Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What would happen to progressive ideologies in this country after a catastrophic planet altering event such as a large asteroid, nuclear war, or a major pandemic? We're talking a total societal breakdown.
Being that the most progressive areas in this country would be the first to see major chaos, it's pretty safe to say that the majority of progressive minded people would be toast right off the bat. Add to this that virtually every organized power structure in this country from the police to the military is controlled by conservative white men that very well might say "see ya later" and fend for themselves. Throw in a few million well armed rednecks and their families that are prepared for such an event, and it paints a picture of what the rebuilding process might look like in terms of eventual government and order.
I have a gut feeling that the inner-city ghettos would tear themselves apart almost overnight without some form of order. I think the next thing they would do is go after the upper and middle class libs on the other side of the tracks that have no place to run or aren't self sufficient enough to head for the hills. These people would have no way to defend themselves against the type of people that would come for them or their things without law enforcement or the military, which would possibly be completely dissolved under some circumstances. It would be almost ironic to think that the bleeding heart enablers would become a food source to their victims after all these years.
What do you think this country or land would be like after we rebuilt if we were able to? Would we separate by race? Would women go back to 19th century status? Would gays or trans be able to be open anymore? Would multiculturalism simply disappear for a very long time. We see these shows like The Walking Dead that show the contrary; however, I have a feeling that's not at all how things would go down.
In a total breakdown, survival would not be based on one's politics. Urban/suburban populations would fare worse than rural populations given urban/suburban near total dependence on the vastly complex infrastructure of such areas. Lack of functioning water and sewer systems in such settings would quickly develop into health crises. Fires would burn unchecked in densely populated zones. Food would run out within a couple days. As we have seen all too often, urban areas can quickly dissolve into violent chaos.
If it is winter, those who flee towards the countryside in northern climes would quickly discover that the supposed winter clothes they own are more for show than functionality. Going from a heated dwelling to a heated car or public transport and then into a heated building doesn't need much in terms of insulation. Remove the heated dwellings/transport/buildings and they'll find that out real quick.
Those urban/suburban folks who do manage to make it out to the countryside will then find that the rural folks aren't exactly inviting them in. They'll also find out that rural households all pretty much all armed. Rural areas will take care of their own, but not you.
When I lived out in the middle of the Everglades, we would have this discussion every so often. A few people that lived near me had plans that most would not even think about. If it were to ever happen, a lot of people would get wiped out - there's the obvious ones who would be taken down at the beginning...which is a lot! But there's also those who think they could make it out in the wilderness or be able to sneak in or even storm a small town, or other rural area. Listening to some of the things my neighbors said...I don't think it's going to go the way of those who think they know better than rural people. Elitism will be the downfall of many. That Ivy League college degree doesn't give them survival skills if something like that were to happen.
A lot of people never even think about "what ifs". They tend to mock anyone who does think of it. My high school economics teacher taught me more than any college economics professor did when it comes to survival if something drastic ever happened...and "drastic" was not limited to natural disaster or nuclear war. He was also talking about economic disaster. I still remember the list of items he told us to have to barter - and some of the things on that list are what many people already know, but some, I've never seen anyone mention them. And I'm not going to, either, just in case a disaster ever happens. Along with self defense, it can be a way for me to survive, too.
As for weather mentioned above...yep. People have no idea what 'hot' really is until they sit out in it all day. "Gardening for an hour" is not living in it all day. Same goes with cold. Having to walk outside for a 10 minute smoke break in the winter, even in MI, Maine, WI, etc is not truly experiencing just how harsh the cold can get, and how easily it can kill you.
Some people will be smart enough to realize that remaining in the city is not going to keep them alive, but their problem is, for many, they don't have a clue how to actually survive away from the city, either. "I went camping for a week, I know what to do" always makes me laugh. And I'm saying that while realizing that even I don't know as much as others do when it comes to survival. I know a bit, but others will fare far better than most of us.
The first ones to be taken out will be those who insist on things "being fair". There is no "fair" in that type of scenario.
Progressive ideologies exist precisely because we live in an affluent society with more than enough means to provide for all. They clearly can not exist in a world thrown into a primitive state.
Progressive ideology is a luxurious social excess that is courtesy of a single factor: wealth.
That's why you only see it in wealthy cities of wealthy nations.
Conservative social rules facilitate the growth of social order, and thus political power, and thus the accumulation of resources.
This is a large reason why one observes that most poor nations have poor social order, even if this poor social order is conservatism done poorly (to extreme excess, etc.).
This poor social order is not caused by excessive poverty, but the poor social order is instead the primary reason for the poverty.
People who are "natural liberals", that is people who can not or will not form a strict social order, tend to remain in poverty outside of wealthy societies because they can not form the deeper and wider family and community social bonds needed that allow for enough sociopolitical cooperation that would allow them to both maintain law and order and accumulate resources in any meaningful way.
When resources are accumulated to a certain level, excess resources begin to be claimed by or for those at the bottom of the pyramid. In addition, the wealthy have more leisure time. This facilitates thinking that tends to be divorced from the needs of the core social structure of the society (the family), even though that is the core social structure that allowed for the wealth to be accumulated in the first place. The excess wealth causes people to forget how structure society to accumulate wealth for their specific group.
The excess wealth leads to widespread thinking that we don't need the social bonds at all, then the values that create these social bonds are de-emphasized, and the values of the individual (liberalism) become ascendant. Ironically, this allows a large social space for the people who could not form enough of a functional community to dig themselves out of poverty and form a functional first world civilization to begin with.
That long explanation was to get to this one: if a cataclysm ever comes, all of the excess wealth will disappear and we will instantly revert to strict traditional social order for people who can implement it, as well as general social Darwinism as a matter of survival. Whatever assists survival will rule, and that will be a hierarchical society. As it was for 99%.99+ of our existence
Progressive ideology is a luxurious social excess that is courtesy of a single factor: wealth.
That's why you only see it in wealthy cities of wealthy nations.
Conservative social rules facilitate the growth of social order, and thus political power, and thus the accumulation of resources.
This is a large reason why one observes that most poor nations have poor social order, even if this poor social order is conservatism done poorly (to extreme excess, etc.).
This poor social order is not caused by excessive poverty, but the poor social order is instead the primary reason for the poverty.
People who are "natural liberals", that is people who can not or will not form a strict social order, tend to remain in poverty outside of wealthy societies because they can not form the deeper and wider family and community social bonds needed that allow for enough sociopolitical cooperation that would allow them to both maintain law and order and accumulate resources in any meaningful way.
When resources are accumulated to a certain level, excess resources begin to be claimed by or for those at the bottom of the pyramid. In addition, the wealthy have more leisure time. This facilitates thinking that tends to be divorced from the needs of the core social structure of the society (the family), even though that is the core social structure that allowed for the wealth to be accumulated in the first place. The excess wealth causes people to forget how structure society to accumulate wealth for their specific group.
The excess wealth leads to widespread thinking that we don't need the social bonds at all, then the values that create these social bonds are de-emphasized, and the values of the individual (liberalism) become ascendant. Ironically, this allows a large social space for the people who could not form enough of a functional community to dig themselves out of poverty and form a functional first world civilization to begin with.
That long explanation was to get to this one: if a cataclysm ever comes, all of the excess wealth will disappear and we will instantly revert to strict traditional social order for people who can implement it, as well as general social Darwinism as a matter of survival. Whatever assists survival will rule, and that will be a hierarchical society. As it was for 99%.99+ of our existence
I love this child like understanding of what events like this would look like so that you can make some unimportant "liberals are weak" argument.
A society crippling event would destroy American politics as we know it. Yes, the progressive ideology would most likely disappear complete, but so too would this "anti-PC" crowd of conservatives. Society would devolve into Hobbesian style authoritarianism because only an authoritarian state would be able to maintain social order in a world where the water isn't safe to drink, where crop yield is decimated by artificial winters, and were basic social utilities that liberals and conservatives alike enjoy are a thing of the past.
Forget a massive global catastrophe, what about something like a chemical attack by terrorists or another 9/11 large terrorist attack. When so much of the democratic party "base" and future is based on open borders, the "browning" of America and globalism and multiculturalism, they would be dead in the water but the mainstream republican party would be as well. The truth is most mainstream republicans have been no better at protecting the border and are just as globalist.
The republicans havent protected the border either, trump won because of populism and nationalism, not because of these globalist conservatives
You remember George bush lecturing Kerry on the racist profiling of Arabs in airports right before 9/11?
"Bush said during the nationally televised debate, “Arab-Americans are racially profiled in what’s called secret evidence. People are stopped, and we got to do something about that.”
Then-Governor Bush went on, “My friend, Sen. Spence Abraham [the Arab-American Republic Senator from Michigan], is pushing a law to make sure that, you know, Arab-Americans are treated with respect. So racial profiling isn’t just an issue at the local police forces. It’s an issue throughout our society. And as we become a diverse society, we’re going to have to deal with it more and more.”
Once in office, Bush and his Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta followed up with federal programs to wipe out profiling of Arabs at airports."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
