Yet the question about our partisanship is a puzzling one. In many respects our culture has become more accepting of diverse gender and ethnic perspectives. But I think that the incessant bickering in DC and the inability to work together for the good of the nation speaks to a systematic brokenness in our country. Years ago it the words 'moderate' and 'compromise' were good words. These days they are portrayed in the most pejorative light. I believe that we are at a proverbial crossroads and the way forward may be the road less taken. At least I hope it is. A nation divided against itself can not stand.
I added this comment to the FB thread:
ReplyDelete"I sometimes wonder if a lot of it is how Americans are encouraged to have opinions. I find that I am less opinionated now (I know that it is hard to believe) than when I was younger. Sadly, most of my opinions are usually unfounded and misinformed. Except for this one of course."
I think a lot of it is we no longer have any over-arching belief system that everyone adheres to. As a result we end up differing not only on conclusions but on premises. This makes it much harder for one side to convince or even understand the other and easier for them to just vilify each other.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the note Mike! Not sure what you mean by "over-arching belief system that everyone adheres to". Can you elaborate?
DeleteBob,
DeleteI apologize I totally lost track of this thread, but will try to answer your question even if late. It is a least my opinion that while there were disagreements there was much more of a shared American philosophy. It was probably made up of many things, Judeo-Christian values, constitutional political principles, the philosophy of the founding fathers. It certainly was not perfect, it had too great an acceptance of racism and too little concern for the poor. But it offered a set of premises that most politicians worked from. What I believe we are seeing now is not simply an adjustment on certain issues but a fundamental philosophical divergence, not only between conservatives and liberals, but between different types of conservatives and types of liberals. As a result I feel that people are more and more shouting at each because they do not have enough values in common to discuss things without struggling to find any common ground.
Thanks for the clarification Mike. There does seem to be a new generation of conservatives that represent ideas from the very far right and some of the ideas embrace a convoluted form of libertarianism. Not sure that I have seen this kind of divergence on the left but I probably do not hear those voices as much.
DeleteEven so, I think that the ideas have always been there but, until recently, there has not been a venue to express them. The advent of social media forums like this one and Facebook, as well as the 24/7 cable news cycle, has provided such a venue.
Interesting thoughts.
ReplyDeleteI'm reminded of the former, sad state of Yugoslavia and the ethnic tensions that were deliberately inflamed so that a few could rise to power. Or, 'power via polarization'. The US is nowhere near that point but you might take some notice of how some leaders seek to create 'enemies' or exploit and elevate small differences to create blocks of power. And it's nothing new: More recently we've seen it at its ugliest in McCarthyism. It shows up in the various 'culture wars' today (see also GOP Southern Strategy, Neo-Atheism, and the most recent nuttiness, 'contraception wars').
I think this is more an effect of quicker media turnaround. When it took several days or even a week to report movements, there was a natural buffering and moderating effect. Now it's less buffered and the competition for attention and eyeballs is fierce. The processing and deliberation steps are being compressed too much.
One thing that really worries me is the way scientific information gets parsed along partisan lines. Whether it's global warming, evolution, pollution or even fisheries management, I'm still amazed how much spin and baloney gets injected into presentations to the lay public on the basis of purely partisan motives. Science isn't perfect and scientists are not apolitical but science provides one of the most objective means of understanding how our world operates. And if many can't even agree on the basic science in an argument, there's no good point in trying further. Psychology stands a better change of punching though the cognitive barriers.
Thanks for commenting Argon. Good thoughts about the lack of "a natural buffering and moderating effect".
DeleteHere lies the answer to your question "work together for the good of the nation" Neither side believes at this point that there is anything in common enough with the other side that would further their own belief in what is good for the nation. One side thinks the other side is poison and vice versa. I would argue that one side has been compromising with the other for so long now that we are seeing our demise.
ReplyDeleteThe idea that "one side has been compromising with the other for so long now that we are seeing our demise" would carry more weight if both parties had not had 100% control of the federal govt for several years at a time. In essence I do not see much of a difference in either party. Both have become bastions of demagoguery and political extremes. The rise of the Tea Party and the Occupy movements are examples of how people no longer want compromise and moderation.
Delete