Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Lord Shonus]

Polarization of all sorts is a big contributor. On many issues, the national parties are way further in opposite directions than most people actually support, so instead of  "support the party/candidate that I agree with", it becomes "support the candidate/party that at least goes way too far in the direction I lean".

[Trekkin]

Polarization of all sorts is a big contributor. On many issues, the national parties are way further in opposite directions than most people actually support, so instead of  "support the party/candidate that I agree with", it becomes "support the candidate/party that at least goes way too far in the direction I lean".

The notorious fragility of the conservative psyche contributes to that, too.

Case in point, Don Jr. ghost-whining about conservatives being deplatfomed...for spewing sexist bullshit.

[smjjames]

The Liberal psyche is pretty fragile too, though it doesn't manifest in the same ways. Not trying to make a both sides argument, just saying that the left has the same tendency to collapse into gibbering rage over some things.

The problem is that both sides rage feeds off of the other sides rage, and with echo bubbles, neither side is willing to hear the other out, so, all the other side hears is the gibbering rage and not the calm arguments.

[MrRoboto75]

The problem is that both sides rage feeds off of the other sides rage

Modern politics really has become less "how can we steer government towards our beliefs" and more "how can we troll the opposing party".  Less aiming to win and more aiming to make the opponent lose more.

[PTTG??]

Polarization of all sorts is a big contributor. On many issues, the national parties are way further in opposite directions than most people actually support, so instead of  "support the party/candidate that I agree with", it becomes "support the candidate/party that at least goes way too far in the direction I lean".

Do tell me more about that golden age when the parties were representative of the desires of the American people and compromise was not needed.

[smjjames]

The problem is that both sides rage feeds off of the other sides rage

Modern politics really has become less "how can we steer government towards our beliefs" and more "how can we troll the opposing party".  Less aiming to win and more aiming to make the opponent lose more.

It's been primarily the Republicans/conservatives doing that, but the Democrats have been getting the itch to do it lately.

[Trekkin]

Modern politics really has become less "how can we steer government towards our beliefs" and more "how can we troll the opposing party".  Less aiming to win and more aiming to make the opponent lose more.

It's been primarily the Republicans/conservatives doing that, but the Democrats have been getting the itch to do it lately.

Birtherism was kind of the inflection point for that, I think. It was an outlet for a lot of racism, but it was also so pathetically, desperately stupid (remember all the "Impeach Barack Hussein Obama" petitions on WeThePeople?) that it drew active mockery from the left for Fox News to use as rage bait and give a bigger platform to the emerging alt-right, all while telling conservatives that liberals were laughing at them.

Now, I should clarify here that conservatism itself isn't built on hate. There are just relatively few conservatives in America who actually subscribe to the cult of Burke & Buckley in any nuanced way relative to the people who use it as a cover for hate. Being pro-life is a way to openly insist that babies are how women should be punished for having sex; evangelism is lets one tell gay people how they're going to Hell all day long and insist one is literally doing God's work. Fiscal conservatism does the same, but for capitalism: it's not fucking over the poor if one says "fiscal responsibility" first, and that dovetails nicely with the border racists. This is important because of what birtherism meant for it: the one thing all those groups could agree on was that their opponents were liberal, and here was a way to reliably mess with liberals and get a national platform doing it. Whether any particular liberals were anyone's particular target didn't matter; "liberal tears" became the common currency of conservative cred, and that brought the idea of the snowflake into conservative parlance and secured the conflation between liberal anger and conservative political correctness that still drives populist discourse today, albeit against "elites".

[smjjames]

I wonder if theres any historical parallels, just to see where this all might end up. The whole combination of factors is likely too unique to have any exact historical parallels, but similar situations have had to happen in the past.

[Rolan7]

Good point, honestly I'd like to know what historians think about all this.  Supposedly they help us avoid making the same mistakes...  with the strength of all our past experiences.  I'd like to see what they've come up with.

I'm not sure how exactly to search for that right now, so I'm asking for good examples.

[smjjames]

Well, I've read (nothing recently though) that the polarization is the highest since the 60's/70's, possibly since the Civil War, but IMO the toxicity and the particular brand of hypertribalism might not have any good historical parallels given that it's being driven by social media, among other things.

[Baffler]

I've seen comparisons to the Dreyfus affair with the left generally filling the role of anti-Dreyfusards (in the sense that they are interested in the outcome of the investigation rather than the facts of the investigation and willing to accept dubious evidence in service to that rather than accusing them of anti-semitism) from one side, and the right filling the role of Boulangists from the other. I don't know about either of those particular metaphors but the problems the later Third Republic had with its democratic process does have some interesting parallels to the modern USA.

[Max™]

Back in 68 the left wing ran a safer bet candidate and lots of further left/liberal jumped in against him, in the end he was getting attacked by his own party members from the left and having that used as an attack from the right.

Later you get Carter who pushed for stuff like environmental issues and as I recall he basically pushed for something almost exactly like obamacare ended up as today.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I'm not sure this parallel exactly works. It sort of fits regarding the Muller investigation (again, absent the antisemitism angle from the Dreyfus affair) but not the culture war in general. For the former it seems we have three basic camps:

Left: Believe Trump is guilty and would ratfuck him even if we knew he was innocent of this particular accusation due to his immorality. Does not believe in the Muller investigation and do not expect Trump to be removed from office regardless. Generally believe Trump is just the chosen icon of America's sickness rather than the source.

Center: Believe Trump is probably guilty and want to prove it to the world with FACTS and LOGIC. Mostly would not ratfuck him if they had proof of his innocence. Believe in the Muller investigation and are divided on the ability of Congress to remove Trump from office. Generally believe that everything can go back to normal if Trump is removed from office.

Right: Believe Trump is innocent even if he's guilty. Believes Muller is either a traitor or alternatively working with Trump in secret. Believe Democrats in Congress are drawing up a drumhead court as we speak and that Republicans in Congress are hostile to Trump and will turn on him in a heartbeat. Generally believe Trump will inevitably overcome and secretly masturbate to the thought of him ordering Congress machine-gunned as traitors.

[Max™]

I just meant as a parallel to the current president situation, naturally neither Carter nor uh... fucking dude was like a vice president or something but whatever, neither could give their party a new infusion of life and the resulting losses resulted in a breakdown/rebuilding for their party afterwards.

Hopefully Trump is another Carter.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I was responding to Baffler.

I don't think Trump will give his party an infusion of new life so much as kick the death cultist urge into high gear, as the death cultist base is dying more every year. Sure, they have no future. But at least they can kill as many people as possible before that happens! Start rigging elections to increase your timeframe, openly embrace fascism, poison as many future repairs as possible, and such.