions over evidence. This happens on the democrats side too. It's like the equal work for equal pay narrative. Obama and Hillary know the way they're citing those numbers is bullshit, but liberals like to hear it so they're pandering even though they know it's impossible to legislate men and women balancing work/family life exactly the same way, or convincing as many women to study pre-med as there are communications majors. Historically there have been politicians who have believed some nonsensical things. I just doubt that someone like Trump could have won a party's candidacy 20 years ago, but who knows...