In the United States, it might be surprising to learn approximately 1.5 million people suffer from what’s known as “plumbing poverty.” That’s when people do not have access to water, indoor plumbing, etc.

Surprising also is rural electrification. It remains spotty. It’s still a problem for populations such as the Navajo peoples, decades after the New Deal process of ensuring easy, affordable access to electricity.

The cause is primarily the federal government. Utility companies were not eager to connect the poor to the cross-country grid in the name of altruism. This meant cutting costs where it seemed as though it would matter least: the poorest out in the vast, endless expanses of the US.

The cities had power and amenities like water and plumbing because there were great and obvious health and financial incentives to connect factories and housing together. So they did it in these places.

Yet in places like East Texas, which a young Lyndon Johnson once called home, there was no access to electricity, and often plumbing as well, for the people who needed it most, as late as the early 1930s.

Johnson went on to work in the Rural Electrification Administration when he was a Congressman to help electrify his constituency in the 10th Congressional District of Texas, which included the famed Texas Hill Country at that time as well as many of its neighbors.

By the 1950s, across the entire nation, the REA’s job was essentially completed. Modernity had been brought to these United States.

So it’s worth asking why the internet is not consistently or easily accessible for approximately 19 million Americans. Why isn’t it treated like a public utility, available to everyone at reasonable prices, good speeds, and with wifi freely accessible throughout the society?

Access to the internet reflects the socioeconomic standard of one’s family, neighborhood, class, etc. Less well-off children have considerably less access, and knowledge of using it, than their wealthier counterparts. The US might be a more just and more equal society were access to the internet given the same treatment as access to water and electricity, telegraph, and telephone lines once was.

The internet is like food for the mind – food each child deserves. The internet is the greatest collection of knowledge mankind has assembled in one place - one place is all places simultaneously.

There is no good reason for studies featuring children lacking reliable access for homework, study and learning. Financial hardship shouldn’t be a barrier for parents to give their children every possible advantage.

Joe Biden should do the internet version of Roosevelt’s REA. Such an agency would not only provide money and motivation to wire the nation. It would also declare by doing so that the principals of its expansion were consistent with American liberty and justice for all.

The internet fulfills a basic need. If access to electricity and clean water, two things all people should have, and that still too many around the world do not, helped change and positively develop the world and its people, then we must add to that list the internet.

Boons such as expanded access to electricity, water and plumbing, as well as to the internet, do as much as anything to push humans and their societies forward toward new civilizational epochs, for they create a better, more equitable environment for all people to exercise themselves toward their collective and individual goals and passions.

It’s mostly Democrats who wish to see filibustering in the Senate curtailed or entirely stopped by finally altering Senate Rule 22.

But the rule itself is an alteration.

The filibuster has been used by all represented parties since 1806 but it’s most closely associated with the fight to deny greater civil liberties and rights to non-white citizens of the United States - first by the Southern Caucus of the Democratic Party after the Civil War and since roughly 1965, by the Republican Party.

Before 1917, there was literally no way to end debate in the Senate, making it the impregnable bulwark against pretty much everything.

After the creation of cloture through Senate Rule 22, however, there now at least existed a way to defeat the filibuster.

But this device has always been a political weapon of expedience that all have used, which has hindered its alteration or elimination.

Nixon and LBJ

Had Vice President Richard Nixon and Senator from California, William Knowland, gotten their way regarding the filibuster and cloture during the fight for civil rights legislation in 1957 - instead of the Democratic Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson - the Republican Party might today be known as more than just “the party of Lincoln.”

It would likely be known as the party that put an end to the tyranny of the minority, perpetuated eternally by the filibuster, to create and enshrine tough civil rights legislation, not the party that, in the 21st century, looks to deny or limit civil rights for political advantage.

The late 1950s had loads of opportunities for each party to alter, once and for all, Senate Rule 22. After Nixon failed from his position as president of the Senate at the beginning of the 85th Congress in 1957 to effect that change, the Senate’s mostly Democratic liberal majority, acquired for the 86th US Congress of 1959, was also inhibited from changing that despicable rule by Majority Leader Johnson.

But back in 1956 – during the 84th Congress – Nixon hoped Republicans would get credit for passing civil rights legislation, as to erode support Black voters had given, since 1936, to the Democrats.

Yet late in 1956, LBJ was able to keep the desired bill in committee until the election of the next Congress. By the time the new 85th Congress was seated early in 1957, Richard Nixon would famously attempt to change the rules of cloture and filibuster forever.

By suggesting that each new Senate has the right to alter that body’s rules at the start of each new congressional session, Nixon opened the door for not only modification of Rule 22, but all the rules. While the failed ploy, the whole situation is significant and ironic all the same.

Irony

That Nixon – that Nixon! – declared the Senate had the right to reconfigure its rules in the hopes of passing civil rights legislation in opposition to the reactionary forces being managed by Majority Leader LBJ is striking from the perspective of posterity.

Had Nixon succeeded, life today would likely be very different.

Both Nixon and Johnson knew the future hinged on civil rights being passed before 1960. They fought like they knew as much.

Johnson would win the battle. Along with watered-down civil rights legislation in 1957, as well as 1960, the Democrats would go on to pass truly meaningful, historic civil rights legislation in 1964, 1965 and 1968.

Had the GOP been able to alter Senate Rule 22 and pass a GOP-credited civil rights bill in ’57, well, it’s difficult to know how future civil rights bills would’ve worked out or imagine that many of the conservative Democratic Senators of the South eventually realigning themselves with the Republican Party, as they would.

Nixon would never again go all-in regarding the filibuster or civil rights. His subsequent adoption of the Southern Strategy in the next decade highlights the nature of Nixon’s rules declaration in 1957.

For Nixon, like LBJ, the calculations of 1957 were calculations of political expediency. When he and his party determined that Democrats had mostly consolidated the vote of Black Americans across the US, they made further political calculations, and their new strategy morphed from one of inclusion to one of exclusion.

The requirements to end filibusters through cloture may be altered one day. Yet the story regarding Nixon, LBJ, civil rights, cloture and the filibuster in 1957 reminds us of our civil and moral obligation to the current and future generations of this nation, and what the consequences of failing to live up to these obligations can be.

The United States is as flawed as any other nation. These are collective statements of some historical and contemporary fact, and are not simply the citationless opinions of one person. And yet, to many, this is not only an opinion, but a nasty, hateful and unpatriotic one.

What those figures are calling "hate" for the United States is, in fact, nothing of the sort. These people are reacting adversely to the unadulterated history of our country, in all of the ways in which it has all played out, and continues to actively play out. This history, to be sure, is not always as brilliant and beautiful as they would like, but is dreadful and nasty, despicable and oftentimes hypocritical.

It does, however, all remain worth learning, considering and appraising. Only through understanding the truth of what has occurred, to the best of our abilities, can we navigate the world of which has been left to us by previous generations.

During the recent national, reactionary outcry regarding, among other things, their own perceived understanding of the legal concept of critical race theory, political and intellectual figures of modern conservatism have done and said all they can to censor history and the effective education of it. State officials across the country have mounted a relentless campaign to denounce, not only legal and historical theories of which they are woefully ignorant regarding, but educators and institutions of education for teaching children to analyze their own nation as critically as any other, or in the particular words of some, to "hate their country."

READ: A growing threat is emerging from the theocratic wing of the GOP — but many liberals are missing it

This is among the most ludicrous of accusations that reactionaries in America have made in recent memory. If anything, it could very well be argued that, far from creating a disdain for the United States, public and private school history classes alike are massive manufactories of unquestioning and unthinking fervor and assent for the United States, its history and its historical and contemporary policies. Meanwhile, attacks on the "liberal" and "leftist" schools and universities of the nation are laughable, if for no other reason than that these alleged pits of Socialism and Communism, that are, in the case of the latter, understood to be generally more liberal or leftist, continue to team up to pump out relatively moderate liberal politicians on one hand, alongside rabidly reactionary, nearly illiberal politicians on the other.

That these reactionary figures and hyper-conservative politicians are attacking this system of education, essentially blaming it for its own losses and lack of electoral popularity, demonstrates just how unhinged they are, and how far from reasonable so many of them have grown to become. They cannot tolerate even the smallest levels of cognitive dissonance, impinging or intruding on their exceptional world view of America, both historically and, sometimes, presently.

To these individuals, only undying, unyielding fealty to the faults of this country's past constitutes a proper and patriotic individual or education. A person who brings up the most grotesque moments of this country's history is likely to be castigated, and in line to face an almost infinite amount of cynical, ill-informed and perfidious questions not only from the public, various media outlets and publications, but from friends, and family members, too.

In this vein, it seems, sadly, to be common sense, perhaps even common knowledge for many, that the United States is a "good" country, with relatively "good" allies, while other nations and powers of the world are considered, in juxtaposition, "bad" nations, who consistently get in the way of the wonderful, global innovations America is churning out. Somehow, apparently, the Trotskyite grade schools of the United States have failed to stifle this verbose nationalism, despite their alleged best attempts.

READ: 'Whole case is a mess': Internet stunned as judge lets Rittenhouse choose final jurors in raffle system

No, when one hears a reactionary politician, public figure, or think tank state that they believe American exceptionalism should be taught in all schools, one cannot help but cringe. Far from needing to double down on narcissistic, self-aggrandizing nationalistic pseudo-history, America must further unshackle itself from this false, historically inaccurate and intellectually confining understanding and instead embrace the historical and practical reality of our national existence.

The United States, while full of positives, both historically, as well as contemporarily speaking, is, to use an analogy, but another house in the international community of nations, of which 194 other houses feature as well. In a community, a real community, everyone knows everyone. Everyone knows the wealthiest and the poorest, the pleasant and the unpleasant, the vain and humble as well as the good and bad that each house has produced over the years.

All of the houses in this particular community, on this particular planet, have made some dreadful mistakes at some time or another. While the mistakes themselves are often abhorrent, such as enslaving millions of human beings, genocidal ambitions in America, Ireland, Palestine, China, Ukraine, or much of Europe for that matter, the weaponization of starvation across the world or divvying entire continents up between distant family members, the common thread between them all is that in some manner all are guilty.

America in this way is actually as unexceptional as any other nation. It is a great and brilliant polity, with incredible material and political innovations across so many sectors of life across its own existence. Meanwhile, it is also plagued by historical travesties and modern blights for which it sometimes apologizes for or acknowledges, as a government or nation, while at other times, it simply doubles down on its own barbarism and indignance in the face of agony and anguish.

Read: 'Conspiracy nuts': DeSantis is in the hot seat after his aide gets caught pushing anti-Semitic theory

The size and scope of these national mistakes, on the other hand, might be seriously considered the most exceptional part of this "exceptional nation." Ethnic cleansing and resettlement, slavery, segregation, forced sterilization campaigns, internment camps, racial prejudice, xenophobia and more, are all part of our short yet strangely accelerated history that has yet to even reach its 300th birthday. Again, while America is not the only nation to have committed acts of these types, it has certainly accomplished many of them, and in less time than it has taken many of its neighbors to as well.

America, therefore, must be taught about itself in an honest manner. The people and the greater society would benefit tremendously on the institutional level by teaching a history that is not so strictly divided into "US History" and "Global History," as though there is only us, a singular nation, and them, an amalgamation of any number of unknown peoples or nations, states or territories, speaking any number of unknown languages, while practicing unknown or unfamiliar customs. America must learn about the journey that this great project has gone through, and hear about the immense contributions of others so that it can collectively grow to understand not only how we shaped the world, but how the world and its people have shaped us.

The contributions of nations throughout the world to the American story makes telling that story without them tantamount to skipping everyone's dialogue in a novel with the exception of one character. Teaching America as exceptional, as with teaching any nation as more important than the rest, works to tear America and its people from the rest of humanity, invariably creating, as with the history that is taught to children, an "America" and an "everyone else."

Moreover, teaching the children of the United States biased history has some real domestic risks and dangers inherent to it as well. While the majority of the public continues to support the United States as something like "A global force for good", more and more Americans, with the access to news and information from across the globe, are coming to different conclusions, not because of the extreme leftist ideological bases of power that are allegedly driving schools, but because of, and thanks to, the intellectual bounty of which the internet can provide for wary, diligent researchers.

READ: Ocasio-Cortez gives an impassioned speech blasting Kevin McCarthy after Gosar's 'incitement of violence'

At the same time, too, the internet can send people of any age who are convinced of the reality that they've read in their textbooks toward hyper-reactionary behavior and beliefs, in which America and "real" Americans themselves are fighting internal enemies of even more ferocity than any nation in Europe or Asia: the illegal immigrants who lurk behind every corner, the terrorists who hide behind each tree or light pole, the Black or brown people of the country, of whom are allegedly "replacing" white people, the strange and insidious LGBTQ community, and of course, the communistic American far-left that wishes to consistently enable all of this.

While those views are disgustingly and abjectly false, they demonstrate the danger, on the one hand, presented by teaching even a partially exceptional American history to children. They eventually grow up to be adults, where those perceptions of the United States can do real harm to the nation and to the greater international community itself.

On the other hand, however, when someone finds out that something they've been told over the course of their entire lives is not true, and worse still, that most everyone else has known it, the secondary reaction after frustration or anger usually ends up being the development of further questions, and therefore further research or education on those matters as well.

The masses of counter-reactionaries, many of them younger Millennials and members of Generation Z, grew up in the post-9/11 era of forever wars, wars on terror, wars on crime, and even wars on domestic civil liberties. These views have been molded, not exclusively by their schooling, but by their perceptions, their experiences and how all of it reconciles itself in their own minds and existences.

READ: FBI raids homes of Colorado MAGA county clerk and Lauren Boebert's former campaign manager: report

While conservative "intellectuals" still believe educating Americans as though they are intrinsically or uniquely special relative to others might bind and keep the society bound more tightly together, they are woefully incorrect. Instead, it seems to create greater division within the already splintered American electorate, and sets many on their way towards extreme right-wing sentiments and conclusions, while making many others resent the propaganda that they feel has been unjustly taught to them under the label of US History.

Therefore, when we appraise our nation, we must do so without this personal and intimate indignancy, and instead take into consideration not only the good and the negative of which we as a nation have contributed to the greater international community of nations, but also the positives and the negatives of which the rest of the polities, young and old, alive and long dead, have contributed to us as well.

As the famous Mary Parker Follett said many, many years ago, "We are not wholly patriotic when we are working with all our heart for America merely; we are truly patriotic only when we are working also that America may take her place worthily and helpfully in the world of nations. … Interdependence is the keynote of the relations of nations as it is the keynote of the relations of individuals within nations."