Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes
pnas.orgIt's an interesting paper, but unfortunately it misses the point.
Polar dissimilar political beliefs are not the problem. Many countries have this, and even have lively political discussions that remain civil, rallies that remain civil, and elections that remain civil.
The actual problem is psychological, specifically dealing with identity beliefs. Once a person takes on a belief as part of their identity, any attack upon that belief becomes an attack upon the person, at which point they will retaliate for the offence or dig in to defend. This is most commonly observed in the "Backfire Effect".
Identity beliefs are pervasive in the USA, so much so that I doubt many are aware of it (the authors of this paper certainly aren't). For example, in America you say "I'm a Republican." but in Germany you say "I support the CDU." Notice the difference? One is an identity, the other is an action. Guess in which of these countries you can have polite (even if heated) dinner conversations about politics!
Identity beliefs aren't limited to politics, either. They can be religious, ethnic, or even ideological (e.g. incels, preppers, anti-vaxers, jihadists, etc).
I'm American and I can't help but think many of you just lack social skills. It's very convenient to think that everyone's hyper-sensitive and there's nothing you could do to change that, but usually people are pretty receptive to just about anything as long as you respect them. Avoid leading/gotcha questions, don't smirk, appear to genuinely listen and seek to understand the other person, resist the urge to tool on them if it's shown they're lacking basic knowledge, try to find common ground. I'm relatively conservative and I've never had a problem.
> usually people are pretty receptive to just about anything as long as you respect them.
Non-American here.
I lived in the United States for over thirty years. My experience was different.
I lost a lot of friends in the last ten years, because they started posting completely ridiculous, crazy stuff and were completely defensive of even the most reasonable objections.
I'd put up with "Obama is a Muslim" for a long time, but then it started to escalate. People would get hostile when you mentioned that there were records showing otherwise. After the election, some people become convinced that Michelle Obama was in fact a transgender man and let me hear all about it.
And you know, it's hard not to get a little pissed off about such blatant lies, hmm?
A long-time friend of mine started posting about Sandy Hook being a hoax - that the school had never existed. I pointed out that a friend-of-a-friend of mine had lost two children there, and my friend just went ballistic and started calling me the most unbelievable names, "Do your homework!" I unfriended her. You could see her get more unhinged on other people's pages and unfriended, and I haven't heard anything from her in years.
And now we have terrible lies about medical data, and again, people become incredibly defensive. At least two acquaintances accused me of being a pharmaceutical company shill! (I've never worked anything remotely like that.)
Sorry, it's not just "politeness" - a significant portion of Americans just went off the rails in the last decade.
Spot on.
I finally a cut a relative off after his long slide deeper into extremism culminated in posting Facebook memes demeaning me and people I cared about leading up to the 2016 election. I'm sure he thinks it was out of nowhere because he brushed me off when I asked him to stop saying such cruel and ignorant things.
Said relative was completely unmoved every time I said "that's me. You know me. Why are you saying these things about me? Why are you saying these things about people who matter to me?"
We were strangers long before I realized it. 2016 was just the wakeup call. There's no difference to me between people claiming relatives cut them off out of nowhere "over politics" and estranged parents in estranged parent forums who don't understand why their kids went no contact. They know or were at least told. But they didn't listen.
Growing up I was told hundreds of times "not to believe everything you read on the internet." Parents, teachers, relatives, and older folks all told me that. It was a cliche, and us younger people made fun of it being a cliche in the same way we made fun of downloading cars. Even so, it stuck with me.
Then it stopped. No one said it anymore. What happened?
Unscrupulous marketing people discovered the effectiveness of doublespeak. They turned the natural suspicion of internet information back at itself by implying that “the other people on the internet are lying to you, I’m going to tell you the real truth” and because everyone knows you can’t trust the internet they are subtly manipulated into being more likely to believe something new that is untrue.
every one connected to Facebook>
"A long-time friend of mine started posting about Sandy Hook being a hoax - that the school had never existed. I pointed out that a friend-of-a-friend of mine had lost two children there, and my friend just went ballistic and started calling me the most unbelievable names, "Do your homework!""
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_s...
I see no siblings on the list of victims. Your friend-of-a-friend story sounds like some information was omitted which impacts credibilty.
> I see no siblings
Siblings is not the only combination possible, people can mourn a son and his cousin for example, or the best friend of your son, or the son of a close friend. Most people would describe the experience as losing two children.
I'm not claiming that the history is neither real or is false, just that the data don't point clearly to one or the other option
Siblings IS the only combination, unless you are playing word games. You have a job, with benefits available. Go to HR, tell them you want the additional coverage for your children. Mention that one is your best friend's child. Or your daughters best friend. When concise wording matters, this choice will become important. Else it is like the collective "we lost favorite actor|humanatarian|humorist|etc person this year" stuff in clickbait headlines. The collective "we" is about manipulation of perception and feelings.
This is not to minimize the loss felt by the poster I replied to's friend-of-a-friend. Its about not misleading by choice of words. Isn't that a big part of the original post?
You don't know that, you're going off of last names. Why are we justifying conspiratorial thinking
Ah. But the people making the outlandish accusations were your friends, right?
Imagine if it was the media. (Remember the Steele dossier?)
Or if the people making the most noise were actually the worst offenders. (Harvey Weinstein, Michael Avenatti, Mario Cuomo, Chris Cuomo, most recently John Griffin.... 'Party of Women', anyone?)
There is enough craziness to go around, I assure you.
I have crazy friends on both sides. I hope a return to sanity can happen.
My close friend used to be a democrat, then became a Trumper and even worked in his administration. We got into a lot of heated debates, and our friendship finally about ended when he recently told me I was “lying to protect my political allies,” which is about the most rediculous statement I could imagine. Not only do I not have political allies (I’m not in politics), but I’m also giving pointing out opinions and evidence contrary to his viewpoint, which he dismisses as a lie (versus debatable points). It’s gotten so absurd, and I blame media on this one. People go into self-reinforcing areas that just get more and more extreme as people try to score points within their own clan. It’s sad, as he was one of the only people I knew that voted for Trump that I could have a real discussion with. Now I just watch it all from afar.
It’s as if an evil sorcerer kidnapped our friends and family members and turned them into minions.
We could say that brainwashing and propaganda are black magic - after all they turn brother against brother and mother against daughter. Extremism, dehumanization, division often end up in violence on massive scale.
Being able to cheaply and efficiently hypnotize people into an alternate reality and maintaining that is… what kind of power?
I think in person it's easier to adopt this approach because there's a lot more context available. If you ask someone a question in person you can look them in the eye and they can assess if you're being genuine. Online there is a tendency to second guess what the person really means, especially if they're a stranger (which they often are) and then to assume the worst.
The problem is compounded in forums with a really wide general audience with potentially very little common ground. Not only do you not have shared assumptions you can rely on (e.g. we all believe in free-speech, we all believe that the moon landing happened) but you often don't build up any kind of track record or rapport with someone so you know what they mean by a particular (ambiguous) comment. It's the opposite problem to the echo chamber.
It's both.
I work in political communications/as a civics educator. I also grew up in a purple state in the 90s with a half liberal family and a half conservative one.
The media landscape is completely different now. When I was growing up, my dad and I would do things like listen to Limbaugh and then discuss what points we agreed with + how stuff was covered online (he read the Drudge Report and other conservative online news and I read the opposite).
One difference is that back then if I listened, I could get a genuine idea of what the other side wanted: Watching a liberal outlet would tell me, at least broadly, what conservatives wanted. (Fewer taxes, more religion, greater national security, etc.) Likewise for a conservative outlet re: liberals (Gay marriage, no war, etc.)
Now? The media is just constantly spouting things that are completely batshit.
> The media landscape is completely different now
Not entirely. Right-wing talk radio has been fanning the flames of hatred towards "liberals" (e.g., all "others") for decades. It's taken root and flourished.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/17/us/politics/limbaugh-deat...
I remember. They were the earliest ones acting like that, but now everybody is. The right wing talking heads used to be a novelty; even when people listened to them like my dad + other conservative relatives, there wasn't a media ECOSYSTEM built around filter bubbling those opinions. The idea of somebody being informed with only what they knew from Limbaugh would have been absurd.
You're right that it's been building for a long time; in hindsight we can identify key points (like the development of AM talk radio, the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine, the introduction of CNN/the 24 hour news cycle, digital media's embrace of the advertising funding model), but it's a trend.
Both sides are doing it now because it pays.
I agree with the premise that most people are reasonable, but there is a sizeable minority that are extremely vocal and unreasonable that can make you the black sheep at family gatherings or get you fired for saying the wrong thing, etc. The rest of this reasonable population you speak of stays in their lane because of this.
> It's very convenient to think that everyone's hyper-sensitive and there's nothing you could do to change that, but usually people are pretty receptive to just about anything as long as you respect them.
I think a lot of people are willing to listen, but there is a some amount of evidence that indicates political leanings may have some basis in biology:
> Studies have found that subjects with right-wing, or conservative in the United States, political views have larger amygdalae and are more prone to feeling disgust. Those with left-wing, or liberal in the United States, political views have larger volume of grey matter in the anterior cingulate cortex and are better at detecting errors in recurring patterns. Conservatives have a stronger sympathetic nervous system response to threatening images and are more likely to interpret ambiguous facial expressions as threatening. In general, conservatives are more likely to report larger social networks, more happiness and better self-esteem than liberals. Liberals are more likely to report greater emotional distress, relationship dissatisfaction and experiential hardship and are more open to experience and tolerate uncertainty and disorder better.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_political_orientat...
* https://www.routledge.com/Predisposed-Liberals-Conservatives...
> The book is intended as an objective study of the conceptual metaphors underlying conservative and liberal politics although the closing section is devoted to the author's personal views. Lakoff makes it clear however, that there is no such thing as an Objective study of politics, as politics is based in subjective morality.
People are really suffering from this attitude. They think “well a leftist was smug about vaccines on twitter, so it’s their fault I’m not vaccinated” and then they die.
Usually, however it would be more among the lines of "I heard a leftist[1] was smug about vaccines on twitter, so ..."
[1]: the leftist was actually fiscally conservative centrist, which would have been in the right wing of any european conservative party, but who cares about the meaning of words anymore, right?
Yes and: Ezra Klein provides a lot of context in the book Why We Are Polarized.
It was long argued that partisanship (Dem v GOP) should become polarized, so that voters knew what they were getting. (Careful what you wish for.)
Sorting proceeded polarization, then became self reinforcing.
To your point about identity, somehow sorting and polarization led to a stacking of our identities, creating super identities. So that any given belief becomes strongly associated with many others. Like a NASCAR fan is more likely a GOP voter. This is somehow like homophily and schismogenesis.
Klein concludes by punting on how to unwind polarization. Instead, he advocates majoritarian rule by ending the vetocracy. So then our polarized parties are better held accountable.
--
This paper's Attraction-Repulsion Model is worth considering. I really like their use of dynamic simulations. Coolness. Alas, I currently have no clue if ARM has any predictive power (real world use cases).
To noob me, sorting and polarization -- tribes and wedge issues -- kinda look similar to k-means clustering and bee colony optimization. ARM isn't so different.
I've been reading about voter behaviour modeling. Starting with William McPhee's work. Again, I have no idea if what they're actually doing is any better than phrenology.
Having worked on campaigns, I actually know the mechanics of polling, profiling, GOTV. But the work of orgs like Data for Progress, fivethirtyeight, and our local party's quants has always struck me as black magic. (Or complete bullshit. I still haven't decided.)
Not dismissing your point, but you may be hitting at words that have ambiguity when translated. I am not a german speaker but would it be grammatically correct to say "Ich bin CDUer"? From my elementary school german it does not feel right.
On the other hand you can perfectly say "Ich bin christdemokrat" and here you are back to the American case with political support equaling identity.
An equivalently polarized country, Poland, does not have PiS supporters saying they are "Jestem PISowcy"(I am a Piser) or "Jestem POsy")(I am a POer). According you our theory I would expect Polish to identify themselves as written above.
In Portuguese, party names are also mostly abbreviations, and people will just say "sou do PS"(i am from PS/I am a PSer) for actual militants as well as supporters. This would hint at identity and support being the same. As a Portuguese i can tell you Portugal is outstandingly homogeneous and not polarized. This would falsify your theory as well as you would expect conflating support with identity would reflect polarization.
I dont think anyone would ever say „Ich bin christemokrat“, a much more common saying (at least in the area where I live or the area I grew up) would be „Ich bin CDU-Wähler“/I am a CDU-Voter. This is coincidentally how my parents would describe their political leanings (SPD).
Certainly some people do say "Ich bin Christdemokrat", but that would usually be active party members, not just voters.
In Brazil people say "I'm Petista" and they're extremely polarized, very similar to how the US looks like.
It's amazing that both sides' (right and left) ideas, at this point, lead to the same results in the long run, but they vehemently fight eachother like they were extreme opposites. Just because the short term presentation of the ideas is different.
Fair point, in Poland I wouldn't expect someone to call themself "PISowiec" ("PISowcy" is plural) - those terms are often used as derogatory. On the other hand, it's quite common to label either yourself or them as "prawicowiec/lewicowiec" (right-winger/left-winger).
I was reading about this just yesterday, and was intrigued to learn that the backfire effect may not be real and/or may be very weak. Here's one meta-study:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7462781/
As I understand it (I am far from deeply knowledgeable about the literature! I'm just reading a book on this right now), Porter and Wood's 2017 study was one of the first that called into question the strength or existence of the backfire effect:
Wood and Porter. "The elusive backfire effect: mass attitudes' steadfast factual adherence." Political Behavior, Jan 6 2018. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2819073
That still does not explain why such identity beliefs appear to be spreading. My own hypothesis is that most things are now too complex for most people, i.e., how things work is largely "magic". This then might allow people to actually belief a lot more things as a lot of how the real world works is already untethered from reality for them.
Look around: social media is pervasive and most (all?) of its goals are to propagate conflicting views, as they are the one bringing the holy click. Division is a logical consequence of that and no social media company feels at all responsible. Yeah one can (and not wrongly) blame the human nature but so far we've been able to enact laws to protect us against some other human nature shortcomings - we call them "crimes".
Conflicting belief systems and views with massive real world consequences far predate current social media, hence I struggle with the idea of social media being the sole causal agent/accelerant. And social media also do seem to impact different societies differently. On top, the US has had a real world "violence problem" for a long time (even compared to societies with similar levels of gun ownership), i.e., I would not discount specific societal factors.
The "sole" - that's what nobody said.
Fair enough: should have said "strongly relevant" instead
That has been the case since the industrial revolution, though. My theory is that political affiliation has taken the place of religion. Particularly on the left, but you can see a lot of it happening on the right now too since Christianity has declined in influence in the Republican party.
Spot on. At the end of the day it's a lot less harmful to worship an invisible being than an idealised visible entity
I think you may be on to something here. But I think that in terms of US politics, the stabilizing factor was that, until recently, both parties shared the same religion. Even up to the 90's, being Christian was very much a requirement for Democratic presidential candidates.
How is it not now? Dems never nominated a non-Christian candidate for Pres.
Hard disagree. The visible entity is still human, and can be wrong, even if it takes a lot to recognize it. God's can't be wrong whatever they do, however inhuman it is.
As a leftie, but who can't relate to the many demands they now have (e.g. cancel culture), did Christianity influence the GOP? Or is it more the GOP saying "We are Christians" and what "Christianity" means to them is whatever they say it is?
I think it used to be the former, and is now more like the latter. And I think that as Christianity, independent of the GOP, continues to be less of a political force, you will see a brand of Republican religion without reference to Christianity. I think the beginnings of this can be seen in the purging of Liz Cheney, who, until very recently, was a canonical Republican. Now it is basically heretical in the Republican party to go against Trump. Also Trump is the first Republican presidential candidate that I can remember who didn't make a show out of his Christian faith, and didn't seem to be hurt by it.
But he still kind of did just by choosing Mike Pence as VP.
And Trump is a perfect demonstration of a political party having "religious zeal" unanchored to a religion. He's close to a God figure to some people. Those people and Christians really need to be in separate political parties.
Not sure that is totally true since the industrial revolution. 50 years ago when learning how to drive there was a lot of learning on how a car works, for example. That is completely gone now.
I don't quite understand this argument. Our ancestors were able to get themselves very polarized in their (technologically) simpler times. They believed really wild and counterproductive things too.
We have increased in our polarization compared to 25 years ago, but compared to the many civil wars across time and space we aren't so bad (yet we are at peak incomprehensibility).
Exactly, and in those simpler times a lot of things where indeed pretty much assumed to be Devine/magic etc. Back then things where also very incomprehensible otherwise.
So my point is we are going back to that stage after a short "interregnum" where the machines in our daily lives where somewhat more comprehensible.
As someone from outside the US, the US seems to have a particularly bad case of identity beliefs. Will you test your hypothesis against other developed nations and see how much of it is explained by the current trajectory of US's national culture and politics and how much is explained by fundamental environmental complexity?
> why such identity beliefs appear to be spreading
There's a loneliness epidemic (even before the *-demic words became used for something else...), my theory is that lonely people were looking for a tribe to feel a sense of belonging and found political tribes to be one.
It also seems to me people take a lot of political positions not because they believe it, but because "the other side" takes the opposing view. Anything the "enemy" likes, I don't support. But the root cause would be to find that sense of belonging. Or it'd be because of insecurity: if I think the other side have idiotic opinions, I can walk around having the smug feeling of supremacy, and hey, at least I feel better, right?
It's the same issue with second generation Muslim migrants in Western Europe who feel "lost" and then found Jihad, they'd start as troubled youths who were shoplifters, who end up in jail, find the charismatic hate-preacher/Imam there and then are inspired and find their lives' cause, which is sadly Jihad. IMO white supremacist terrorists go through the same motions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlbirlSA-dc or a text that's the same idea (by the same guy): https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2010/jul/19...
I'd agree with this. I've met many people who have identities and can get along with people just fine. However, when we identify as enemies of other people, things tend to go a bit haywire.
I'm surprised nobody's mentioned yet a key (admittedly not only) part in making the US so polarized: first past the post voting system which inevitably leads to a two party system. Good luck having nuance in that system. It literally pits people against each other in two umbrella teams. The internet's echo chamber mechanic has only amplified this.
People need to challenge their own beliefs more often. You vote Democrat? Whatever. Who do you vote for in the primaries? Nobody cares... they should.
It might open the eyes to the foundations of disagreement not being dehumanizing.
I did actually touch on it briefly in [1] but it was not my only focus so perhaps you missed it. But I fully agree our voting system is one of the primary reasons for our polarization (social media is probably another but that's mainly an instinctual hypothesis). Unfortunately the alternative with the most support currently is ranked choice/IRV which does not really solve polarization (perhaps it might help it due to external societal factors, but in a mathematical vacuum I believe IRV is just as polarizing as first past the post). As far as single winner methods go, approval and STAR are gaining momentum and they do address polarization, so if one of these catches on I expect it to help slowly improve our current situation.
Yup, I've missed it somehow. I'm also a fan of approval and particularly star voting compared to IRV. It's good they're gaining ground.
> Who do you vote for in the primaries? Nobody cares... they should.
This is a mechanism that in the past limited polarization at the final election. Now, there's ideological policing-by-harassment within both parties.
I find the paper a bit ironic, but I think the problem isn't identity beliefs per say, the problem is more innate than that. And the innate problem is merely a conflict in individual wills as Thomas Hobbes argues in his state of nature. Or put more simply, politics is entirely just a conflict in personal wants, and the problem is that other people don't always share the same wants as you do.
To demonstrate Hobbes point: imagine living on a desert island, alone by yourself. You can do whatever you desire, as there is no one to stop you from doing it. No law, no opposition whatsoever. If you want to burn everything on the island, no one to stop you! There is no politics to be had!
Now, imagine you're on an island, and suddenly there's another person on that island. And all that's on the island is a stack of resources, just enough to either build a boat to safely transport one person off the island, or enough to build a hut to shelter one person so they can live on the island. You want to build a boat to get off the island, however the other person wants to use the resources to build a hut to live on the island. Notice what you want and what the other person wants, is at conflict with another! How do you resolve this conflict in wills? If you compromise, and share the resources, there won't be enough for either of you to get the outcome you want. Additionally, who is righteous to say whichever outcome happens is just/fair? Is it what you both agree on? Well that's both what you will isn't it?
Anyhow, being against "anything that undermines democratic norms" is a will of itself. So is the desire to "prevent extreme polarization...", which is really just a roundabout way of saying "Preventing the opposition from doing what it is I want."
| For example, in America you say "I'm a Republican." or “I’m a Democrat.”
I’ve lived in the US all my life, and I feel like I must have missed the day at school that they trained everyone to identify this way. It has always been completely bonkers to me to take on identity defined by a political corporation subject to the whims of the populace (at best) and monied/powered interests (at worst).
There are probably vast tomes being written by psychologists and sociologists about how it’s an outgrowth of our lack of community and need for belonging, but at the end of the day I find it all rather sad in the now.
Not sure about that, I've been member of the German Green youth organization and at least when I was younger identified as Green. During that time I had a lot of vivid discussions with people from far left over neo-liberal to right conservative. The discussions were actually often heated but without exception respectful.
Nowadays I rather observe something different which leaves a rather chilling sensation. Discussions don't happen or happen just passive-aggressively. People hide their political beliefs and best you get an indication from cynical remarks that often become personal.
It's not fun to discuss politics anymore and I usually rather prefer not to.
> e.g. incels, preppers, anti-vaxers, jihadists, etc
If you take the argument to the extreme, hot heads are not the people who run amok. But rather people who never speak up outside of their peers, hide anonymously and are not properly organized with open meetings, regular sessions and all that...
I think it might be stronger than just "identity". Say I am a Republican, and you are a Democrat. That's still OK. We might not be able to have a conversation about politics, but we don't have to be at open warfare with each other. We can still coexist, we just cant talk about politics.
But now comes an issue like, say, abortion. You feel like you have to have a country where abortion is freely available, and I feel like I have to have a country where fetuses are safe from being aborted. Now we're at open war with each other. We can no longer coexist.
So I think it's a step past identity. It's this idea/feeling that one must have some political result.
In politics, sometimes you lose. In fact, in a two-party system, about half the time you lose. People no longer consider that acceptable. That makes it really hard to have a functioning political system.
Most people are willing to draw compromises, even on abortion. Most people who favor the right to an abortion will accept a line somewhere; many are content to accept the trimester system. Most people who wish to ban it still allow exceptions, such as rape, even though that seems inconsistent with it being really about murder.
It's an issue that easily admits being amplified by tribalism, but it doesn't have to be. We don't have to be at war over it. There exist compromises that aren't internally consistent but satisfy the moral intuitions of a large majority of the country.
Instead, we're at war -- not because of the issue itself, but because the issue is presented as one where we have to be at war about. They're not looking for a compromise, even among their partisans who would accept one. They're looking for a war, because that war is used to keep their opponents out of office on all issues.
It's an effective strategy for winning. Compromise doesn't make you run out to the polls. It doesn't matter how many parties there are. The winner is the one with the most votes. It's easiest to get the most votes when you believe that you are the only ones who are morally righteous, and everybody else is guilty of the one crime that every single person thinks is wrong all the time -- murder.
So I believe that it's not stronger than "identity". Identity is how you win elections. Abortion happens to be a great issue for sharply defining identity, but if it weren't that, it would be something else. And along with it comes every other issue that you've managed to agree with your partisans on: you win every argument for free.
I agree with you 100% on the "backfire effect", and I think it's not really difficult to understand the mechanism behind it. But I don't think the US is really much different in that regard than anyone else, the differences there are maybe cultural at best, but in any case superficial. E.g. when I was looking at a flat in Germany, a landlord told me he subscribes to many newspapers, including the Süddeutsche Zeitung, but only to "monitor the left". That person identifies clearly with the right, and it doesn't matter how he phrases it.
Say "I support the AfD." (which is a bit like the German equivalent of saying "I support Trump") in Germany though and you are villified beyond belief and declared an Unperson, so while I may agree with your point in general, Germany certainly isn't a great example to support it.
Where I live, people pulled down AfD signs or defaced them. The unpersoning is not helpful. The ideas won't go away, and the people who think the AfD raises good questions will only feel persecuted (because they are).
The worst part is that the ones who hate the AfD don't know why they do and are unable to counter their arguments.
I see everyone's forgotten the reason the far right are banned in Germany. Remember, Hitler won a democratic election, and (by implication) the popular debate.
I don't remember any elections Hitler has won, neither does Wikipedia. What did you have in mind?
He was elected Chancellor in 1933.
He was not. Hitler was appointed Chancellor by the president Hindenburg, it is not some obscure fact and can be googled in 5 seconds. I am confused why people keep insisting on such an obvious lie to be honest. Especially in this topic: Weimar Republic experienced the same degree of polarization and the breakdown of political process as the US is experiencing now. Instead of trying to make a new history it's worth reflecting on what is the next step after the political parties decide that their opposition is not worth any argument and needs to be eliminated.
While this is true, that he was in charge of the party which won more votes than any other in an election is definitely something I count as “winning an election”.
While I am also concerned about the breakdown of political discourse in the USA (and, to a lesser degree, the UK), I don’t think it’s reached the level of late Weimar Republic.
It's fine that you count somebody doing something other than winning an election as winning an election, that's why I asked the original poster what did he mean by that.
And, in the same sense, we do not have the same level of polarization: we don't close the opposition newspapers, only websites/social network accounts, so definitely not the same, we don't ban parties yet (just harass them through selective law enforcement and impede their ability to raise funds) and only one party so far has the enforcers (coincidentally borrowing the name and attributes of the one of KPD from 1920s). Also, economically, we have much lower inflation.
> Hitler was appointed Chancellor by the president Hindenburg
In the same sense that Boris Johnson was appointed PM by Queen Elizabeth II; constitutional systems in which the head of government is appointed by the head of state, based largely on control of Parliament, but sometimes with bounded discretion where there is no clear parliamentary majority, are rather common models.
Had Hitler’s party not won the plurality of seats, or had other parties that could work together in a coalition had more seats, he would not have been appointed chancellor.
Controlling the largest bloc that can work together is winning a parliamentary election; not as total a victory as winning an outright majority, but—in the constitutional and political context in which the Nazis did it—a rather sufficient one.
In Germany you can vote for lowering taxes without voting for AfD, while in USA the entire right wing block gets the same hate as AfD does in Germany. That makes the American situation extremely different, most people who vote for Republicans aren't racist etc, they just care about lowering taxes and Republicans is the only party that you can vote for to get that. USA's political system causes this issue.
Lowering taxes is racist.
> When you call yourself an Indian or a Muslim or a Christian or a European, or anything else, you are being violent. Do you see why it is violent? Because you are separating yourself from the rest of mankind. When you separate yourself by belief, by nationality, by tradition, it breeds violence. So a man who is seeking to understand violence does not belong to any country, to any religion, to any political party or partial system; he is concerned with the total understanding of mankind.
—Jiddu Krishnamurti, Freedom From the Known, Chapter 6.
I never thought I would be pro-violence, but if separation from the undifferentiated is violent, then violence is a good thing.
> Guess in which of these countries you can have polite (even if heated) dinner conversations about politics!
Yes, but that was before vaccination scepticism and AfD (new-ish right wing party that made waves the last few years and now sits in the Bundestag too). Now we (Germany) see similar vitriol. We even had murder (some guy murdered the cashier at a petrol station because they were outraged he asked to wear a mask) and as recent as this week headlines about violent anti-vaccination protests. We also read about splits in families similar to what we were used to reading about from the US. Looks like we are catching up.... /s
https://www.thelocal.de/20211207/germanys-new-government-con...
https://www.ft.com/content/f04ac67b-92e4-4bab-8c23-817cc0483...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_for_Germany (AfD party)
In Czechia and Poland, the same vitriol seems to be catching up. Well, in case of Poland, it might actually already be on the US level.
At least we are multiparty countries, so switching allegiance is not as hard as in the US/UK system.
But social networks are really good in their role of Shiri's scissor [0]. We shouldn't feel smug; as you say, we may just be slightly behind in the trend whose shockwave travels through the U.S. first.
(A darkly funny observation: polarization and obesity seem to develop in a similar fashion. Maybe a diet of unhealthy shit and a diet of horrible info content go hand in hand, hacking the same circuits in our brains.)
[0] https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/10/30/sort-by-controversial/
> For example, in America you say "I'm a Republican." but in Germany you say "I support the CDU." Notice the difference? One is an identity, the other is an action. Guess in which of these countries you can have polite (even if heated) dinner conversations about politics!
I doubt that element of linguistics has any real importance. In Romance languages you'd say « I'm a left/right winger », « I'm a socialist » etc. and the social culture is very much less radicalized than in the US in that respect. Politics was a normal subject of conversation at the family table when I was a kid, and it's a normal one at the bar as an adult. If anything the inability to be able to talk about politics is taken as a sign of immaturity or poor education.
This being said, I do think your original point about identity stands and touches upon the core of the issue.
For anyone interested, there is a book named "Identity Theory" from Peter J. Burke and Jan E. Stets.
I agree with you but I think you are a little harsh regarding the conclusions which are drawn by the authors of the paper. There are actually two types of polarisation: ideological and affective. The paper, as far as I understood it (and you seem to agree), mainly concerns itself with ideological polarisation (i.e. polarisation on policy issues). Affective polarisation on the other hand describes animosity against a certain group because members of that group are members of that group (= "identity"). The authors of the paper clearly state how to incorporate affective polarisation in their model and I am very interested whether someone actually takes up that challenge and what the outcome is.
The media calling January 6th an 'insurrection' is a perfect example of the problem.
It's pure sensationalism.
There were no guns, there was no centralized organization to indicate an insurrection, the 4 people who died were all protestors, mostly from being dumbasses.
Clearly those people who damaged the capitol should be punished, just like the Black Lives Matter protesters who damaged the Foley Federal Building.
But calling it an INSURRECTION is just pure disingenuous sensationalism by the media.
What story will make the media more money:
A protest that got very heated? Or an insurrection?
And of course the more extreme opponents of either side will seize on the identity politics and propagate this narrative and we continue down the path of polarization.
I have no idea how to fix this issue of media propaganda other than teaching people statistics and critical thinking, but that starts with education from an early age. I don't know if most people even have the time to research alternative views so they just trust their news sources, which worked up until the past decade(?) or so.
> There were no guns,
There were guns; several firearms charges have been filed related to the Insurrection.
> there was no centralized organization to indicate an insurrection,
A single centralized organization is not required for an insurrection; there were various organized groups with common purpose as well as participants inspired by direct calls from influential leaders without participating in a formal organization.
> the 4 people who died were all protestors,
insurrections, especially unsuccessful ones, very often experience disproportionate casualties. Even beyond disputes about which deaths count as due to Jan. 6, not sure why you’d cite this since it doesn't even support your case.
> But calling it an INSURRECTION is just
Is just factually accurate; it was a violent, unlawful collective action aimed at using force and threat of force against officials as a means of overturning the election and keeping the loser in the paramount executive position; the particular official acts it sought to intimidate people into taking were advocate by the leader it sought to retain in power and the approach of intimidation was also at his direction; it was insurrection in support of an auto-coup.
That it was, perhaps, desperately and hurriedly assembled, poorly planned and organized, and certainly ultimately unsuccessful isn't an argument that it wasn't an insurrection.
>> There were guns
One person was found with a gun on Capital grounds not inside the capital. the other charges are related to guns in a vehicle and a hearsay claim.
You're inflating statistically and significant details to further an inaccurate narrative.
>>was a violent, unlawful collective action aimed at using force and threat of force against officials as a means of overturning the election
Nice claim but pretty subjective interpretation.
I'm sure there were a few people there with bad intentions.
But are all Arabs terrorists? Were all the protestors there to overthrow the government?
Your sensationalizing a statistically insignificant number of bad people to demonize an entire group who were there to peacefully protest.
It seems to be a pattern. Take a statistically insignificant detail and exaggerate it to demonize and further a narrative.
This is what the media does as well.
> One person was found with a gun on Capital grounds not inside the capital
One insurrectionists was physically caught in the cordon on the grounds when law enforcement was clearing it with a firearm (Alberts), whether he had gone inside the building or not is uncertain (and immaterial).
One insurrectionist (the DEA Agent Ibrahim) was caught and charged with having been on the grounds with a firearm based on photographic evidence; solid cell phone data and the plethora of photos and videos his friend took at his direction make it pretty clear he stayed around the outside of the Capitol.
Another insurrectionist (Reffitt) initially not charged with firearms offense (but where the initial complaint noted that family members indicated that he had taken a disassembled gun to DC) had a firearms charges related to the Capitol complex added in a superceding indictment, but at least the posted information on his case doesn't indicate clearly whether it was just on the grounds or in the building.
So no guns found inside the capitol?
Not a single gun was found inside of the location where it's claimed it's claimed they were trying to overthrow? Not a single shot went off?
Just poop on the walls?
Can you overthrow a government by making it so gross with poo that they don't want to go back in the building?
I don't believe this should be labeled an insurrection.
> So no guns found inside the capitol?
You really should want what guns were used to be distributed between the people that went in to the building and those staying outside with no discernible patterns to argue against an organized insurrection. All the guns being outside just indicates that it was strategy (say to overwhelm the outnumbered inside security with numbers, melee weapons, and chemical agents, while reserving firearms to deal with the potentially more numerous and better equipped relief that could be sent).
Now, I don't care one way or the other, because I am not arguing it was a particularly well-planned or organized insurrection, because incompetence is not a mitigating factor. But as well as keeping moving the goalposts because you seem unfamiliar with the basic facts, you also seem to be very bad at even picking positions to defend which make a coherent argument.
> All the guns being outside just indicates that it was strategy (say to overwhelm the outnumbered inside security with numbers, melee weapons, and chemical agents, while reserving firearms to deal with the potentially more numerous and better equipped relief that could be sent).
The "more numerous and better equipped relief" was sent in to clear out the rioters. And no gunfights broke out. So apparently this wasn't the strategy at all.
> The "more numerous and better equipped relief" was sent in to clear out the rioters
After the insurrection had clearly failed in its overt objective of capturing and coercing the VP and members of Congress, leaving nothing to fight for. So if it had been a strategy (which I do not argue it was, again, I very much am not arguing this was a well-organized insurrection), it would have already been irrelevant.
>> You really should want what guns were used to be distributed between the people that went in to the building and those staying outside with no discernible patterns to argue against an organized insurrection
I dont follow. This is not super coherent.
Failing to acknowledge what the Congress was doing at the time makes it very difficult to believe that you're arguing in good faith. Every argument about labeling it in "insurrection" has to do with interrupting the counting of votes. If you cannot address that, then you've already lost the argument.
What Congress was doing at the time was arguing about whether or not a special commission should be established to investigate the election before certifying. They had not yet begun the process of counting the votes (so that is not what was interrupted)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EQfUbE4bL8&t=10800s
this fact is often lost to the sands of time; had the capitol not been invaded, it is likely that the republican majority senate would have convened a special commission. really, it was a stroke of luck for the democrats what happened.
BLM protests took over an area of Seattle called the CHAZ...and stopped all government activities there for days, even the police left.
Still a protest...
Interruption of government activities does not make an insurrection.
The January 6th protest was not even close to a violent overthrow of the government.
And failing to move your car for street sweepers is an interruption of government activities, and therefore equivalent to Jan. 6th too, right?
The Jan 6th—let’s call them participants—were there to overturn the results of the election. That is an important detail you seem to be trying to “both sides!” your way out of.
I'm saying an interruption of govt activity is NOT an 'insurrection'.
So failure to move to your car for a street sweeper is also not an insurrection.
It feels crazy we're even having this discussion.
Don't tell any of the media this example though, they will have 4 talking heads debate if Trump or AOC not moving their car for a street sweeper was an insurrection, and tons of ideologues getting angry and supporting it.
I completely understand your point. My point is: it's false equivalency. One example of "interrupting government services" is not necessarily equivalent to another example of "interrupting government services". Very specifically, one of these groups was interrupting the democratic election process. That bears a hell of a lot more weight than the other examples.
I think a real insurrection meets different criteria than 'interrupting government activities' by an unarmed, disorganized mob of protestors.
Its subjective and most people's interpretation of the events predictably falls along party lines.
We're arguing the semantics of 'insurrection'.
I think there would not be a shadow of a doubt if a real insurrection occured.
This event was closer to blocking a street sweeper than a real true insurrection.
Because they didn't leave any guns behind after they stormed the capitol building, that proves how innocent they are?
Silly.
> there was no centralized organization to indicate an insurrection,
I think that I remember a man behind a microphone on TV telling people to march on capitol,
And some publicity for months saying that the day N something great will happen so stand "prepared to fight"
And people collected in buses paid for somebody,
And a purpose to hunt for somebody to hang him
And to stop the vote count
And some minions clearly videotaped while driving the masses,
In resume, a certain level of organization that would fall directly in the category of: clear planning, purpose, choice of a non random symbolic date and execution.
I think that we all could guess with a fairly accurate level of probability the name of that non-extant organization and even the names of the main instigators.
But we could also just pretend that nothing passed, and allow a second chance to try it again, probably with a higher body count this time
> They were not guns
Several people were videotaped carrying spears or baseball bats to the capitol for no reason, and using them as weapons, and those actions ended killing a policeman, so... who needs guns when you can smash somebody to death?
But don't worry, they will bring plenty of guns the next time.
> There were no guns
As a non-American who's overexposed to second amendment rants, I'm slightly baffled as to why there weren't any guns. The sheer incoherence of the protesters may have been a factor.
> I'm slightly baffled as to why there weren't any guns.
There were guns. And bombs. And...
There was perhaps insufficient organization for the armed participants to employ them effectively.
Where did you hear that there were bombs?
https://www.foxnews.com/us/fbi-dc-pipe-bomb-suspect-capitol-...
edit: I see in a sibling thread that you have changed your goalpost to be "bomb in the capitol". I tried being reasonable but you don't want to listen to reason.
edit 2: The person you replied to didn't explicitly specify the location, but reporting on these bombs found at the RNC and DNC headquarters was widespread. A good-faith assumption would have been that they were talking about what was widely reported on and didn't feel the need to justify details to someone who is being needlessly pedantic to try and trip people over their own words.
Did you at least learning something new here? About the bombs?
The person I was responding to claimed there were bombs.
I was just asking them to clarify.
The link you posted shows bombs around D.C. but not at the capitol and there's no clear connection to any organized group or the protests.
Any links that show there were bombs at the capitol building or grounds or that the bombs were confirmed to be connected to the protests?
You mean the bombs at DNC and RNC HQ, or the ones that Lonny Leroy Coffman confessed to bringing, along with firearms, to Capitol Hill?
No I mean confirmed bombs found in the capitol or near the capitol.
Coffman's truck was, and the DNC and RNC where the bombs were placed are, all near the Capitol.
Ok. But no confirmed bombs on the capital grounds or in the capital and no confirmed connection between those bombs and the protesters?
How so? Coffman was one of the "protesters."
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/alabama-man-pleads-guilty-fir...
Coffman admitted in the plea agreement that he exited the pickup truck at 9:20 a.m. and walked in the direction of the U.S. Capitol Building, and towards a rally near the National Mall. Inside the pickup truck were several loaded firearms within arms-reach of the driver’s seat, hundreds of rounds of ammunition, large-capacity ammunition feeding devices, a crossbow with bolts, machetes, camouflage smoke devices, a stun gun and a cooler containing 11 mason jars filled with ignitable ingredients for Molotov cocktail incendiary weapons. Coffman also carried a loaded handgun and a loaded revolver as he walked around the area that day. A search of Coffman’s residence in Alabama later that month led to the discovery of 12 additional mason jars containing ignitable substances, each constituting the component parts of Molotov cocktails.
> in his truck
Nothing confirmed from Coffman at the protest on Capitol grounds though?
Not sure what you're asking or why.
He was one of the rest of the pro-Trump crowd that you have been calling "protesters." He heeded the call of Trump.
You sound to me a bit like Matt Gaetz saying it was Antifa storming the capitol.
Its very different story if there were bombs brought into the capitol. That would start looking more like an insurrection instead of a protest.
However there were none.
It's really not important to the story either way.
The mob stormed Congress.
Their evident motive was to stop the electoral certification of the president-elect and keep in power an unelected president.
The way you're moving goalposts in this thread, I’m sure if actual bombs were found to have been brought into the Capitol, you would retreat to the “statistically insignificant number” argument you've already used to dismiss them.
Am I moving the goalpoasts or are you trying to demonize people and I'm not buying your narrative?
Why were they there? To support overturning the results of the vote. That's at least in intent an insurrection.
Why did they bring a noose for Mike Pence? Isn't that insurrection? Or is it "merely" assassination? (Or just an over-the-top prop that they didn't intend to use?)
Some reading for you: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attempts_to_overturn_the_202...
Just so you know. Larry Sanger, a founder of Wikipedia. Wrote exactly about those articles, and it left leaning biases.
https://larrysanger.org/2021/06/wikipedia-is-more-one-sided-...
It’s a good read.
I read that. It seemed very non-neutral and politically charged.
The first citation I looked at...Citation number 7...is to a politico blog post.
I don't know if that can be taken seriously.
We are truly in a post-truth era.
> There were no guns
Yes there were. Three examples of people charged:
> Lonnie Coffman of Alabama: Police found multiple firearms and weapons in Coffman’s possession. Coffman’s truck, which he had parked in the vicinity of the Capitol on the morning of Jan. 6, was packed with weaponry including a handgun, a rifle and a shotgun, each loaded, according to court documents. In addition, the truck held hundreds of rounds of ammunition, several large-capacity ammunition feeding devices, a crossbow with bolts, machetes, camouflage smoke devices, a stun gun and 11 Molotov cocktails. […]
> Guy Reffitt of Texas: Reffitt was charged with bringing a handgun onto Capitol grounds. Court documents showed that Reffitt, reported in court documents to be a member of the militia group Three Percenters, told his family he brought his gun with him and that he and others "stormed the Capitol."
> Christopher Michael Alberts of Maryland: Alberts brought his handgun onto Capitol grounds. An officer saw that Alberts had a gun on his hip and alerted fellow officers. When Alberts tried to flee, officers detained him and recovered the loaded handgun along with a separate magazine.
* https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/politifact/202...
Another:
> According to court documents, Alberts was arrested after he tried to flee police officers while leaving the Capitol grounds. Investigators said that three officers tackled him and found he was carrying a loaded 9mm handgun, 25 rounds of ammunition, a gas mask, pocket-knife, first aid kit and one military meal.
> Alberts faces four federal charges: carrying a gun at the Capitol, unlawful entry onto restricted grounds, carrying a gun without a license, and possessing a large capacity ammunition feeding device. Alberts' lawyer declined to comment on the charges.
* https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/25/politics/capitol-insurrection...
From an actual court filing:
> Based on the foregoing, I submit that there is probable cause to believe that MEREDITH violated 18 U.S.C. § 875(c), which makes it a crime to transmit in interstate commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another. There is also probable cause to believe that MEREDITH violated 7 D.C. Code § 2502.01(a) and 2506.01(a)(3) , which make it a crime to possess a firearm in Washington, DC without being the holder of a valid registration certificate, and to possess ammunition unless it is for a firearm that is property registered.
* PDF: https://www.justice.gov/opa/page/file/1353311/download
> there was no centralized organization to indicate an insurrection
No centralized organization is needed. From case law (in an insurance case of all things):
> The district court held that the word insurrection means '(1) a violent uprising by a group or movement (2) acting for the specific purpose of overthrowing the constituted government and seizing its powers.' 368 F. Supp. at 1124.
* https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/505...
Movements do not need necessarily need leaders:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leaderless_resistance
* https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2019/11/le...
Three protestors had guns all of which were in peoples vehicles or 'on capitol grounds'.
Were any proven to be brought INTO the capitol?
WOW SUCH INSURRECTION
What you're doing is literally the definition of sensationalism.
You're overinflating statistically insignificant details to create an inaccurate narrative to promote your political agenda.
> So you're saying out of thousands upon thousands of protestors three had guns.
You were saying there "were no guns". I am saying there were. One of these is an accurate statement.
> WOW SUCH INSURRECTION.
Firearms are not necessarily for something to be classified as an insurrection.
Firearms aren't even necessary if you want to have a revolution:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_Power_Revolution
> Were they overthrowing the constituted government or protesting?
From the court filing above:
> On January 7, 2021, the FBI received information that CLEVELAND GROVER MEREDITH, JR. (hereinafter “MEREDITH”) had recently sent a text message in which he wrote, “Thinking about heading over to Pelosi CUNT’s speech and putting a bullet in her noggin on Live TV [purple devil emoji].” Additionally, Agents learned that MEREDITH was likely in the Washington, DC area, and that he allegedly had firearms and ammunition.
* https://www.justice.gov/opa/page/file/1353311/download
To me, personally, threatening to kill someone would fall under a "violent" label, and so would lean more insurrection.
There could have been other people at the event that did not have violent intentions and simply wanted to voice their grievances, and that would lean more towards protest.
> WOW SUCH INSURRECTION
Your emphasis here isn't helping at all. You just seem angry and unwilling to participate in civil debate when you do that. For what it's worth, I (and others, I assume) find you less convincing now, regardless of the claims you're making.
This is a good example of the type of discourse social media (hacker news) can bring out when we talk about partisan subjects. At no point did you treat the opposition with respect. You just wanted to get more people from your side to up-vote you; changing zero minds in the process.
The gish gallop of the person I was responding too, of numerous paragraphs and links, took time out of my life to parse... and turned out to be a SINGLE PERSON found with a gun on capitol grounds not even in the capitol.
It's as disengenous, demonizing of a group, and sensational as it gets.
This poster is also using the same single person as their data point for the motivations of the entire group of protesters.
This is a good example of the type of discourse social media allows by making all arguments equal no matter how accurate the argument is.
No one forced you to fact check them and you still seem like you're a bit too frustrated to have a pleasant debate with. It seems if there's one thing we agree on, it's that social media encourages divisiveness. Consider taking some time away from commenting - this is my go-to strategy when I'm hot-headed.
I'm very pleasant to people who don't discuss things with disengenuous, statistically inaccurate, sensationalist intentions, meant to further an ideological narrative.
Again, no one forced you to talk to that person. If you don't have anything constructive _and_ pleasant to say, then please wait for your mood to simmer before commenting.
Aw great! Thanks for the tip! I'll definitely keep that in mind!
They were all allowed to leave the capitol building without being arrested. There wasn't the police manpower to arrest them. No one was arrested inside the capitol building.
If the lack of arrests inside the building prove there were no guns -- it proves there were no people, either.
Hm not even a camera recording of a gun? Something?
The protestors did poop on the walls.
That's insurrection of lunch thinking about it.
No one said there wasn't a camera recording of a gun.
> Were any proven to be brought INTO the capitol?
The fact that capitol police were completely overwhelmed by the insurrectionists, preventing arrests and searches in the Capitol presents rather strong proof issues with “inside the Capitol” (pretty much everything charged as “inside the Capitol” is based primarily on video evidence from the insurrectionists themselves, who were not shy about announcing their purpose.)
I would also note that the crowd having overwhelmed the security in the building, the armed insurrectionists outside the building on the Capitol grounds were more usefully positioned to interfere with any relief effort.
>> capitol police were completely overwhelmed
The protestors left the capitol building at some point.
Any idea why?
> Any idea why?
IIRC, a mix of evident failure of the political objectives and deployment of the DC National Guard.
Was it the capitol police?
So out of thousands of protesters, three were armed and none of which used their weapons during the supposed insurrection. As per your own definition, an insurrection is made "for the specific purpose of overthrowing the constituted government and seizing its powers". How does occupying the Capitol building translate into controlling the government? Are the military, the IRS, and all the other government institutions are just going to say, "Well, guess we're going to do what the shaman in the fur outfit says"?
I get that "there were no guns" is technically wrong, but ultimately you're demonstrating the above commenter's point. This mob at the capitol had zero chance of effecting any real political change, and had no real or tangible plan of seizing the government. It wasn't an insurrection any more than CHAZ was. Arguably the latter fits the bill even better: they drove out the government law enforcement, replaced it with their own security forces, and maintained independence for 3 weeks. The capitol rioters were driven out in 3 hours.
> had no real or tangible plan of seizing the government
The degree of detachment from reality is awesome.
They had a plan, and it was clear and public. Lets see:
We are talking of people breaking in the capitol, smashing windows and doors
while shouting: "Lets find and kill the Vice president of USA"
"And also the president of the chamber of representatives of USA"
"And lets stop the new president of USA taking power".
Nope, they don't really wanted to seize the US government, Just to behead it. Just to gain control by force changing the President, Vice-president and President of the chamber. You don't need to seize anything after this, the entire chain of power is yours. You own the whole building from this point on.
It doesn't matter if 99% of the people in the group was clueless and pure as a lamb. You just need to hide a single 'Bruto' among them to be successful. The fact is that the plan failed because all the politicians in the room were evacuated.
> So out of thousands of protesters, three were armed
Many were armed only four (one based on substantial investigation after his initial arrest and subsequent initial indictment) have been charged with firearms offenses; most of those in solved were not arrested and searched on site, but later based on video evidence, witness testimony, and other evidence. (Assuming I’m not missing more, the summary page presentation is not consistent in how offenses are described, and I haven't dug in and reviewed each of the detailed supporting document for each defendant.)
> How does occupying the Capitol building translate into controlling the government?
The specific plan was to use threats and violence to, in order of preference:
One, convince the Vice President to as Trump had publicly advocated and Pence had publicly indicated he would not, refuse to open certain electoral votes, ask Trump-friendly state legislatures to “recertify” them, so that those legislatures would replace the publicly elected slate of Biden electors from their states with legislatively elected Trump electors, or:
Two, render the Vice President, if he remained obstinate in his refusals of participation in the auto-coup that Trump had publicly called for, and any similarly uncooperative successors, incapable of presiding (the chant “Hang Mike Pence”, and the gallows constructed for that purpose, indicating the method of incapacitation planned) so that an official on board with the plan would take over the gavel and act as described.
The successful evacuation of members prevented the plan from working, but that was the not-very-secret plan.
>> three were armed
Only one person was found with a gun on capitol grounds and not in the capitol.
So there were no known guns inside the capitol.
> Lonnie Coffman had the gun in his vehicle.
> Guy Refitt is being charged based on his son's testimony but claims he did not have it on him https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/zoetillman/capitol-riot...
It's literally sensationalism, inflating statistically insignificant facts in order to futher a narrative.
Fascinating paper. And nice job with the model!
> Strictly limiting exposure to dissimilar views, however, is an effective mechanism for avoiding rapid polarization (Figs. 4 and 5). This may, at first, appear contrary to practical experience: Encouraging interactions among those with different views might be expected to decrease polarization by fostering increased tolerance.
Lots of interesting points in there.
> Strictly limiting exposure to dissimilar views, however, is...
...not an effective mechanism for social media and news sites to make a profit, unfortunately.
We so easily give up our agency to debate, dissent, connect, and communicate a diversity of ideas. We will severely regret it one day.
We already gave up our agency to make our own decisions in many areas of life. The Government does it for us.
In my experience, Government imposes far fewer limitations on my life than the Market does. It determines that I must work to live, who I can work for, what sort of home and food I can have, etc.
> I must work to live
Are you saying that you do not work voluntarily but under duress, e.g. to avoid starvation?
In any case, just to be clear... are you blaming our economic system, capitalism for this? I am asking, because it is a common thing to do; blaming capitalism for everything that is the fault of the Government. After all, capitalism is about working less to earn more. This alone is in conflict with "work to live". Plus the market is a voluntary concept. The Government interferes with the market, and creates all sorts of horrible financial incentives. We have an interventionist economy, and it is not doing too well, I agree with you on that. People should support each other more. Our web of social support is not satisfactory. We have the technology to "retire" many people, but if we do that, they cannot get money, and not getting money is a problem indeed. The Government "creates" all sorts of useless jobs we could do without just so people can earn money. We should be able to work less, and live just as well, if not better; which is what capitalism - our economic system - is about.
That said, existence has externalities. Humans take food, water, produce waste, damage things, require shelter, etc. and someone has to cover that and you could always work to cover it or go join a commune to cover it if your Government has not made it illegal.
They were known to create bubbles and echo chambers. And make huge profits from it. How did this change recently?
Not supporting any side, just wondering about the reasoning
The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum.
The easy way to avoid people from accidentally getting too far outside of the spectrum is to dial up the "liveliness" of the debate and double down wedge issues.
It's staggeringly effective and quite depressing to watch. It's quite one thing watching strangers explode in response to divisive propaganda designed to drive a wedge between them and people with fundamentally similar interests.
It's quite another to watch your own friends and family be manipulated this way.
My country Bulgaria just had elections. The new government is a mix parties with completely different ideologies, one of them is considered very corrupt, another is considered populist. The thing is that the previous government was turning into one man dictatorship, and none of the other parties on their own could win. Some of the new parties seem to be competent. In any case it would be interesting to see if such model could work. Certainly it will be fragile, and the looming crisis will not help either.
As far as I can tell the same has been happening in Israel since Netanyahu has lost his job, from the outside things seem to be holding, not sure how good or bad.
Polarization in America: One side invaded the capital building in a violent attempt to overthrow democracy, and the other side wants to make voting for whoever you want as easy as possible.
Guess which pole I’m at and tell me how I should meet the other pole in the middle.
You inadvertently provide an excellent example of what is causing polarization in America: Highlight the worst possible examples from the side you oppose while assigning the most charitable intentions to the side you support.
Where is a single Democratic politician fighting to close polling places and restrict Republican populations from voting? Where is a single Republican politician fighting to give greater access to the vote?
Where was a single Democrat who stormed the Virginia capital when Republicans won the Governorship?
2 Republicans in Congress voted for an investigation of the insurrections, so there you go: charity.
While you focus on the other party, you are probably ignoring the detrimental things the party you support does. This is by design. The GOP supporters do the same thing and can list all the horrible things the Democratic Party does with equal fervor.
Did you know the GOP doesn't have superdelegates like the Democrats do? Superdelegates are certainly an example of manipulating the will of the people.
Superdelegates are a matter of internal party organisation. The party still has to go through a real election, whoever's chosen.
(It is very weird that the internal politics and internal elections of US political parties seem to be a public matter; open primaries are unheard of in most of the rest of the world.)
It's a lot more important with a 2 party system. If one party's administration gets almost 20% of the total primary votes, that's a pretty heavy thumb on the scale. We typically only get 2 real choices: red or blue.
Ah yes, superdelegates. One of many gripes with the Democratic Party that are famously equivalent to armed insurrection supported by sitting members of Congress.
Can you name 5 horrible things the Democratic Party has done in say the last 30 years? If not, you've been brainwashed.
Take a look at primary elections in Democrat strongholds like NY to see the same kind of voting restrictions you're railing against, designed of course to ensure that current party power brokers are difficult to challenge.
Totally dishonest to compare primaries to general elections.
As far as I’m concerned, “attempted coup” is a burned bridge that will never be rebuilt. I’m not a member of the Democratic party, but there is nothing the Republican party can do to make me ever vote for them in the future. I hope that the party withers and dies, and that any remaining sensible people go and form a new party.
Some offenses are simply unforgivable.
I think "attempted coup" definition has already been discussed hell and back. It's a very disingenuous description of what happened. Also, it is very disingenuous to blacklist one of your only two parties because of what a (small) subset of their voters did.
N.B.: Not american
Trump tried to overturn the election result for _months_. It wasn't just one day and it certainly wasn't just "voters."
Even the people in the GOP who refused to back his coup attempt did not sever ties with Trump.
Overthrowing a vote which was manipulated is not a coup. What Trump did is he challenged the rightfulness of the vote for months in court. That's a far cry from what you're describing.
Now, you may disagree (as the courts) that it was manipulated. Being wrong does not make what he did a coup.
https://twitter.com/hugolowell/status/1468989737490911232
If this doesn't look like some uncontrovertibly fascist shit to you, then we live in entirely different realities.
If you were president, and suspected vote manipulation/foreign influence on voting, what would you do?
It's a classic modern coup, to tell lies about the election and discard it.
People aren't saying it was republicans. People are saying it was Trump and his people. The normal republicans weren't involved.
> Highlight the worst possible examples
... and then exaggerate those on top of it.
Well, I'm not an American, and yet I think they're entirely right.
Also, we note you don't provide any actual rebuttal. :-)
I'll provide a rebuttal in a similar format to the original to serve as an example of why it is completely unhelpful and unreasonable.
One side violently took to the streets in multiples cities, destroying many small businesses, and causing significant civil unrest.
The other attempted to protect the citizens being attacked in those events and discourage further violence.
One may say that these events weren't strictly Dem vs Rep events, but current hostilities and ideas would suggest that each side was dominantly one or the other.
There's nothing to rebut. The point is he's only looking at his adversarial party's ills and totally ignoring his own party's ills, or full willing to justify them. That's how it works, that's the divide and conquer. No matter what his party does, he will never vote for the other party and vice versa. That's the main way the system protects itself.
Your characterization is comically uncharitable.
That said, don't think of it as meeting the other pole in the middle. Realize that there are lots of other people between your pole and their pole, and the pole you despise is representative of a lot less people than you think.
That's how bad the situation is...
To be fair, though, the left also has been associated with violent and anti-democratic behaviors.
“To be fair” nothing approaching the same ballpark has been committed by the left and the any “violent and anti democratic behaviors” you can give examples of have not been championed by the left establishment.
One side wants to seize power for all time, and the other side wants democracy. If anyone on the left isn’t polarized by that fact then they aren’t paying attention.
Let me help you expand your knowledge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_baseball_shootin...
Uh yeah let’s equate that to an armed insurrection that killed 3 people and would have overturned a presidential election if not successfully repelled, and that has been defended or denied by Republicans en masse.
He was condemned by both parties, and was not part of the mainstream liberal movement.
> Uh yeah let’s equate that to an armed insurrection that killed 3 people
The only person that was killed during the capitol riot was one of the rioters shot by capitol security. Justified, to be clear, but it wasn't violence perpetrated by the rioters. Brian Sicknick died of natural causes [1][2][3].
1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/brian-sic...
2. https://www.npr.org/2021/04/19/988876722/capitol-police-offi...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_United_States_Senate_bomb...
> Six members of the radical far-left Resistance Conspiracy were arrested in May 1988 and charged with the bombing, as well as related bombings
just one, commonly cited counterpoint.
This game is fun, can I play?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haymarket_affair
> In the internationally publicized legal proceedings that followed, eight anarchists were convicted of conspiracy
> and the other side wants democracy
No they don't. They just happened to find a group of people who were likely to vote for them but couldn't. If they were likely to vote GOP (or Green, or Libertarian), they wouldn't be fighting this fight at all.
If you really want to see what someone believes, look at what they do when it isn't in their best interests.
Just to make you aware, these views are extremist.
I was quite aware already.
I wasn't a Trump supporter, and cheered when Biden won presidency.
Fast forward now, not so much anymore. Now I want Trump to be back in the office.
> One side invaded the capital building in a violent attempt to overthrow democracy
Okay so lumping together half the country in with a few extremists would probably be the first step to answering your question. Yes there were probably plenty of people at home cheering them on but if you really believe it was half the country then you need to get outside your bubble.
> the other side wants to make voting for whoever you want as easy as possible
I have a tough time believing this at least from a party perspective. Sure, the democratic party loves to say this, and they even manage to back it up with their actions sometimes when it's convenient for them, but they still only want you voting for their party approved puppets. If that weren't the case then I simply don't see how it is defensible for democrats to not have enacted a better voting system yet in places where they have clear majorities (eg California would be near the top of that list, and yet here we are stuck with a democratic governor who vetoed the legislation which would have allowed general law cities to use alternative voting systems). Note that I find it entirely likely that plenty of democratic voters would like to fix our voting, I'm specifically talking about the party leadership here, although on that note there are also plenty of republicans who would like to fix our voting, so that's another step you could take to meet them in the middle.
First past the post voting is probably the biggest thing preventing people from "voting for whoever they want", but democrats have done very little for that even though it is blindingly obvious how terrible of a system it is. Well, I can see why the democrats (and republicans) would like it, because that's a large part of how they stay in power, but from a "voting for whoever you want" perspective it's just about as bad as it gets and the democrats just don't seem to care about it.
Now that it's becoming clear that more voters care about this reform, many places are turning to RCV/IRV as the solution when there are much better methods out there. It's hard to tell if it's just being ignorant about the problems with IRV (eg doesn't elect condorcet winner, ignores lots of ballot preferences, non-monotonic, etc) or if they are intentionally aiming for a method which appeases the voters while also being one that will help keep them in power. Approval and STAR are significantly better and are gaining momentum in the US and any condorcet method would also be reasonable, but so far support for these other options is pretty grassroots and I'm unaware of any big name republians or democrats actually talking about those other methods.
Fixing the voting would also help people like you distinguish just how much support eg Trump has compared to others. There was a lot of vote splitting happening in the Republican primaries which Trump benefited from and with a proper method I believe it's entirely possible he wouldn't have even been nominated in the first place. There are plenty of Republicans who did not like him but didn't feel they had an alternative in the general election because of how distasteful they found Clinton/Biden to be.
> eg California would be near the top of that list, and yet here we are stuck with a democratic governor who vetoed the legislation which would have allowed general law cities to use alternative voting systems
So a Democratic majority state legislature _passed_ this legislation?
And the veto proves that it's not what Democrats _really_ want?
I don't think I wrote that all democrats didn't want to fix this, it was simply an illustration that there are plenty of democrats that don't want to fix it or don't care enough to do so. You have to consider that CA could have passed this long ago, it's not like this was their first chance. The fact that it took them so long in the first place to even consider it doesn't speak great things about them. There's also the recall election, they could have run someone better if this was what they were really prioritizing but that clearly isn't the case. There's also plenty of charter cities that could adopt better methods that are likely democrat strongholds and they've also sat around for the most part (although there's obviously exceptions like the SF area, where interestingly enough Newsom also tried to stop it but failed).
edit: although really I hope all you took away isn't just that I don't like democrats. I don't like anyone against fixing the voting methods be they democrat, republican, green, libertarian, independent, or any other category I failed to mention. I just pointed out democrats because supposedly they are the majority in CA and like to claim that they support a healthy democracy. In the same way, I'm happy to work with (just about) anyone who wants to fix the voting system and hope they will make their voice heard. I think it is perhaps the most important thing we need to fix right now, and is one of the main criteria I personally look at when voting for officials.
> an illustration that there are plenty of democrats that don't want to fix it or don't care enough to do so
I think you could make an even stronger statement: the majority of Democrats probably aren't even aware of the issue.
It's not a popular issue, and not the kind of thing that Democratic politicians can use to inspire people to vote.
Not sure I'm convinced. They'd have to have their heads totally buried in the sand to not know it's a problem, and as the saying goes, it is difficult to get someone to understand something when their salary depends upon not understanding it. If it makes it potentially harder for a democrat to get elected, why would they want to support it? That's one of the reasons I consider voting reform so important since it shows a critically severe character flaw if they aren't willing to risk losing their power.
It's not like Newsom is some outlier, just a year ago in San Diego there was an initiative to try and put IRV on the ballot so that the people of San Diego could vote on whether they wanted it or not. The initiative to put it on the ballot failed, only 2/6 democrats in the city council voted in favor of it. 1/2 republicans were in favor and the independent was in favor.
My personal theory is that if there's a strong majority, then the party on top would not be in favor of it. Hopefully we can break the cycle but it's a hard problem when the people most incentivized to vote for it are already the most marginalized.
60% of Republicans believe that Biden did not win the election.
If you believe the presidency has been stolen by a conspiracy then violence is the only recourse remaining.
This is not a handful of extremists. This is the predominant view.
Here's a fun polarizing stat for "the other side". "More than half of democrats believed Bush knew about 9/11".
https://www.politico.com/blogs/ben-smith/2011/04/more-than-h...
Of all the people I know across the spectrum, I don't know of anyone (registered or otherwise) who believes either nonsense.
And about the same number of Democrats believe the widely debunked conspiracy theory that Trump colluded with the Russians to interfere with the 2016 election or that members of congress were paid Russian assets. That's the thing about polarization. It's easy to see the crazy when it's your political enemy doing it.
Except it's not debunked. Bipartisan committee concluded Russia interfered. Multiple people in the Trump admin were acting as foreign agents. We still have no indication what was actually discussed in the Trump tower meetings, but we know they lied about it. Go read the Mueller report summaries.
I'm tired of seeing this lie spouted to dismiss all this as a " Russia hoax". It is clear there is a conflict of interest within that admin. They went to bat to remove sanctions against Russia. They blackmailed Ukraine to attack a political opponent.
https://web.archive.org/web/20171121144509/https://www.nytim...
A number of other people went to jail among the "Russiagate" investigation. It is true that none of this has ever quite reached Trump himself.
No, it's only one "side." Democratic Party isn't going in for false conspiracy theories. Republican Party is.
Just look at how the DOJ treated these two different "conspiracy theories":
1. DOJ denied any factual basis existed for Trump's election claims.
2. DOJ investigated and convicted numerous people on the basis of the Russia collusion investigation.
What's the source of that stat?
In May, the pollster Frank Luntz reported that "more than two-thirds of Republicans believe that the election was stolen”.
Yes, you seem to define the problem well.
Did all conservatives and right-wing people storm the capital?
No, their defacto leader pushed false rhetoric that all but ensured such an event would happen and they didn't reject him or even condemn his actions. This is what condemns the group.
I don't think Arabic people need to dignify terrorism with any response or condemnation at all....it's not Arabic people commiting the crimes, it's fanatics.
Just like republicans don't need to dignify this Jan 6th protest with any response at all, it's not republicans, it's fanatics.
I believe you may be looking for reasons to condemn republicans.
Republicans in congress and in the executive were the ones pushing the conspiracy theories that our democracy was at stake and the election was stolen. Even after their lies had been disproven they continued the farce.
It's disgusting that you try to excuse this by saying it's just fanatics. These fanatics continue to hold power within the party.
Shame on you for the gaslighting. I reject your belief, and you would do well not to try to ascribe other's motivations for their actions.
To me, the demonization of one group by another group or person for a political agenda, is the worst form of gaslighting possible.
Both ideological and effective polarization are exacerbated by electoral and political structures like those in the US that promote factional duopoly; comparative study of modern democracies has shown this. Reducing it is simple, adopt an electoral system which has greater legislative proportionality and a political system less heavily tilted to a unitary executive.
I don't think you can, if the fundamental premises and values of different groups of people are too divergent. I've been noticing the greatest hates comes from actually knowing your neighbor rather than the myth hate comes from being ignorant.
If I had to guess its knowing plus disgust leads to polarization.
The polarization is much worse on the left side of the isle. I’d always observed it on the internet with what comes across as belligerent hate of anything done by a conservative, but this recent poll really brings home just how far the brainwashing has gone.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/over-70-of-young...
If your political beliefs prevent you from associating with somebody because you have labeled them so firmly as to write them off entirely as a person, you have jumped the shark and become the problem.
> If your political beliefs prevent you from associating with somebody because you have labeled them so firmly as to write them off entirely as a person, you have jumped the shark and become the problem.
If someone is having their bodily autonomy threatened by legislation pushed and passed by a political party and a choice for potential partner actively supports and votes for those people to gain or retain power, it's not an irrational decision to decide they're probably not compatible.
I feel like your comment supports the parent's point.
Lack of tolerance is the issue.
Which is ironic, given that traditionally the left has been known as being much more tolerant than the right.
I don't see that anymore, online or with the people I know personally.
My family has split over it. My brother refuses to ever speak to my father again because he believes my father voted for Trump.
The excuses I hear are similar to your comment, but mostly boil down to:
1) take a wedge issue
2) build a strawman around it and a dramatic case that doesn't reflect reality
3) somehow make it personal and claim victimhood
4) use that victim status to demonize the "attacker"
You’re illustrating my point here. You’re assuming that everyone fully believes and supports anything in the party platform, especially the most extreme elements.
This absolutely works both ways and erases people in favor of a label.
I talk to a lot of conservatives. While many of them oppose abortion, the issue that sent so many of them over the edge is the lack of willingness of Democrats to agree on a limit. The bulk of opposition is to late term abortions.
The lack of reasonable discourse is what sets extremes in place.
Another example: Tim Scott’s police reform bill that he thought could move forward with bipartisan support. It didn’t solely because Democratic leadership wanted to ensure that it remained an election issue.
We still have no movement on an equivalent bill since Biden took office.
Examples like this make it pretty clear that the party leadership doesn’t actually want to resolve issues.
Allowing the people who benefit from division to keep doing it will only make things worse.
> You’re assuming that everyone fully believes and supports anything in the party platform, especially the most extreme elements.
I think it doesn't matter what one personally believes if they're enabling a party/company/base that mostly campaigns and executes on items that are opposite of their views. Claiming that one is in favor of abortion until a certain limit, but then supporting a party that says none at all is the way to go is pretty off base, yeah?
Also, there's just so much trolling/conversing in bad faith that people don't want to waste their time because they feel it's difficult to have reasonable discourse.
> Claiming that one is in favor of abortion until a certain limit, but then supporting a party that says none at all is the way to go is pretty off base, yeah?
Sure there are people who opposed it entirely, but the majority of what is actually proposed and passed are more focused on defining a cutoff time when the baby is alive with rights of its own. “Heartbeat Bills” are a good example.
There’s a reason you see different laws in different states and it’s because people don’t agree.
You’ll always have people who want to eliminate it entirely and you’ll always have people who want no restrictions at all. That will never change.
Simply trying to agree on a point in time where a fetus has a right to life where termination is unacceptable though, that’s the problem. And politicians don’t want that to change because the moment that the bulk of the charge goes out of an issue they can’t use it to divide people anymore.
If that one issue was off the table, would you reevaluate your party platform? Do you agree with all of it? Do you agree with anything at all on the other side of the isle?
> opposition is to late term abortions
That's not what's actually happened in legislation though, is it? And there wasn't a huge "late term" abortion problem in the first place, was there? And what are you considering "late term"?
3rd trimester
Again, barely actually happening: https://drjengunter.com/2016/10/27/how-many-late-term-aborti... and used as a pretext for restricting all abortion by dishonest legislators and advocates.
To the extent that it does happen it's often in situations where the mother's life is in danger, and it was a particularly nasty death in such situation that _finally_ got Ireland to change its constitution.
>I talk to a lot of conservatives. While many of them oppose abortion, the issue that sent so many of them over the edge is the lack of willingness of Democrats to agree on a limit.
I have found that the vast majority of "pro-life" republicans and "pro-choice" democrats I have spoken with have literally no substantive difference in opinion on abortion law. It is astounding.
Neither group has an actual answer for where the limit should be. Most are uninformed on what the current laws are. Only few outliers are all or nothing, eg life at conception Catholics, or late term abortion radical feminists.
seems like you can pull out this explanation for either side. Just replace "bodily autonomy" issue from "abortions" to "vaccine mandates"
Think of how much of a better world we would live in if everyone respected the individual private choices of others (What drugs you want to consume, what medical procedures you want to take part in, who you are allowed to marry and fall in love with). Unfortunately both the Left and the Right salivate at the thought of using the government's monopoly on violence to control people depending on what they think is for the good of "society".
That is my main political issue, but it comes with a major cavaet: where do you put the dividing line between humans? It is not as obvious as you might think, as both sides of the abortion comes down to the rights of the individual.
Same thing, but with opposite supports on a vaccine mandate.
The left talking about body autonomy in 2021... the irony.
OP presents a perfectly reasonable statement and your rebuttal is to strawman/argue in bad faith. You are exactly who they are talking about. You are part of the problem.
I'm not arguing in bad faith. I'm stating that it's not unreasonable to want to disassociate from a person who is actively supporting a movement/platform/party that actively works to harm/negatively affect them, especially when it's at a legislative level.
EDIT: Also, to be clear, my original comment was intended for the stat presented that people are saying they wouldn't date someone that voted Republican. I think it's even less unreasonable to not romantically pursue a stranger with political incompatibilities
>If your political beliefs prevent you from associating with somebody because you have labeled them so firmly as to write them off entirely as a person, you have jumped the shark and become the problem.
If you get the population to focus on wedge issues that laws can't really remedy, they won't focus on your hand stealing money from their pockets. In other words, if you can get them to fight each other, they won't fight you, the power class.
It's all wrestling, these guys fighting each other on the news, talking about things that get people all riled up, go have a beer together after the show.
> The polarization is much worse on the left side of the isle.
It's interesting, and I wonder if this has more to do with who controls the discourse the majority of us see. I lived in and grew up in a deep red area. Like, literally, in 2016 and 2020 the state was called for Trump before voting had even ended across it (multiple time zones). I had to actively hide my leftist views from most people, as I immediately got verbally abused if it comes out (it's often quite funny, as I'm in no way an American 'liberal', but that's what they end up resorting to). As a teacher, I've seen left-leaning students get verbally abused too, not to mention I've seen kids get punched simply because they were homosexual (and this was from teenagers).
It becomes quite easy to see why the left wouldn't want to associate with these people, and would write them off, especially if they've had even half of the experiences I've seen. But it happens the exact opposite way in places where right-wing views tend to dominate. Thankfully, it's made it super easy to give me an excuse to keep any political discussion out of my classroom (and, thankfully, the views among the kids are starting to shift to more reasonable ones).
It's both.
I'm from a purple area and have half a foot in red land and half a foot in blue land. No matter where I am, I hide more about myself than I used to.
If I'm in a left/blue/urban type space, nobody gets to know that I converted to Christianity as an adult, that I disagree with intersectionality as a lens outside of a legal context, that I think some of the gender activism is crazy, that language has a science to it and we should defer to it, that I shoot as a hobby and think the 2nd Amendment should include digital weaponry, etc.
If I'm in a right/red/rural type space, nobody gets to know that I'm a lesbian who hates femininity, that my Christianity is heretical/liberal, that I think transgenderism is real, etc.
Only one side picked up torches and marched for white supremecy, and had an entire news network support them.
This is why all these articles on "why can't we just get along" are almost impossible to take seriously.
If you look at the situation, the left is finally admitting that it is tired of trying to "get along," and it is hard to blame them.
Not every republican was in that crowd marching for white supremacy. Similarly, not every democrat participates in burning down churches and court buildings.
And you saw no similar behavior from the left in the preceding months to that event?
No, because there wasn't any. But go ahead and try to make that comparison, it'll be great to have your words on the record forever.
Again, illustrating my point.
You’re essentially trying to threaten me if I dare disagree with your position. This is what I mean by jump the shark.
As an outsider to American politics, it makes sense to me that the party that strives to legislate against certain human rights is not considered attractive by the population it targets.
Either way, it's a moot point.
This title has been editorialized.
Where this news article says "Over 70% of young Democrats wouldn't date Republicans" and the Axios blog post "Young Dems more likely to despise the other party" the actual data says:
"Would you go on a date with someone that voted for the opposing presidential candidate?
Democrats:
Definitely 7%
Probably 22%
Probably Not 41%
Definitely Not 30%"
I would argue that this is this far from extreme polarization and does not fit under the "despise" verb. It also doesn't provide the thinking behind that answer and doesn't go into detail as to the source of that response. Do the people who responded not want to date the person who voted differently themselves, or do they think that this other person would not consider the idea in the first place? Could the expectation of what happens on a date also be different (expectation of sex vs. expectation of a casual meeting)?
It's also a matter of perception. Where is the line between a "probably" and a "probably not"? "Probably not" was counted as a no, while "probably" was counted as a yes. Could it be that people in a certain demographics are more likely to speak without restraint?
All the other parameters of this question do not take into account the political divide.
But they do consider identity and income.
When it comes to "Race ID", each demographic group gave similar responses, with the exception of "White", who have a lower rate of "Definitely not" (only 15% where "Asian" has 29%)
The "Female" demographic is also notable, coming in at 24% "Definitely Not" versus only 8% for "Male." This to me makes sense when you take into account the fact that women's rights are debated right now. I would have been curious to see metrics about LGBTQ+ issues here has it was a hot topic during the recent elections.
It is when we look at income that we get a clearer picture. All income levels are similar, with the exception of the 50k-80k bracket where the percentage of "Definitely not" is 33% (where all other brackets are close to 15%).
> If your political beliefs prevent you from associating with somebody because you have labeled them so firmly as to write them off entirely as a person, you have jumped the shark and become the problem.
It's also very important to say that the study also contains "Would you be friends with someone that voted for the opposing presidential candidate?" and "Would you work for someone that voted for the opposing presidential candidate?" where results show a similar trend but are a lot more forgiving. Asking for someone to get intimate and build a family is not the same as asking to associate with someone despite different beliefs.
The methodology is also worth mentioning: "This study was conducted Nov. 18-22 from a representative sample of 850 students nationwide from 2-year and 4-year schools".
Source for data: https://www.generationlab.org/partisanship
TL;DR:
“The problem with polarization is all those brainwashed people over there."
Oh, no question it’s both. I’m independent, always have been.
Lately, the pendulum has swung much farther to one direction. There’s a reason that Jon Stewarts Daily Show was so popular for so long and that’s because there was simply so much material to work with.
Now you have conservative comedy outlets that Elon Musk is tweeting about and everything from the left just seems like yelling at the sky by comparison.
I’ve yet to hear stories of right leaning children refusing to associate with their left leaning families. Only the opposite. That tells you something.
Bad political science + virtuoso use of methodology but unsubstantiated + underlying US centrism
Polarization is a problem when you let a political system polarize. In other words, while in Europe multiple parties represented in parliament are the norm; in the US - a two-party state, naturally exacerbate the risk of polarization.
So, paradoxically, polarization is a problem of not enough variety in the political spectrum. Not too much difference.
Looking from abroad, democrats and republicans are almost the same. And this is the core of the problem, and the deeper root of polarization.
Yes, this is absolutely the root of the problem. First-past-the-post voting has been well known as a flawed system for over a century now and voters use every chance they get to express their distaste for both parties, but we keep acting like it’s some fleeting mystery.
> Looking from abroad, democrats and republicans are almost the same. And this is the core of the problem, and the deeper root of polarization.
Can you elaborate on this? How does similarity between the parties cause polarization?
Because when the points of meaningful disagreements are few, people often have a need to emphasise those points in order to justify their choice.
I don't think this is by any means universal and it doesn't need to get hostile.
Proportional systems often force parties to be prepared to cooperate or be left with no influence so even with starkly polarised views on certain issues it doesn't pay to get too hostile about it. To take a concrete example, in Norway the two centre-right centrist parties are classical liberals (Left/Venstre) and Christian democrats (KrF/Christian Peoples Party). The Christian democrats are hardline on abortion by Norwegian standards. It's of course genuinely important to them, but it's also clear that it's gained extra importance to them as one of the few areas where they clearly stand out to their potential voters. Yet they remain on "friendly terms" with the liberals who are one of the most firmly pro choice parties. I'm guessing part of this is that in addition to being aligned on a number of policy areas they're also not competing for the same voter base, so letting the polarisation escalate to hostility serves no purpose for either of them.
But when you have two parties fighting over control in a non-proportional system and you care about power in the short term, it pays for them to both seek towards the other to fight over voters near the centre and to exaggerate the importance of the remaining differences.
Yes, NZ had 2 parties trading off power for decades until we got rid of the FPP system (like the US/UK), we now use MMP (the same as Germany) and we haven't had a government that wasn't a coalition since (even this time when one party did get more than 50% of the votes).
What it means is that to form a government parties have to form a coalition and that means compromise, done in public - compromise is a good thing, a mediating thing, if you're a party that can't compromise you'll never be part of a government - and voters understand this, they understand that it takes time to compromise, we might not have a government for 3 months and all of a party's promises might not be able to be kept as part of a compromise.
It's not perfect, but I do think it's far better and far fairer that the governments we elected under FPP (when sometimes the party with the most votes didn't get the most seats, and smaller parties could never realistically get a look in)
Thanks that makes sense.
> in Europe multiple parties represented in parliament are the norm;
Not in the UK. There are multiple parties, but one party is the party of government, and another is the Official Opposition. Third parties are just third parties. This is the same in the USA, I believe.
Yes, but it is the norm. As far as I can tell, the UK, France and Belarus are the only countries in Europe without some form of proportional representation in elections for parliament. France tends to have a more fragmented result partly because of a tradition for a lot of electoral alliances etc. between the main parties to counter the effects of the electoral system and partly because it doesn't use First Past the Post. The UK and Belarus are the only two countries in Europe to use FPTP exclusively (Poland uses it for its senate but not for its lower house)
UK uses PR for the Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland elections, but not the national UK wide ones.
Point taken.
I'm not that happy to have the UK voting system compared to Belarus.
They tried to change this in the UK.
It eventually went to a public vote.
The same guy that ran the Brexit campaign successfully convinced people that 'wasting' money on more democracy would lead to more dead babies and soldiers. Too many ironies there to list.
Another reason why it lost was because a lot of proponents of PR saw it as a trap to get electoral reform off the agenda. Most people in the UK I know who supported PR voted against the change for that reason, and considered accepting it as part of the coalition agreements as a total betrayal by the Liberal Democrats.
I doubt this subset of a subset of voters had any meaningful impact on the result. The only political parties to espouse this view were the (very small and fringe) BNP and Respect parties.
I can imagine a large chunk of people were in the "would have preferred to vote for PR, but still voted Yes to AV" camp though.
None of the people I discussed this with would ever consider either Respect or the BNP. They were Labour or Lib Dem voter. It was a widespread sentiment in my circles.
I think you're massively underestimating just how many people were angry about it. I know people who voted Lib Dem over their promise of PR who have woved never ever to vote for them again.
There are valid reasons to be angry with the Lib Dems and vow never to vote for them again, but vowing to not vote for them again over AV is illogical. They have always wanted PR, they got a vote on AV as a conpromise which is the closest anyone ever got to achieving it, and there's no other party that is pro-PR that has any chance of getting power under the current system (except maybe some regional parties and they're actually working against their own interests by supporting PR). The current system also makes it a requirement to vote tactically so ruling out voting for any party is an extreme position.
On the other hand, the current system also means many votes are wasted and maybe your friends know thier vote wasn't going to matter anyway, bit they prpbably sgouldnt encourage others who moght be on different circumsrances.
It was a surrender because they cared more about power than about PR in the end.
As it stands the Labour membership is overwhelmingly in favour of PR and it only failed at Labour Conference this year because the unions did not have a position, so odds are that before the next election Labour Conference will have mandated a pro-PR position for Labour. Given almost all the smaller parties also supports it, it will then be a real possibility.
> Polarization is a problem when you let a political system polarize.
Aha. So that's the cause of polarization. Now I get it.
The UK (and the US) do have a hyperpolarization in their political system. This polarization is result of the way the system has been designed. While a democratic system this lasting is impressive, it is clear that those systems have been devised before mass media was a thing, which is filled by particularily bad actors both in the UK and the US (maybe because it is much easier to do populism if to every issue there are two sides).
Having two clear sides has also certain advantages, e.g. it is more comfortable to think about a world where the complexity is reduced to two factions. This is why Hollywood traditionally made clear division into good and evil, until they started to experiment with more complex representations of reality.
Not that polarization isn't an issue in Europe as well, but it is nowhere near as backed in as it is in the US (and quite frankly I am not sure the US doesn't play a involuntary role in this polarization at least since the cold war).
This point is not totally unfounded. The US (and the UK for that matter) have a two party system that heavily supports polarization. One side is for certain things only because the other side is against it, or against something because the other side is for it (same for the other side). I wonder however if this actually that bad in absolute numbers (if I understood US politics correctly the political representation is wildly lopsided towards the party with the rural voters, when compared to actual numbers of people).
Polarization is also an issue in Europe e.g. on certain topics like the pandemic response where the typical 25% of misinformed start to matter for everybody. Words like "polarized" or "divided" always suggest there is a split through the middle of the society, but quite often it is a loud minority who seeks to force their minority opinion onto the majority.
The problem is not polarization of ideas, the problem is the lack of freedom and the imposition of the ideas over the others.
I love that you think that a big ass state is the best for everybody, I don't think so, so don't forefully make me pay a lot of taxes for a lot of services I don't want and I can't decide. Group yourself with people happy with that and let the others live their life without imposing them that shit.
The usual solution to this is to move to a country that is more in line with your life philosophy (i.e., “group yourself with people happy with that”). Or you could accept that paying taxes in order for a government to provide certain services is a situation the majority of people find beneficial, and that changing this may be untenable.
But what IF one of groups "invite" or promote immigration to make another group weaker?
What if they don't but one group spreads a lie that they do so? Have you fallen for it?
Like If I send millions of buddhist people to a Muslim country.
The buddhist will become Muslim?
Is that how it works?
I think polarisation within the voters is not necessarily a bad thing, you need to stick to your ideas, and somehow if someone is for wealth redistribution and public infrastructure and someone considers that taxation is theft it's hardly a situation that can be mixed within the people, or if someone wants to lock immigrants in a cage and someone wants open border it's hardly matchable. but I think this is where the power of the democratic process comes to mind, if you have people actually voting according to their ideas, the representation that those ideas would make sure that within parliament there is a balance of those point of view, so like, maybe let's not completely open the border, but make it dependent on immigrant background, or let's decrease taxes and public spending by cutting some money waste, etc. Voters I think must be polarised, it is the parliament who needs to create a balance through discussion.
I mean I am not sure if I am polarised but sticking to the example I am not sure what my point of rendez-vous would be with a guy who considers taxation as theft for example
I am in the process of reading all of these comments, so I know I have a ways to go.
If we are in fact talking about strange beluefs becoming a matter of identity, then any attempt to talk someone out of that identity will not help anyone.
It's certainly important to acknowledge our own beliefs, and to check those beliefs against the facts on the ground. You can sure start to feel like you are surrounded by crazy people, and get pulled into arguing "the facts" anyway. That's how I usually screw it up.
So what happens if, instead of pushing back on facts, when someone in personal conversation insists that (for example) the current president was illegitimately elected... what happens with a responsing by questions that signal my interest in their point of view?
"Ok, what is the most important thing for Americans to do right now?"
Usually people will think I am agreeing with them. I might have to assert my point of view, I don't want to lie to people.
I don't know if anything will work, at this point.
I think one way to massively reduce polarization in the US at least is to mix up the parties. That is to say, get left leaning people into the republican party and right leaning people into the democratic party. (just having them vote in the primaries would be sufficient). This would at least dampen the political effect of extreme polarization.
The funny thing is that from a game theory perspective, it seems like it would be in both parties’ interest to encourage this. If you push your supporters into the opposing party for the primary but they don’t follow suit, your voter base/platform can remain static but your opponent’s voter base/platform shifts towards you. This would make it easier to pass legislation you want.
Allow this to continue and eventually both parties would have to encourage this until we reach nash equilibrium with both parties being fairly heterogeneous.
If it was about getting legislation through that would make sense. If it's about getting certain individuals into positions of power, however, the opposite is true. /cynical
What if the polarization is the result of the economic system becoming bankrupt and that large structural changes are actually necessary? There's a baked in idea here that compromise and centrism is always right, when it may be that during periods of history when centrism is the wrong path that political polarization naturally increases. By trying to avoid deeper structural change it becomes like pressure building up on a fault line and the longer it goes on the worse the resulting political Earthquake becomes.
>Democracies require compromise. But compromise becomes almost impossible when voters are divided into diametrically opposed camps.
One of the identity tricks that George W Bush used was being a yokel. The Democrats fell into the obvious trap of attacking his identity which immediately turned off tons of people. Then Bush kept going with identity politics. Like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_liberal
So then right after that, the democrats played the ultimate identity politics card with Obama. First black president! This is in context of Kanye West saying George W Bush doesn't care about black people during a hurricane for new orleans. Black identity was played hard.
The thing about identity politics is that it's not free. Bush's identity politics enabled and pushed the identity politics of Obama which created and enabled Trump. You'll notice that biden vs trump is old white dudes.
But more importantly, BLM for example seems like they are allied with Biden/Harris but who has so far done more for the black community? Trump. Biden and friends have passed and done nothing for BLM. Clinton described Trump’s supporters: “You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic—you name it.
You might ask, when does it end? It really doesn't until something pretty big breaks it. Civil war? War with China? War with Canada? It will be something very bloody to stop this and reunite people.
Biden quit demonizing BLM. That's a huge step in calming things instead of being the strong man who dismisses their beliefs and calls them sons of bitches. Trump having done more is laughable when he intentionally inflamed the situation.
>Biden quit demonizing BLM. That's a huge step in calming things instead of being the strong man who dismisses their beliefs and calls them sons of bitches.
Like I dont mind Biden's position on the left wing riots. BLM or antifa for that matter. I feel like rational people are going to be upset with clear police brutality that is happening. Though the tremendous violence that is involved is wrong. Biden is right to say this. However, as a leader who acknowledges police brutality. He should do something about it.
>Trump having done more is laughable when he intentionally inflamed the situation.
If you look at it objectively. Trump has to date done more for the blm cause than the democrats since replacing trump.
As of right now, they have achieved nothing for blm. Like I think we can all agree there's a police brutality problem. But also clearly a racism related issue: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKGZnB41_e4 The only difference is skin colour and police react much differently.
As a leader this needs to be fixed. So lets step back. Why would Trump not acknowledge the issue or attack blm? Why is biden and friends doing nothing for them?
Also, why does blm only exist during elections? https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&ge...
BLM isn't about police brutality. It's not even about racism. Trump attacks them because of what they are and biden ignores them because of what they are.
Alas, sideline BLM. The USA still has a police problem. Biden seems to acknowledge the problem exists and they seem to be clearly not interested in fixing the problem.
We are past the point when preventing polarization was possible. Now we are near the end of the path one political side brought us, with the other fighting against that.
One side will win and will establish the rules the society will follow for the next decades.
What would such a win look like from your perspective? Everything I have observed indicates the federal government operates as a pendulum. Voters for the party in power disappoint their base, while the opposition becomes more mobilized.
It's not just about parties and voters. It's about two sides of society who became radicalized, leaving critical thinking for fundamentalism. The clashes within those two sides will grow in number and intensity. The conflict is fueling itself. There's nothing the politicians can do or will to defuse the situation.
And the world is much bigger than US. The fight is not only fought in US.
I think there is a pendulum effect, but it's dominated by a leftward cultural trajectory.
The republican party really just takes democrat positions from a few years ago on social issues, adds some murmering about trying to reign in the debt, occasionally cuts taxes , and continues the progression of the dominant culture.
My theory is the increasing polarization is due to one side clearly seeing their dominance in the culture and wanting to crush all opposition; and some reactionaries on the right noticing this state of affairs and calling for more aggressive means to try to change the situation.
> the federal government operates as a pendulum.
That seems like wishful thinking, to me. Also, I think the federal government (I take it you mean the government of the USA) is rather weak; state governments seem to have a lot more power. Not saying whether I think that is good or bad.
Probably like the US after the end of Reconstruction.
Maybe counting actual people instead of representatives would be a start? While I get the whole idea behind giving the rural parts sith less population more of a say, when I first heard about it I intuitively felt that this was undemocratic. Where I grew up I learned that it is most important that everybody's vote counts the same. I was shocked when I learned this is not the case in the US and even more shocked when I learned to which degree of misrepresentation between rural and urban voters this lead.
The United States is a Republic and not a Direct Democracy
I am aware of that. Yet I had my adolescence during a time where "bringing democracy" was cited as the goal of multiple US-led wars.
So understandably I was surprised when I realized the degree of misrepresentation going on in the US.
Republics are a form of democracy, but I think that "bringing democracy" was always just an excuse to invade countries for natural resources and to fight proxy wars to contain other world powers.
If you're complaining that i.e. a k-12 education misrepresented the government in the USA and didn't adequately explain the reasons behind it, this is a common gripe among conservatives/republicans, that kids get educated to believe that the republic system is unfair due to states electing presidents and congresspeople instead of direct democracy, and that the system would be better if it was a direct democracy. In particular, the Federalist Papers #10 discusses why representative democracy is more anti-fragile (to use a modern term) than direct democracy.
Nationalpopularvote.com would be a great start!
Both sides contributed significantly to the polarization and brought us down this path. The believe otherwise is to have been fooled by one of the sides.