>We in western democracies used to regard with disdain those corrupt, ridiculous leadership figures in so-called banana republics and third-world dictatorships, with their openly corrupt dealings and amoral excesses.
Not that I wholly disagree, but in the interests of robust conversation, I feel compelled to ask:
"Cook controversially dines with Saudi Crown Prince at White House"
Now, I'm no Saudi Crown Prince stan, but would the word 'controversially' have been used if Cook dined with Biden - who funded and supported a genocide, in which hundreds of journalists were killed? Why was the word 'controversially' not used to refer to also being at the table with Trump there?
Yes, it's controversial that Cook had dinner with the Saudi Crown Prince. In my view it's even more controversial to be having dinner with Trump.
This is just the most recent headline I can give as an example. But there are many like this.
I think you misunderstood. I was pointing out that, in the country which came into being (twice) through a war fought principally to preserve rich, slave-holding landowners' right to hold or gain further land and slaves, it's going to be difficult to find a period in which corrupt dealings and amoral excesses weren't present. George Washington was Bill Gates with some martial chutzpah, and he sent thousands of men to bloody deaths over stated, explicit ideals that he purposely refused to fully execute on because it would have devalued his estate.
We can be better than that, it's just no surprise when we're not, because we historically have not been.
Not that I wholly disagree, but in the interests of robust conversation, I feel compelled to ask:
When?