[docbrown]

>but policy-wise he didn't really make any horrible decisions.

This is where the problem lies within our current political discourse: both parties have fundamental differences within themselves on what they view as being morally on the up-and-up.

Both parties view certain demographics in their own way and this allows them to engage in policies that allow them to accomplish their end goal while never causing harm -- because they genuinely believe they are not causing harm to anyone. They're only following through on policies that match their moral compass.

Until this country has a reckoning on what its fundamental values should be, there will always be a sense of distrust and skepticism between each other.

[lliamander]

> Until this country has a reckoning on what its fundamental values should be, there will always be a sense of distrust and skepticism between each other.

Do we need to agree on fundamental values? How might it be possible to avoid reaching a (likely impossible) agreement?

[crocodiletears]

There needs to be some unified national bent, but I think consensus is an entirely unrealistic expectation for the union.

Ultimately, I think the most viable path forward is a cultural reprivileving of state and local politics over national-level politics, and to rehabilitate our national mythology (half the country thinks we're a divine gift, and the other thinks we're a physical manifestation of every sin in Western history).

Unfortunately, I'm not sure if that's a more realistic path than any other at this point. The development and expansion of our bureaucracies under executive control makes the federal government too easy and tempting a tool for the imposition of any one faction's agenda upon all other states.

[docbrown]

Perhaps we may not need to agree on every topic but there must be a discourse happening between each other in good faith. This rarely happens in our current political climate as most people (using Twitter as a sample group) is hyperreactive to any sort of criticism from their opponent.

If we, or all nations, want to come together, our first step is to recognize the importance of the United Nations. If we are able to understand that the United Nations can be an apolitical checks and balance to all countries, it may be a major step forward.

An ideal theory is that all countries begin living by the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights[1]. Incorporate this into the foundation of your countries government and it sets a tone and example for which type of moral values you prioritize within your borders.

[1]: https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ind...

[lliamander]

> If we, or all nations, want to come together, our first step is to recognize the importance of the United Nations.

Interesting that the other response to my post (thus far) essentially argues for the opposite. That a re-emphasis on local politics would be preferable.

Personally, I think letting people go there own way as much as possible is the best course, and empowering the United Nations is pretty much the opposite of that. I'm not saying there isn't a lot of good stuff in the Declaration of Human Rights, but to have a super-ordinate body that is in no way directly accountable to the people over whom it rules, and which attempts to reconcile increasingly disparate cultures, will result in authoritarianism and war.

[docbrown]

> Personally, I think letting people go there own way as much as possible is the best course, and empowering the United Nations is pretty much the opposite of that.

As in a Native American reservation type of self localized governing? That’s the only way I could see any good coming from separating each individual locality apart and attaching their own executive branch to it. We currently have 50 seperate states which almost govern in that way but they still must answer to an executive branch and that can be confusing.

Should one branch have a say in all local decisions? Who gets to decide on which person makes those decisions for all? My fear would be that governing completely independent of any other branch could also lead to authoritarianism: if one person persuades the locals they have the best mind to guide them through troubles, they’d ultimately have the final say in decision making once they gain their trust and the ability to govern.

(Apologies if formatting makes it sound confusing, I jumped off my laptop and am instead currently using mobile. Will edit to clarify any discrepancies.)

[crocodiletears]

I posted my reply to the parent comment before seeing yours, and I have to say that the second paragraph you write articulates many of my objections to the UN in a succinct way that I've long struggled to achieve.

[crocodiletears]

The parent comment is concerning American domestic cohesion. A tricky problem in and of itself.

To your point, I'm not sold that all nations ought to come together into a unified state. Least of all beneath the banner of the UN, which has hardly shown itself to be apolitical (its very mission presumes a specific cultural and political end).

Articles 7, 13, 26(2), 29(3) are non-starters for much of the country (myself included). As I read them, they have significant implications for national sovereignty.