The GOP has done this for years; the Alaska-firsters have simply cottoned on to it.

The way the game works is that you find something (better yet, a bunch of somethings) "wrong" to complain about, and blame all your troubles and woes on it/them. Then you build a base of supporters who agree, and bully others who don't.

The trick is that the scapegoat problems aren't really the source of the trouble. They're simply a way of diverting attention from the real problems.

And the problems never really get fixed, because if they did, it would a) show that government can actually do something, and b) eliminate a source of support.

For example, take the pro-life/pro-choice issue. The pro-lifers want to stop the folks they see as "baby-killers", the pro-choicers want not to be forced, at the point of a gun, to bring unwanted children into the world.

Clearly the solution is to eliminate unwanted pregnancies by prevention. That means better education, better contraception, better support systems such as adoption agencies and health care, eliminating sexual assaults on women, and many other things.

Trouble is, if those things were done, the debate would become a non-issue. So there's a vested interest *not* to solve the problem by methods that would really work.

The Alaska-firsters don't really want to separate from the Lower 49, because they'd lose the enormous support they get. What they really want is a scapegoat, to avoid looking realistically at the problems. Non-Alaskans get to be the bad guys.

None of this is new; Orwell described it in "1984".

Know who else used the scapegoat game to rise to political power?

writes: "What the hell happened? If I knew what drives otherwise nice people like my in-laws to support utterly terrifying people like Bush/Cheney, or McCain/Palin, I could tell you. But I don't."

I can tell you what happened.

For a couple of centuries, the USA developed a self-image as the best nation in the world. We told ourselves that we were free and independent, hard-working, the land of promise and success, the home of the brave, etc.

Never mind that things like slavery, manifest destiny, racism, sexism and robber barons existed, the self-image mirror didn't show those things. And over time a lot of them were wiped out or controlled, even though often the USA was behind the curve. (Look up when the British Empire outlawed slavery, for example).

Perhaps the high point came in the middle of the 20th century, when the USA helped win WW2 and then helped rebuild the shattered defeated Axis nations who started it in the first place.

But then came the 1970s, when that self-image took a real beating. Vietnam, Watergate, stagflation, OPEC, pollution, Three Mile Island, Iran hostages, urban decay and other events showed some of the ugly realities.

One president tried to set a new course for the USA by telling the hard truth and pointing out what needed to be done. He was not reelected.

His successor, a former movie actor, was elected because he looked good, sounded good, and made people feel good, not because he had any real solutions. Rather than address basic problems or unpleasant facts, he simply ignored them.

IOW, the GOP plan since 1980 has been simple: Say and do whatever is needed to get elected. Ignore facts, ignore history, ignore competence, ignore consistency. Make stuff up about your opponents if needed. Condemn what your opponents do and then do worse things yourself. Pick candidates that look and sound good rather than those who have credentials. Portray intelligence, education, experience, honesty and integrity as elitism. Promise anything to get elected, then deliver nothing - or worse.

For 20 of the past 28 years, that formula has worked. The only times it failed (1992 and 1996) were when a third-party candidate diverted enough votes to let the other major party slip into the White House.

What drives your in-laws is the simple fact that certain candidates make them feel good, regardless of the actual effects of their choices.

It's like the people who choose to eat junk food all the time, because "it tastes good", even though the long-term effects (both health and economic) are terrible.

The solution is not more junk food.

You're right and you're wrong.

We will never know what would have happened if the USA had stayed out of WW2 in Europe longer December 1941. But the US contribution to victory in Europe was more than the low percentage you cite. Besides fighting forces, there was Lend-Lease supply to all the Allies, including the Soviets, that made a crucial difference.

And don't forget the war against Japan.

However, even if the USA saved the world from Axis domination, it does not make the USA the world's policeman. Nor does it mean that our allies of 70+ years ago must always support our policies, no matter what.