Would you say the United States is a reactionary or progressive country?

[DownWithTheLeft]

It was the essay on my Honors US I final this year and I thought we could have an interesting debate about it.  I say reactionary I'll weigh in why after others have posted.

[King]

lol

[DWPerry]

EXTREMELY reactionary

[Beet]

Hmmm, had I been your teacher my question would have gone something along the lines of 'Compare and contrast the reactionary or progressive characteristics of the United States.'

You will be graded on your writing abilities, how well you demonstrate your knowledge, and finally your analytic abilities.

[DuEbrithil]

ridiculously reactionary

[angus]

Extremely reactionary.  And extremely progressive.  No doubt, we are a burgeoning empire, dealing with the growing pains that spain, for example, must have had to deal with some five hundred years ago.  Hopefully, King George the Second won't be quite as foolish as Ferdinand and his goons who flooded the European market with lifted peruvian gold and caused a minor economic collapse.  We freak out over terrorism, and seem willing to give up or first-amendment rights in favor of increased security.  On the other hand, we were the first modern nation to formally grant those rights in the first place.  And we came up with socialist solutions to the 1929 worldwide stock market crash that have basically been copied by, and in some cases, improved upon, by countries all over the globe.  And our pseudo-culture is co-opted by folks all over.  I have seen Wal-Marts in at least four countries, and MacDonald's in more countries than I can count.  And in every country I have ever visited, I see more advertisements for American movies than I see for movies made in the country which I am visiting.  And we have consistently been a country on the move, full of immigrants.  From opressive, economically ravaged societies ranging from 18th-century England to 19th-century Germany to 20th century China to 21st-century Latinoamerica, we still welcome your great unwashed masses.  Then again, there's always Generalissimo Tancredo and his ilk.  Like I said, we're an extremely progressive and extremely reactionary people.  And we got this way because we lack a long-term historical and cultural base.  Progressivism run amok and reactionism run amok are not necessarily endearing.  Still, it's who we are.  So we might as well embrace the fact that we're a mighty progressive and a mighty reactionary people with a serious lack of historical and cultural insight.  I suppose, after some period of imperial growing pains, we might be able to take our place among mature countries of the world.  It seems that all decaying empires (with the striking exception of la Republique Française) have been able to do just that.  On the other hand, we may end up like France, and still be both extremely reactionary and extremely progressive far into our culture's old age.  Nothing less attractive than an old man in speedos.  Well, who knows what the future will bring for our fledgling reactionary/progressive empire?  Time will tell.  But for now, we're definitely a very progressive and very reactionary people.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Extremely reactionary.  And extremely progressive.  No doubt, we are a burgeoning empire, dealing with the growing pains that spain, for example, must have had to deal with some five hundred years ago.  Hopefully, King George the Second won't be quite as foolish as Ferdinand and his goons who flooded the European market with lifted peruvian gold and caused a minor economic collapse.  We freak out over terrorism, and seem willing to give up or first-amendment rights in favor of increased security.  On the other hand, we were the first modern nation to formally grant those rights in the first place.  And we came up with socialist solutions to the 1929 worldwide stock market crash that have basically been copied by, and in some cases, improved upon, by countries all over the globe.  And our pseudo-culture is co-opted by folks all over.  I have seen Wal-Marts in at least four countries, and MacDonald's in more countries than I can count.  And in every country I have ever visited, I see more advertisements for American movies than I see for movies made in the country which I am visiting.  And we have consistently been a country on the move, full of immigrants.  From opressive, economically ravaged societies ranging from 18th-century England to 19th-century Germany to 20th century China to 21st-century Latinoamerica, we still welcome your great unwashed masses.  Then again, there's always Generalissimo Tancredo and his ilk.  Like I said, we're an extremely progressive and extremely reactionary people.  And we got this way because we lack a long-term historical and cultural base.  Progressivism run amok and reactionism run amok are not necessarily endearing.  Still, it's who we are.  So we might as well embrace the fact that we're a mighty progressive and a mighty reactionary people with a serious lack of historical and cultural insight.  I suppose, after some period of imperial growing pains, we might be able to take our place among mature countries of the world.  It seems that all decaying empires (with the striking exception of la Republique Française) have been able to do just that.  On the other hand, we may end up like France, and still be both extremely reactionary and extremely progressive far into our culture's old age.  Nothing less attractive than an old man in speedos.  Well, who knows what the future will bring for our fledgling reactionary/progressive empire?  Time will tell.  But for now, we're definitely a very progressive and very reactionary people.

Ja wohl!

[DownWithTheLeft]

I fail to see how it is progressive, every movement has a catalyst

[John Dibble]

It's some of both.

[Person Man]

We generally take reactive steps as that is how our constitution is designed. Change only occurs when virtually everyone is affected by it, or only gets its attention then. Then again, in the 90s, we began to take proactive steps against terrorism, then we worried about it less and then after 911  we have been taking more reactive steps.

Public Healthcase assistance was more proactive in the 60s.

Social Security and Welfare were more reactive in the 30s in response to the Great Depression.

We were proactive on gay rights and it continues to be a proactive issue with reactive opposition.

Abortion appears to be the same way as its opposition only came about when Colorado, Washington, Alaska, Hawaii and New York Legalised it and was eventually legalisez everywhere else with Roe v. Wade.

We are taking a more proactive approach to war, but this appears to have become a bad policy.

[GMantis]

Extremely reactionary. Political reform is practicaly anathema, progressive economic policies have been scaled back for almost 30 years, attitudes to social issues has become far less liberal, organisations with a reactionary ideology are very influential. The USA was a progressive country, but as angus shows, most of the innovations in the social sphere were a long time ago. And I'm not even talking the US attitude on the world stage which is reactionism personified.

[DanielX]

I think being progressive is reactionary, so I find it very difficult to say...

[Cubby]

My first instinct is to say we are reactionary. But if I had to find evidence for that, it would be kind of difficult. We are progressive on many issues, but compared to Europe, we are socially reactionary. Not that Europe is better than us on everything (we are much more tolerant of immigration, this summer's fiasco notwithstanding).

Angus, I'll have to read your post tomorrow

[opebo]

Much more reactionary than average, though less reactionary than a few third world or middle income nations.  Certainly the most reactionary full 'developed' country.

But angus, I think it might be a little too optimistic to call the Empire 'burgeoning'.  The high point was probably 1945-1965.  It is hanging on, no doubt, but it has not exactly got the wind at its back.  Think Edwardian England.

[Silent Hunter]

I'd say reactionary.

[angus]

But angus, I think it might be a little too optimistic to call the Empire 'burgeoning'.  The high point was probably 1945-1965.  It is hanging on, no doubt, but it has not exactly got the wind at its back.  Think Edwardian England.

I don't think you can necessarily guage imperial success by the standards of Edwards' time.  There's no unclaimed ground, and with instant access to information by a relatively literate worldwide public, the sorts of land grabs made by earlier empires aren't likely to happen as often.  Moreover, the US expansion ("Manifest Destiny") culminating in the addition of the two newest US states during the period you mention, while both reactionary and progressive, didn't take the form of classic imperialism in the first place.  Unlike the Inca--probably the best, and perhaps only, example of a system that was truly socialistic and truly imperialistic at the same time--who went on military conquest and absorbed the gods of the conquered people into its own state religion (a very wise move if the ultimate goal is control), our form is more subtle.  We desire control, and for the same reasons that they did, but our religion is democratic capitalism.  And given that the two terms are often in direct contradiction, it's sometimes a hard sell, so we sell it hard.  With guns and tanks and planes, if necessary, but not always.  And the sales pitch must be tempered by some absorption of local customs, just as the Inca absorbed local religions into its own overarching view centered on the Tihuantinsuyu and its protectorate, Pachamama.  And if we can sell our religion globally (we have succeeded only in Europe, Japan, and, by some measurements, in parts of Latin America and the middle east, particularly Israel).  The US constitution, probably one of the most progressive and most reactionary documents ever written, has been copied by countries around the globe.  And each time some society does that, it provides another reasonably stable market for our entrepreneurs, potentially creating greater wealth for that small fraction of Americans who have learned to exploit our particular brand of imperialism.  And we continue to sell it.  Surely a worldly-wise man such as yourself takes note of the increasing presence of American pop-cultural gadgets, gizmos, films, foods, lingo, music, and trinkets.  Not that anything's actually made here anymore.  We seemed to have lost the ability to actually produce any commodities, and that may be our ultimate demise, but the ideas are still contstantly being exported.  And you don't measure American Imperialism in terms of the (astonishingly successful) land grabs that gave us the phrase "manifest destiny."

[opebo]

angus, I won't dispute your long post, but I will clarify that I never mentioned anything about land-grabs as obviously I don't consider those particularly important in either Edwardian or current imperialism. 

[CultureKing]

As a whole reactionary but there are many areas that are more in the progressive line (basically New England and parts of the west coast, beyond that progressive tendencies are somewhat scattered and isolated.)

[Keystone Phil]

As a whole reactionary but there are many areas that are more in the progressive line (basically New England and parts of the west coast, beyond that progressive tendencies are somewhat scattered and isolated.)

That is probably the post I have agreed with most on this discussion.  I don't think you can judge the entire country one way or another.  As a whole I feel it pretty much evens out.  I think reactionary is a strong word denoting a very extreme sense of conservatism, which is why I would never define our country as being reactionary.  Take Massachusetts, I'd say their views on civil unions for example is extremely radical compared to the way Utah looks at the issue.  The country is so different in political ideologies, I again could not justify saying the United States is either.

Mr. Fresh returns?

[MaC]

with regards to what?

btw, I always hate it when professors would give out huge essays with questions that are extremely broad.  Perhaps if your question has better wording, I could try to help.

[MasterJedi]

Neither, a mix of both.

[angus]

with regards to what?

btw, I always hate it when professors would give out huge essays with questions that are extremely broad.  Perhaps if your question has better wording, I could try to help.

but those are the easiest As.  You can pretty much baffle so long as you're a reasonably talented writer.  With specific questions you actually need to have studied specific material.

Even on this forum, the best threads are those with sufficient ambiguity to ensure a variety of interpretations.  Granted, it's under the "political debate" subheading, and in any debate the first priority is to define terms, but honestly, no one changes anyone's mind here, and no one really follows the rules of debate.  It's all ranting, discussing, and opining.  Just enjoy it.  You might even learn something once in a while. 

[Bono]

I reject the labels.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Neither. It went on a different path of social evolution than West Europe/the rest of the anglosphere. We're the least 'european' of the anglosphere nations.

[Person Man]

I would say that the U.S. is a unique social and human construction to say the very least, we have  countering currents flowing in a bizzare synthesis that has become something that is really quite different from the rest of the world. They say that Texas is like a whole other country. I would say that the U.S. is like a whole other planet. I've been to Europe, both the poor and wealthy parts and see that the there are things we hold in common and things that made me question whether Euros and Americans were even the same species.

After looking at the question more, I would say that this is a country that keeps on pushing the evelope until the country wins or the system wins. We will probably be a reactionary country until there is a  disaster that basically shuts down the entire country and then the cycle will restart. 1861. 1876. 1929.  1971. I think we may be entering a time of tribulation or a time of final affirmation for the current regime.