Polarization And The Shifting Of The Nation

[Ash Wednesday]

I have noticed that the last two GOP nominations -- McCain and Romney -- have had a reputation of being the more moderate or lesser conservatives in their own party. Given this and the nation's increasing acceptance of gay marriage, I am just pondering the future of the country and what our social and political landscape will look like years from now, and whether or not the statement that the "US is just Europe but lagging 50 years behind" is true.

It's been said that this nation has become very polarized, more than in the past. Do you believe this is the case?

Are both sides moving farther in their directions -- left moving more left, right moving more right? Is one side shifting and the other the same?
Or do you see the nation moving to the left as a whole?

I would appreciate everyone's thoughts on this, whether you trend conservative or liberal.

[Luigi]

The nation is definitely more divided on social issues than it was in the past, although there have always been divisive social issues. Race & civil rights divided the nation along largely geographic lines. The Vietnam War divided the nation along liberal-conservative lines - and actually, the whole approach to dealing with Communism, before the Vietnam War.

What I see now is a new geographic division - big, liberal cities vs. smaller (or at least less-populated) conservative states. Look at the red-blue map on AOL or anything like that - the blue states are in the northeast, the northern midwest, and the west coast (with a couple of stragglers like New Mexico & Hawaii). Everything else is red or a toss-up. Even if some of the toss-ups go blue for this election, they're hotly contested battlegrounds, which means that there are about as many conservatives as liberals in those states.

I do see both sides hardening in their political stances, too. Abortion, gay marriage, and some moral-medical issues such as stem cell research & euthanasia seem to be the lines which conservatives simply won't cross - those issues are just too important, and the conservatives think, "This is where we MUST draw the line," while liberals don't even see what the problem is. Conservatives may also be opposed to massive government spending, legalization of marijuana, and other issues, but it's those moral & medical issues that are the most divisive.

Since about the 1950's, America has become more & more focused on sex, drugs, rock & roll; the divisive issues are about exactly that, with one side saying "Let's party" and the other side saying, "It's time to cut that out."

[Winchester]

The only difference between the American Left and American Right is what social norms they think should be enforced by the end of a gun barrel. They're united on omnipotent government. "Freedom" sloganeering aside.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Ash Wednesday' timestamp='1351766217' post='2501954']
It's been said that this nation has become very polarized, more than in the past. Do you believe this is the case?[/quote]Polarizing is just evidence of public debate on important issues when the is passionate commitment to opposing ideologies. It happens repeatedly in most Civilizations as they develop. There have been many polarizing issues throught the history of the US, as well as any other questions. I don't think it's more polarized than in the past since I lived through the 60's and 70's with the Viet Nam war and Civil Rights being argued constantly. I do think that the attention to the drama and painting of the opposing views are heightened because there are so many more outlets for people to voice their opinions.

[quote]Are both sides moving farther in their directions -- left moving more left, right moving more right? Is one side shifting and the other the same?
Or do you see the nation moving to the left as a whole?

[/quote]Definitely the nation moving to the left as a whole. I think Al's post shows that, but then again, it's a dynamic that shifts as sociological circumstances change, evolve, and develop.

[Era Might]

To me the "story" is not really an "American" story but global and technological. We are reaching maturity in an industrial and technological civilization. The categories of the old world (including the world in which America was born) have largely disintegrated. Something like gay marriage says more to me about social changes than it does about moral issues. Women in an industrial society have gradually been integrated into a genderless "work force" that is separate from private life. There is no gender on a pay check. Private relationships are no longer dependent on economic / social obligations, and what has emerged is a narcissistic romanticism. I say that for heterosexuals as well as homosexuals...the contemporary conception of marriage and relationships is primarily about personal fulfillment, enjoying life, having a comfortable bourgeois home life, etc. Given these developments, gay marriage is a logical step (since private lifestyles have been separated from public concern ). Christians want to impose old world moral categories on society, without going back to the old social categories. That's the humorous situation of Catholic Americans who have to carve out a Catholic niche in a society that was born out of Protestantism, Enlightenment, Individualism, etc. It's created the Catholic "culture warriors" and the gatekeepers of bourgeois "orthodoxy."

So where's it all going? I don't know. But unless we take control and impose limits on the technological, economic, etc. forces, we will continue to be helpless participants in the world rather than actors.

Edited November 1, 2012 by Era Might

[Winchester]

[quote name='Era Might' timestamp='1351781842' post='2502028']


So where's it all going? I don't know. But unless we take control and impose limits on the technological, economic, etc. forces, we will continue to be helpless participants in the world rather than actors.
[/quote]
Who's going to impose these limits? I believe we already have those people. The collective term for them is "The State".

I'm out on it. The only limit is non-aggression.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1351782037' post='2502032']
Who's going to impose these limits? I believe we already have those people. The collective term for them is "The State".

I'm out on it. The only limit is non-aggression.
[/quote]
There has to be political action. As it is now, you are correct that "the State" has a monopoly on politics, just as "the media" has a monopoly on communication, "the school system" has a monopoly on learning, etc. We have to find some way to exercise political power that empowers us and where we live. The people are fully capable of imposing limits...you still see it, for example, in Latin American when indigenous groups refuse to go along with the program when the government wants to "civilize" them with a new bridge or a new school. That's the kind of local political action that can set limits. If we tell the government we aren't going to accept something beyond a certain limit, then either the government will bend or it will respond with violence. The question then becomes whether we will bend to the violence or insist upon our collectively chosen limits (and personally chosen limits, in some cases).

[Winchester]

[quote name='Era Might' timestamp='1351782359' post='2502035']
There has to be political action. As it is now, you are correct that "the State" has a monopoly on politics, just as "the media" has a monopoly on communication, "the school system" has a monopoly on learning, etc. We have to find some way to exercise political power that empowers us and where we live. The people are fully capable of imposing limits...you still see it, for example, in Latin American when indigenous groups refuse to go along with the program when the government wants to "civilize" them with a new bridge or a new school. That's the kind of local political action that can set limits. If we tell the government we aren't going to accept something beyond a certain limit, then either the government will bend or it will respond with violence. The question then becomes whether we will bend to the violence or [s]insist upon our collectively chosen limits (and personally chosen limits, in some cases).[/s] be droned.[/quote]
I've been informed by some Catholic statists that it's my duty to be droned, rather than oppose the wise edicts of Caesar. My opinion: Life is not Caesar's.

I think I take your meaning.

[Luigi]

[quote name='Era Might' timestamp='1351782359' post='2502035']
There has to be political action. As it is now, you are correct that "the State" has a monopoly on politics, just as "the media" has a monopoly on communication, "the school system" has a monopoly on learning, etc. We have to find some way to exercise political power that empowers us and where we live. The people are fully capable of imposing limits...you still see it, for example, in Latin American when indigenous groups refuse to go along with the program when the government wants to "civilize" them with a new bridge or a new school. That's the kind of local political action that can set limits.[b] If we tell the government we aren't going to accept something beyond a certain limit, then either the government will bend or it will respond with violence.[/b] The question then becomes whether we will bend to the violence or insist upon our collectively chosen limits (and personally chosen limits, in some cases).
[/quote]

Our political action is not populist risings against bridges or schools. Our political action takes place in the public debate and in the polling booth. But both sides are rising up.

That's why the polarization is occurring.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Luigi' timestamp='1351810723' post='2502304']

Our political action is not populist risings against bridges or schools. Our political action takes place in the public debate and in the polling booth. But both sides are rising up.

That's why the polarization is occurring.
[/quote]
I don't believe the "political system" has a monopoly on politics. The political system can be useful, but if it stops being useful, then I believe in the right of individuals and communities to find new ways of working things out. Just as I think giving a man a piece of bread on the street takes priority over going to a polling booth and placing a symbolic vote in some man I'm never going to meet who serves a political party I have no interest in following. The polling booth is pretty low on my list of what "politics" should be.