More like, it has become like that. Because of complete disregard/disrespect for the US constitution. The constitution had numerous safeguards to restrict abuse of power, but the Federal Government is completely sitting on it.
It baffles me that people still immigrate to Singapore. What a total disrespect for a thousand years fighting for the right to vote.
Dubai is another even more extreme example.
Which has infected every level of government.
From the president's "executive orders" every time he wants something done and congress refuses to do it, so he simply writes a new law and enacts it.
From supreme court nominees who believe more in "social justice" then interpreting the constitution which is their job, not to dole out fairness when they feel their has been an injustice done to some party.
From the do-nothing congress that simply doesn't work at all in the completely divided partisan environment they've created. No laws get passed, there is no working together for their constituents - which is their job. You can also toss in there the Republicans stone walling the supreme court nominee which has become high theater now - on both sides.
Our government is being run like a fucking game now and its infuriating and depressing all at the same time. Remember those days when the two parties would work together and pass acts and laws that were good for the country? Remember when the economy was shit and both parties worked together and solve the problems?
Yeah, I don't either.
Maybe as a nation if you consider that the term makes any sense, but for the most part this has started to happen before most Americans alive today were born. Like always there is not a single date in History where you can pinpoint a decisive moment where the Constitution was destroyed, it's been a progressive and "death by thousands cuts" kind of thing.
The stunning success of psychologically tuned propaganda taught generations of political masterminds how to not only rile up the public to make big changes, but to structure society as a disconnected atomized collection of individuals too caught up with their own lives and consumerism to seriously challenge the powers that be. From then on, it becomes easier and easier to circumvent the constitution and even basic ethics because people are less likely to care for longer than a news cycle.
I prefer to look at it through the lens of propaganda because it marked the beginning of an era when big changes in culture and society can be reliably made through subtle manipulation instead of conquest or impassioned public debate.
To me, propaganda is just a result of mass media, which itself is a result of the longer trend of advancing of communication technology. It's impossible to oppress someone who is not in your "light cone", or to control actions which are below your limit of resolving.
In the past things weren't as developed, so it was easier to circumvent a model that was less reflective of reality. But going forward, I feel the quest for individual freedom entirely comes down to information architectures.
In Bernays' Propaganda, he describes a new process to sell pianos based on psychoanalysis rather than traditional big-print advertisements.
Essentially, get leading architects to incorporate "music rooms" into their residential designs. Most architects will follow the greats and add music rooms as well. The average homeowner will then walk into the hardware store someday and notice a piano for sale - another Bernays innovation - and think to themselves that the idea to buy a piano was theirs all along. In fact, this all could have been done before the invention of the radio, maybe even the telegraph.
Propaganda itself is neither good nor evil. We must accept that biases and manipulable aspects are a part of all of us. We have to work with them, or ignore them at our peril.
One of Bernays' biggest early arguments pro-propaganda was that if the business and political elite don't figure it out now, someone else down the line will, and they'll use it to take you down. We as a species will have to consider this with every generation until Homo sapiens goes extinct.
I think you have mistakenly limited "mass media" to radio, telegraphy, TV, etc., and omitted print.
As a reminder, "big-print advertisements" have been around for a long time. The penny press predates useful electric telegraphy, though just barely. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper#Industrial_Revolutio... says "In France, Émile de Girardin started "La Presse" in 1836, introducing cheap, advertising-supported dailies to France." 60 years previous, Thomas Paine's "Common Sense" pamphlet was distributed by the 100,000s during the US revolution, and I would put that as part of mass media and political propaganda.
Aspect of mass media in Europe of course go all the way back to Gutenberg. I'm not trying to establish a certain date, but rather demonstrate that mass media and its effects on propaganda have been part of the US for its entire history.
Even your 1917 is a semi-arbitrary date. Why not the yellow journalism of the 1890s, or more specifically the propaganda of the Spanish–American War ?
Going back further, the 1840 campaign song "Tippecanoe and Tyler Too", coupled with printed sheet music, helped bring Harrison to power. I'm a bit iffy of if that counts as mass media, but if not, it's close. Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tippecanoe_and_Tyler_Too , that song "firmly established the power of singing as a campaign device", and surely was not ignored by future candidates.
The local architects would follow the leading architects from their industry, but lumping it into "mass media" was probably a bad characterization. I'd describe it as as a kind of communication-based centralization, regardless of whether specifically enabled by periodicals, telegraph, train, etc.
You could accomplish the same thing with a more-local architect at the town or city level, but would the smaller gains pay off?
"Communication-based centralization" includes Louis XIV of France's centralization at Versailles, yes?
I'll accept the blame for spending so many years falling for the two-party system. For that I'll take my blame.
But for voting for candidates who turned out to be nothing like they presented themselves? Who outright and repeatedly lied during election season? (and here I'm talking about more than just the presidential level) I'm a reasonably intelligent, well-informed, and fairly skeptical citizen. If, in my idealism, I have fallen for political tricksters, then how can I blame my fellow citizens for doing the same?
In fact, with respect to the "well-informed" part, it was only when I completely stopped consuming mainstream media news that I was finally able to see through all the bullshit with some clarity.
I think most of the blame should fall squarely on the shoulders of our leaders. After all, we don't typically blame the secretary for a corporation's failure, right? In principle, that blame goes to the CEO, and s/he gets booted out.
Well, you go on and boot out the current incumbents, and then vote in the next wave, and see what happens.
After a decade, the shakeout from the real source of many of the problems (follow the money) would be in such disarray, that maybe then we can talk about fixing the system.
After a ~5 year period of strictly avoiding mainstream media, I do now occasionally read non-political stories from Times, Wapo, Wall St Journal, etc, but I'm very cautious and aware of potential biases when I'm doing so. And I limit my total consumption of those sources to a few stories a week.
Fair enough. I was trying to make an analogy about the leaders being held responsible. If you can think of a better one, I'll change it.
That said, I can tell you from personal experience (as seen in a friend) that nearly any corporate executive who gets booted by the board or CEO will be tremendously bruised and hurt by the ordeal. Yeah, it's a punishment most of us would bear for a x million dollar retirement/severance package, but it's still no walk in the park.
For the record, my friend was a C-level executive but not CEO, did not get a multi-million dollar severance (less than a million), and for someone who based his entire identity on his job and company, it was a very serious blow that sent him into major depression and alcoholism.
Also, since you seem to be a judgmental kind of person and may have formed an incorrect impression of my background in your mind, I should add that I don't share my friend's financial success. I'm not a successful executive. In fact, I'm struggling financially at the moment.
But despite my personal struggles, I'm able to look past the numbers in someone's bank account and realize that we're all humans in the end, and just because someone has more money than me doesn't mean they're not worthy of compassion.
That said, if you were just trolling, you got me good. hahaha, that's a laugh.
If that happened to me, I would be starting at least one new business (or help a friend start one financially), buying my first house, buying the tacos with steak instead of beef, starting at least one long awaited personal project. The idea that somebody could have so much more than me and do so little with it is depressing.
Regardless of "right or wrong" that did provide a safeguard against the likes of people like Trump, probably Hillery and Bernie as well.
(yes, I know, the latter was never president -- but still elected)