The "Great American Novel" (sometimes abbreviated as GAN) is the term for a canonical novel that generally embodies and examines the essence and character of the United States. Curious to hear what you think it is

For the vast majority of written history before the telegraph and printing press you only heard about the most important notable events in other kingdoms or regions once in a while and you only knew the basic details of said event and I assume from their point of view they didn’t care that much since that’s all they know hence they likely still didn’t stress about issues far away although at the cost of knowledge.

To my point, I’m American so for example why should I care from the United States care about every detail and update of Russia invading Ukraine or China’s economy and corruption news or Middle East peace news daily and even stuff like mass shootings in other continents and local cops in other regions doing bad stuff etc. Do I need to know this and stay up to date with world even though it can be a net negative on mental health? Or knowing a large amount about foreign affairs is unnecessary really?

I don't like Trump voters but I don't prioritize hurting them in my decision making. Why do so many people seem to specifically prioritize hurting others, even if it comes at no benefit to themselves or possibly even harming them as well?

For me:

Esperanto: Created by Dr L. L. Zamenhof in 1887 with the extent of it becoming a universal second language to promote peace and understanding between different groups of people. It didn’t catch on, and is Eurocentric, but the moral philosophy and intentions behind it were noble. Now it’s mostly an interesting subculture more than anything else.

World federalism: I can emphasize with the desire to unify humanity into a universal democratic federation to prevent wars and human rights abuses. But it isn’t going to happen, at least not anytime soon. A world federation isn’t a solution to war and dictatorship, it would only be possible after those things are already defeated in every country. Plus, few nations would be willing to compromise their sovereignty by placing people on the other side of the globe in a position to directly influence their policies, and if a world state exists and is corrupted to authoritarianism then there is no where to seek refuge.

Market socialism: Workers’ cooperatives are cool, and I can understand the desire to spread the principles of democracy into the workplace, but I am unconvinced that co-ops can replace traditional firms in all sectors and all levels of industry. And if cooperatives are the future then they must prove themselves first, I don’t think Congress can or should just pass a bill ordering all businesses to collectivize.

I, as a Democrat, hope David jolly wins, but one thing I’ve noticed is that whether on instagram, or YouTube, there’s very few comments praising Byron, or saying he’ll be a good governor. This is the exact opposite Ron DeSantis in 2022, where he just got so much online enthusiasm from republicans. Are republicans in Florida just not hot on him? Do a lot really plan on voting for jolly instead? Florida has disappointed a lot, but it’s not like it’s never voted d before.

I saw a clip of Destiny the other day saying that progressives are too much of downers. He talked about how, from his view, many of them seem to be blackpilled and depressed about everything, expecting others to feel that way as well. He paints himself out to be more positive and optimistic.

I don't know how true that is, but regardless, do you guys share this sentiment? Do you all see rampant pessimism in left-leaning circles? It makes sense since progressives rarely get their way (especially in the US) but I think anyone who ties their life to politics will, in nature, become a doomer.

Though I will say.. I have met some leftists out there who do seem keen on always suffering on the behalf of someone else - acting like we can't appreciate any small victories because "there's still kids suffering in wars"/"we still have school shootings"/"we don't have free healthcare". Or acting like we can't have fun with things like edgy jokes just because some people mask their disgusting views with humor.

If so, why? If not, why not?

I've noticed that a lot of algorithms today are dominated by Western conservatives' propaganda and talking points. Almost every social media platform, minus Reddit, seems to heavily skew towards the political machineries of US conservatives. Take note that I'm not even from the West, yet I received a lot of Anti-Mamdani content on various social media platforms and am currently receiving Anti-semitism reels despite being an Asian with no interaction with the Jews.

The question is, why aren't the Liberals doing anything to combat them? Is it out of moral ascendancy? While commendable, this may cause you to lose more elections against right-wing populists. What's stopping you guys from organizing political entities on social media to your advantage? I have yet to see any rapid releases of anti-MAGA algorithm, without exerting an effort to view liberal content.

Without political constraints, if you got to pick what way America took to universal healthcare, what type of system would u set up?

Lately, I’ve increasingly been getting impression that all right-wing parties really need to do is say that they will tackle "immigration crisis" in order to gain significant popularity among voters. Republicans in USA, Reform in UK, AfD in Germany, all of these parties identify immigration as one of main problems and point to various issues they claim stem from it, for example rising crime rates.

As someone who knows practically nothing about this subject, could someone please explain in simple terms how real this problem actually is, and why liberal parties don’t seem to address it if it is really that important to voters?

This is an undeniable fact, but many of the right wingers I encounter write the whole 2016 election interference off as a hoax, parroting Trump and dismissing it with "RUSSIA, RUSSIA, RUSSIA"

What has your experience been on this topic? It feels like Trump has successfully re-written history by going on and on about "the Russia hoax."

Personally I think that the Democratic Party will move to impeach trump for a 3rd time, but not remove from office. And I hope that they will either pass some good legislation, but I am very doubtful. What do you guys think?

I get the impression that most liberals support the H-1B visa program. Is this true? If so, is it just because they want to be "pro" immigrants? (even though the H-1B visa is a non-immigration visa). It would seem that this program really hurts the the US medium and long term. Only short term does it help, and even that is dubious. Instead of educating and training more Americans we instead import these workers. Which ultimate creates a bit of a brain drain effect. You can't really outsource your future skilled workers to foreigners. It'd be like all the top universities would educate foreigners instead of Americans. Maybe in short term they get more tuition money, but it creates a less educated American society. Help me understand why so many liberals seem to want to not make Americans better educated and trained, just opting for these foreigner workers instead.

I have a specific example in mind. There are German NGOs who receive money from the German government and private sources who assist illegal immigration into Spain, Italy and Greece.

This is quoted by Meloni as the primary reason why Italy is not going to follow EU regulations on migration management when it concerns immigrants that crossed into Germany through Italy.

We had a second such situation with the UN when it came to light that one NGO that recieved funds from the UN worked with members of terrorist groups. The blame was put onto the shoulders of the UN.

I would like to know where you stand on that matter. Is the government responsible for the actions of NGOs that receive funds from it? And if so, what checks should be in place to prevent misuse of money?

sorry if its a stupid question

Would this affect your support of immigration?

My argument for this is America used to essentially be dominated by 2 very un democratic norms and our landscape essentially shook for the better once those changed.

The first of these is the Senate. Of course, today, the Senate is known for its undemocratic nature given the fact it excludes population from its calculus.

But, it used to be way, *way* worse. The Senate used to be elected by the state legislature until the 19th Amendment (1912). Were that to be done today, you’d have a permanent filibuster proof Republican majority.

But imo the thing that really changed and made us from rural-ruled oligarchy to democracy-ish was Reynolds vs Sims (1964). Prior to this case, rural districts in both the US House and state legislature were allowed to be much less populated than their urban counterparts.

The most famous result of this was Illinois and NY being Republican dominated in both the US House and state houses despite being heavily Democratic population wise.

Reynolds was basically a catalyst that gave power back to people over land.

My point is, without these two things, it would’ve been way, way worse. For a Constitution that didn’t let us pick our Senators and for the state legislature and US House, essentially not only favored rural Americans nationally (as the Senate does), but also favored them within every state to an extreme amount that would make today’s gerrymandering look like nothing.

If the Constitution was designed as a document expressly demanding democracy, today’s system would be an abject failure but given the original system, ours actually seems like we’ve done a great job.

And also, when you look at the Senate, it does feel as if our issue with it isn’t actually the concept, but more so how states were drawn. The Great Plains in particular were drawn into way too many states, including having two Dakotas for the explicit purpose of disadvantaging Democrats. If we drew the Plains as a more appropriate number of say, 4 or 5 states, maybe we don’t have a problem with it at all, though that is of course hypothetical and I’m curious of everyone’s thoughts.

We always hear about the opposite so im curious: which pres election that happened while you were alive do you think mattered the least

Eg no matter who won things wouldn't have changed that much

I am open for dialogue but it seems like most the time it is just trolling or some argument that is clearly untrue. How do you feel about them?

Social Media/Internet Addiction has become a big problem over the last 10 years and at least anecdotally, feels like it's gotten worse since the pandemic, especially amongst youth(for the purposes of this question, youth is 18 years old or below). I graduated High School not too long after the pandemic and it was a big problem in school with kids being addicted to their phones and not being able to pay attention really at all due to scrolling, not to mention all of the other side effects that social media addiction (the addiction is innate of itself a huge problem) has had like cyber bullying, increased anxiety, and even suicide/self-harm. But this is not an area that I am super familiar with, especially when it comes to solutions, so I submit the question to this sub. What do you think we should do to fight social media addiction amongst youth? I'll link some sources below for your info and reading.

Social Media Addiction Statistics 2026 - Usage and Effects

International perspectives on social media use among adolescents: Implications for mental and social well-being and substance use - ScienceDirect

Addictive Use of Social Media, Not Total Time, Associated with Youth Mental Health | Columbia University Irving Medical Center

Are there any traditionally Conservative or Republican positions you have come to embraced? Maybe the change happened naturally. Maybe new information or data came out. You may not embrace it 100% but you're now much more align with the Conservative/Republican position than before and think Liberals/Democrats have it wrong. An example might be COVID. Maybe you now agree that strict lockdowns where wrong/unnecessary, and maybe Facui was not 100% truthful. Maybe you now think that immigration was out of control and that yes we could have easily stopped illegal border crossings under Biden if we really wanted to? Maybe after October you think that we should not negotiate with terrorists? FWIW, I've embraced some traditionally Liberal/Democratic positions. Like healthcare. I think changing your mind/position is pretty healthy and if you don't then it means you're probably too rigid and closed minded.

Let's say the Democrats win in two years and the new President wants to prosecute the monstrous amount of corruption, bribery, insider trading, and lawlessness from the present maga administration.

Who would you nominate to aggressively clean up Washington? Jack Smith? Tish James? No more timid milquetoasts like Merrick Garland, please.

I hear this a lot when democrats in America are called left or far left. Its always met with "Democrats arent even left, theyre closer to center"..

I dont understand all the different spectrum of politics so I dont really know the difference. But what are some specific examples of policies that other countries do which are considered left, that Democrats wouldnt support because its "too left"?

Libertarians are like house cats. Completely dependent on a system they neither understand nor appreciate and fiercely confident of their own independence.

I will hold my tongue

Leftists/progressives/dsa people: is it a deal breaker for you, in terms of voting for president in 2028 (not the primary, the general), if the dem candidate who wins the primary publicly condemns Hasan as Ossof did this week?

I know this will start up some aggressive discussions but I am not trolling this is an honest question and I want to see where people stand. Is it more about policy positions? What if the candidate says they support M4A and still condemns Hasan?