If god is understood as a being of absolute power, control, and knowledge, then all human power structures are trying to attempt a kind of godhood. When human institutions become so powerful, its functions so vague and confusing, its impact so vast, becoming a force that cannot be swayed, it enters a state of divinity.
From my experience under the Catholic church, the church establishes laws, punishes dissenters, manipulates the past and shapes the future into a set of allowable contingencies by influencing the present. The church already knows the thoughts and actions of its own followers because it is the one that cultivates the culture that its followers live in. Is that not a form of absolute power? To change the past, present and future?
One could argue that godhood is infallible in its power, where it cannot be swayed, acts on its own accord, and doesn’t require godly effort to have a godly impact. But I can disagree, as god can be frequently swayed with enough devotion, power structures always act on its own beliefs of what is most beneficial to itself, and the amount of effort is negligible to the amount of influence it results in. What’s the difference between god lifting a finger and god lifting its arm if both actions hold consistent and equal influence? What’s the difference of results if one incredibly influential leader or multiple minor politicians all choose to enact the same law?
I feel like the United States is in a kind of similar godhood, where it is also attempting to achieve absolute power and omniscience. Not from its president, not from its cabinet, but from the structures of power as a whole. The United States is trying to sell this idea of the inevitability of its desires through its vastness and all-encompassing power.
As god has absolute power over the universe, its laws of nature are not something that can be broken, but only worked around. The nature of the USA’s power follows similarly. The culture the USA spreads cannot be broken, but be evaded. The military influence the USA has cannot be fought against, but can be avoided.
I was taught in catholic school not to seek god to magically solve one’s problems, but to seek god for internal guidance and support. God is there to help one through struggles that the person must solve on their own. One must thank god when the good day exists and one must reason with god to understand why the bad exists under something that is both all-powerful and benevolent.
While the United States has a brand of monoculture on the world stage, on a domestic level, the United States is more of a philosophy that differs in meaning regionally for its citizens. (A system of values that is not taught in school, but picked up on in households and local culture)
I have seen people use the American philosophy as a way for internal guidance, of what the country should be and its idealized concept to help one push through struggle or give reason to continue fighting. They still solve the problem on their own, but America as an idea is what they leaned on. People thank America’s values and its politicians when things go well, but simply reason with its system of power instead of actively challenging its foundations when things go wrong.
The structures of power that make up the United States influence the current culture so the future is a set of expected and allowed contingencies, where any dissenting beliefs are quickly rejected. Those who uphold its power through prolonged sacrifice and devotion reaps benefits ranging from internal satisfaction to material reward. It holds a level of hyper-intelligence that makes any committed sin knowable and ultimately punished, and requires mass sacrifice in order to transform greatly and influence its structures as a whole.
I don’t think it was Reaganomics that ruined The United States
As the title states, I don’t think switching the economy to be trickle-down was the reason why The US began falling apart, but it was the veil of power being lifted when the US began treading its path to ruin. Ultimately, those in power were threatened by a growing inability to influence the culture, and its impact on the world stage. Reaganomics provided ample opportunity to sway the people, making the downfall of the US not begin with its switch, but with a problem that needed to be solved.
Citizens were healthy, educated, and lived in a supportive economy, and fought against multiple issues such as segregation, American Indian oppression, and the Vietnam War. When a country is uninterested in swaying the culture of its own people, the hole left behind can be easily filled with the cultural influence of the enemy— leaving ample opportunity for destabilization.
When culture develops organically from the people, there is no interest in appeasing the world stage as concerns are directed towards one’s own surroundings. There is no larger threat of decolonized nations advancing themselves and becoming competition to western nations. The United States had let its people dictate and develop the majority of its culture for far too long, the issue of lacking control only exacerbated when it lost militaristically against a nation deemed inferior both for the country’s ethnicity and its political ideology.
Through Reaganomics, the issue of control would be solved. Corporations that initially adapted to public demands could quickly garner soft power through the market and flip the dynamic. Instead, the public would need to adapt to the market and generate as much capital as possible. The final goal for trickle-down economics is to merge hypercapitalist cultural power and a government’s militaristic hard power.
People facing poverty are more willing to die in war, hungry citizens don’t have enough energy to fight the government, class solidarity is evaded, and there is no real fight against the government as its collaboration with the market has sold the idea of an imaginary enemy suffering more than the real citizen imagining it. It does not matter if the US loses more wars when it has already won the minds of its people. There will be no humiliation like Vietnam, when suffering is seen as inevitable and in fact required for the machine of progress to continue.