I want to be fair and as impartial as possible

[Rajvik]

Alright guys, here's the thing, i know that not only am i biased, but i'm an asshole. I try most times to reign it in, that is why i don't answer some posts for a few days, or when I do, i ignore certain parts.

That said, i'm taking a hand at trying to write a piece of original fiction for the second time. The first time was back in 11 and ended up too damn prophetic for my liking so i stopped. This time i've accepted that i might just be writing what is likely to happen over the next twenty years and am rolling with it. Now most of you are probably thinking, Ok, but why are you posting this in the politics thread and not the fiction thread? The answer there lies in the subject matter and the backstory. The backstory is effectively the last 30 years of American history as seen from the point of view of the writer. That said, i don't want to be as biased as i would likely be if i wrote at least the first chapter alone, so i would appreciate your help. The first chapter is basically an overview including the 2016 and 2018 elections, and then there will be various chapter starts that also give historical perspective but mostly past the 2018/2020 election cycles. 

sigh: but again, i'm biased, and i don't want to be completely overpowering with it, so would you be willing to help?

Chapter One start and pump page

The politicians said it could never happen, that it was just scare mongering by the Alt-right and that we would join the rest of the world in the government of humanity. Of course, the politicians were full of shit, but by the time the delusional realized that they had either been lied to and sold out for a better place in society, well it was already too late. The second American Civil War had already started and the end, well it wasn’t pretty.
 
Chapter 1: What came before
 
Before the first bullet was fired, before the first bomb was detonated, even before the first rock was thrown, the walk down the path to the end of our nation had been taken. With the fall of the Soviet Union and the opening of eastern Europe to the west, a major breath that very few realized they had been holding was released. For thirty-years the United States had been in the midst of a cold war with another, Communist Superpower, the Soviet Union. It was a war of shadows and intelligence, and fought through catspaws and proxies, and in the end, it came down to the matter of which side’s economy was stronger. In it’s wake however, would be a generation who knew nothing but peace, and thus, when war came knocking once more, took up the mantle of the protester saying, “What right is it of ours to fight in these foreign lands.”
 
The administration at the time ignored the protesters and used a flimsy excuse and arguably bad intelligence definitions to clean up a mess that had been left by a previous administration in the immediate region, expanding the war to another nation, and in doing so suffered in the following elections. Then, for the next seven and a half years, they performed “peacekeeping missions” in the two nations and tried to “nation build” in the rubble.
 
The next administration came to power with a few simple mandates, “National Unity”, “Returning home”, and “Equality”. This was supposed to be apparent as the nation had elected its first minority president. Unfortunately even as far back as during the election it seemed apparent to some that the candidate was anything but a unifier.

[Labster]

Being impartial isn't entirely necessary in fiction.  After all, what would Atlas Shrugged be without ideology and self-delusion?  It seems like the premise is ideological anyway -- the real "world government" looks pretty much like world leaders slamming their shoes one the table at each other in the UN building, and is about as effective.

I think for me it's all about empathy, though.  You have to understand why a character would act the way he does.  Like, the way you scare-quoted "peacekeeping missions".  I mean, I actually agree with the sentiment there, but understand why someone thinks that sending in soldiers is a way of keeping peace.  For characters who are generally pretty smart -- of which there are some on all sides -- don't start with ignorance or malice.  Try to build a case for how their mind would work.  Never assume that someone would vote against their own interests (hi @liberals), they must prioritize their interests differently than you do.  You can build towards malice, of course -- character development is always good.

I think my biggest critique is with "Chapter One".  People know recent history; start in medias res.  Then slowly reveal how you got to this point.  Like, say, 1984.  IIRC, a lot of the "how we got here" stuff gets explained just before the climax in Room 101.

[Rajvik]

Thanks, this might not end up as chapter one, but it all I have typed ATP, add to that, I want to get the "history" scenes completed before I get into meat because how they set things up will certainly dictate certain points

[Labster]

Why yes, I do have friends who have spent 100+ hours building a setting for an RPG that we'll probably never get to interact with 90% of. Building settings is just fun. J.R.R. Tolkien, too. Worked out great for him.