The Fundamental Polarization of Society

[InfiniteNow]

Society and our perception of it seems to have so much less gray area these days. Large numbers of folks are at a very extreme end of whatever spectrum is being viewed, and deaf to arguments made from opposing viewpoints.

 

We're all skewed. That's a given.

 

Why do you think the ideological divisions these days seem to be so much deeper and wider than before? Do you at all?

 

 

[Buffy]

Two basic trends, neither of which are new, just amplified:

• Demonization of fellow Americans
  
• Internalization of charity

 

This is a bi-partisan issue--everyone takes some of the blame. Where did these sucky trends start?

• Barry Goldwater: "Extremism in the name of liberty is no vice." This "take no prisoners" attack on the perceived "socialism" from FDR to Kennedy, demonized all that came during those 30 years of recovery from a system where there was no safety net to a seemingly pervasive one with tremendous increases in taxes. It denied all that was good about the New Deal to the initial Great Society simply because "the Federal Government is going to take every cent you have." Because Barry blew it so badly, this movement lay dormant all the way until Reagan (Nixon was a total liberal: more below). This phase pushed the notion that simplified messages that gloss over the devilish details can be very powerful.
  
• Free Speech/Civil Rights/Anti-War Movement: "Don't trust anyone over 30." This movement made absolute demons of "The Establishment" *including* those who were in fact in agreement with the goals of the movement. This phase pushed the notion that there were identifiable groups that could be identified as the *cause* of all problems, and it ended up failing precisely because of the fact that this technique over time allows the most extreme groups with the loudest voices to dominate the messages, thus driving away the "middle."
  
• The Moderate 70's: "Our long national nightmare is over." A tremendous number of things got done during the 70's but they were *boring*, and they were mired in Globalization meeting a roll-back in economic activism/realism: Who was the first to institute widespread price controls? Nixon did! The accompanying shocks paralyzed the Ford and Carter administrations into doing nothing, causing even worse consequences in conjunction with the oil shocks and the death of old-style manufacturing. This phase created a *huge* opportunity for radicals on both sides to say "cooperation and compromise does not work."
  
• The Radical 80's: "Facts are stupid things." The Republicans went to Reagan, the Democrats to Fritz Mondale and Mike Dukakis. The interesting thing during this period is that its when the Republicans generally went Radical--Reagan beat out Bush and Baker then Bush beat out Dole--while the Democrats generally went centrist--Fritz and Mike beat out Gary Hart and Jesse Jackson. The Democrats got beaten by having to stay radical to hold their base while losing the middle represented by their nominees. This phase pretty much conclusively provided the message that if you *don't* stick to your base, you'll lose. The most insideous and unrecognized theme of this phase though, was "greed is good" which no one said but every one practiced: this made a lot of people rich, firing off ten years of increasing intellectual investment in unrealistic payoffs fed by the message that "if you just go along with the program, you can get rich too."
  
• Recovery of the Center meets the Politics of Personal Destruction: "You have to give the press confrontations. When you give them confrontations, you get attention; when you get attention, you can educate." While the voting public got sick of blind favoritism of business (which was supposed to be a panacea and brought us the recession of 1990-92), extra-legal international intrigue (remember Iran-Contra?), and the rise of the extremist "Christian Right", the Democrats learned how to do Centrism right and got Bill Clinton elected. Unfortunately, Newt Gingrich brought back the old radical sixties technique of demonization and wrapped it in the flag and God, providing the broad cohesion that had caused this strategy to fail in the past. They key here was to create a well defined--if in fact chimerical--enemy consisting of the beliefs of 10% of the country, conflated into "Liberals" represented exclusively by the "Democrat Party". In addition to the above phrase, this period was basically defined by "God is a Republican."

The last six years has seen increasing polarization for one reason: it works. Or at least it has.

 

The war in the Democratic party in the last ten years has been built around a fight between the centrists--the Clintonian triangulation strategy--and the radicals--Dean and the blogosphere screaming "there is no center."

 

The Republicans have been unified until just the past year as reality has sunk in among the broad population on the lack of success in Iraq, loss of jobs (look back at the 80's: industry is healthy and happy but unlike then, only the CEO's boats are going up with the tide (that is "greed is good" was exposed as a pyramid scheme for most folks)), and increasing cognitive dissonance between law-and-order statements and more-equal-than-others unilateral action by the executive branch, all of which have combined to start ripping the party apart.

 

Most people I know from both ends of the spectrum are in the "a pox on both of them" position, and its all because there's a growing realization that if we keep demonizing our neighbors we're all screwed.

 

Unfortunately, politicians are always the last to realize where people's heads are, and I think they're all in for a big surprise.

 

Look to history: to me this all looks like the end of the 19th century, one of the most corrupt periods of our history. "No one could have forseen" the massive rise of Populism (hey folks, William Jennings Bryan--Bible pounding foe of Evolution--was a *Democrat*), massive recognition of government as more than a funder of War (Upton Sinclair did more to change the orientation of Government than the New Deal or the TVA). The Democrats' paralyzing conflictions are going to meet up with massive rejection of un-Christian greed in the leadership in the Republicans, leading to a new "Silent Majority" (who said that? :lol: )

 

The key is to stop listening to people who claim to know what you should think and start thinking for yourself. You can use the Bible or Ayn Rand or Ghandi as your home base, but listen to the wise word of Tom Watson and "Think." Everything "wrong with society today" has come from this basic lack of interest in making up ones own mind and the lack of respect that has engendered in the leadership toward "the people." I have more faith in the American people than most politicians do, but I've been around just long enough to see the ebbs and flows of our history show a remarkable resilience, often shifted by huge stresses in society. We're at one of those tipping points and its going to be interesting.

 

But everyone needs to start realizing that you can have differences but still get along with your neighbor. Its good for both of you.

 

[For the International audience: this little pontification is cast in terms of American History and Current Events. Its not really dissimilar than clashes between Tories and Labor, or Liberals and Conservatives except in extremism and scale, something we over-dramatic Americans are famous for. Enjoy our travails, but do look in the mirror to see where you can benefit from the parallels....]

 

And don't speak too soon for the wheel's still in spin, :phones:

Buffy

[Queso]

Humans are teenagers.

2012 marks our birthday into adulthood + stewardship.

Cavemen were babies.

Catch my drift?

That's my opinion in a nutshell.

"Just keep swimming..."

[CraigD]

Why do you think the ideological divisions these days seem to be so much deeper and wider than before? Do you at all?

I don’t think ideological division, in my immediate society and the world as a whole, is at a historic maximum. Rather, I think that, at least in the US since 2000, the idea of “divisiveness” has become fashionable, and, rather oddly, has been used to further social divisions.

 

I think there is a profound ideological divide underlying the most fundamental moral and political disagreements, and that it’s described well by the conflicting “strict father/nurturant parent” moral models laid out in Lakoff’s 1996 book “Moral Politics”. The difference appears to be both strongly irrational and unconscious, and strongly time bound, causing it to be preserved across generations.

 

Not to be pessimistic, but I don’t think this underlying division can be healed except by one or the other model “winning” by being embodied in an overwhelming majority of impressionable young people. This can occur, I think, when one model is compellingly and ubiquitously presented in the dominant popular medium – TV or a successor video-based scheme. I believe that the “Star Trek” television series were somewhat successful in this manner, promoting the “nurturant” model, from roughly 1967 to 1994, but thereafter increasingly presented a more even balance of the “nurturant” and “strict” model, perhaps even biased to the “strict”. I suspect that the ”Law & Order” television series has, since about 1991, been somewhat successful in promoting the “strict” model, although, being personally “imprinted” with the “nurturant” model, I don’t like the series, and thus haven’t seen enough of it to form an adequate opinion.

[Turtle]

...

I think there is a profound ideological divide underlying the most fundamental moral and political disagreements, and that it’s described well by the conflicting “strict father/nurturant parent” moral models laid out in Lakoff’s 1996 book “Moral Politics”. The difference appears to be both strongly irrational and unconscious, and strongly time bound, causing it to be preserved across generations.

 

i will take the view that the divide, whether rooted in ideology or not, is an artifact of hardwired predispositions of varying degrees in the human brain ; that is to say it is an emergent complexity of our behavior. i submit this in support of my view.

 

Williams[syndrome], in contrast, arises from a known genetic cause and produces a predictable set of traits and behaviors. It is “an experiment of nature,” as the title of one paper puts it, perfect for studying not just how genes create intelligence and sociability but also how our powers of thought combine with our desire to bond to create complex social behavior — a huge arena of interaction that largely determines our fates....

Williams syndrome - Social Inhibition - Personality - Developmental Disorders - Brain Disorders - David Dobbs - New York Times

 

Not to be pessimistic, but I don’t think this underlying division can be healed except by one or the other model “winning” by being embodied in an overwhelming majority of impressionable young people.

 

genetic engineering might suffice in view of my view. :shrug:

[Buffy]

I don’t think ideological division, in my immediate society and the world as a whole, is at a historic maximum. Rather, I think that, at least in the US since 2000, the idea of “divisiveness” has become fashionable, and, rather oddly, has been used to further social divisions.

That's what I'm talking about. Divisiveness an effective technique that has been refined to a political art, with the "leaders" seeing demonization as a way to gather and motivate their "flocks."

 

OTOH, I actually disagree that this is a persistent model:

I think there is a profound ideological divide underlying the most fundamental moral and political disagreements, and that it’s described well by the conflicting “strict father/nurturant parent” moral models laid out in Lakoff’s 1996 book “Moral Politics”. The difference appears to be both strongly irrational and unconscious, and strongly time bound, causing it to be preserved across generations.

The strict/nurturant divide is certainly an orientation, but I think it is mostly by "close" social groups, like religious or conservative communities, and most importantly, the reaction to it by individuals can go opposite directions. The conventional wisdom in the 60s was that kids turn out to be the opposite of their parents, while the assumption is that they slavishly become clones of their parents. My own anecdotal evidence indicates there is no such trend: sixties parents/kids were as likely to be GHW/GW Bush as 80s kids were to be pot smoker/born again combos. Except for moderate shifts that basically parallel the rest of society, kids today are no more conservative/liberal tolerant/intolerant than kids of the sixties.

 

I think that societally though, both young and old have become complacent and too willing to follow the leaders who want to manipulate them into being followers. It has taken shocks to rumble this foundation, but I personally see it happening, at both ends of the spectrum.

 

...I don’t think this underlying division can be healed except by one or the other model “winning” by being embodied in an overwhelming majority of impressionable young people.

This is a "generational change" view of the world, and I actually fundamentally disagree with it even though it has been the conventional wisdom since the days of The Generation Gap. I find radicals and reactionaries of every age, and I strongly believe that even in the sixties, the Archie-Bunker-vs.-Meathead was a caricature that does not hold up to scrutiny.

 

Will one "win out"? I don't think so. It will divide society, percentages claiming adherence to one or the other ebbing and flowing over time as events and leaders influence them, but I believe the majority of the people is "conservative" in the *classical* sense: radical movements forward OR backward will create resistance when they become too radical.

 

Bottom line: *Polarization* as a political technique is out of hand, and that Center is getting sick of it. Its not really any "worse" than it ever was, just more effectively manipulated, and if anything the maximum was probably back before the 2004 election.

 

Paranoia it strikes deep, into your life it's going to creep, and it starts when you're always afraid, :shrug:

Buffy

[InfiniteNow]

Thanks all who have responded already. There is genuine substance above, and meat to the conversation. I agree with the points made, but wish to add something. Some is clearly nature, but I'd suggest a greater percentage is nurture.

 

These divisions have happened before, and do seem to "peak" in cyclic nature, but I feel it's important to bear to key points in mind when looking at the situation.

 

• One: Population size makes the scope of the issue today broader than ever before. 1.6 billion in 1900, 2.5 billion in 1950, 6.7 billion today. The *weight* of the population is now greater than ever before, so the splits are more abysmal.
  
• Two: Technology and new communication media resulting from it (read *internet*) allow ideas to spred through the social consciousness faster than ever. Grassroots communication is no longer limited to small towns, but touch every part of the globe. What used to be more limited to the one-stop-sign towns are now enveloping groups by the millions.
  
• Three: Today's government officials have learned to more efficiently wedge the populace based on the experience of those who came before them. This translates into each effort being better focussed and tends to increase their effectiveness.
  

 

The above points are not meant to replace the previous posters comments, but to reinforce and supplement them.

 

My dreams lately are showing massive parellels with 1930s Europe, 1920s Russia, late 19-teens Italy, and so many other "historical breaking points," many of which before major wars and bloodshed... right here; right now... in the USA and beyond.

 

 

We better stop, hey, what's that sound, Everybody look what's going down. :shrug:

[Turtle]

Thanks all who have responded already. There is genuine substance above, and meat to the conversation. I agree with the points made, but wish to add something. Some is clearly nature, but I'd suggest a greater percentage is nurture.

:epizza:

 

 

• One: Population size makes the scope of the issue today broader than ever before. 1.6 billion in 1900, 2.5 billion in 1950, 6.7 billion today. The *weight* of the population is now greater than ever before, so the splits are more abysmal.

 

exactly what is the standard of measure for 'abysmal'? what time interval is used to take the measures? i don't find any meat in #1.

 

• Two: Technology and new communication media resulting from it (read *internet*) allow ideas to spred through the social consciousness faster than ever. Grassroots communication is no longer limited to small towns, but touch every part of the globe. What used to be more limited to the one-stop-sign towns are now enveloping groups by the millions.

 

simply not true. the American Revolution was grass roots, and Ben & his boys had no problem spreading the word beyond their villages. no end of other counter-examples.

 

• Three: Today's government officials have learned to more efficiently wedge the populace based on the experience of those who came before them. This translates into each effort being better focussed and tends to increase their effectiveness.

 

 

again to the revolution wherin no end of wedging went on. this is not something new or unique to our circumstance.

 

The above points are not meant to replace the previous posters comments, but to reinforce and supplement them.

 

ditto

 

My dreams lately are showing massive parellels with 1930s Europe, 1920s Russia, late 19-teens Italy, and so many other "historical breaking points," many of which before major wars and bloodshed... right here; right now... in the USA and beyond.

 

 

We better stop, hey, what's that sound, Everybody look what's going down. :shrug:

 

to sleep, perchance to dream. :xx:

[InfiniteNow]

exactly what is the standard of measure for 'abysmal'? what time interval is used to take the measures? i don't find any meat in #1.

Okay. I appreciate your feedback.

simply not true. the American Revolution was grass roots, and Ben & his boys had no problem spreading the word beyond their villages. no end of other counter-examples.

It actually is true. The Revolution had no internet, and those living through it could not possibly have reached the numbers of people one can now, nor with the same expedience. However, again, I appreciate your feedback. The Revolution is an excellent context that I need to ensure I include in my thoughts.

 

again to the revolution wherin no end of wedging went on. this is not something new or unique to our circumstance.

Nor have I intended to imply it was.

 

 

Further inputs from Turtle or others on any of the points thus far (preferably, on the thread topic, and not simply my reaction to the posts within)?

 

 

:xx::shrug:

[Turtle]

Okay. I appreciate your feedback.

Two: Technology and new communication media resulting from it (read *internet*) allow ideas to spred through the social consciousness faster than ever. Grassroots communication is no longer limited to small towns, but touch every part of the globe. What used to be more limited to the one-stop-sign towns are now enveloping groups by the millions.

simply not true. the American Revolution was grass roots, and Ben & his boys had no problem spreading the word beyond their villages.

It actually is true. The Revolution had no internet, and those living through it could not possibly have reached the numbers of people one can now, nor with the same expedience. However, again, I appreciate your feedback. The Revolution is an excellent context that I need to ensure I include in my thoughts.

 

this goes to the point you make at the start when you said

Society and our perception of it seems to have so much less gray area these days. Large numbers of folks are at a very extreme end of whatever spectrum is being viewed, and deaf to arguments made from opposing viewpoints.

what is at issue here is your perspective, and history does not bear it out. i recommend the bookThe Radicalism of the American Revolution by Pulitzer Prize winning author/historian Gordon S. Wood for some knowledge to fuel those thoughts.

 

(i bought a copy of Wood's new book Revolutionary Characters a few months back, but loaned it out right away; i have it back now & will give it a read & report back somewhere here.:epizza:

 

 

Further inputs from Turtle or others on any of the points thus far (preferably, on the thread topic, and not simply my reaction to the posts within)?

 

:xx:

 

in the spirit of discussion, reacting to others points of view is rather the point. :angel: :rose: :shrug:

[Turtle]

...

(i bought a copy of Wood's new book Revolutionary Characters a few months back, but loaned it out right away; i have it back now & will give it a read & report back somewhere here.:angel: :shrug: :xx:

 

pg.5;Revolutionary Characters: What Made the Founders Different by Gordon S. Wood

In 1896 a popular historian of the period, John Bach McMaster, wrote an essay, entitled "The Political Depravity of the Founding Fathers," in which he contended that "in all the frauds and tricks that go to make up the worst form of practical politics, the men who founded our State and national governments were always our equals, and often our masters." According to McMaster, the founding generation was not above the worst kinds of political shenanigans, including the silencing of newspapers, the manipulation of votes, and the creation of partisan gerrymandering.

 

to say the climate today is more abysmal is to ignore the depths of depravity in such matters of the past. the price of freedom is constant vigilance. (the cost of freedom is often a good drubbing.) :epizza:

[InfiniteNow]

Again, thanks for your feedback Turtle. I would like to clarify that part of my suggestion is that the size of the population and new modes of instant communication available today makes the scope of the issue greater than previous... Using your example, greater than during the US Revolution of the late 1700s.

[Turtle]

Again, thanks for your feedback Turtle. I would like to clarify that part of my suggestion is that the size of the population and new modes of instant communication available today makes the scope of the issue greater than previous... Using your example, greater than during the US Revolution of the late 1700s.

 

greater in what way? it's trivialy obvious we have more people. aren't we back to measuring 'abysmal'? what elements are we to add to the 'scope'?

 

i agree it is novel we are carrying on this rather instantaneous politcal discussion, but i don't see any evidence that the fundamental polarization of views is at all different. :omg: pick any historical era you care that we have records of & the debates and tactics don't change.

 

i think any significant property that is predicated on the speed of communication and the number of communicators is an emergent property and by definition such properties are unknown until they, well, emerge. so while it 'seems' to you things are 'worse', you can't justify it factually.

 

ironic isn't it that on this issue we seem to be fundamentally polarized. :wave: :hihi:

[Buffy]

I advocate the notion that larger populations and faster communications have an ameliorating effect in that it is harder to "fool all the people all the time." The Blogosphere is showing that in a big way.

 

There's also much more sophisticated techniques of delivery that can be subversive as well like Stephen Colbert (my kid is a huge fan of his, and it makes mom ever so prideful that her 12-year old is so sophisticated about satire)...

 

Alexander blasted me for being "hopelessly negative" about Net Neutrality, so maybe I'm trying to overcompensate here... :hihi:

 

Have more faith in youth, they'll be complaining about their own kids in no time, :omg:

Buffy

[InfiniteNow]

Yes, the blogosphere does work both ways.

 

Per your Colbert refernce, he's counter weighted by Papa Bear O'Reilly. Who'da thunk it? Further reinforcement of the subject.

[Turtle]

I advocate the notion that larger populations and faster communications have an ameliorating effect in that it is harder to "fool all the people all the time." The Blogosphere is showing that in a big way.

 

There's also much more sophisticated techniques of delivery that can be subversive as well like Stephen Colbert (my kid is a huge fan of his, and it makes mom ever so prideful that her 12-year old is so sophisticated about satire)...

 

Have more faith in youth, they'll be complaining about their own kids in no time, :)

Buffy

 

accepting the ameliorating effect, and assigning it some arbitrary value, juxtapose the internet now with the introduction of the newspaper in the coffee houses of England and assign it a similarly arbitrary value to compare with the first. Do the values differ in your opinion? If so, by what degree? If not, then why not?

 

may i live long enough to witness the complaining,

:phones:

[InfiniteNow]

If you truly seek the answer following the logic above, then perhaps, Turtle, you should also add literacy to your equation.