What truly matters politically and socially is not public opinion broadly but institutional capture. While Democrats as a whole are much less extreme than the progressive line in most things, progressive control the vast majority of important social institutions and therefore their line drives the culture and political priorities. Conservatives, on the other hand, really only control the Republican Party itself and churches. This disparity is what colors the whole culture-war debate.
Reminds of a Kantian a priori proposition: true, but uninformative. It is well recognized that a vast swath of America occupies and has always occupied the political middleground and avoids extremes. The quandry is how to induce our polarized political parties to acknowledge and represent that middle. One might argue that the endeavor is inherently doomed because parties are infinitely more concerned with retaining and consolidating power than doing the public good. With that as their guiding criterion, the have no incentive but to polarize and extract PAC money from special interests. The days of politicians signing up for their jobs out of a sense of public duty and then working hard to discharge that duty are gone and replaced with hyperbolic vitriol that poisons us all.
There is a step beyond just being in the middle on a vast array of issues. There are also many people who may strongly adhere to a view on an issue that is considered left wing. They may also simultaneously strongly adhere to a view on another issue that is considered right wing.
The fact that one of their views is considered liberal and another is considered conservative does not, of itself, signify any actual contradiction. The lumping in of a large number of positions on issues into one ideological category and a large number of positions on other issues into another category can be arbitrary. Such herding of views into one camp or the other can fail to account for an individual’s assessment of a multiplicity of issues in accord with that person’s own set of values. Such an approach may defy a pure left/wing right wing categorization but it is not internally inconsistent.
For instance a person might strongly support same sex marriage and also want to curtail undocumented immigration, because this individual might believe that a nation has a right to control its borders and know at all times who is entering the country and in what total numbers for any given period of time. A person can also support full public funding of abortion for those who otherwise cannot afford it and yet oppose providing fully publicly funded medical care to anyone who unlawfully enters the United States. Whatever the merits are of each of these positions, holding them at the same time is not contradictory. The dubbing of one as a liberal view and the framing of the other as a conservative view does not, of itself, make one inconsistent for simultaneously holding these views.
So, it’s not just a matter of millions of people being centrist. It goes further in that one can hold views that are further left on some issues and further right on other issues and not be logically inconsistent.
"Moreover, interpersonal spats between members of Congress have grown increasingly acrimonious (and public) over the last few decades, and the attempt by several members of the Republican Party to overturn the results of the 2020 election only exacerbated interparty relations."
Well there you go feeding the fires.
Every politician that the left, Democrats and Trump-haters are claiming was "an attempt to overturn the election" were simply people noting the massive election irregularities and thinking that there is a strong probability that there was cheating and that the cheating gave the election to Democrat candidates where without the cheating the Republican would have won the office.
When you leave off this context and spew intellectually dishonest political hyperbole like "coup" and "insurrection" and "wanted to overturn the election", you really piss off the rest of us and make us want to crush you, not cooperate.
Stop sucking so much if you want to make a case of less polarization.
Thanks for composing this. We have far more in common as a national foundation than cable TV news outlets want to admit. Very important cultural beliefs bind us together. The right to pursue social mobility is the most important. We need to reign in the use of advertising on news outlets. These channels should be funded by other means like PBS. Advertising driven revenue models cause media to seek maximum click rate, not deep attention. Sensation, not contemplation.
If a person held an extreme position before social media, that person would find it difficult to find another person holding the same position. This would have a moderating effect on the person or at least make the person less vocal. For example, people who believe the earth is flat would not find many or any other people in the community with the same belief. Now, however, a person can go online and find flat earth organizations, chat rooms, conventions etc., all promoting a belief that most people find ridiculous. People who believe the earth to be a sphere have no need to promote their belief because to them it is obvious.
What truly matters politically and socially is not public opinion broadly but institutional capture. While Democrats as a whole are much less extreme than the progressive line in most things, progressive control the vast majority of important social institutions and therefore their line drives the culture and political priorities. Conservatives, on the other hand, really only control the Republican Party itself and churches. This disparity is what colors the whole culture-war debate.
Reminds of a Kantian a priori proposition: true, but uninformative. It is well recognized that a vast swath of America occupies and has always occupied the political middleground and avoids extremes. The quandry is how to induce our polarized political parties to acknowledge and represent that middle. One might argue that the endeavor is inherently doomed because parties are infinitely more concerned with retaining and consolidating power than doing the public good. With that as their guiding criterion, the have no incentive but to polarize and extract PAC money from special interests. The days of politicians signing up for their jobs out of a sense of public duty and then working hard to discharge that duty are gone and replaced with hyperbolic vitriol that poisons us all.
There is a step beyond just being in the middle on a vast array of issues. There are also many people who may strongly adhere to a view on an issue that is considered left wing. They may also simultaneously strongly adhere to a view on another issue that is considered right wing.
The fact that one of their views is considered liberal and another is considered conservative does not, of itself, signify any actual contradiction. The lumping in of a large number of positions on issues into one ideological category and a large number of positions on other issues into another category can be arbitrary. Such herding of views into one camp or the other can fail to account for an individual’s assessment of a multiplicity of issues in accord with that person’s own set of values. Such an approach may defy a pure left/wing right wing categorization but it is not internally inconsistent.
For instance a person might strongly support same sex marriage and also want to curtail undocumented immigration, because this individual might believe that a nation has a right to control its borders and know at all times who is entering the country and in what total numbers for any given period of time. A person can also support full public funding of abortion for those who otherwise cannot afford it and yet oppose providing fully publicly funded medical care to anyone who unlawfully enters the United States. Whatever the merits are of each of these positions, holding them at the same time is not contradictory. The dubbing of one as a liberal view and the framing of the other as a conservative view does not, of itself, make one inconsistent for simultaneously holding these views.
So, it’s not just a matter of millions of people being centrist. It goes further in that one can hold views that are further left on some issues and further right on other issues and not be logically inconsistent.
"Moreover, interpersonal spats between members of Congress have grown increasingly acrimonious (and public) over the last few decades, and the attempt by several members of the Republican Party to overturn the results of the 2020 election only exacerbated interparty relations."
Well there you go feeding the fires.
Every politician that the left, Democrats and Trump-haters are claiming was "an attempt to overturn the election" were simply people noting the massive election irregularities and thinking that there is a strong probability that there was cheating and that the cheating gave the election to Democrat candidates where without the cheating the Republican would have won the office.
When you leave off this context and spew intellectually dishonest political hyperbole like "coup" and "insurrection" and "wanted to overturn the election", you really piss off the rest of us and make us want to crush you, not cooperate.
Stop sucking so much if you want to make a case of less polarization.
Thanks for composing this. We have far more in common as a national foundation than cable TV news outlets want to admit. Very important cultural beliefs bind us together. The right to pursue social mobility is the most important. We need to reign in the use of advertising on news outlets. These channels should be funded by other means like PBS. Advertising driven revenue models cause media to seek maximum click rate, not deep attention. Sensation, not contemplation.
If a person held an extreme position before social media, that person would find it difficult to find another person holding the same position. This would have a moderating effect on the person or at least make the person less vocal. For example, people who believe the earth is flat would not find many or any other people in the community with the same belief. Now, however, a person can go online and find flat earth organizations, chat rooms, conventions etc., all promoting a belief that most people find ridiculous. People who believe the earth to be a sphere have no need to promote their belief because to them it is obvious.
Thanks for this piece...need some reason for hope at this point...