>American Values ... normal rural Americans are outnumbered in Oregon

What sort of logic supports that American values are those held by a minority of Americans. What possible values suggest they are the normal ones?

> 3. Low Tax

The counties involved have median household incomes of 30-35K, making their tax burden $600-1100 total, a far cry from the average quoted, which is skewed right strongly by outliers (1%), which tend to be outside of the counties in this idea.

> 5. Thriving Economy ... low unemployment

Economy is a second order effect. How does having a low unemployment affect the number of jobs in the actual areas? Cause and effect are reversed in this claim.

> 6. Representation: ... But our reps would be in the ruling party in Idaho

I think the word is "governing", this is a little confused about the difference.

> What sort of logic supports that American values are those held by a minority of Americans. What possible values suggest they are the normal ones?

America has been here for a long time. It's fair to say that values which are of long standing, still held by a significant fraction of the population, and them disproportionately descended from ancestors who have been American for many generations, are more American values than ones which fail one or more of these criteria.

Note that the value that people who come to America and join the national experiment become American is one of those values! That's unusual, and needs to be pointed out: values aren't more American because they're held by old American stock, causality flows in the other direction.

Not everything is a pure popularity contest. 51% of people supporting strict gun control (for the sake of argument) doesn't make that position more American, it just means more Americans happen to hold to it. That the Constitution makes altering its own text a matter of supermajority, both in passing and ratification, supports the idea that what it is to be American is not intended to simply shift in the winds on the strength of a bare majority.

That all said, the bottom line is that these five counties feel that their values are better represented by the state government of Idaho than by that of Oregon. Federalism is one of those old American values I was droning on about earlier; I don't see why they shouldn't get the chance to secede from a state which isn't serving their needs, and join one which they think would.

> values which are of long standing, still held by a significant fraction of the population, and them disproportionately descended from ancestors who have been American for many generations, are more American values than ones which fail one or more of these criteria

So, in an Oregon context, this would mean the values of the Chinook peoples?

Not really, no.

For starters, we're talking about Eastern Oregon, so if you wanted to throw a gotcha, you should have gone for the Paiute.

America is a nation, and it took its time getting to Oregon. The Chinook were never particularly numerous, nor influential on the values of that nation. That's just a fact.

The Iroquois League was more influential, the Founding Fathers were very impressed with their system of governance, though how much of that made it into the Constitution is a matter of debate. Painting with a broad brush, centuries of contact with the native peoples of this continent has certainly left its mark. The Western ethos of self-reliance and freedom owes a lot to them.

The Native American people are both their own nations and a part of the American nation. Speaking as one American, I'm inclined to value their contributions, but it seems a bit presumptuous for me to say that Apache or Navajo values are American values.

To continue down the road you've set us upon, the American descendants of slavery went unheard for many years, but starting no later than Frederick Douglass became a key part of shaping the ethos and values of the nation. They insisted that "all men are created equal" meant all men, and put an end to white supremacy, which was certainly an American value and just as surely is no longer such.

Well, then I'm confused.

You started off saying that it makes sense for these people to say that the government of Idaho upholds American values more than the government of Oregon, because values' 'Americanness' isn't determined by the majority, but rather by appeal to ancestry and tradition.

But apparently the Chinook (or, if you wish, the Paiute), who I would say have superior claim on that front, don't get to wield the mystical power of American Values because they were never numerous, nor influential.

But surely the population of Idaho and eastern Oregon is also not particularly numerous, nor influential.

And the population of Western Oregon also, surely, has some claim to be a "significant fraction of the population", "disproportionately descended from ancestors who have been American for many generations", so surely that means their values are more American values than ones which fail one or more of these criteria?

So I guess I just don't know what gives these people of Eastern Oregon more of a claim to determine whether Idaho or Oregon is 'more aligned' with American Values. Is it because their ancestors have been Americans since the early days of the old West, and they embody the pioneer spirit of the Oregon Territory? So their values are more American.

But it's maybe worth noting that in 1844, while Frederick Douglass was first publishing his slave story, Oregon passed a law that made it illegal for him, or any other freed slave, to set foot in the state. It remained part of the state's constitution through its admission to the US, and long after the 14th amendment made it unconstitutional.

In 1926, thirty years after Frederick Douglass died, a ballot measure to repeal it was finally passed. But 32% of voters voted against it.

Maybe if white supremacy is 'surely' no longer an American value, we shouldn't be looking to the traditional values of Oregonians as a guiding light. They have a bit of a history of being slow to catch on to changes in what are 'surely' American values.

> The Western ethos of self-reliance and freedom owes a lot to them.

So the notion of "self-reliance and freedom" that makes Western ideologies suggests you're referring not to Native Americans but "pioneers"--the people who settled the Western lands without government help. Except, I guess, for the help it provided by clearing the land of its prior inhabitants who somehow didn't know the land wasn't theirs anymore. And providing basic infrastructure like schooling (funded from sales from Township 16). And funding the construction of railroads so that homesteaders could acquire the goods they couldn't make themselves and sell their excess produce to US markets.

Don't be silly, we're not talking about those values.

> What sort of logic supports that American values are those held by a minority of Americans. What possible values suggest they are the normal ones?

There are two conflicting meanings of the word 'American' that is causing your confusion. American can refer to an individual who is American. It can also refer to things associated with the government currently controlling the land known as the United States of America. The land of the USA has -- in its time -- been held by several government. Firstly there is the current one. Then there is the previous one, the confederated states of America. Some parts of the USA have at times been held by smaller governments, for example, the Southern confederacy (not to be confused with the USA under the articles of confederation).

Anyway, there are American values -- i.e., those held by individuals in America -- and then there are American values -- i.e., those in line with the constitution of the United States of America.

The Oregonians clearly are using the second meaning. They believe that the State of Oregon has failed to uphold values inherent to the Constitution of the United States of America. For example, if tomorrow, 98% of Oregonians decided Monarchy were the best form of government, in this usage, we can unequivocally say that that is not American, because monarchy is fundamentally at odds with the constitution. Thus, even if -- in my hypothetical -- monarchy were an American value in the individual sense, it would not be in the second usage.

As another unrelated example illustrating the difference in the usages, the majority of American Catholics believe contraceptives are okay. If you ask 'what is the opinion of the church on contraception', there are two correct answers. One can say 'Catholics believe contraception is okay' because most Catholics (in this country at least) agree. One can equally say 'Catholics believe contraception is not okay' because the institution of the Catholic church in this country has -- through official channels -- said it's not.

> What sort of logic supports that American values are those held by a minority of Americans. What possible values suggest they are the normal ones?

There's a very present "last bastion" framing in most of the right-wing media I track. It'll depend on exactly what the foundational beliefs of the community are that drive this framing -- John Birch society derivative folks arrive here via a different path than white supremacist survivalists and them a different path than evangelical fundamentalist Christians -- but it's common enough. It goes hand in hand with the notion that the US has fallen from the ideal set forth by the Founders and that only your in-group really gets it and has a hope of restoring it.

Alex Jones is a good, mainstream-ish example. Dude's a Bircher and has spent decades coaching his audience to believe that Globalists are in league with Satan and intend to destroy humanity, if only they could get the US out of the way. Satan/The Globalists are _this_ close to succeeding. Once they do, Real American Values will disappear from the world, ushering in the post-human era. Jones preaches survivalism (sorta, feeding your neighbors to your daughters will give your daughters prion disease) to his audience and I hope you see how the two strains of thought would fester into a framing like you've called out.

Thanks - as a non-American living there, this is pretty helpful to further my understanding.

I wonder whether there's any actual examples of the values being brought back from a point where they have disappeared.

“Evil Geniuses: the unmasking of America” was pretty good at tracking this. Basically politicians are using the framing of the glorified past within “American values” to manufacture dissent and create us/them other-izing between US citizens. The book explains it much more in depth. Get people to stop thinking of their fellow citizens as part of the same group as them in a fundamental way and chaos reigns. Maybe eventually it’s civil war. (It definitely drives that country from thinking of international factors.)

Probably another interesting definition of American values would be the ones held in foreign people. Sort of in the same way there’s who you are and then there’s the person in the minds of everyone who knows you. Except the US is a super power that’s done a lot of steering the world over the last century and that’s instilled some common practices across the world. Like citing CDC guidelines or using the US currency for reserve.

Many American values are fuzzy, hard to make out; how they are applied is only visible if you dig into history. Not the history in textbooks though ... at least until you've innoculated yourself with Howard Zinn's history. Pay particular attention to how those values - say, 'all men are created equal' - apply to minorities.

> I wonder whether there's any actual examples of the values being brought back from a point where they have disappeared.

I'm sorry, I don't quite understand what you're saying here. Are you asking about examples of people that have been de-radicalized?

To be clearer - given Jones asserts that the reversal of satanists/globalists is good, are there examples of where such a reversal has had positive measurable effects on a society? I'm looking to understand perspectives opposite to my own here (as an atheist, non-American, liberal leaning person).

> given Jones asserts that the reversal of satanists/globalists is good, are there examples of where such a reversal has had positive measurable effects on a society

Uh, it's not that kind of belief system. The notion that we should order society by measurable things is not necessarily a universal belief, even if it's one I agree with personally. Last bastion apocalyptism like I've described doesn't really do "measurable".

One common example is that religious cultures have a family culture that can propagates through time by having replacement levels of offspring.

So far, to date, every secular and atheistic culture tends towards inverting the demographic pyramid by having about half the required number of offspring to stabilize their culture/viewpoint through time.

This view assumes that there is any meaning to life, of course.

And the counter example on that is that disproportionate taking of POC adult males from the community has a destabilization effect on that community / family.

"What sort of logic supports that American values are those held by a minority of Americans. What possible values suggest they are the normal ones?"

The US Bill of Rights.

You're being downvoted, but you're correct. Values espoused by the founding documents of the current United States government are also properly called American, even if the majority of americans disagree. There's two possible meanings here that is causing people confusion.

One might argue that technically (akshually?) the Bill of Rights goes against the founding documents of USA, amending them a few years later with values that were not in the original constitution to satisfy anti-federalists criticising the initial design (and its values).

So you're saying that slavery is an American value?

It is, after all, in the Constitution, although its popularity has waned of late.

> Oregon will continue to violate more and more American values and American freedoms

Haha, what? If Oregon is doing stuff, it's definitionally an American value and American Freedom, right? Who gets to decide what an "American *" is?

> > 4. Safety: Idaho allows forests to be managed to prevent destruction of housing from huge wildfires.

They do realize that Idaho and Oregon have different climates and different precipitation amounts, right? The Western Rockies and Eastern Cascades are different biomes.

> > 5. Thriving Economy: Idaho has less regulation than any other state, low unemployment, and would allow our rural industries to revive and employ us again.

Is there any data that backs this up? This feels like a pipe dream to me that's totally unfounded.

> Haha, what? If Oregon is doing stuff, it's definitionally an American value and American Freedom, right? Who gets to decide what an "American *" is?

Have you watched Fox News recently? They're very clear: "American" refers to their (conservative, older, rural) viewers; "anti-American" refers to everyone else. People believe this.

I know. I just... I keep hoping that by pointing out the obvious silliness of the phrase "American Values" that maybe, someone somewhere will read it and be like, "Huh, you know, maybe what I meant to say was, 'My values'...."

One interesting discussion point about American values it’s about whether it should be determined by the number of humans inside of American borders, or if it is just a birthright.

I support using satellite imagery to get a day by day census count to include tourists and everyone inside of America as part of the decision making and voting process to improve infrastructure at least.

Why should non-citizens have a voice in how our country is ran?

> violate more and more American values and American freedoms

By this the folks in eastern Oregon are criticizing Democratic Gov. Brown for her approach to the pandemic: you know, normal things like closing restaurants and churches, requiring masks indoors, etc.

Ok, so say that. Or connect them to "American Values" concretely somehow.

Because right now they are just saying their opponents are "un-American" which means whatever it needs to mean without actually saying anything of substance.

They put it that way on purpose, it's coded language, full of dog whistles. They don't say the quiet part out loud.

It's amazing how some folk deny what the intention is - I guess the terms provide plausible deniability. Sometimes it's "real Americans" or "middle-class Americans", or "people in the heartland" - we all know which demography you're referring to (and everyone else you're excluding).

Also "hard-working folks", "taxpayers", and "patriots"

> Ok, so say that. Or connect them to "American Values" concretely somehow.

The 1st amendment granting freedom to assemble? Free exercise of religion? The supreme court agreed when it struck down New York's and California's bans on religious gatherings, which also affected Oregon. So broadly speaking, these are correct by the highest authority on 'American'.

Perhaps this doesn't come to mind when you hear 'American values', but why would these counties care? You are almost certainly not their intended audience.

1. The first amendment gives "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." That's not the right of people to gather together wherever they want, whenever they want. Note the dependent clause. It's saying the people can join organizations like the CPUSA, People For the American Way, American Family Association, or even movements like BLM or antifa, and the government is not permitted to constrain that.

2. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" means the government can't say which religions are OK and which aren't, or that there's an official religion of the US. It says nothing about people being able to go to church on Sunday or temples on Saturday

> Who gets to decide what an "American *" is?

Their intended audience.

Keep in mind, this is written to appeal to someone who is already likely to agree that Oregon is handling these topics poorly.

I think I'm mostly just expressing frustration that this actually works. That anyone looks at that phrasing and says, "Yes, this makes sense."

Unfortunately logical fallacies are often used in much of political messaging, which far precedes the current climate.

https://propagandaprinciples.wordpress.com/logical-fallacies...

I certainly agree with you there. As the other person mentions though, it didn't appear any time recently and it's not going to go away any time soon. Most people don't think about things logically or critically. See also: ads work.

>violate more and more American values and American freedoms

If they were really a proponent of freedom then they would support the freedom of adults to smoke/injest/snort/inject anything they want. "Addicts will be attracted to Oregon..." precisely because of that freedom.

> 4. Safety: Idaho allows forests to be managed to prevent destruction of housing from huge wildfires.

If that's true then they'd be better off moving to Idaho, right? Given the vast area involved it's difficult to imagine that in a span of even a decade or more that the forests would be transformed so as to prevent wildfires. Staying where they are would only leave them in harms way for quite some years.

That's more informative than the article was, thank you.

Points 1 and 2 should be combined and addressed as "how civil services protect and better the community".

The issues of homelessness, drug addiction, and dis-enfranchisement of displaced people all relate to failed social safety nets and social planning. My understanding is that decades ago, in the early 80s IIRC, a terrible abuse and system for housing the mentally ill was disbanded. Unfortunately nothing took it's place.

There are also very troubling issues related to lack of housing, lack of jobs, and lack of a proper program to connect displaced individuals with that type of societal re-integration. A New "New Deal", in any form, could enrich the value of society by re-educating and providing jobs which enrich the commons of society thus improving the lives and economic fitness of all. Better those handouts from our taxes trickle up to the rich, as all else currently does, than go directly to their coffers in tax cuts.

Point 3, and probably 5 as well: The report I suggested would be the best way of understanding this issue for everyone. The issue is Taxes VS Benefits; not absolute tax taken. Until the balance of benefits to taxes is understood this is a straw man which needs more data for all sides to understand.

Point 5: Regulation in specific. Ideally regulation prevents more problems than it causes. Regulation should allow assumptions about fitness for use, safety, and fairness to all parties involved to exist. If there is some regulation which does not contribute to this common good, to the preservation of the commons, or if there is a lack of regulation which is resulting in abuse, then said regulations should be revisited by the representatives of the people.

6: "the ruling party" I take this as slang for the currently dominant political party, but it is strikingly 'Us' vs 'Them' and very divisively secessionist. Extremely misguided. Reform of our electoral systems and categorization of representation should be undertaken to finally liberate all citizens from the First Past The Post voting system to ANY kind of instant runoff. We need to have a spectrum of political parties to promote compromise and plans that work for many rather than for few.

> Points 1 and 2 should be combined and addressed as "how civil services protect and better the community"

No, point 2 is specifically calling out antifa and BLM, and catering to racist fears, but in coded language.

Looks like it's the old dispute about 2A and I kind of understand them. Last time I heard, Oregon voted to outlaw mags with more than 10 bullets. Rural folks have disagreed and resolved the conflict in a civil manner: by declaring that they will have different laws from the big city Oregon.

Not sure what they've done in practice here from what you wrote. Are you implying that they made a public declaration that they would simply choose to ignore such a law?

As is their right. Self-determination is an American value.

EDIT: downvoted by those who believe voting and determining your area's form of governance is anti-American!

We fought a war about "determining your area's form of governance." As I recall, the south lost that one.

> 4. Safety: Idaho allows forests to be managed to prevent destruction of housing from huge wildfires.

I just spent a month in central Oregon and there were proscribed burns going on all over the place. It was the most forest management I've seen in any state.

This is coded language to mean "we can pull resources from federal/state lands but not pay for them".

I thought it was coded language for "we can let logging corporations plunder the forest with no oversight."

Both works to be honest.

Can I just say, for me the use of the term "illegals" under the section of Law and Order comes across as a dehumanizing slur.

how unfortunate.

I'm struck by how "homeless" is included in a list containing "criminals", "arsonists", and "rioters". The homeless aren't people we need protection from, they're people we need to help.

Traditional conservative dogma requires the belief that poverty or misfortune follows from an inherent moral failing, never from circumstance. Therefore criminals cannot be reformed, homeless cannot be helped. The only solution is to remove them.

Of course traditional conservative dogma also has extremely strong private safety nets. Just look at Utah and the mormons. Or the Amish. I mean, I understand that many people do not understand this, but I have found that atheists and the unchurched cannot comprehend just how substantial most church support programs are. In my old parish, my wife and I practically lived at the place and when we had our first baby, we got free baby-sitting, meals, company, etc, even though we were far from our families. Many we know in our town (Portland, mostly irreligious) have to pay for this. How sad.

This is what I find so bizarre about the 'left' in this country (in quotes because I'm making wild generalizations). They say they are all about community and social ownership and responsibility, but they don't actually do it. Their ideal is lived out everyday in churches across the country. It used to be the case that the 'left' in this country (by that I mean the democratic party) was made up of the churched, so their ideals for social programs matched their lifestyles of intense social participation and private contributions to welfare programs. But today, the right is the one most likely to contribute to charity, and in my opinion, the one most likely to live in the leftist utopia.

I'll give an example. I hear all the time from those around me (I live in Portland) about family members homeless due to schizophrenia. As a very conservative religious man (and child of immigrants, so maybe it's that), I find this incredibly odd. My uncle has schizophrenia and was deported from this country after going after someone with a knife.

However, at no point was he ever homeless. My mother and father -- both incredibly unwavering law and order types -- kept my uncle in their house and assumed absolute responsibility for him until he was sent back to India. Once he was there, at no point was he allowed to live in destitution on the streets (we are not a rich family either). Eventually, he married a woman he knew (and who knew about his condition and has been able to manage it) and he has kids. Don't get me wrong.... the man is still crazy in a sense. At one point, he made up a religion unbeknownst to us, proclaimed himself God, and got many hundreds of followers on facebook. But at no point could we have ever imagined him homeless. In my view, what's missing in America is any sort of actual concern for our fellow man, our family most importantly. Everyone seems to want to outsource 'caring' for others to the government instead of actually doing the hard work.

Here's another example. Leftists want community health care. Okay, that's fine. But again, right-wing Christians are the ones actually doing it. Health sharing ministries see Christians pool together money so that no congregant has to face undue financial hardship. If you join this ministry you essentially get a 'tax' each month representing your 'share' of all members total emergency expenses. Again, supposedly thrifty conservatives simply giving their money away to actually help people instead of waiting. I don't get it.

You say "Many we know in our town have to pay for this. How sad." but then you go own to observe that "If you join this ministry you essentially get a 'tax' each month".

So it's not that you didn't pay for it - you did, and continue to. But your support is contingent on following the rules of the community and maintaining your welcome, while the irreligious people in Portland had a more straightforward transaction.

> So it's not that you didn't pay for it - you did, and continue to. But your support is contingent on following the rules of the community and maintaining your welcome, while the irreligious people in Portland had a more straightforward transaction.

Not really. If we could'nt afford it, it wouldn't be demanded.

What percentage of Christian ministries are actually providing these services? You don't say, just that some are. I would say that this is far from widespread phenomenon.

Are Christian ministries actually providing comprehensive healthcare, or only those procedures that they morally approve of?

If conservatives are the "real" humanitarians, why is there more poverty, more untreated diabetes, and worse healthcare in conservative states?

Why should the availability of healthcare be contingent on your religious beliefs?

Needlessly combative comment, but I'll bite I guess.

As to what percent, I can't give it to you. How do you quantify how much your friend likes you. A lot of this support is not organized, like the meal train I mentioned for my wife and I after our first kid.

WRT 'comprehensive' healthcare, many conservative people would find those procedures offensive and unnecessary.

> If conservatives are the "real" humanitarians, why is there more poverty,

Because it's relatively easy to be poor in a conservative area if you have community support. Lots of people to give you food and handouts. Like my aunt and uncle who retired way early and are technically impoverished, but live a good life, around family, friends, lots of food (from their church), etc.

> more untreated diabetes

because conservative people do not typically believe that life is the only end worth pursuing. This sounds strange given the 'pro-life' stuff, but you see it with COVID too. To a religious person, death is just the beginning, and what they perceive to be overly invasive measures to prolong life is not worth it. Whether it be diabetes dieting or covid lockdowns. Remember, the christian ethos is not utilitarian.

> and worse healthcare in conservative states?

All the good doctors realize they can make more money in blue states?

1. If you're going to argue that argue that religious-provided healthcare is superior to secular, you're going to have to do better than "well, who can say." You've given some anecdata, with nothing to back it up.

2. I'm aware that conservative people consider certain procedure unnecessary. My point is that religious-based moral outrage has no place in deciding the proper standard of care. Your approach means that when your morals contradict another person's health, you get to choose what kind of services they get. That's a great reason to divorce healthcare from religious influence.

3. Being poor sounds great! Makes me wonder why more people don't move to the south and live in the socialist utopia that you describe, where everyone has all their needs fulfilled with no effort.

4. If death is just the beginning, maybe we should abolish healthcare entirely, and just get to the good part sooner. Instead of wasting money on MRI machines, heart surgery, and diabetes medication, we should instead wisely invest in elaborate mausoleum, like the pharaohs of old. This also conveniently explains why religious conservatives, although ostensibly caring about their fellow man, consistently vote against any expansion of state-provided healthcare, which is selfishly rooted in the notion of keeping people out of heaven.

Who owns the hospitals in Portland? There is no conflict between churches and capitalism, either.

Illegals is, of course, a shorthand for illegal alien. The shorthand was created because of the regularity of having to describe such an individual. In what way could someone describe the reality of "a person who has violated international border agreements and is residing in a country in violation of the laws of that country" that you would not consider dehumanizing?

People can’t be illegal. They can be in the country without proper documentation. The _correct_ and _humane_ term is “undocumented”.

This is like calling a drug dealer an unlicensed pharmacist.

People can't be illegal, but they can do illegal things. I've never liked "illegal alien" or "illegals", but "undocumented noncitizen" seems much less accurate than "illegal immigrant".

I support a path to citizenship and making all forms of immigration more fair, humane and much more widely available. I don't understand the push from some on the left to say that all enforcement of immigration laws should go away.