7 ms·

The really shocking bit of data is near the end -- many Americans would be deeply upset if their child were to marry someone of the opposite political party. T

The really shocking bit of data is near the end -- many Americans would be deeply upset if their child were to marry someone of the opposite political party. This is making politics way too personal! I'm not sure how the country is going to recover from this state of polarization. The media isn't helping, and none of the current crop of political candidates seem to be addressing the need to rebuild the American consensus held in past generations, although this might change once the primaries are over.

hnal943 11y ago
The only way out I can see is to make government small enough (or homogeneous enough) that one's opinion doesn't matter much. That's the way it was in America for much of the 20th century - there wasn't much difference between the major political parties. When people are trying to remake society through the political process, is it any wonder that is polarizing?
- randcraw 11y ago
  So how should people remake their country if not through the political process? Through armed rebellion? I'd say that's rather polarizing too. I think the solution goes back to an old civic ideal that's central to a successful democracy. Duty. If Americans dutifully studied the issues, civilly discussed the alternative policies (knowing there must be tradeoffs and delays as different solutions are tested and refined), and participated constructively in the process as if their children's future depended on it, we wouldn't have time to bitch and moan. And we'd rightly shame those who do for being childish and useless.
- humanrebar 11y ago
  > there wasn't much difference between the major political parties That's not my understanding of 20th century politics at all. You'll need to elaborate on what qualifies as "much difference". Roe V. Wade, for example, happened right in the middle of the 20th century.
  - Trill-I-Am 11y ago
    He means from the New Deal to the nomination of Goldwater when Democrats controlled Congress and Republicans weren't as polarized or conservative
  - redblacktree 11y ago
    I don't know which period the parent may be referring to, but if you believe in Mr. Monroe's methodology[0], you can definitely see the reduction in moderates on both sides starting at a peak around 1930. [0]: https://xkcd.com/1127/large/ https://xkcd.com/1127/large/
DannoHung 11y ago
It's probably because political party is now a stand-in for whether you intrinsically think all of society needs to work together or its every in-group for themselves. Both precepts have merits depending on your general outlook on life, but they are diametrically opposed in terms of how you think people should act in the large and small.
- scarmig 11y ago
  Which party is the one that wants everyone to work together for the common good, and which party is the one looking out only for its constituent in-groups?
  - redblacktree 11y ago
    I would guess that he means Democrats for the former and Republicans for the latter, but I'm not the person you replied to.
baldfat 11y ago
I have switched from a life long moderate Republican to a moderate Democrat. I think most of my friends think I am now going to Hell and I am a Hillary lover. I tell them that Republicans have no room for moderates. They make the craziest things up about Common Core, Environment and the nation's Safety Net. They have no idea how crazy they sound.
- mason240 11y ago
  I did the reverse and found the same is true the other way.
  - baldfat 11y ago
    I seriously would be interested on what topics you find the same thing. I FORGOT to say minimum wages I just find it crazy that we provide the safety net for low wages for large profitable corporations and that they want to continue supplying workers for them on the backs of tax dollars.
    - jcizzle 11y ago
      I think you should put some time and effort into researching who in America works for a minimum wage, how long they work for minimum wage, what economists think about minimum wage. I typically find that if I find something 'crazy', and can't believe that 'the other side' would have such an ignorant view, it just means I don't understand the problem.
      - baldfat 11y ago
        I see it all the time though that is anecdotal evidence. I use to be a librarian and I do a lot of statistical work and analysis but I am not an expert but everything I have looked at that is anti-minimum wage I can usually always trace back the money to corporations or some private entity that feels they benefit from low wages. The Pro-Wealth and down trodden the poor has been going on for centuries and we are doing a better job BUT we can do so much better. I fail to see the proper small government view of low wages. These people HAVE TO HAVE MONEY so instead of their job paying them tax payers are making up the slack. WIC,Health Care, Food Stamps would go away with higher wages but instead we continue to give the money to corporations.
Thirdegree 11y ago
My father is very conservative on most issues, where I am very liberal on most issues. We still get along perfectly because politics is not that important. He's still my dad, still a great person, and still an exceedingly good debater.
- randcraw 11y ago
  Probably you are able to interact civilly because you want to maintain a positive relationship. So you don't dismiss the other without a fair hearing and exchange of perspective. Fundamentally, you respect each other. I think the primary source of Americans' anger is the disrespect for other peoples' opinions that's spoon fed into us 24x7 by the mass media, who cares much less for civil discourse than a good fistfight that attracts more viewers. The rise in America's anti-populism starts with the rise of broadcast hate speech, IMHO.
- onetwotree 11y ago
  I have conservative friends and relatives as well, and we get along just fine -- the trick is to see the person and not the ideology. This is why this statistic is so shocking to me. So your kid fell in love with someone from the opposite party, and you can't see why your kid fell in love with them through your ideological glasses?
vox_mollis 11y ago
This is making politics way too personal! Governments have never been as powerful, influential, or pervasive as they are now. Even at the height of the Roman Empire, the machinations of the Senate and the Caesar had less impact on the average citizen's life than today. It's fairly natural to assume that as the scope and influence of government grows, the more personal politics will become, as it affects our lives to increasing degrees. This schism will only get worse as governments become larger and more intrusive.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
danharaj 11y ago
Politics is personal for many people. For example, reproductive rights are being eroded by one party, and not the other. If reproductive rights are important to a person, then politics is personal and important to them. If someone is poor and rely on food stamps, then politics is personal and important them. If politics isn't personal for you, i'm glad for you, but i think you can understand why it can be very personal for others. There was never an American consensus. There is just a dominant culture that tries to erase a history of conflict and astroturf it with a false narrative of unity.
- vkou 11y ago
  I'm disappointed that you're getting downvoted - this point rings very true (And is quite reminiscent of the sentiment in A Letter from a Burmingham Jail[1]). [1] http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.h...
mapt 11y ago
Would you be okay if your child married a neo-Nazi who believed strongly in the white nation's victory in the coming race-war? Because that's politics. I wouldn't let someone like that near my children at Christmas because of potential memetic contagion, much less enjoy having a conversation with them. Lesser degrees of disagreement are lesser degrees of disagreement, but political positions are personal beliefs about the philosophy of how we cooperate with each other and what we should be doing, not simply different teams to root for at the big game every four years.
- tsycho 11y ago
  Not sure if you meant it this way, but the insight that I drew from your comment was: When we think that either A or B are not super important beliefs, or we are observing from such a distance that the differences between A and B seem small, then we feel the people are narrow minded and prejudiced if they strongly hold on to their belief and are openly discriminatory against the other. However, when we personally and strongly think that one of the beliefs is completely evil or unacceptable, then we feel that the distinction is justified and that it's okay to not just oppose it, but also feel confident enough to do so openly and with pride. TLDR; It's much easier to be non-discriminatory if we (or our belief system) don't (doesn't) have any skin in the game.
- philh 11y ago
  > Would you be okay if your child married a neo-Nazi who believed strongly in the white nation's victory in the coming race-war? I would probably be unhappy about that. But - as you say, lesser degrees of disagreement are lesser degrees of disagreement. I don't think that it's always making politics too personal, to be upset about the political opinions of your child's spouse. I do think that if those political opinions are held by ~50% of the country, then that does seem to be making politics too personal.
- Amezarak 11y ago
  > Because that's politics. I wouldn't let someone like that near my children at Christmas because of potential memetic contagion, much less enjoy having a conversation with them. I find this comment interesting. I think that most people, or perhaps most people just a few years ago, tolerated such ideas because they knew they didn't stand a chance in the battleground of ideas; you didn't have to worry about your children picking it up because it was so obviously wrong. This, on the other hand, implies that ideas can be so dangerous people (especially children? only children?) must avoid exposure to them lest they be swayed.
petra 11y ago
>> many Americans would be deeply upset if their child were to marry someone of the opposite political party. I's not a political problem , it's a societal one. Even in Israel , where there's has been no consensus and there has been quite a bit of political polarization ,most people don't take it that personal.
epimetheus 11y ago
My family was traditionally extreme right wing (My dad likes Trump, is racist, is a young earth creationist, etc), but both my sister and I ended up being pretty moderate, if slightly liberal leaning (we are both Socially Liberal, Financially Conservative), and my wife, who has similar parents (though not as extreme) is considering voting Democrat (Sanders, but not Hillary, definitely not Trump, if he wins, we might move to Canada - for real) Anecdata and all that, but I still get along well with my parents, and my wife, hers. We avoid religion and politics (though if it comes up we kinda stay quiet while the other rants, no arguing). I consider myself Moderate and really don't like the "foam at the mouth" extremes on either side, to be honest, I don't understand the need to go to that extreme, and to fight and argue so passionately about it.
- rwmurrayVT 11y ago
  This is a bit off topic, but how exactly do you plan on moving to Canada? My longterm girlfriend is Canadian and I am American. I'm a mechanical engineer with work experience. I have yet to find a realistic way for me to just "move to Canada".
  - guyzero 11y ago
    There's a point-based skills assessment for skilled workers. If you get 67 points you can immigrate to Canada and become a permanent resident. Once you're there you have complete freedom of movement - it's like a green card as opposed to being on a work visa. You may be able to qualify for a NAFTA work visa as well, but if you want actual residency as an engineer you're probably better off applying for permanent residency. http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/skilled/apply-factors.asp http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/skilled/apply-factors... Canada isn't Utopia - it can be hard to find engineering jobs, housing is expensive in big cities and cost of living is higher than the US. There's a reason why so many Canadian engineers end up moving to the US.
    - randcraw 11y ago
      That's really interesting. Often in the past 20 years I've considered such a move, largely in response to the trends in US politics and policy. As a Michigander I think I have a fair sense of what it'd be like to live in the climate of the Great White North, but not as much feel for the economy or the culture. It'd be fascinating to hear from folks who have made that move, especially with a view to assimilation: Canadian citizenship.
o0o0_ooo 11y ago
I would be upset if my child married someone of either political party.

hnal943 11y ago

The only way out I can see is to make government small enough (or homogeneous enough) that one's opinion doesn't matter much. That's the way it was in America for much of the 20th century - there wasn't much difference between the major political parties. When people are trying to remake society through the political process, is it any wonder that is polarizing?

randcraw 11y ago
So how should people remake their country if not through the political process? Through armed rebellion? I'd say that's rather polarizing too. I think the solution goes back to an old civic ideal that's central to a successful democracy. Duty. If Americans dutifully studied the issues, civilly discussed the alternative policies (knowing there must be tradeoffs and delays as different solutions are tested and refined), and participated constructively in the process as if their children's future depended on it, we wouldn't have time to bitch and moan. And we'd rightly shame those who do for being childish and useless.
humanrebar 11y ago
> there wasn't much difference between the major political parties That's not my understanding of 20th century politics at all. You'll need to elaborate on what qualifies as "much difference". Roe V. Wade, for example, happened right in the middle of the 20th century.
- Trill-I-Am 11y ago
  He means from the New Deal to the nomination of Goldwater when Democrats controlled Congress and Republicans weren't as polarized or conservative
- redblacktree 11y ago
  I don't know which period the parent may be referring to, but if you believe in Mr. Monroe's methodology[0], you can definitely see the reduction in moderates on both sides starting at a peak around 1930. [0]: https://xkcd.com/1127/large/ https://xkcd.com/1127/large/

DannoHung 11y ago

It's probably because political party is now a stand-in for whether you intrinsically think all of society needs to work together or its every in-group for themselves. Both precepts have merits depending on your general outlook on life, but they are diametrically opposed in terms of how you think people should act in the large and small.

scarmig 11y ago
Which party is the one that wants everyone to work together for the common good, and which party is the one looking out only for its constituent in-groups?
- redblacktree 11y ago
  I would guess that he means Democrats for the former and Republicans for the latter, but I'm not the person you replied to.

baldfat 11y ago

I have switched from a life long moderate Republican to a moderate Democrat. I think most of my friends think I am now going to Hell and I am a Hillary lover. I tell them that Republicans have no room for moderates. They make the craziest things up about Common Core, Environment and the nation's Safety Net. They have no idea how crazy they sound.

mason240 11y ago
I did the reverse and found the same is true the other way.
- baldfat 11y ago
  I seriously would be interested on what topics you find the same thing. I FORGOT to say minimum wages I just find it crazy that we provide the safety net for low wages for large profitable corporations and that they want to continue supplying workers for them on the backs of tax dollars.
  - jcizzle 11y ago
    I think you should put some time and effort into researching who in America works for a minimum wage, how long they work for minimum wage, what economists think about minimum wage. I typically find that if I find something 'crazy', and can't believe that 'the other side' would have such an ignorant view, it just means I don't understand the problem.
    - baldfat 11y ago
      I see it all the time though that is anecdotal evidence. I use to be a librarian and I do a lot of statistical work and analysis but I am not an expert but everything I have looked at that is anti-minimum wage I can usually always trace back the money to corporations or some private entity that feels they benefit from low wages. The Pro-Wealth and down trodden the poor has been going on for centuries and we are doing a better job BUT we can do so much better. I fail to see the proper small government view of low wages. These people HAVE TO HAVE MONEY so instead of their job paying them tax payers are making up the slack. WIC,Health Care, Food Stamps would go away with higher wages but instead we continue to give the money to corporations.

Thirdegree 11y ago

My father is very conservative on most issues, where I am very liberal on most issues. We still get along perfectly because politics is not that important. He's still my dad, still a great person, and still an exceedingly good debater.

randcraw 11y ago
Probably you are able to interact civilly because you want to maintain a positive relationship. So you don't dismiss the other without a fair hearing and exchange of perspective. Fundamentally, you respect each other. I think the primary source of Americans' anger is the disrespect for other peoples' opinions that's spoon fed into us 24x7 by the mass media, who cares much less for civil discourse than a good fistfight that attracts more viewers. The rise in America's anti-populism starts with the rise of broadcast hate speech, IMHO.
onetwotree 11y ago
I have conservative friends and relatives as well, and we get along just fine -- the trick is to see the person and not the ideology. This is why this statistic is so shocking to me. So your kid fell in love with someone from the opposite party, and you can't see why your kid fell in love with them through your ideological glasses?

vox_mollis 11y ago

This is making politics way too personal! Governments have never been as powerful, influential, or pervasive as they are now. Even at the height of the Roman Empire, the machinations of the Senate and the Caesar had less impact on the average citizen's life than today. It's fairly natural to assume that as the scope and influence of government grows, the more personal politics will become, as it affects our lives to increasing degrees. This schism will only get worse as governments become larger and more intrusive.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

danharaj 11y ago

Politics is personal for many people. For example, reproductive rights are being eroded by one party, and not the other. If reproductive rights are important to a person, then politics is personal and important to them. If someone is poor and rely on food stamps, then politics is personal and important them. If politics isn't personal for you, i'm glad for you, but i think you can understand why it can be very personal for others. There was never an American consensus. There is just a dominant culture that tries to erase a history of conflict and astroturf it with a false narrative of unity.

vkou 11y ago
I'm disappointed that you're getting downvoted - this point rings very true (And is quite reminiscent of the sentiment in A Letter from a Burmingham Jail[1]). [1] http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.h...

mapt 11y ago

Would you be okay if your child married a neo-Nazi who believed strongly in the white nation's victory in the coming race-war? Because that's politics. I wouldn't let someone like that near my children at Christmas because of potential memetic contagion, much less enjoy having a conversation with them. Lesser degrees of disagreement are lesser degrees of disagreement, but political positions are personal beliefs about the philosophy of how we cooperate with each other and what we should be doing, not simply different teams to root for at the big game every four years.

tsycho 11y ago
Not sure if you meant it this way, but the insight that I drew from your comment was: When we think that either A or B are not super important beliefs, or we are observing from such a distance that the differences between A and B seem small, then we feel the people are narrow minded and prejudiced if they strongly hold on to their belief and are openly discriminatory against the other. However, when we personally and strongly think that one of the beliefs is completely evil or unacceptable, then we feel that the distinction is justified and that it's okay to not just oppose it, but also feel confident enough to do so openly and with pride. TLDR; It's much easier to be non-discriminatory if we (or our belief system) don't (doesn't) have any skin in the game.
philh 11y ago
> Would you be okay if your child married a neo-Nazi who believed strongly in the white nation's victory in the coming race-war? I would probably be unhappy about that. But - as you say, lesser degrees of disagreement are lesser degrees of disagreement. I don't think that it's always making politics too personal, to be upset about the political opinions of your child's spouse. I do think that if those political opinions are held by ~50% of the country, then that does seem to be making politics too personal.
Amezarak 11y ago
> Because that's politics. I wouldn't let someone like that near my children at Christmas because of potential memetic contagion, much less enjoy having a conversation with them. I find this comment interesting. I think that most people, or perhaps most people just a few years ago, tolerated such ideas because they knew they didn't stand a chance in the battleground of ideas; you didn't have to worry about your children picking it up because it was so obviously wrong. This, on the other hand, implies that ideas can be so dangerous people (especially children? only children?) must avoid exposure to them lest they be swayed.

petra 11y ago

>> many Americans would be deeply upset if their child were to marry someone of the opposite political party. I's not a political problem , it's a societal one. Even in Israel , where there's has been no consensus and there has been quite a bit of political polarization ,most people don't take it that personal.

epimetheus 11y ago

My family was traditionally extreme right wing (My dad likes Trump, is racist, is a young earth creationist, etc), but both my sister and I ended up being pretty moderate, if slightly liberal leaning (we are both Socially Liberal, Financially Conservative), and my wife, who has similar parents (though not as extreme) is considering voting Democrat (Sanders, but not Hillary, definitely not Trump, if he wins, we might move to Canada - for real) Anecdata and all that, but I still get along well with my parents, and my wife, hers. We avoid religion and politics (though if it comes up we kinda stay quiet while the other rants, no arguing). I consider myself Moderate and really don't like the "foam at the mouth" extremes on either side, to be honest, I don't understand the need to go to that extreme, and to fight and argue so passionately about it.

rwmurrayVT 11y ago
This is a bit off topic, but how exactly do you plan on moving to Canada? My longterm girlfriend is Canadian and I am American. I'm a mechanical engineer with work experience. I have yet to find a realistic way for me to just "move to Canada".
- guyzero 11y ago
  There's a point-based skills assessment for skilled workers. If you get 67 points you can immigrate to Canada and become a permanent resident. Once you're there you have complete freedom of movement - it's like a green card as opposed to being on a work visa. You may be able to qualify for a NAFTA work visa as well, but if you want actual residency as an engineer you're probably better off applying for permanent residency. http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/skilled/apply-factors.asp http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/skilled/apply-factors... Canada isn't Utopia - it can be hard to find engineering jobs, housing is expensive in big cities and cost of living is higher than the US. There's a reason why so many Canadian engineers end up moving to the US.
  - randcraw 11y ago
    That's really interesting. Often in the past 20 years I've considered such a move, largely in response to the trends in US politics and policy. As a Michigander I think I have a fair sense of what it'd be like to live in the climate of the Great White North, but not as much feel for the economy or the culture. It'd be fascinating to hear from folks who have made that move, especially with a view to assimilation: Canadian citizenship.

o0o0_ooo 11y ago

I would be upset if my child married someone of either political party.