Rumsfeldia: Fear and Loathing in the Decade of Tears

Status
Not open for further replies.
The structuralist argument seems like a complete dismissal of differences of degree, and an assertion that only differences of kind are meaningful. That seems pretty facile, especially since the same logic says that because air bombing was used at Blair Mountain, we shouldn't be the least bit surprised at the CV's subsequent use of nukes on their own people. Except, you know, it kind of should surprise. Can we imagine the Truman Administration doing the same, simply because they also had that same precedent? Yeah, not really. A lot would have to go wrong in between for that to seem plausible.

Could we imagine centuries of anti-Semitism evolving into literal factories of killing?

Could we imagine the terror of Lenin surpassed by the nightmare of Stalin?

Could we imagine the evil of Al-Qaeda being matched by the insanity of ISIS?

No. But there is a foundation on which things did go wrong.
 
Could we imagine centuries of anti-Semitism evolving into literal factories of killing?

Could we imagine the terror of Lenin surpassed by the nightmare of Stalin?

Could we imagine the evil of Al-Qaeda being matched by the insanity of ISIS?

No. But there is a foundation on which things did go wrong.

Almost anything can be construed as a foundation for something horrible. Despite that, most people IOTL don't live in horrific dystopias, so any serious attempt at explaining one needs to focus on what's different in the cases where those foundations germinate into something much worse.
 
On a tangent, there was someone who adapted the "When they came for the Communists" poem for this timeline, and ended it with "When they came for me, there was nobody left to stand for me, for I voted for Nixon, Wallace, and Rumsfeld". Anyone know which post that was?
Here you go:
First they came for the left-wing radicals, and I did not speak out—
Because I voted for Nixon and hated the left-wing radicals.

Then they came for the eggheads and liberals, and I did not speak out—
Because I voted for Wallace and hated the eggheads and the liberals.

Then they came for the Unionists and Democrats, and I did not speak out-
Because I voted for Rumsfeld and hated the Unions and wanted a free economy.

Then they came for me—and no one remaining would speak for me -
they hated me because I voted for Nixon, Wallace and Rumsfeld.
 
Almost anything can be construed as a foundation for something horrible. Despite that, most people IOTL don't live in horrific dystopias, so any serious attempt at explaining one needs to focus on what's different in the cases where those foundations germinate into something much worse.

Well, what allows them to germinate is:

horrific economic conditions

A terrible world scene

Political crisis and scandal.

America ITTL has endured all three.
 
I wonder if in the future, there will be fiction centered around Rumsfeldians and the CV-ers. Not the people who were victimized by these two groups, but the kind of people who ended up embracing or joining them.


I think that the "good American who was corrupted by Rumsfeldia-CV" might be a very common trope.

But eventually, I imagine someone might deconstruct the idea, and use the character as a critique of not just the ITTL 1980s, but American society before then.

One idea is someone who partook in Rumsfeld's economic policies: a wealthy businessman who enjoyed the wealth and privilege brought from Rumsfeld, and who turned a blind eye or actively ignored the consequences of what occurred.

However, flashbacks to his life, in the supposedly noble and nice pre-Rumsfeld era, deliberately challenge the notion of any inherit goodness. His parents might have been very racist and privileged, his upbringing spoiled and selfish, and they might even show footage of "noble" conservatives like Reagan and Bob Dole, who nevertheless attacked the poor in more "acceptable" ways.

The film might argue that American society was ALWAYS destined for Rumsfeldia, and that the character, like society, needed a small push to get to shooting wounded soldiers to save money.
 
you know i think their is real life example of Rumsfeldia,only from the opposite end of the spectrum: Venezula. Think about it, both have oppurtunistic and authoritarian dictators who is manipulating the legislative process to get more and more power, destroying indepedence in the judiciary and implmenting "solutions" to the economic woes of their country which only a complete fool would think could posssibly work,not to mention constant protests and squeaking by electorally in the last election.
 

BigBlueBox

Banned
you know i think their is real life example of Rumsfeldia,only from the opposite end of the spectrum: Venezula. Think about it, both have oppurtunistic and authoritarian dictators who is manipulating the legislative process to get more and more power, destroying indepedence in the judiciary and implmenting "solutions" to the economic woes of their country which only a complete fool would think could posssibly work,not to mention constant protests and squeaking by electorally in the last election.
Venezuela is more like an inverse Rumsfeldia. Rumsfeldia was centered privatization of nearly all government services, Venezuela’s problems are caused by too much nationalization and state spending.
 

no one

Banned
you know i think their is real life example of Rumsfeldia,only from the opposite end of the spectrum: Venezula. Think about it, both have oppurtunistic and authoritarian dictators who is manipulating the legislative process to get more and more power, destroying indepedence in the judiciary and implmenting "solutions" to the economic woes of their country which only a complete fool would think could posssibly work,not to mention constant protests and squeaking by electorally in the last election.
now the only thing that's missing is a random war fought with unusable weapons

EDIT: I forgot! what's the equivalent of the. CVs?
 
Venezuela is more like an inverse Rumsfeldia. Rumsfeldia was centered privatization of nearly all government services, Venezuela’s problems are caused by too much nationalization and state spending.
Yeah kinda of my point, I should also of added that The military take the place of TRW as the group which the evil authoriartioan president sucks up to the most and could depose him in a heartbeat if they really wanted to
 
you know i think their is real life example of Rumsfeldia,only from the opposite end of the spectrum: Venezula. Think about it, both have oppurtunistic and authoritarian dictators who is manipulating the legislative process to get more and more power, destroying indepedence in the judiciary and implmenting "solutions" to the economic woes of their country which only a complete fool would think could posssibly work,not to mention constant protests and squeaking by electorally in the last election.

All bigots and frauds are brothers under the skin

- Christopher Hitchens.
 
I wouldn't be surprised if post-CV america splits into various statelets.

Oh, I think that's all but certain.

California won't rejoin with any form of the US for a long time, that's for sure.

If ever. The longer any split lasts, the more opportunity California has to grow as a nation...and if it's a success story, then even if a version of the US reformed that was absolutely perfect then the general attitude of Californians would be 'we're doing just fine, why fix what ain't broken?'
 
If ever. The longer any split lasts, the more opportunity California has to grow as a nation...and if it's a success story, then even if a version of the US reformed that was absolutely perfect then the general attitude of Californians would be 'we're doing just fine, why fix what ain't broken?'
Or maybe california is the one which leads the america's reunification.
 
Or maybe california is the one which leads the america's reunification.

But again, though, why bother? If thirty years after the breakup and the fall of the CV, California is doing well as an independent nation - booming economy, etc. - then why would they want to risk all that? Especially given what a mess the last US turned out to be.

People will inherently stick to what works. If California works well as an independent nation, then people will prefer to stick with the (relatively) new status quo than risk it all for something that could collapse horribly again.
 
Lets not forget what the people of California endured under Donald Rumsfeld: first of all, their economic and social rights were slowly stripped away, their governor was denied the presidency because of blatant voting fraud, enabled by what was supposed to be an impartial judiciary, and finally, even the right to choose their governor was nearly stripped away, and the politicians in charge who groaned about "states' right" were remarkably silent about this violation of their own states' rights (except for a handful) and even impeached the judiciary that bothered to defend them.

Many Californians, thus, have very bitter memories about the rest of the United States, as two thirds of the population were either silent, profited from Rumsfeldia, or actively participated in the horrors out of ignorance or sociopathy. And the fact that America couldn't reform after the fall of Rumsfeldia (which was McCloskey's prerequisite for rejoining), and was transformed into an insane asylum under the CV, means this bitterness and contempt is very much the right emotion to have.

There are also economic reasons too. While many conservative states boast about their "economic competitiveness", they can only have low taxes because prosperous liberal states subsidize them with their own surplus. Californians don't want to pay their money to a government that won't give them rights, and they sure as well won't foot the bill for rebuilding a nation that destroyed itself. They should spend their own money on developing themselves.

There is also cultural reasons too: California is a liberal and diverse state (although they are not as liberal and diverse as they would like to believe). They have a large population of Hispanic Americans and Asian Americans, there is a greater tolerance for things like gay rights and drugs, movie making is in their blood, and there a strong attitude toward environmentalism. And the people of middle America not only mock them for it, but actively tried to wage war on those institutions. Why should Californians give up their sensibilities, especially when all they get in return is pure madness?

Plus, many, many refugees have fled from America to California, bringing with them horrible memories of Rumsfeldia. These people will also be uneager to want to rejoin America.

In short, economics, culture, refugees, and just a lingering sense of bitterness will all work to prevent Californians from rejoining the Union.
 
Last edited:
Hey all, I'm a big fan of this TL and its predecessor FLaG
Because I like FLaG so much I've decided to compile all of its updates into three google docs that are 600+ pages long (I know)
WARNING: if you have all three opened at once your computer will probably crash.

Here are the update-only docs:
FLaG FLaG 2 FLaG 3

Because I'm an idiot and probably forgot some things, I'm allowing y'all to edit it because yall wont destroy something so awesome and so you can post it in. Oh and all the fonts are the ones @Drew posted with. I'll make one for Rumsfeldia if y'all complement me enough
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top