I like how you put the commentary before the quote. Never seen that or explicitly noticed that...

Can I ask what you think about doing it that way as opposed to in reverse, with the quote first and commentary second?

I'm not implying any default or correct standard, I'm wondering if I'm backwards aha

In the Usenet days this was known as "top-posting", was considered terrible etiquette, and would often lead to days long flame wars.

Be interesting to see how it plays out here

> days long flame wars

Its not what I normally do, but it seemed to flow better that way in this case.

Can you think of any generic, like, rule of thumb that could inform that process for me in the future (above or below/before or after) You got me curious and self-conscious now aha

No. It was purely subjective and not subject to a lot of thought: it was easier to make it flow nicely when read that way.

Fair enough, I like putting quite first just because I can see and refer back to it if Imm referencing its content and theres a bunch of things I need to refer back to

I think the shift began before the Clinton administration. By the late '70s it had become apparent that:

- raising the US median standard of living without raising the rest of the world was politically unstable considering the ongoing conflict with communism and anti-colonialism, and

- raising the US median standard of living and also raising the rest of the world would exhaust resources and become rapidly unsustainable.

The solution was:

- cap the US median standard of living, but allow the assets of the 1% to increase,

- replace foreign aid with foreign direct investment to raise the standard of living in other countries, to increase the wealth of the American 1%, and to create a wealthy class in other countries with similar interests to preserve political stability and the "rules based order".

This has resulted in fairly similar economic oligarchies around much of the world. However, political, historical and cultural differences result in varying affinities, group identities and renewed competition among them.

I think it's much simpler than you're proposing.

It's just greed and a desire for control.

The neoconservatives who began their campaign shortly after the civil rights battles of the 1960s achieved a great deal during the Reagan presidencies.

Many of the problems with the US today can be traced back to or through those years, including the relaxation of financial laws and regulation that led to the 2008 housing crisis, the ongoing consolidation of American businesses through mergers and acquisitions, and the increasing inequality in wealth distribution.

There's no reasoning to it beyond a group of people who want to live in the world they thought they were in back in the 1950s, when god was in the pledge of allegiance and America was perceived as mostly white.

Money and political power are letting them heavily influence the US for now. Unfortunately it will probably only be correctable once they die of old age.

There's no great strategy in play. The Democrats aren't a lot better in their goals, they also want the imagined past in a different way, but they're not the ones causing the issues.