I really think this is where the issue stems from in many of the circles on the right. Admittedly I do not have as good of a grip on the leftist perspective as I would like. Most of what I assume I take from the fleeting period of my youth in which I too became enthralled with the mystique of Obama. But most of those I know who are actually willing to discuss politics and have their ideological views challenged are on the right. And one of my sole sources of for perspective of the left comes from my mother, of whom would likely never get involved with these discussions, were I not formerly their little bundle of joy.
Nonetheless, what is touted in America, is the rigid ferocity in which the tenets and founding articles are so passionately defended. The whole "I care not for what you say, but I will die fighting for your right to say it" is a hill that our parents' and grandparents' generations would defend without question. Or at least, that is how I perceived things before 2015 or so, until a small group of influential boomers somehow swayed half the population that assuming pride in such basic principles is something to be ashamed of.
For several centuries the defining difference between our culture and the many others which may share our language, system of government, and even values, has been America's founding charter. Other countries look at us and wonder why we hold a piece of paper so dear. They perhaps understand the importance of the words on the document, but fail to see that in comparison to European countries, this nation is in it infancy.
If you think critically about the circumstances in which these longstanding kingdoms have built themselves to be, they are not at all like they started. They have switched from autocratic monarchies to parliament monarchies, to following our example of a republic. And think of that for a moment! It took a thousand years for some of these countries to eek out a pittance of a system resembling what the Romans once had. Yet the US does it, and suddenly Republics in such a form are all the rage, converting these ancient nations purely by example (in most cases). I realize the US isn't the first state which used Roman examples of governance to base their own leadership upon, but the US is called the "great experiment" for a reason!
These countries went through transformations over their long standing histories- many of which could only be achieved through bloodshed -ratifying, amending, and changing every hundred years or so. The nobility would want more power, the people would want more, and the king would make it so, to appease and prevent the dissolution of their grand empires.
What I am getting at is this: they have gone through change. Their history is full of change. They live to expect such change. But in the US, we have only amended our founding charters, never overhauling the system as it is. This is why even those of us who are first generation immigrants hold these articles in the highest regard.
And no matter your opinion of the United States, one must admit any founding document that has lasted as long as ours, with such little change, with its populace still agreeable to the vast majority of its basic principles 250 years later, was at its inception, an extraordinary work.
The basic rights that are beholden to our nation's government by these simply pieces of parchment, are unquestionable. For many of the teens who have hitched themselves to the "burn it all down, start again" wagon, were they to rewrite the founding charter, they would still include most of our amendments..... Obviously with exceptions like 2a.
These rights are seen universally ad non negotiable, basic principles in which so many other countries have gladly borrowed from when drafting their own charters.
But the real thing that keeps the US citizen beholden to its past is that second amendment I just mentioned. We haven't changed that aspect much since inception when it comes to the basic structure and body of our government. Yes, pre civil war there certainly was a much greater emphasis on states rights overriding that of the federal government. And certainly technology has changed and our politicians never failing in finding new ways in which to be corrupt. Yes, gun laws would be considered unconstitutional no doubt be considered unconstitutional under 1776 rules. But the 2a gives us the illusion of power and freedom, even as it is slowly being eroded from us.
It is the safety net - not in the sense that the founding fathers intended. Not in the manner it would prevent tyranny from thriving. Rather, it has had the opposite effect as weapon technology has improved. The liberal talking point of "your guns won't stop a tank" is woefully true.
The average citizen is confined to limited arms access if they are mentally sound and devoid of criminal history. The way I see it, when you are ruling the country with the highest military budget and the strongest army, you can afford to let the people have guns created in the earlier half of the 20th century, because you have way better shit hiding behind the curtain which can make the guns obsolete in any real sort of uprising.
Which gets me back to my point in my first post. The anger is directed at Trump right now because it's an easy out, and it distracts from the real issue at hand: they are telling, not asking. And we have just noticed the rug slipping out from beneath us, and it's already too late to stop it.
But when we are too busy directing half our energy at being angry over a Trump tweet, with the other half too busy sucking his dick, we tend to miss the rug moving in its entirety until it is suddenly gone. People arguing the efficiency of mask wearing have valid concerns, and that is a point I would love more info on. But if we want to get some actual statistics to prove it one way or another, we need to fucking do our part so that they are accurate.
