Essay:The "American Experiment" is dead

...and we just don't feel it yet.

I tire of this country

I was born in America in 1990. I experienced the tediousness of finding things in encyclopedia's and the excitement of finding things on-line only a few years apart. I went from buying ringtones on a brick phone that everyone could here, to putting my smart phone on vibrate as soon as a open the box. I've lived through meeting my family outside airport terminals, to the humiliation of having to take off my shoes before walking through a body scanner. And I have gone from an optimist, to a pessimist far too quickly. Most importantly however, I feel a level of danger living in this country I never felt before and a level of mistrust in the institutions that have defined this country, leading me to this decision. I need to leave this country.

Reason #1: Violence

In comparison to many other times in a American history, this is indeed likely the safest. Especially as a Black man in this country, I am not at the mercy of a slave owner's whip. Nor are their lynch mobs patrolling the streets. For the most part, I am not target of indiscriminate policing. And I have a modicum of trust that the criminal justice system would protect me. At the same time, there are more guns in this country than people. White-Supremacists and Right-wing terrorists pop up on occasion. Police are armed with weapons of war and use it with impunity. And the systems that I thought were built to protect, are little more than best practices of regulatory interpretation. I fear that my life is violently threatened.

The threat of violence is even higher because the access to weapons that inflict massive damage are essentially freely available to most individuals. The number of mass casualty events that happen here with increasing frequency is a testament to that. Beyond that however is a deep cultural sickness that tolerates and even encourages violence. There is a group of Americans with significant political and cultural power, that actively seeks to increase the number and deadliness of weapons in the US. And see's even the most basic of regulation, not just a revulsion to universal background checks, but to even allowing the systems we have established to function in a meaningful way. Comically they frequently support the type of accessories to these weapons that would make them deadlier, less identifiable and quieter by saying they would benefit groups of gun owners with no need for them.

Reason #2: Religious Extremism

I am an Atheist, more specifically I am a Satanist. I keep copies of the Satanic Bible and Satanic Rituals near my bedside. Though I don't agree with everything Anton Levay has written, especially the spiritual and mystical elements, I find his centering on the self liberating. I wear a medallion under my shirt, but I don't go around challenging every person of faith I meet, nor do I have a problem with people practicing their faith in their own way as long as it doesn't hurt others. Based on most surveys, non-believers are ascendant in America. But among the faithful, especially those belonging to a non-denomination Christian church, their regressive views are only hardening. Though I don't identify with the LGBTI+ community, I count many members as my friends. Currently they are under sustained violence from the state, but physical and psychological. Though I am a male, I have had to have conversations with a partner around terminating a pregnancy that threatened them. Those rights are in jeopardy after decades of sustained influence. Though I have supported the liberal (often Democrat) candidate in every election which I have participated, I would vote against a candidate that threatened the country. The evangelical right has co-opted the vehicle of the GOP in support of dominionism.

One only needs to look at states with unified GOP control to understand what is imminent. Laws attacking the existence of Trans people. Influential conservatives discussing executing gay people. Punishing doctors, medical professionals, any one involved in the process of helping a woman obtaining an abortion. Criminally investigating miscarriage's. This used to be the fantasy of Alan Moore and Margaret Atwood. It is now a reality. There are even some rumblings that this would be a desirable reality, a horrifying prospect. Part of that story, where commanders have created an underground sex club, seems to be missed by people the most. Christian Fascists seem to acknowledge that they won't be able to totally suppress the sexual proclivities of everyone, they only seek to ensure it is only the most powerful that can explore it.

The elimination of a constitutional right to an abortion will all but guarantee, long hard years of suffering for primarily poor, black and brown women across the country that will see their life's value defines only by their uterus. Authorities in conservative states will seek aggressively investigate every single pregnancy complication. Every single miscarriage will be evaluated as if the woman caused it intentionally. Women that may even have the possibility of being pregnant will learn they must change entire aspects of their life until they can be certain they aren't pregnant. This will directly challenge the gains made by women in basically every industry, but especially sports, where centuries of sexism limited their ability to compete at the highest levels. Inevitably we will see the return of sexist, unscientific, morally based legislation written by men with no understanding of women or sex, without a shred of accountability.

While this energy is currently targeting abortion specifically, many groups are salivating at the opportunity to reverse other constitutionally protected rights, starting with Obergefell and Lawrence and very likely Griswold and Loving. The unhinged purists will take their ideals to their logical conclusion; Creating laws to enforce their narrow views on sexuality on the rest of the country.

Reason #3: Law Enforcement

Though most of my concerns stem specifically from the police, the law enforcement mechanisms of this country represent and existential threat to most Americans. I will not even use the history behind most police forces creation, or their history of over policing black and brown neighborhoods, nor even their ranks being filled with white supremacists. To me the most dangerous aspects of law enforcement come from their heightened militarization and the absence of any form of significant accountability.

This seems to have been supercharged after 9/11 and the subsequent decades long war on terror. The heroic actions of the NYPD and FDNY on 9/11 deserve recognition, however since then there has essentially been a seemingly unearned reverence given to all law enforcement professionals, coupled with a clear effort to provide the type of equipment to fight an insurgency, clearly absent from American life. Additionally the massive loss of life fundamentally realigned the value of law enforcement away from sacrifice and towards survival by any means necessary. Though police have always abused their power over-policing black and brown communities, a new cultural of a warrior office became to permeate. Instead of being there to protect the community, the community has become the threat. Every single interaction with police has morphed into a life-or-death scenario, where unarmed citizens are expected to exercise calm and rational thought while the emotionally amped officer looks for any reason to kill to defend their own life. And instead of focusing those services that would decrease the number and severity of citizens interactions with police, they insist on arming themselves to such a level they can extinguish even the smallest amount of resistance. Instead of addressing the real threat to officers lives, the proliferation and increased destructiveness of privately owned arsenals, which could rival some departments, they seek to partner with and even employ this armed citizenry as part of law enforcement response.

Which leads to the accountability threat. Deep reverence for law enforcement, and a deference to their preferred facts and expertise, has gutted any real form of accountability. In an age defined by extensive data, and AI analysis to reach optimum outcomes for capitalism, we still rely on warped, often racist, policies dating back to the early 20th century. Data points based real time gathering is trumped by war stories of a bygone era. Even those data points which are reported, come from such a small sample size, that while the evidence is revealing, nothing can truly be done. Federal law enforcement, namely the Department of Justice, lacks the power to truly compel departments to willingly release relevant data. Instead the are forced to sue departments, dragging them kicking and screaming for every morsel of info. Even if the DoJ had the requisite authority to act, there are so many police departments in this country, 18,000 and counting, with so many overlapping jurisdictions it's inconceivable that they would be able to enforce actions against a department that refuses. As such, any real reform requires top-to-bottom enforcement, which would then be challenged by states seeking to protect powerful political groups in their states to ensure they have their own rules for law enforcement.

Reforms as such are impossible, so there will always exist a group heavily armed right-wing (primarily) white men, with no real accountability, primed to suppress an insurgency. This is an existential threat.

Reason #4: Capitalism and Non-Government Institutions

The US has, at best, had a C-Suite specific view of capitalism. Starting with the free labor of slaves to bring in massive amounts of capital, and using that capital to build the cites and industries that empowered the original colonies to seek separation from the British crown. They then supercharged this economic model to create and trade products making the US a beacon of economic success. Some of the most powerful institutions in this country have roots from the post-independence period. So important to the success of this country was powered by this resource that they included the protection of this resource in the constitution, explicitly placing slavery at the center of America's rise. When this was threatened by Lincoln ascending to the White House, these interests supported treason to protect their rights to enslave people, and placed this right at the core of their confederacy. The Union even softened the blow of these interests, essentially providing financial support to the industries that relied on slavery to support their enterprise, but failing to even properly compensate former slaves for their unpaid labor. Even after losing the war, enforcement of this new social contract, required the threat of violence for these interests to comply, the reason why Juneteenth is celebrated. But by removing the threat of violence, an new oppressive model, hiding behind the veneer of law and economics to re-enslave large portions of this community. Only when the threat of violence from the Federal government combined with a sustained effort of catalogued torture did the tides turn. This works out to about 200+ years supporting oppression to the benefit of monied interests.

What evidence is there then that corporations not would not entertain a more oppressive model of government? If the accumulation of wealth is their only motivating factor, why would assurances from government that their business models would not be tampered with, not make them accomplices? Already through the period of relative economic improvement across socio-economic groups, the most recent years seem to be defined by maximum exploitation for maximum profit. Offshoring jobs was one thing, but create a massive network of employees not protected by minimum wage laws, and hard fought union benefits has created a populace much more open to internal and external shocks. More people then ever are at the mercy of their employer, and the few with economic gains are at the mercy of market forces. The line between indentured servitude and employee is getting narrower and narrower as corporations seek to milk human labor for every cent it is worth, without instead investing in technologies to improve their performance.

The rise of a Fascist or Theocratic rule then would not threaten the bottom lines of many corporations. VW and Hugo Boss built their international clout in part from collaborating with the Nazi's. Corporations that claim to care about social issues and the rights of workers already partner with dictatorships and despots abroad to help their bottom line. It is admirable that in this time of crisis, many companies have sought to cut ties with Putin's Russia, beyond even the heavy economic sanctions imposed by the West and it's partners. However the same corporations, remain silent about the genocide in China. They capitulate to the CCP providing cover for a one-party dictatorship's violent oppression. And then when the CCP has extracted every necessary resource from these foreign companies, they change the rules, kick them out and steal their intellectual property, leaving corporations with no recourse considering the CCP controls all the levers of the rule of law. And instead of learning the lessons of entire industries exploited, hungry corporations bend over backwards to extract just a bit more profit before the door slams shut.

If corporations now, are willing to cooperate with a one-party dictatorship that seeks to steal and usurp them, corporations would be willing collaborators for American one-party dictatorship. Already most corporations contributions go to the GOP, despite their willingness to restrict fundamental rights. Corporations couldn't even wait a single election cycle before they restarted paused contributions to Congress people who actively sought to overrule democracy. Many corporations are looking right now at Disney feuding with Florida and its burgeoning fascist Ron DeSantis. For decades, Disney essentially powered the GOP in Florida, with such heft that it frequently would kill bills that threatened their image, and wrote legislation that both protected their IP and their sprawling theme-park. But Disney chose to pushback on one badly written, obviously homophobic probably unconstitutional piece of legislation, and Florida, led by DeSantis, has sought to use the power of government to punish Disney. After Trump, DeSantis is the second choice for most in the GOP. This brand of state overreach won't become the conservative norm?

Major financial interests flexed their considerable political clout in '21 to force the GOP to support a bill raising the debt ceiling, even after McConnel explicitly said he wouldn't. When the bottom line is threatened, corporations can bring the GOP to heel. But many of them would gladly abandon their commitments to liberal democracy if it would protect their assets.

Reason #5: Social Contract with the Citizenry

The social contract is more than just the Bill of Rights or the Constitution. It is a social agreement that includes but are not limited to laws. It defines the expectations of citizens, and the reward from the government who empowered it. It is a living document that parallels history, but exists beyond it.

This countries social contract has evolved considerably since it's founding. The Constitution specifically, was written as a contract between the men who assembled it and the class they represented. With such a small group composing all the political power in the country, the founders debate around power made sense, because they had identified the power given to them controlled the lives of so many who had no voice. It wouldn't be until Andrew Jackson that influence of the government expand beyond an elite minority to encapsulate the other group which they all belonged, white men. At this point the contracts right now explicitly protect a much larger group of people, but explicitly exclude another, Black people. The 14th and 15th amendments following a gruesome conflict finally include an out group, Black men, entrusting them to be included in the machinations of self-governing. With slavery outlawed, spineless Northern Republicans sought to restart economic activity, by releasing their boots from former confederates, and allowing them to reverse all the gains from Reconstruction, the first time a group would be removed from the contract. Black men, explicitly free men, became fodder for a new contract that criminalized them. It wouldn't be until the early 20th century, that another out group would gain representation and protection of the constitution, white women. Suffragists would suffer many of the same indignities and violence that would later come to define the struggle for Black Americans to officially and affirmatively, have the protections of the Constitution apply to them. In between the contract would not apply to immigrants to the country, including from Europe. Jackson's cruelty would continue to exclude Native Americans. Americans of Asian descent would also see themselves excluded and violently enforced during WWII. The hostility to those of Asian descent became such a problem in the post war era, that the Soviets sought to exploit our nativism challenging our influence in SE Asia. Explicit inclusion came only to weaken Communist gains. Many Black thinkers and activists would die after witnessing the universal social contracts of Europe and the cruelty of demanding service to a country who's citizens would kill you for looking at a white woman's direction. Menstruating women would also add crucial protections to the contract.

All this suffering has led to the eventual American social contract that had been basically undisturbed since the 1980's. The rights of the constitution applied to all groups, and although they may not have been respected for all groups, mechanisms existed to challenge this. Lawsuits would functionally chip away at the existing oppression until "Life, Liberty and Property" finally applied to all Americans. My lifetime saw some basic inclusions, namely the LGBT community, but that struggle seemingly ended denial of rights based on specifically human properties.

This puts the current social contract somewhere around 2015. Since then, it has been under sustained attack. Menstruating women have been the focus of this assault from the same day Roe was written. The social contract had come to include almost all sexual proclivities, as well as their consequences. Through the lens of protecting the unborn, the religious right and their partners sought to control the consequences. With their victory, they now have changed the calculation of half the American population. No longer focused on abortion, their next targets are LGBT people. Those hard fought gains might soon prove to be even more fleeting than the Reconstruction South. Already the demagoguery of LGBT people is at it's lowest; Accusing LGBT people of being 'abnormal', accusing LGBT allies of being 'Child Groomers' and eliminating conversations of fluid sexuality in schools. What they seek is no less than a radical retraction of sexual freedoms as a part of an American.

The social contract is also threatened by what it failed to do; Protect the rights of citizens to choose their representatives. A violent insurrection nearly ended the rightful transfer of power for the first time in history, and was the first violent transfer of power since the late 19th century. Americans rightfully should demand accountability for such a flagrant violation. And for a moment, that looked like it was possible. But not any longer. Sure there are those who performed the action violence, and created the framework for sedition who will see justice. There may even be real consequences for those who sought to use their position of power to exploit any sort of mistake or misunderstanding to throw the whole process into turmoil. But the beneficiary and primary bomb thrower will escape consequences. In fact his baseless assertions, and delusional accusations are now the center of one political party. Soon the very levers of democracy, which we have entrusted to individuals to dutifully manage, will be controlled by sycophants seeking to secure power. The past election may have been the last "free" election in America and may instead may be the first of many defined by violence.

How can one agree to live in a country, who after establishing a balanced social contract, covering all Americans, has already eliminated one consideration, seeks to challenge another, and fails to hold to account the most dangerous threat to its very existence?