24 ms·

What is really keeping me up at night is the existential problem the US faces for the next 50 years: the ever increasingly large divide that is the polarizing o

What is really keeping me up at night is the existential problem the US faces for the next 50 years: the ever increasingly large divide that is the polarizing of the electorate. We have to come together as Americans or someone will divide and conquer us.

louwrentius 6y ago
The past four years and this election has exposed some deep problems within American Society. If about 47% of your country was happy to kill democracy and reward immoral behaviour just to retain power, often justified by religious beliefs... And Trump is not gone yet... Who knows what the Republicans will do with the stacked Supreme Court...
- paulddraper 6y ago
  > If about 47% of your country was happy to kill democracy If you think half the country wants to rewrite the Constitution and remove democracy...I'm not really sure what to say.
  - chillwaves 6y ago
    It's more of the half of the 47% who are in the cult of personality. I don't think they were against democracy so much as for Trump (but it does go to show how little some folks care about democracy when they are losing).
  - aranelsurion 6y ago
    I guess almost nobody wants to 'remove democracy' even in the least democratic places. A more plausible explanation here would be indifference. Maybe they don't want to remove democracy, but not exactly trying to uphold it over everything else either. Maybe seeing your cult of personality hero in office, or your religion or your flavour of boogieman (=not losing the country to commies kind of thinking) has ultimately higher priority than keeping the democracy alive. I'm not saying that's what is happening, I'm just saying I can see how masses can smother democracy without specifically having the intention to kill it. disclaimer: non-US, my opinion on anything US would be at best inaccurate.
- dantheman 6y ago
  I think you need to take a step back and really try understand those who disagree with you - your views or maybe just the way you express it is toxic and dividing. If you can't think of one reason why someone might not want to vote your candidate I feel sorry for you. There are many valid reasons to vote for all candidates and the weighting of the issues is personal and perhaps not everyone agrees with the weighting that you do.
- read_if_gay_ 6y ago
  > If about 47% of your country was happy to kill democracy and reward immoral behaviour just to retain power And these 47% would say exactly the same thing about the others. That’s the divide GP was pointing out and ironically your response is perpetuating it. Stop dehumanizing people.
  - louwrentius 6y ago
    It's funny that you ask me to stop dehumanising people. But what did that 47% do constantly for four years? What do you think those 47% want with gays, abortion (is murder!!!!) and foreigners? Knowing full well what this last administration is up to?
    - read_if_gay_ 6y ago
      Are you seriously arguing "but they do it too"?
      - louwrentius 6y ago
        No, the dehumanising was mostly one particular side.
        read_if_gay_ 6y ago
        That’s not even true. Stop thinking that way if you ever want this country to unite.
    - kortilla 6y ago
      > What do you think those 47% want with gays, abortion (is murder!!!!) and foreigners? Trump didn’t run on an anti-gay platform. You’re right that anti-abortion is still big. Until you can convince people that it’s not murder, it’s pretty hard to get them to back down from that stance. This is honestly the only reason the Republicans trap so much of the religious vote. “Foreigners” is also not something Republicans are against, it’s illegal immigration that’s the complaint. That’s why they support reforms that still allow significant immigration.
- rtx 6y ago
  This is a very western view, you have war criminals as former presidents. This was not the worst of the US. You have people bombing weddings and you find this to be the worst.
  - mindslight 6y ago
    As someone who is no fan of the warmongers, imperialist US policy, or the debt treadmill that fuels them, I would still rather have a conservative president that serves the US power structure, than a president that shirks his job during a domestic crisis and kills a quarter million Americans. Sorry rest of the world, we will get back to trying to stop the war machine after we get our own house in order. (Also, witnessing the ceding of Hong Kong to China two decades ahead of schedule did make me appreciate the projection of soft power where USG had been keeping order without dropping bombs)
  - tonitosou 6y ago
    exactly. the fact that hes the only president in recent history not to wage a war should be reason enough for a nobel if we gave it to obama
    - pcestrada 6y ago
      he was too inept to start war
- ben_w 6y ago
  I would be surprised if as many as half of those who voted for him believed that they were voting to either kill democracy or rewarding immoral behaviour. Perhaps I’m overly-cynical, but in my (limited) experience, most people just don’t pay enough attention for such motivations — or even expectations — to be plausible.
  - louwrentius 6y ago
    It's probably worse: they want abortions illegal and gays back in the closet. Look at the packing of the SC.
    - nickysielicki 6y ago
      Filling vacancies is not what "court packing" means. That's never what it has meant. Court packing is when you create new positions (and thus, vacancies) to fill. Filling a lot of court vacancies is not court packing. And you know this. And Joe Biden knew this when he made the same claim in one of the debates. It's gaslighting, and it bothers me that absolutely nobody called him out on it. Court packing is a red line that nobody should cross. I feel it's important that we all choose our words carefully so that it continues to stay off the table.
- jl6 6y ago
  IMHO if you ask Americans bluntly if they’d be willing to end democracy so that their candidate remains in power, you’d get only a small percentage agreeing. What actually happened was that large numbers of voters are stuck in a filter bubble and their only news sources were telling them the election was being stolen. So by supporting Trump they probably thought they were defending democracy. Of course, those particular news stories were pure lies. But we should focus on the peddlers of lies more than those who were duped by them.
1_player 6y ago
What surprises me is how politicised American teenagers have become nowadays. I'm a (European) Millenial, and when I was 14 neither I nor my peers had any faith or interest in politics. Have a look on Reddit, where most of the population is US-based teenagers: in that place politics has infected every single discussion. /r/The_Donald was a bunch of angry teenagers. Meh, I must have become a cynical grumpy old person: to me politics has always been a game for rich, old people.
- bradlys 6y ago
  It could be you were just checked out. I certainly paid quite a bit of attention during the Bush years. (When I was a teenager) I wouldn’t say many of my peers paid as much attention but I grew up in a very conservative and rural area.
  - 1_player 6y ago
    I did pay attention during the Bush era as well, I remember buying my first newspaper when US invaded Afghanistan. The point is none of us had any faith in those old farts. We wanted change and none of the parties represented change, they actually were the status quo to fight against. Now it's like hope for a better, radically different world has just disappeared. It's with us or against us. There's no third choice.
  - Karrot_Kream 6y ago
    I think it depends on how threatened you felt growing up. I grew up quite poor, and politics was a big part of my teenage years, because there weren't very many legitimate paths to stability or success where I grew up in the US. Friends I made as an adult who grew up in the more traditional upper-middle class milleu that make up Silicon Valley tech company rank-and-file were much more apolitical at that age.
- csnover 6y ago
  I mean, at least on the surface, things seemed pretty optimistic in the late 1980s through the 1990s, from what I remember. It wasn’t a utopia, but it’s easy to see how there would be less pressure for young people to be involved in politics. The Cold War ended and the USSR peacefully dissolved, democracy was ascendant, the Good Friday Agreement ended The Troubles, East and West Germany reunified, the Schengen Area and the Eurozone were established, the International Space Station opened an era of international cooperation in peaceful space exploration, life expectancy was up, disposable income was up, new and amazing technologies were developed at record pace, substantially improved treatments for fatal conditions like HIV and cancer were entering the market, we’d nearly cracked the human genome, we’d made great progress in eradicating infectious diseases, people around the world were being lifted out of poverty, crime was down, the Western economy was strong. The world seemed less divided and closer together than ever. Today, tensions between superpowers are up. Russia and North Korea have renewed the threat of nuclear armed conflict. The UK exited the EU. There’s an obesity crisis. Many of our amazing technologies have turned out to be terribly unhealthy and destabilising. Authoritarianism is on the rise, along with domestic and sectarian terrorism. The Western economy was shattered in 2008 and now there’s a global pandemic. Immigrants fleeing instability in other countries have led to political upheaval and conflict. The US became an unreliable ally. And, above all, the existential threat of climate change looms over their entire future.
KitDuncan 6y ago
Should just get rid of the two party system and in 20 years there won't be a divide... Of course easier said then done.
- projektfu 6y ago
  Unfortunately that would require a revolution. The system is designed to prevent substantial change because the players are already aligned with its incentives. The last big systemic change was direct election of Senators in 1913.
pjbk 6y ago
Perhaps that is happening already, and some of the events we have seen in the last months are not by our own making but fabricated?
lvs 6y ago
This divide is a business plan, not an organic phenomenon. If you want advertising revenue, you must build a cult of fanatical viewers/clickers. We won't solve this until we deal with advertising as a revenue stream for media.
luminati 6y ago
I fear this too. As someone who had read a fair bit of the history of India, and how the British/east India company mind-fucked and pillaged them it scares the hell out of me. The after effects are still there even 70 years later. “History doesn’t repeat, it rhymes”
unstatusthequo 6y ago
Also realize that may not be possible. Regardless of who won this, half of the country does not approve. So the division you speak of has already occurred. Probably earlier than now. I could imagine a time when a Roman said the same thing you did there. "let's unite" and then the eventual collapse happens. I don't really see "conquer" in the normal sense, but the U.S. will be weaker and other countries will surely gain as a result of our division. Then I think I need to get out of here, and I wonder where I would go in the world? In the end, I agree with your sentiment. It's disturbing. The polarization is palpable. M
putlake 6y ago
I feel like a big reason for the divide is the filter bubbles[1] the public has trapped themselves in. I wanted to force myself to read news from both sides of the divide rather than simply NPR, which was my go-to source for several years. In spite of RSS readers being essentially dead, there are still RSS feeds available. So I mashed up feeds from 10 left and right leaning sources each and created Smash the Bubble[2], mostly for personal consumption. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filter_bubble https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filter_bubble [2]https://smashthebubble.com/ https://smashthebubble.com/
- projektfu 6y ago
  I have tried to do the same, signing up for the Flip Side newsletter, among other things. I think it’s still hard for me, an over-educated progressive, to understand the American right. Here are the problems: 1. Reality is often only reported in “liberal” news sources. A lot of information is censored on right wing sources. 2. Both types of news sources editorialize in the headline. Sometimes it’s hard to know they even refer to the same story. 3. People trying to achieve balance in reporting often relocate players onto the wrong team. For example, the Mueller report is not a “left wing” document and balance is not achieved by putting Mueller against a Trump surrogate. 4. “Liberal” sources already include plenty of right wing opinions. For example, David Brooks and Ross Douthat write for the New York Times. There’s no equivalent among the Wall St Journal columnists or Fox News hosts. 5. News stories found only in right wing sources are usually mendacious. For example, reporting about the Michigan ballot glitch without mentioning that it was human error and corrected before reporting the results. Fundamentally, it’s not that we have differing information, it’s that we only accept information that confirms our world view. I can read dozens of articles written from the point of view that universal health care will destroy the country and not one will ever resonate with me. It’s just too silly to me.
  - putlake 6y ago
    > For example, David Brooks and Ross Douthat write for the New York Times. There’s no equivalent among the Wall St Journal columnists or Fox News hosts. I used to think that too but it's not true. Example: https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/president-elect-joe-biden-together-leslie-marshall https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/president-elect-joe-biden-to...
swsieber 6y ago
I personally subscribe to the idea that week need to kill the self serving two party duopoly[0] Part of the problem is the candidates the parties are fielding. I know lots of people who view trump, clinton and biden as corrupt. None of them are good candidates. 0. https://freakonomics.com/podcast/politics-industry/ https://freakonomics.com/podcast/politics-industry/
- hobofan 6y ago
  From the perspective of a European outsider, I very much agree. A lot of problems seem to stem from the two party system. I'm just wondering if there is a good way for a strong third (and fourth and fifth...) party to form under the current system? Are there any good examples from other countries making that transition, and can they be applied in the US as well?
  - antod 6y ago
    New Zealand switched from a mostly 2 party first past the post system to a proportional multiparty (usually) coalition system about 25 years ago. We would also end up with governments that won the most seats but lost the popular vote. IMO we have had much better quality governments since from either end of the spectrum. We had a notorious populist authoritarian in the 70s and early 80s, and I don't see those days coming back.
  - PeterisP 6y ago
    The current system is game-theory-stable given the conditions of the USA structure of first-past-the-post. You can look at the historical third parties in USA - a third party can form and gain power (with great difficulty) but then it pretty much immediately displaces one of the two parties, so you're back to a two-party system just with different two parties.
  - wolfhumble 6y ago
    > From the perspective of a European outsider, I very much agree. A lot of problems seem to stem from the two party system. I used to think the same way, but many (most?) countries in Europe end up having coalitions anyway, so you end up really having just two blocks. More parties might give you the option to choose a party that is more after your taste, but in reality you (often) end up with coalitions that take most ideas from the strongest party within the coalition. I would assume the same thing would happen within the Democratic/Republican Party in the States as well, i.e. a compromise between the left/right wings within these parties based on what is shared by most members(?)
markus_zhang 6y ago
From what I see, the polarization is continuing to grow, and with Trump grabbing 70 million votes even when his gov failed majestically at beating the virus, the next few years is going to ne interesting.
- the-dude 6y ago
  Practically all western governments failed majestically.
  - ciceryadam 6y ago
    Germany is doing quite okay.
    - the-dude 6y ago
      Oh, really? As a direct neighbor, I hadn't noticed.
      - ciceryadam 6y ago
        As a direct neighbor from the opposite side (Czech republic), I think they handled it well so far. They don't have a high rate of death per capita, maintained a level of alertness during this summer, and went to a partial lock down only this Monday. Of course I think that Denmark, Norway and Finland handled it better, but those are tiny countries, which makes it hard to compare with US.
- kelnos 6y ago
  Most people I know are happy and celebrating, but I can't seem to get that worked up. Certainly I'm glad Trump lost, but the 70M votes he got, and the fact that this was a close election... man, this country is screwed long term if we can't figure out a way to find some common ground and listen to each other. Being at each other's throats all the time will only destroy us all in the long run.
  - 6y ago
jonwinstanley 6y ago
Totally agree. How do we adjust our laws quick enough to stop strongmen using social media to whip up fear and anger?
theonemind 6y ago
It seems like the divide comes from an escalating fixation on having your side win, rather than doing the best for the country. As each side focuses more on winning even at the expense of public good, the other side has to ratchet up to match it to get any input at all. I sort of feel like we're in that old tale where king Solomon says they should cut the baby in two, and both sides are like "ok, I'll take my half of the baby, then." Ultimately, though, I personally blame the extreme right wing, mostly. I think they're dying, and they're not going down without a fight, like, you know, disinformation, bullying, holding the country hostage metaphorically, whatever. If they're going down, the whole system's going down with them.
glitcher 6y ago
IMO the saddest part of it all is that many people seem to be choosing paths of division. I have different family members who are firmly inside bubbles on both sides of the political spectrum. And all of them are way too comfortable in parroting the divisive language they hear on their favorite network news channels. The terms right/left, red/blue, republican/democrat, conservative/liberal are commonly used with insulting tones towards opposing sides. And when they use these broad terms they seem totally content that they have made a strong argument on some issue that actually boils down to making huge over-generalizations of people, and over-simplifications of complex issues. I don't accept the demonization of fellow Americans based on bad faith arguments, but I sometimes I feel like this is a minority opinion. We should absolutely fight against specific events, behaviors, political rhetoric, and policies we disagree with. And sometimes individuals or small groups deserve to have their actions demonized as completely against our values. But looking for simple labels to place on literally millions of complex humans in order to point at simple answers to issues where simple answers don't exist is a fool's game.
- aerovistae 6y ago
  I am not aboard with this type of "both sides are problematic" thinking. Only one side denies climate change. Only one side denies medical consensus on vaccines and pandemic prevention techniques. Only one side is okay with mocking a disabled reporter (to pick one egregious example among countless). Yes, if you're red/republican/conservative/right, you're voting for those things, you're signing off on them. We don't need to "come together and find common ground" on those issues. We need to figure out how truth and decency lost their footing and slipped off the center stage.
  - raunakdag 6y ago
    Well said. The “both sides” thinking only serves to take us even more the tipping point of a scale that’s been moved FAR too much to the extreme right. America isn’t a left/right nation anymore - it’s a far far right and center nation.
  - Monobrow02 6y ago
    Your side good. Other side evil.
eecc 6y ago
I was talking to a US expat this afternoon. Besides the congratulations and commenting the expectations for the new administration we reflected on the damage the last 30-40 years of propaganda for individualism have made. Individuals, their inner world and potential are very important, but you have systematically mortified the importance - and the “evolutionary advantage” - of the human societal organization. Over optimization for the hedonistic “self bootstrapped” man turned most of you - that don’t have the strength, but most likely the luck, to be Randian heroes - into the exact opposite: submissive corporate drones. It’s time to lay the groundwork for long term change, isn’t it?
- projektfu 6y ago
  Yes, the basic human societal unit is the tribe, as evidenced by Dunbar’s number. Within tribes, interconnected extended families used to facilitate the social cohesion. In the US, both the small-scale society and the extended family have been harmed by atomizing and dispersing people for mostly economic reasons.
  - arkis22 6y ago
    this is absolutely incorrect. there is literally 0 reason to dispersing your family for economic reasons. It is always cheaper to cohabitate and long term care facilities are extremely expensive.... Especially in the US.
- arkis22 6y ago
  When I think of submissive corporate drones, it's people in public unions. Not the people at the mercy of Randian heroes like the entrepreneurs of silicon valley. I had a friend who left public teaching because they wanted to own him and his votes for 35 years and a pension he'd never vote away. (not a drone right?) As opposed those awful individuals who move between for profit companies choosing who and what they work for.
  - eecc 6y ago
    Or the employee of a sprawling corporation with a family to feed, a mortgage to pay, a family health plan to pay, college and university for their children to pay. Tell me someone that is more beholden to their master than these modern peasants. Yet their daily delusion is to be as free as Bezos could dream of.
mkhpalm 6y ago
> We have to come together as Americans or someone will divide and conquer us. I feel like we're likely already in the middle of a divide and conquer situation.
dimitrios1 6y ago
An amicable solution instead of civil war, or being divided and conquered: how about a national divorce?
bane 6y ago
I absolutely agree with you and I think we've gotten ourselves into a state where the "fix" (whatever it may be) will be so unpalatable to either party or to anybody who wants to survive in a political environment that it'll be impossible to implement. For example, want to bring manufacturing jobs back? 1. Implement trade-protectionist tariffs and import restrictions. 2. Unionize rural workforces to make the pay and work conditions attractive. 3. Offer massive tax incentives to build manufacturing centers in rural states. 4. Reinstitute a manufacturing oriented education system that outputs ready-to-work trained trade employees. The parties are too far apart now to be able to put in place something like this.
- echelon 6y ago
  Build strong international relationships. Open the gates for immigration. Work with allies to impose extreme tariffs on China. Build manufacturing in India, Mexico, Vietnam, and Africa. Own the shipping. Offer US statehood to Taiwan and keep the South China Sea open to all US Allies. Korea, Japan, Vietnam, etc.
  - bane 6y ago
    Congratulations, you just proposed the exact opposite.
    - echelon 6y ago
      I don't think your plan works. US manufacturing is too expensive without extensive automation. And automation won't feed workers. We need to protect our lead in tech and information and attack China's chances of leapfrogging us. Protect our industries, protect democracy. Build up our allies. Build a stronger world. The risk is that China becomes better than us at everything we do. Then what do we have? Being protectionist is anti-growth. Industry and innovation shut down. A new cold war is coming. The sooner we get ahead of it, the better prepared we'll be. The future is knowledge work. Manufacturing domestically is regressive. We need to put the supply chain in the hands of our developing allies. We shouldn't want to train anyone to do menial jobs anyway. We're about to enter an era where we'll have plenty of creative, knowledge jobs for everyone.
worldmerge 6y ago
There was this really good take on this divide by Andrew Yang a few days ago on CNN [clip from Twitter - 0]. Yang is the only candidate I saw who seemed to understand people from all parts of the US. Also, it would have been nice to have a president who understood technology. [0] - https://twitter.com/KySportsRadio/status/1324552953861210112 https://twitter.com/KySportsRadio/status/1324552953861210112
- lalaland1125 6y ago
  If only Yang himself understood technology. His blockchain voting proposal was hilariously bad.
  - 8note 6y ago
    He does understand VC though? Just add blockchain to the name and get all the funding
  - m0llusk 6y ago
    The details of Yang's blockchain proposal may be off, but the basic idea that we could really use a strongly secured voting system and that a blockchain or other three column ledger accounting could be a part of that is sound.
- nullc 6y ago
  I prefer candidates that don't think they understand technology. Thinking you understand technology seems to reliably lead to overconfidence. That's better left to advisers, who then have their advice filter by people who are sceptical of things that aren't tried and true and well understood on the holistic basis of actual use in practice.
zebrafish 6y ago
I honestly believe this is just a return to normal for both sides. Conservatism, before being injected with neoliberalism by Thatcher and Reagan, has been about leaving other countries alone while focusing on protecting American interests. Speak softly and carry a big stick. Conservatives have never wanted US hegemony traditionally. Preservation of Bretton Woods has had to be a focus post-WWII in order to combat the spread of anti-American communism. Now that the Cold War has ended, conservatives have tried to find a way back to focusing on American interests. It’s a delicate balance that has to be struck though. I think this is also the reason for the split in the Democratic Party. “Establishment” members are focused on preserving the neoliberal Bretton Woods status quo. The progressives are focused on doing away with the oligarchy that system has created and moving towards a more socialistic global society. I believe this is really just a return to the way things used to be, before the US decided to intervene in WWII and had to find a way to pay for the massive cost of that. Conservative and liberal are not opposites like everybody thinks these days. Conservative and progressive are opposites. Liberal and authoritarian are opposites. Both parties are (or should be) focused on the American ideal of liberalism and representative government chosen by the people while either preserving traditional values or advocating for enlightenment values. However, real life is not that cut and dry, politics are messy, parties don’t fall exactly along these lines and the media plays a part in dictating who should believe what. But in general I think Trump is an indicator that we’re headed for a more traditional alignment of values. Who knows, perhaps a viable third party will emerge from this. A Conservative party, a progressive party, and a Bretton Woods establishment party.
- mcguire 6y ago
  I believe your second sentence should end as, "has been about focusing on protecting American interests while leaving other [more powerful] countries alone." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_America%E2%80%93United_States_relations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_America%E2%80%93United_S... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change_in_Latin_America https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r...
- Karrot_Kream 6y ago
  > I honestly believe this is just a return to normal for both sides. Conservatism, before being injected with neoliberalism by Thatcher and Reagan, has been about leaving other countries alone while focusing on protecting American interests. Speak softly and carry a big stick. Conservatives have never wanted US hegemony traditionally. Preservation of Bretton Woods has had to be a focus post-WWII in order to combat the spread of anti-American communism. Now that the Cold War has ended, conservatives have tried to find a way back to focusing on American interests. It’s a delicate balance that has to be struck though. I think this is also the reason for the split in the Democratic Party. “Establishment” members are focused on preserving the neoliberal Bretton Woods status quo. The progressives are focused on doing away with the oligarchy that system has created and moving towards a more socialistic global society. I would agree, to some extent, if Trump wasn't the Conservative candidate. Trump has flouted the law to the extent that very, very few American Presidents have. Where I was afraid that Obama was passing too many Executive Orders, Trump outright tried to rule by Executive Order fiat. Conservative parties pre-Bretton Woods were certainly isolationist and domestic-first, but also had a deep affection for the rule of law. I would oppose a traditionally conservative party politically, but would not be nearly as negative about it as I am about a President that seems to want to actively subvert rule of law.
Barrin92 6y ago
Devolution of power is a solution to the polarisation. The division in the country is real and deep and in some places inconsolable, rather than just a media mirage. Rather than increasingly violent competition for the presidential office or the federal government, a more flexible union is probably a sane idea. The US faces no threat of being conquered, it has the most powerful military and intelligence capacity in the world by a healthy margin. Insofar as foreign interference creates division, it's precisely the lack of decentralisation that makes these attacks dangerous.
csnover 6y ago
Yes. Probably the worst thing about this election for me is that it seems to demonstrate conclusively that 2016 was no aberration, no temporary mass hysteria, no failed experiment in electing a political outsider to “drain the swamp”. This distorted world view of us-vs-them tribalism seems to have totally consumed our political system. Objective reality is dismissed by the majority of the population—most blatantly on the right, but also, increasingly, on the left. Even more shocking to me, highly regarded election data scientists have twice now somehow been blinded to this, releasing poll after poll that fail to capture what is actually happening in the minds of the electorate. Carl Sagan, in his 1995 book ‘The Demon-Haunted World’, wrote: > I have a foreboding of an America in my children’s or grandchildren’s time — when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the key manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what’s true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness. The moment he prophesied now appears to be upon us. I don’t know how we can restore this country to one where people mostly act in good faith and try to base decisions in science and fact. I see so many incredibly compassionate people supporting the most despicable politicians. Right-wingers on Twitter repeating false talking points that the left are trying to destroy the country while tweeting about how proud they are of local youth offering free lawn care to disabled and senior citizens. Left-wingers openly insulting rural and conservative people as the scum of the earth while relentlessly supporting policies intended to improve those same peoples’ lives. How does this happen? What do we have to do—as individuals, as nations, as humans—to get it to stop?
GordonS 6y ago
I think the events of the past week have really highlighted the divide, or rather the gaping chasm. And it's a gulf that seeks almost impossible to bridge, any time soon at least - it encompasses race, education, financial status, social class, even history. Trump's actions this week have been utterly shameful. He and his cronies have lied and lied in an organised effort to sow discontent among the huge segment of republicans that appear to believe their every word (regardless of how baseless or ridiculous they may be). It seems like such a blatant attempt to subvert democracy - the kind of thing we'd expect in a tinpot dictatorship, not the "land of the free". This is not only shameful, but downright dangerous, especially with the level of gun ownership in the US. As a European, it seemed utterly incomprehensible how he has been able to get away with his actions, inactions and lies over the past few years - and I have not the words to describe how incomprehensible it is that many of his supporters are behind the past week's events.
- odessacubbage 6y ago
  was al gore utterly shameful when he contested florida? the prevailing attitude among liberals ever since is that he never should've conceded, that the bushes and the courts stole the election.
beaner 6y ago
They already are. Russia & China's tactics are not so much disinformation, but simply taking our own talking points and pushing them to us even harder.
ainiriand 6y ago
That is a very interesting point of view. I fully agree with it, I think it will be an existential threat to the country as we know it now. Do you think that the bipartidism is to blame, amongst other factors? If there were more options then some of the most radical electorate will have their own candidate and it could help divide the support they get at the Chambers. Also smaller parties could help in having more negotiation for bills and laws.
tomjen3 6y ago
What country in the world could conqueror America? You would need a better blue water navy and the ability to sustain 3 thousand miles supply lines over contested waters. As for dividing the US, I hope the lesson of this election is that you shouldn't assume what you see online is representative of the real US - otherwise it would have been a landslide for Biden.
- z9e 6y ago
  Physical borders, yes it would be near impossible to conquer us. But our digital borders (social media) are wide open. You use the power of a beast to destroy itself.
gnopgnip 6y ago
By what measure is the US more divided than in the past?
- gigatexal 6y ago
  Oh I dunno: murder of minorities by cops, vilifying an entire nation (Mexico and all the build the wall talk), increasing protests, blatant racism, nationalism being ever more accepted, to name a few.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
    Eh, it is difficult for me to respond to this in good faith, but I will make an attempt. I will open by saying something that may not be immediately apparent. The use of force by US government ( be it state or federal ), has actually decreased over the last decades ( not to look very far back, check historical records of civil rights and unions in US to get an idea of how things were handled in the past ). The only real difference now is that it is on video. But yes, I am arguing there is less of state violence now. The nation vilification is nothing new in US ( Bush "With us or against us" that made US population hate Muslims -- up until then average American barely knew; Disney WW2 propaganda just to name a few better known examples ). These days, it is China ( among others ). Do you see a pattern? Increasing protests. I can give you that. BLM protests are probably biggest event in US political scene since Tea Party . That said, I am not sure, they are bigger than civil rights movement or Vietnam war protests. They are more visible due to social media. Thankfully, they seem less widespread though. Blatant racism. Honestly, I am not sure if racism is a function of "By what measure is the US more divided than in the past?". Quite honestly, I would venture to suggest that today's racism is waay lower than at any point in US history. That said, this is just a guess. Nationalism. Again, I am not sure if racism is a function of "By what measure is the US more divided than in the past?". Historically, US gets more nationalistic as things go downhill ( WW2, red scare to name a few ). So.. I am not sure you have a point here. US is obviously divided, but the things you listed are not a function of that division. edit: added China to the example list
    - Karrot_Kream 6y ago
jmull 6y ago
Nah. We’re actually at an inflection point where before white men were the elite, no question, that was what it took to get in the door outside a few congressional districts. Now it’s still mostly that but it takes more, and due to demographic shifts it will be that less and less. The right — belatedly (far too little far too late, and quite awkwardly) — has already started outreach to Latino and black communities. They will continue but it will take a while (what an embarrassment for the party of Lincoln. FFS.). Obama was a lighting strike to those who assumed it would always be the old way, and Trump was the response to Obama. Fortunately, that failed (unfortunately it took hundreds of thousands of dead Americans to convince enough Michiganders, Wisconsinites, Pennsylvanians (I’m sure about “Michiganders”, being one myself, no idea on the others) but at least it happened.) The left, quite cleverly, responded with Biden, an old white guy in the classic mold. Literally: nothing to fear here, white peeps... but with Kamala as VP — a powerless position yet a powerful symbol (especially as the VP of a VP cum President). So It’s the changing of the guard. Republicans can no longer simply ignore black and brown people (at best) or use them as bugaboos (and then Democrats won’t be able to simply count on their votes by not actively being racist). Once the powerful engage those groups they’ll find them not to be uniform, and (hopefully) that will lead to meaningful, nuanced, deep engagement... if that happens, there will no longer be such a thing as the “black vote”. (This is further along with Latinos, where some groups aren’t too overwhelmingly for one party or the other). So... Not really an existential crisis, at least not to my mind. It’s real progress. We can no longer force certain groups into blocks based on whether we actively believe they should be subjugated or just kinda ignore them. Hallelujah.
- gigatexal 6y ago
  This makes sense to me. Then the transition of power or the changing demographics you speak of will disenfranchise those once in power and that could lead to violence (think white heavily-armed men intimidating or worse those they disagree with). This is what I fear as well.
  - Kephael 6y ago
    Yes, the fact that this is happening due to demographics and not positions "evolving" is obvious. Many recognize immigration as a tool to help Leftist parties all throughout the Western world. Eventually those who have been disenfranchised and blamed for all the ills have had enough it will certainly come to violence. Reactionaries really do not have to engage in "Democracy", democracy certainly does not last forever.
giardini 6y ago
gigatexal says>" the ever increasingly large divide that is the polarizing of the electorate. We have to come together as Americans or someone will divide and conquer us." No way. Polarization will continue. The politics of New York and California will remain anathema to the majority in "fly-over states" (e.g., Texas, Montana, etc.) for generations. The former two states (NY, CA) will economically self-destruct long before such acceptance occurs.
thatwasunusual 6y ago
> We have to come together as Americans or someone will divide and conquer us. Pardon, but isn't USA already divided approx. 50/50? From the outside (I'm from Norway), I can't even believe how shit the US politics is.
- gigatexal 6y ago
  It used to be that reps from both sides of the isle would come together on things. Think John McCain not voting to kill Obamacare as one of his last votes before he died. There was a give and take. It seems that that is what is missing.
bleepblorp 6y ago
I realize this will sound snarky and/or overly aggressive. However, I'm being entirely serious and can't quickly come up with a better way to phrase this: How do people with functioning moral compasses come together with the kind of people who see pictures of children in cages and say "America, fuck yeah?" How do people who want some form of democratic government come together with the kind of people who think it's entirely right and proper for a president to do his best to prevent his political opponents from voting -- by disrupting the postal service, by soliciting the help of multiple hostile foreign governments to smear his opponent, calling for his opponents to be imprisoned without charge, and by attempting to halt vote counting in the courts? How do people with any kind of respect for the value of human life watch video of the George Floyd killing and come together with the kind of people who watch the video and argue that the police did nothing wrong? I don't think these divides can be healed. These issues are not matters, like arguments over the size of government, where compromise is both possible and mutually beneficial. Instead, they are moral red lines about which compromise is neither possible or desirable. What the 70-odd million who voted from Trump want out of their country isn't compatible with the basic moral outlook of the 75-odd million people who voted against him. To take an extreme example, if a bunch of Nazis want to kill 10 million people, 'compromising' by agreeing to let them kill only 5 million people isn't acceptable -- and yet, this is exactly the kind of moral compromise (truly in the other sense of the word) that would be involved in bringing together Trumpist and anti-Trumpist factions. In addition to the moral divide, there is a reality/gullibility divide between the Trumpist and anti-Trumpist factions. Trumpists believe an awful lot of stuff that is factually untrue. They reject global warming and dismiss the scientific evidence as the product of a Chinese hoax to destroy America. 56% of Republicans now believe in Qanon (an ideological conspiracy theory born out of the argument that Democrats eat babies) to some extent[0]. The overwhelming majority of Trumpists get their news from Fox, a media outlet which spreads more misleading information than accurate information.[1] How does anyone with a commitment to respecting consensus reality reach people who have chosen to live in comforting fantasyland rather than cope with the world as it is? I don't see any way for the US to get out of this mess without breaking up into multiple countries. And, to the usual 'downvote to -1' crowd: what part of this analysis is wrong? [0] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election/qanon-conspiracy-mostly-true-republicans-trump-daily-kos-civiqs-poll-a9702261.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-electio... [1] https://www.politicususa.com/2015/02/06/fact-checker-finds-60-fox-news-statements-false-lie.html https://www.politicususa.com/2015/02/06/fact-checker-finds-6...
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
Tarq0n 6y ago
Political pluralism in other democratic countries seems to do a good job of countering this trend. When there's only two parties they are free to drift to ideological extremes, without other parties being able to take up the center.
bsder 6y ago
> We have to come together as Americans or someone will divide and conquer us. The problem is that the US has a historical example of what happens when the "economic engine" and the "conservative culture" reach an impasse. The "economic engine" wins. The question is how much damage will get done until that happens.
doopy1 6y ago
There's no divide larger than 50/50 which is just about where it's at.
rzz3 6y ago
Rather than blame the left or blame the right for this, I think what we really need is a third party and Instant Runoff Voting.
heresie-dabord 6y ago
US social discourse shows that people don't understand how to debate and how to negotiate with opposing views for a better outcome. These are merely group behaviours and they can change with time and education. I feel that the first structural steps must be 1./ Replace First Past the Post (it distorts the will of the people) with some version of ranked balloting (already in use in at least one US state) 2./ Dissolve or fix/improve the Electoral College
joeevans1000 6y ago
Interestingly, tech workers are responsible for such a resilient divide. Tech workers, the most numerous demographic on this thread, are the ones coding up the bubbles or creating and maintaining their infrastructure. The purpose of the bubbles is to keep you clicking or pressing. The purpose of that is to deliver ads or sell premium services. If uncomfortable views are presented a user may click or press out of the service. Those uncomfortable views are not to be confused with click bait allowed to drive bubble responses. No use blaming the architects or company leaders. If you are coding it up, maintaining the infrastructure, or providing auxiliary support to the bubble, you are responsible. The companies making the bubbles can't do it without you, and you are the one actually making it happen.
- odessacubbage 6y ago
  how would you design away filter bubbles though? people actively seek out agreement and avoid argument even when there are no filters and barely any moderation like still begets like, see the split between /pol/ and /leftypol/.
sg47 6y ago
Russia, Facebook and the media have already divided and conquered us. The conquest is over. We are just trying to collect the bits and scraps. The conqueror doesn't have to be another nation. Fox News, CNN, Twitter and Facebook are the countries that have benefited the most.
bleepblorp 6y ago
I realize this will sound snarky and/or overly aggressive. However, I'm being entirely serious and can't quickly come up with a better way to phrase this: How do people with functioning moral compasses come together with the kind of people who see pictures of children in cages and say "America, fuck yeah?" How do people who want some form of democratic government come together with the kind of people who think it's entirely right and proper for a president to do his best to prevent his political opponents from voting -- by disrupting the postal service, by soliciting the help of multiple hostile foreign governments to smear his opponent, calling for his opponents to be imprisoned without charge, and by attempting to halt vote counting in the courts? How do people with any kind of respect for the value of human life watch video of the George Floyd killing and come together with the kind of people who watch the video and argue that the police did nothing wrong? I don't think these divides can be healed. These issues are not matters, like arguments over the size of government, where compromise is both possible and mutually beneficial. Instead, they are moral red lines about which compromise is neither possible or desirable. What the 70-odd million who voted from Trump want out of their country isn't compatible with the basic moral outlook of the 75-odd million people who voted against him. To take an extreme example, if a bunch of Nazis want to kill 10 million people, 'compromising' by agreeing to let them kill only 5 million people isn't acceptable -- and yet, this is exactly the kind of moral compromise (truly in the other sense of the word) that would be involved in bringing together Trumpist and anti-Trumpist factions. In addition to the moral divide, there is a reality/gullibility divide between the Trumpist and anti-Trumpist factions. Trumpists believe an awful lot of stuff that is factually untrue. They reject global warming and dismiss the scientific evidence as the product of a Chinese hoax to destroy America. 56% of Republicans now believe in Qanon (an ideological conspiracy theory born out of the argument that Democrats eat babies) to some extent[0]. The overwhelming majority of Trumpists get their news from Fox, a media outlet which spreads more misleading information than accurate information.[1] How does anyone with a commitment to respecting consensus reality reach people who have chosen to live in comforting fantasyland rather than cope with the world as it is? I don't see any way for the US to get out of this mess without breaking up into multiple countries. And, to the usual 'downvote to -1' crowd: what part of this analysis is wrong? [0] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-electio https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-electio... [1] https://www.politicususa.com/2015/02/06/fact-checker-finds-6 https://www.politicususa.com/2015/02/06/fact-checker-finds-6...

louwrentius 6y ago

The past four years and this election has exposed some deep problems within American Society. If about 47% of your country was happy to kill democracy and reward immoral behaviour just to retain power, often justified by religious beliefs... And Trump is not gone yet... Who knows what the Republicans will do with the stacked Supreme Court...

paulddraper 6y ago
> If about 47% of your country was happy to kill democracy If you think half the country wants to rewrite the Constitution and remove democracy...I'm not really sure what to say.
- chillwaves 6y ago
  It's more of the half of the 47% who are in the cult of personality. I don't think they were against democracy so much as for Trump (but it does go to show how little some folks care about democracy when they are losing).
- aranelsurion 6y ago
  I guess almost nobody wants to 'remove democracy' even in the least democratic places. A more plausible explanation here would be indifference. Maybe they don't want to remove democracy, but not exactly trying to uphold it over everything else either. Maybe seeing your cult of personality hero in office, or your religion or your flavour of boogieman (=not losing the country to commies kind of thinking) has ultimately higher priority than keeping the democracy alive. I'm not saying that's what is happening, I'm just saying I can see how masses can smother democracy without specifically having the intention to kill it. disclaimer: non-US, my opinion on anything US would be at best inaccurate.
dantheman 6y ago
I think you need to take a step back and really try understand those who disagree with you - your views or maybe just the way you express it is toxic and dividing. If you can't think of one reason why someone might not want to vote your candidate I feel sorry for you. There are many valid reasons to vote for all candidates and the weighting of the issues is personal and perhaps not everyone agrees with the weighting that you do.
read_if_gay_ 6y ago
> If about 47% of your country was happy to kill democracy and reward immoral behaviour just to retain power And these 47% would say exactly the same thing about the others. That’s the divide GP was pointing out and ironically your response is perpetuating it. Stop dehumanizing people.
- louwrentius 6y ago
  It's funny that you ask me to stop dehumanising people. But what did that 47% do constantly for four years? What do you think those 47% want with gays, abortion (is murder!!!!) and foreigners? Knowing full well what this last administration is up to?
  - read_if_gay_ 6y ago
    Are you seriously arguing "but they do it too"?
    - louwrentius 6y ago
      No, the dehumanising was mostly one particular side.
      - read_if_gay_ 6y ago
        That’s not even true. Stop thinking that way if you ever want this country to unite.
  - kortilla 6y ago
    > What do you think those 47% want with gays, abortion (is murder!!!!) and foreigners? Trump didn’t run on an anti-gay platform. You’re right that anti-abortion is still big. Until you can convince people that it’s not murder, it’s pretty hard to get them to back down from that stance. This is honestly the only reason the Republicans trap so much of the religious vote. “Foreigners” is also not something Republicans are against, it’s illegal immigration that’s the complaint. That’s why they support reforms that still allow significant immigration.
rtx 6y ago
This is a very western view, you have war criminals as former presidents. This was not the worst of the US. You have people bombing weddings and you find this to be the worst.
- mindslight 6y ago
  As someone who is no fan of the warmongers, imperialist US policy, or the debt treadmill that fuels them, I would still rather have a conservative president that serves the US power structure, than a president that shirks his job during a domestic crisis and kills a quarter million Americans. Sorry rest of the world, we will get back to trying to stop the war machine after we get our own house in order. (Also, witnessing the ceding of Hong Kong to China two decades ahead of schedule did make me appreciate the projection of soft power where USG had been keeping order without dropping bombs)
- tonitosou 6y ago
  exactly. the fact that hes the only president in recent history not to wage a war should be reason enough for a nobel if we gave it to obama
  - pcestrada 6y ago
    he was too inept to start war
ben_w 6y ago
I would be surprised if as many as half of those who voted for him believed that they were voting to either kill democracy or rewarding immoral behaviour. Perhaps I’m overly-cynical, but in my (limited) experience, most people just don’t pay enough attention for such motivations — or even expectations — to be plausible.
- louwrentius 6y ago
  It's probably worse: they want abortions illegal and gays back in the closet. Look at the packing of the SC.
  - nickysielicki 6y ago
    Filling vacancies is not what "court packing" means. That's never what it has meant. Court packing is when you create new positions (and thus, vacancies) to fill. Filling a lot of court vacancies is not court packing. And you know this. And Joe Biden knew this when he made the same claim in one of the debates. It's gaslighting, and it bothers me that absolutely nobody called him out on it. Court packing is a red line that nobody should cross. I feel it's important that we all choose our words carefully so that it continues to stay off the table.
jl6 6y ago
IMHO if you ask Americans bluntly if they’d be willing to end democracy so that their candidate remains in power, you’d get only a small percentage agreeing. What actually happened was that large numbers of voters are stuck in a filter bubble and their only news sources were telling them the election was being stolen. So by supporting Trump they probably thought they were defending democracy. Of course, those particular news stories were pure lies. But we should focus on the peddlers of lies more than those who were duped by them.

1_player 6y ago

What surprises me is how politicised American teenagers have become nowadays. I'm a (European) Millenial, and when I was 14 neither I nor my peers had any faith or interest in politics. Have a look on Reddit, where most of the population is US-based teenagers: in that place politics has infected every single discussion. /r/The_Donald was a bunch of angry teenagers. Meh, I must have become a cynical grumpy old person: to me politics has always been a game for rich, old people.

bradlys 6y ago
It could be you were just checked out. I certainly paid quite a bit of attention during the Bush years. (When I was a teenager) I wouldn’t say many of my peers paid as much attention but I grew up in a very conservative and rural area.
- 1_player 6y ago
  I did pay attention during the Bush era as well, I remember buying my first newspaper when US invaded Afghanistan. The point is none of us had any faith in those old farts. We wanted change and none of the parties represented change, they actually were the status quo to fight against. Now it's like hope for a better, radically different world has just disappeared. It's with us or against us. There's no third choice.
- Karrot_Kream 6y ago
  I think it depends on how threatened you felt growing up. I grew up quite poor, and politics was a big part of my teenage years, because there weren't very many legitimate paths to stability or success where I grew up in the US. Friends I made as an adult who grew up in the more traditional upper-middle class milleu that make up Silicon Valley tech company rank-and-file were much more apolitical at that age.
csnover 6y ago
I mean, at least on the surface, things seemed pretty optimistic in the late 1980s through the 1990s, from what I remember. It wasn’t a utopia, but it’s easy to see how there would be less pressure for young people to be involved in politics. The Cold War ended and the USSR peacefully dissolved, democracy was ascendant, the Good Friday Agreement ended The Troubles, East and West Germany reunified, the Schengen Area and the Eurozone were established, the International Space Station opened an era of international cooperation in peaceful space exploration, life expectancy was up, disposable income was up, new and amazing technologies were developed at record pace, substantially improved treatments for fatal conditions like HIV and cancer were entering the market, we’d nearly cracked the human genome, we’d made great progress in eradicating infectious diseases, people around the world were being lifted out of poverty, crime was down, the Western economy was strong. The world seemed less divided and closer together than ever. Today, tensions between superpowers are up. Russia and North Korea have renewed the threat of nuclear armed conflict. The UK exited the EU. There’s an obesity crisis. Many of our amazing technologies have turned out to be terribly unhealthy and destabilising. Authoritarianism is on the rise, along with domestic and sectarian terrorism. The Western economy was shattered in 2008 and now there’s a global pandemic. Immigrants fleeing instability in other countries have led to political upheaval and conflict. The US became an unreliable ally. And, above all, the existential threat of climate change looms over their entire future.

KitDuncan 6y ago

Should just get rid of the two party system and in 20 years there won't be a divide... Of course easier said then done.

projektfu 6y ago
Unfortunately that would require a revolution. The system is designed to prevent substantial change because the players are already aligned with its incentives. The last big systemic change was direct election of Senators in 1913.

pjbk 6y ago

Perhaps that is happening already, and some of the events we have seen in the last months are not by our own making but fabricated?

lvs 6y ago

This divide is a business plan, not an organic phenomenon. If you want advertising revenue, you must build a cult of fanatical viewers/clickers. We won't solve this until we deal with advertising as a revenue stream for media.

luminati 6y ago

I fear this too. As someone who had read a fair bit of the history of India, and how the British/east India company mind-fucked and pillaged them it scares the hell out of me. The after effects are still there even 70 years later. “History doesn’t repeat, it rhymes”

unstatusthequo 6y ago

Also realize that may not be possible. Regardless of who won this, half of the country does not approve. So the division you speak of has already occurred. Probably earlier than now. I could imagine a time when a Roman said the same thing you did there. "let's unite" and then the eventual collapse happens. I don't really see "conquer" in the normal sense, but the U.S. will be weaker and other countries will surely gain as a result of our division. Then I think I need to get out of here, and I wonder where I would go in the world? In the end, I agree with your sentiment. It's disturbing. The polarization is palpable. M

putlake 6y ago

I feel like a big reason for the divide is the filter bubbles[1] the public has trapped themselves in. I wanted to force myself to read news from both sides of the divide rather than simply NPR, which was my go-to source for several years. In spite of RSS readers being essentially dead, there are still RSS feeds available. So I mashed up feeds from 10 left and right leaning sources each and created Smash the Bubble[2], mostly for personal consumption. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filter_bubble https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filter_bubble [2]https://smashthebubble.com/ https://smashthebubble.com/

projektfu 6y ago
I have tried to do the same, signing up for the Flip Side newsletter, among other things. I think it’s still hard for me, an over-educated progressive, to understand the American right. Here are the problems: 1. Reality is often only reported in “liberal” news sources. A lot of information is censored on right wing sources. 2. Both types of news sources editorialize in the headline. Sometimes it’s hard to know they even refer to the same story. 3. People trying to achieve balance in reporting often relocate players onto the wrong team. For example, the Mueller report is not a “left wing” document and balance is not achieved by putting Mueller against a Trump surrogate. 4. “Liberal” sources already include plenty of right wing opinions. For example, David Brooks and Ross Douthat write for the New York Times. There’s no equivalent among the Wall St Journal columnists or Fox News hosts. 5. News stories found only in right wing sources are usually mendacious. For example, reporting about the Michigan ballot glitch without mentioning that it was human error and corrected before reporting the results. Fundamentally, it’s not that we have differing information, it’s that we only accept information that confirms our world view. I can read dozens of articles written from the point of view that universal health care will destroy the country and not one will ever resonate with me. It’s just too silly to me.
- putlake 6y ago
  > For example, David Brooks and Ross Douthat write for the New York Times. There’s no equivalent among the Wall St Journal columnists or Fox News hosts. I used to think that too but it's not true. Example: https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/president-elect-joe-biden-together-leslie-marshall https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/president-elect-joe-biden-to...

swsieber 6y ago

I personally subscribe to the idea that week need to kill the self serving two party duopoly[0] Part of the problem is the candidates the parties are fielding. I know lots of people who view trump, clinton and biden as corrupt. None of them are good candidates. 0. https://freakonomics.com/podcast/politics-industry/ https://freakonomics.com/podcast/politics-industry/

hobofan 6y ago
From the perspective of a European outsider, I very much agree. A lot of problems seem to stem from the two party system. I'm just wondering if there is a good way for a strong third (and fourth and fifth...) party to form under the current system? Are there any good examples from other countries making that transition, and can they be applied in the US as well?
- antod 6y ago
  New Zealand switched from a mostly 2 party first past the post system to a proportional multiparty (usually) coalition system about 25 years ago. We would also end up with governments that won the most seats but lost the popular vote. IMO we have had much better quality governments since from either end of the spectrum. We had a notorious populist authoritarian in the 70s and early 80s, and I don't see those days coming back.
- PeterisP 6y ago
  The current system is game-theory-stable given the conditions of the USA structure of first-past-the-post. You can look at the historical third parties in USA - a third party can form and gain power (with great difficulty) but then it pretty much immediately displaces one of the two parties, so you're back to a two-party system just with different two parties.
- wolfhumble 6y ago
  > From the perspective of a European outsider, I very much agree. A lot of problems seem to stem from the two party system. I used to think the same way, but many (most?) countries in Europe end up having coalitions anyway, so you end up really having just two blocks. More parties might give you the option to choose a party that is more after your taste, but in reality you (often) end up with coalitions that take most ideas from the strongest party within the coalition. I would assume the same thing would happen within the Democratic/Republican Party in the States as well, i.e. a compromise between the left/right wings within these parties based on what is shared by most members(?)

markus_zhang 6y ago

From what I see, the polarization is continuing to grow, and with Trump grabbing 70 million votes even when his gov failed majestically at beating the virus, the next few years is going to ne interesting.

the-dude 6y ago
Practically all western governments failed majestically.
- ciceryadam 6y ago
  Germany is doing quite okay.
  - the-dude 6y ago
    Oh, really? As a direct neighbor, I hadn't noticed.
    - ciceryadam 6y ago
      As a direct neighbor from the opposite side (Czech republic), I think they handled it well so far. They don't have a high rate of death per capita, maintained a level of alertness during this summer, and went to a partial lock down only this Monday. Of course I think that Denmark, Norway and Finland handled it better, but those are tiny countries, which makes it hard to compare with US.
kelnos 6y ago
Most people I know are happy and celebrating, but I can't seem to get that worked up. Certainly I'm glad Trump lost, but the 70M votes he got, and the fact that this was a close election... man, this country is screwed long term if we can't figure out a way to find some common ground and listen to each other. Being at each other's throats all the time will only destroy us all in the long run.
- 6y ago

jonwinstanley 6y ago

Totally agree. How do we adjust our laws quick enough to stop strongmen using social media to whip up fear and anger?

theonemind 6y ago

It seems like the divide comes from an escalating fixation on having your side win, rather than doing the best for the country. As each side focuses more on winning even at the expense of public good, the other side has to ratchet up to match it to get any input at all. I sort of feel like we're in that old tale where king Solomon says they should cut the baby in two, and both sides are like "ok, I'll take my half of the baby, then." Ultimately, though, I personally blame the extreme right wing, mostly. I think they're dying, and they're not going down without a fight, like, you know, disinformation, bullying, holding the country hostage metaphorically, whatever. If they're going down, the whole system's going down with them.

glitcher 6y ago

IMO the saddest part of it all is that many people seem to be choosing paths of division. I have different family members who are firmly inside bubbles on both sides of the political spectrum. And all of them are way too comfortable in parroting the divisive language they hear on their favorite network news channels. The terms right/left, red/blue, republican/democrat, conservative/liberal are commonly used with insulting tones towards opposing sides. And when they use these broad terms they seem totally content that they have made a strong argument on some issue that actually boils down to making huge over-generalizations of people, and over-simplifications of complex issues. I don't accept the demonization of fellow Americans based on bad faith arguments, but I sometimes I feel like this is a minority opinion. We should absolutely fight against specific events, behaviors, political rhetoric, and policies we disagree with. And sometimes individuals or small groups deserve to have their actions demonized as completely against our values. But looking for simple labels to place on literally millions of complex humans in order to point at simple answers to issues where simple answers don't exist is a fool's game.

aerovistae 6y ago
I am not aboard with this type of "both sides are problematic" thinking. Only one side denies climate change. Only one side denies medical consensus on vaccines and pandemic prevention techniques. Only one side is okay with mocking a disabled reporter (to pick one egregious example among countless). Yes, if you're red/republican/conservative/right, you're voting for those things, you're signing off on them. We don't need to "come together and find common ground" on those issues. We need to figure out how truth and decency lost their footing and slipped off the center stage.
- raunakdag 6y ago
  Well said. The “both sides” thinking only serves to take us even more the tipping point of a scale that’s been moved FAR too much to the extreme right. America isn’t a left/right nation anymore - it’s a far far right and center nation.
- Monobrow02 6y ago
  Your side good. Other side evil.

eecc 6y ago

I was talking to a US expat this afternoon. Besides the congratulations and commenting the expectations for the new administration we reflected on the damage the last 30-40 years of propaganda for individualism have made. Individuals, their inner world and potential are very important, but you have systematically mortified the importance - and the “evolutionary advantage” - of the human societal organization. Over optimization for the hedonistic “self bootstrapped” man turned most of you - that don’t have the strength, but most likely the luck, to be Randian heroes - into the exact opposite: submissive corporate drones. It’s time to lay the groundwork for long term change, isn’t it?

projektfu 6y ago
Yes, the basic human societal unit is the tribe, as evidenced by Dunbar’s number. Within tribes, interconnected extended families used to facilitate the social cohesion. In the US, both the small-scale society and the extended family have been harmed by atomizing and dispersing people for mostly economic reasons.
- arkis22 6y ago
  this is absolutely incorrect. there is literally 0 reason to dispersing your family for economic reasons. It is always cheaper to cohabitate and long term care facilities are extremely expensive.... Especially in the US.
arkis22 6y ago
When I think of submissive corporate drones, it's people in public unions. Not the people at the mercy of Randian heroes like the entrepreneurs of silicon valley. I had a friend who left public teaching because they wanted to own him and his votes for 35 years and a pension he'd never vote away. (not a drone right?) As opposed those awful individuals who move between for profit companies choosing who and what they work for.
- eecc 6y ago
  Or the employee of a sprawling corporation with a family to feed, a mortgage to pay, a family health plan to pay, college and university for their children to pay. Tell me someone that is more beholden to their master than these modern peasants. Yet their daily delusion is to be as free as Bezos could dream of.

mkhpalm 6y ago

> We have to come together as Americans or someone will divide and conquer us. I feel like we're likely already in the middle of a divide and conquer situation.

dimitrios1 6y ago

An amicable solution instead of civil war, or being divided and conquered: how about a national divorce?

bane 6y ago

I absolutely agree with you and I think we've gotten ourselves into a state where the "fix" (whatever it may be) will be so unpalatable to either party or to anybody who wants to survive in a political environment that it'll be impossible to implement. For example, want to bring manufacturing jobs back? 1. Implement trade-protectionist tariffs and import restrictions. 2. Unionize rural workforces to make the pay and work conditions attractive. 3. Offer massive tax incentives to build manufacturing centers in rural states. 4. Reinstitute a manufacturing oriented education system that outputs ready-to-work trained trade employees. The parties are too far apart now to be able to put in place something like this.

echelon 6y ago
Build strong international relationships. Open the gates for immigration. Work with allies to impose extreme tariffs on China. Build manufacturing in India, Mexico, Vietnam, and Africa. Own the shipping. Offer US statehood to Taiwan and keep the South China Sea open to all US Allies. Korea, Japan, Vietnam, etc.
- bane 6y ago
  Congratulations, you just proposed the exact opposite.
  - echelon 6y ago
    I don't think your plan works. US manufacturing is too expensive without extensive automation. And automation won't feed workers. We need to protect our lead in tech and information and attack China's chances of leapfrogging us. Protect our industries, protect democracy. Build up our allies. Build a stronger world. The risk is that China becomes better than us at everything we do. Then what do we have? Being protectionist is anti-growth. Industry and innovation shut down. A new cold war is coming. The sooner we get ahead of it, the better prepared we'll be. The future is knowledge work. Manufacturing domestically is regressive. We need to put the supply chain in the hands of our developing allies. We shouldn't want to train anyone to do menial jobs anyway. We're about to enter an era where we'll have plenty of creative, knowledge jobs for everyone.

worldmerge 6y ago

There was this really good take on this divide by Andrew Yang a few days ago on CNN [clip from Twitter - 0]. Yang is the only candidate I saw who seemed to understand people from all parts of the US. Also, it would have been nice to have a president who understood technology. [0] - https://twitter.com/KySportsRadio/status/1324552953861210112 https://twitter.com/KySportsRadio/status/1324552953861210112

lalaland1125 6y ago
If only Yang himself understood technology. His blockchain voting proposal was hilariously bad.
- 8note 6y ago
  He does understand VC though? Just add blockchain to the name and get all the funding
- m0llusk 6y ago
  The details of Yang's blockchain proposal may be off, but the basic idea that we could really use a strongly secured voting system and that a blockchain or other three column ledger accounting could be a part of that is sound.
nullc 6y ago
I prefer candidates that don't think they understand technology. Thinking you understand technology seems to reliably lead to overconfidence. That's better left to advisers, who then have their advice filter by people who are sceptical of things that aren't tried and true and well understood on the holistic basis of actual use in practice.

zebrafish 6y ago

I honestly believe this is just a return to normal for both sides. Conservatism, before being injected with neoliberalism by Thatcher and Reagan, has been about leaving other countries alone while focusing on protecting American interests. Speak softly and carry a big stick. Conservatives have never wanted US hegemony traditionally. Preservation of Bretton Woods has had to be a focus post-WWII in order to combat the spread of anti-American communism. Now that the Cold War has ended, conservatives have tried to find a way back to focusing on American interests. It’s a delicate balance that has to be struck though. I think this is also the reason for the split in the Democratic Party. “Establishment” members are focused on preserving the neoliberal Bretton Woods status quo. The progressives are focused on doing away with the oligarchy that system has created and moving towards a more socialistic global society. I believe this is really just a return to the way things used to be, before the US decided to intervene in WWII and had to find a way to pay for the massive cost of that. Conservative and liberal are not opposites like everybody thinks these days. Conservative and progressive are opposites. Liberal and authoritarian are opposites. Both parties are (or should be) focused on the American ideal of liberalism and representative government chosen by the people while either preserving traditional values or advocating for enlightenment values. However, real life is not that cut and dry, politics are messy, parties don’t fall exactly along these lines and the media plays a part in dictating who should believe what. But in general I think Trump is an indicator that we’re headed for a more traditional alignment of values. Who knows, perhaps a viable third party will emerge from this. A Conservative party, a progressive party, and a Bretton Woods establishment party.

mcguire 6y ago
I believe your second sentence should end as, "has been about focusing on protecting American interests while leaving other [more powerful] countries alone." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_America%E2%80%93United_States_relations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_America%E2%80%93United_S... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change_in_Latin_America https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r...
Karrot_Kream 6y ago
> I honestly believe this is just a return to normal for both sides. Conservatism, before being injected with neoliberalism by Thatcher and Reagan, has been about leaving other countries alone while focusing on protecting American interests. Speak softly and carry a big stick. Conservatives have never wanted US hegemony traditionally. Preservation of Bretton Woods has had to be a focus post-WWII in order to combat the spread of anti-American communism. Now that the Cold War has ended, conservatives have tried to find a way back to focusing on American interests. It’s a delicate balance that has to be struck though. I think this is also the reason for the split in the Democratic Party. “Establishment” members are focused on preserving the neoliberal Bretton Woods status quo. The progressives are focused on doing away with the oligarchy that system has created and moving towards a more socialistic global society. I would agree, to some extent, if Trump wasn't the Conservative candidate. Trump has flouted the law to the extent that very, very few American Presidents have. Where I was afraid that Obama was passing too many Executive Orders, Trump outright tried to rule by Executive Order fiat. Conservative parties pre-Bretton Woods were certainly isolationist and domestic-first, but also had a deep affection for the rule of law. I would oppose a traditionally conservative party politically, but would not be nearly as negative about it as I am about a President that seems to want to actively subvert rule of law.

Barrin92 6y ago

Devolution of power is a solution to the polarisation. The division in the country is real and deep and in some places inconsolable, rather than just a media mirage. Rather than increasingly violent competition for the presidential office or the federal government, a more flexible union is probably a sane idea. The US faces no threat of being conquered, it has the most powerful military and intelligence capacity in the world by a healthy margin. Insofar as foreign interference creates division, it's precisely the lack of decentralisation that makes these attacks dangerous.

csnover 6y ago

Yes. Probably the worst thing about this election for me is that it seems to demonstrate conclusively that 2016 was no aberration, no temporary mass hysteria, no failed experiment in electing a political outsider to “drain the swamp”. This distorted world view of us-vs-them tribalism seems to have totally consumed our political system. Objective reality is dismissed by the majority of the population—most blatantly on the right, but also, increasingly, on the left. Even more shocking to me, highly regarded election data scientists have twice now somehow been blinded to this, releasing poll after poll that fail to capture what is actually happening in the minds of the electorate. Carl Sagan, in his 1995 book ‘The Demon-Haunted World’, wrote: > I have a foreboding of an America in my children’s or grandchildren’s time — when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the key manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what’s true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness. The moment he prophesied now appears to be upon us. I don’t know how we can restore this country to one where people mostly act in good faith and try to base decisions in science and fact. I see so many incredibly compassionate people supporting the most despicable politicians. Right-wingers on Twitter repeating false talking points that the left are trying to destroy the country while tweeting about how proud they are of local youth offering free lawn care to disabled and senior citizens. Left-wingers openly insulting rural and conservative people as the scum of the earth while relentlessly supporting policies intended to improve those same peoples’ lives. How does this happen? What do we have to do—as individuals, as nations, as humans—to get it to stop?

GordonS 6y ago

I think the events of the past week have really highlighted the divide, or rather the gaping chasm. And it's a gulf that seeks almost impossible to bridge, any time soon at least - it encompasses race, education, financial status, social class, even history. Trump's actions this week have been utterly shameful. He and his cronies have lied and lied in an organised effort to sow discontent among the huge segment of republicans that appear to believe their every word (regardless of how baseless or ridiculous they may be). It seems like such a blatant attempt to subvert democracy - the kind of thing we'd expect in a tinpot dictatorship, not the "land of the free". This is not only shameful, but downright dangerous, especially with the level of gun ownership in the US. As a European, it seemed utterly incomprehensible how he has been able to get away with his actions, inactions and lies over the past few years - and I have not the words to describe how incomprehensible it is that many of his supporters are behind the past week's events.

odessacubbage 6y ago
was al gore utterly shameful when he contested florida? the prevailing attitude among liberals ever since is that he never should've conceded, that the bushes and the courts stole the election.

beaner 6y ago

They already are. Russia & China's tactics are not so much disinformation, but simply taking our own talking points and pushing them to us even harder.

ainiriand 6y ago

That is a very interesting point of view. I fully agree with it, I think it will be an existential threat to the country as we know it now. Do you think that the bipartidism is to blame, amongst other factors? If there were more options then some of the most radical electorate will have their own candidate and it could help divide the support they get at the Chambers. Also smaller parties could help in having more negotiation for bills and laws.

tomjen3 6y ago

What country in the world could conqueror America? You would need a better blue water navy and the ability to sustain 3 thousand miles supply lines over contested waters. As for dividing the US, I hope the lesson of this election is that you shouldn't assume what you see online is representative of the real US - otherwise it would have been a landslide for Biden.

z9e 6y ago
Physical borders, yes it would be near impossible to conquer us. But our digital borders (social media) are wide open. You use the power of a beast to destroy itself.

gnopgnip 6y ago

By what measure is the US more divided than in the past?

gigatexal 6y ago
Oh I dunno: murder of minorities by cops, vilifying an entire nation (Mexico and all the build the wall talk), increasing protests, blatant racism, nationalism being ever more accepted, to name a few.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
  Eh, it is difficult for me to respond to this in good faith, but I will make an attempt. I will open by saying something that may not be immediately apparent. The use of force by US government ( be it state or federal ), has actually decreased over the last decades ( not to look very far back, check historical records of civil rights and unions in US to get an idea of how things were handled in the past ). The only real difference now is that it is on video. But yes, I am arguing there is less of state violence now. The nation vilification is nothing new in US ( Bush "With us or against us" that made US population hate Muslims -- up until then average American barely knew; Disney WW2 propaganda just to name a few better known examples ). These days, it is China ( among others ). Do you see a pattern? Increasing protests. I can give you that. BLM protests are probably biggest event in US political scene since Tea Party . That said, I am not sure, they are bigger than civil rights movement or Vietnam war protests. They are more visible due to social media. Thankfully, they seem less widespread though. Blatant racism. Honestly, I am not sure if racism is a function of "By what measure is the US more divided than in the past?". Quite honestly, I would venture to suggest that today's racism is waay lower than at any point in US history. That said, this is just a guess. Nationalism. Again, I am not sure if racism is a function of "By what measure is the US more divided than in the past?". Historically, US gets more nationalistic as things go downhill ( WW2, red scare to name a few ). So.. I am not sure you have a point here. US is obviously divided, but the things you listed are not a function of that division. edit: added China to the example list
  - Karrot_Kream 6y ago

jmull 6y ago

Nah. We’re actually at an inflection point where before white men were the elite, no question, that was what it took to get in the door outside a few congressional districts. Now it’s still mostly that but it takes more, and due to demographic shifts it will be that less and less. The right — belatedly (far too little far too late, and quite awkwardly) — has already started outreach to Latino and black communities. They will continue but it will take a while (what an embarrassment for the party of Lincoln. FFS.). Obama was a lighting strike to those who assumed it would always be the old way, and Trump was the response to Obama. Fortunately, that failed (unfortunately it took hundreds of thousands of dead Americans to convince enough Michiganders, Wisconsinites, Pennsylvanians (I’m sure about “Michiganders”, being one myself, no idea on the others) but at least it happened.) The left, quite cleverly, responded with Biden, an old white guy in the classic mold. Literally: nothing to fear here, white peeps... but with Kamala as VP — a powerless position yet a powerful symbol (especially as the VP of a VP cum President). So It’s the changing of the guard. Republicans can no longer simply ignore black and brown people (at best) or use them as bugaboos (and then Democrats won’t be able to simply count on their votes by not actively being racist). Once the powerful engage those groups they’ll find them not to be uniform, and (hopefully) that will lead to meaningful, nuanced, deep engagement... if that happens, there will no longer be such a thing as the “black vote”. (This is further along with Latinos, where some groups aren’t too overwhelmingly for one party or the other). So... Not really an existential crisis, at least not to my mind. It’s real progress. We can no longer force certain groups into blocks based on whether we actively believe they should be subjugated or just kinda ignore them. Hallelujah.

gigatexal 6y ago
This makes sense to me. Then the transition of power or the changing demographics you speak of will disenfranchise those once in power and that could lead to violence (think white heavily-armed men intimidating or worse those they disagree with). This is what I fear as well.
- Kephael 6y ago
  Yes, the fact that this is happening due to demographics and not positions "evolving" is obvious. Many recognize immigration as a tool to help Leftist parties all throughout the Western world. Eventually those who have been disenfranchised and blamed for all the ills have had enough it will certainly come to violence. Reactionaries really do not have to engage in "Democracy", democracy certainly does not last forever.

giardini 6y ago

gigatexal says>" the ever increasingly large divide that is the polarizing of the electorate. We have to come together as Americans or someone will divide and conquer us." No way. Polarization will continue. The politics of New York and California will remain anathema to the majority in "fly-over states" (e.g., Texas, Montana, etc.) for generations. The former two states (NY, CA) will economically self-destruct long before such acceptance occurs.

thatwasunusual 6y ago

> We have to come together as Americans or someone will divide and conquer us. Pardon, but isn't USA already divided approx. 50/50? From the outside (I'm from Norway), I can't even believe how shit the US politics is.

gigatexal 6y ago
It used to be that reps from both sides of the isle would come together on things. Think John McCain not voting to kill Obamacare as one of his last votes before he died. There was a give and take. It seems that that is what is missing.

bleepblorp 6y ago

I realize this will sound snarky and/or overly aggressive. However, I'm being entirely serious and can't quickly come up with a better way to phrase this: How do people with functioning moral compasses come together with the kind of people who see pictures of children in cages and say "America, fuck yeah?" How do people who want some form of democratic government come together with the kind of people who think it's entirely right and proper for a president to do his best to prevent his political opponents from voting -- by disrupting the postal service, by soliciting the help of multiple hostile foreign governments to smear his opponent, calling for his opponents to be imprisoned without charge, and by attempting to halt vote counting in the courts? How do people with any kind of respect for the value of human life watch video of the George Floyd killing and come together with the kind of people who watch the video and argue that the police did nothing wrong? I don't think these divides can be healed. These issues are not matters, like arguments over the size of government, where compromise is both possible and mutually beneficial. Instead, they are moral red lines about which compromise is neither possible or desirable. What the 70-odd million who voted from Trump want out of their country isn't compatible with the basic moral outlook of the 75-odd million people who voted against him. To take an extreme example, if a bunch of Nazis want to kill 10 million people, 'compromising' by agreeing to let them kill only 5 million people isn't acceptable -- and yet, this is exactly the kind of moral compromise (truly in the other sense of the word) that would be involved in bringing together Trumpist and anti-Trumpist factions. In addition to the moral divide, there is a reality/gullibility divide between the Trumpist and anti-Trumpist factions. Trumpists believe an awful lot of stuff that is factually untrue. They reject global warming and dismiss the scientific evidence as the product of a Chinese hoax to destroy America. 56% of Republicans now believe in Qanon (an ideological conspiracy theory born out of the argument that Democrats eat babies) to some extent[0]. The overwhelming majority of Trumpists get their news from Fox, a media outlet which spreads more misleading information than accurate information.[1] How does anyone with a commitment to respecting consensus reality reach people who have chosen to live in comforting fantasyland rather than cope with the world as it is? I don't see any way for the US to get out of this mess without breaking up into multiple countries. And, to the usual 'downvote to -1' crowd: what part of this analysis is wrong? [0] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election/qanon-conspiracy-mostly-true-republicans-trump-daily-kos-civiqs-poll-a9702261.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-electio... [1] https://www.politicususa.com/2015/02/06/fact-checker-finds-60-fox-news-statements-false-lie.html https://www.politicususa.com/2015/02/06/fact-checker-finds-6...

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

Tarq0n 6y ago

Political pluralism in other democratic countries seems to do a good job of countering this trend. When there's only two parties they are free to drift to ideological extremes, without other parties being able to take up the center.

bsder 6y ago

> We have to come together as Americans or someone will divide and conquer us. The problem is that the US has a historical example of what happens when the "economic engine" and the "conservative culture" reach an impasse. The "economic engine" wins. The question is how much damage will get done until that happens.

doopy1 6y ago

There's no divide larger than 50/50 which is just about where it's at.

rzz3 6y ago

Rather than blame the left or blame the right for this, I think what we really need is a third party and Instant Runoff Voting.

heresie-dabord 6y ago

US social discourse shows that people don't understand how to debate and how to negotiate with opposing views for a better outcome. These are merely group behaviours and they can change with time and education. I feel that the first structural steps must be 1./ Replace First Past the Post (it distorts the will of the people) with some version of ranked balloting (already in use in at least one US state) 2./ Dissolve or fix/improve the Electoral College

joeevans1000 6y ago

Interestingly, tech workers are responsible for such a resilient divide. Tech workers, the most numerous demographic on this thread, are the ones coding up the bubbles or creating and maintaining their infrastructure. The purpose of the bubbles is to keep you clicking or pressing. The purpose of that is to deliver ads or sell premium services. If uncomfortable views are presented a user may click or press out of the service. Those uncomfortable views are not to be confused with click bait allowed to drive bubble responses. No use blaming the architects or company leaders. If you are coding it up, maintaining the infrastructure, or providing auxiliary support to the bubble, you are responsible. The companies making the bubbles can't do it without you, and you are the one actually making it happen.

odessacubbage 6y ago
how would you design away filter bubbles though? people actively seek out agreement and avoid argument even when there are no filters and barely any moderation like still begets like, see the split between /pol/ and /leftypol/.

sg47 6y ago

Russia, Facebook and the media have already divided and conquered us. The conquest is over. We are just trying to collect the bits and scraps. The conqueror doesn't have to be another nation. Fox News, CNN, Twitter and Facebook are the countries that have benefited the most.

bleepblorp 6y ago

I realize this will sound snarky and/or overly aggressive. However, I'm being entirely serious and can't quickly come up with a better way to phrase this: How do people with functioning moral compasses come together with the kind of people who see pictures of children in cages and say "America, fuck yeah?" How do people who want some form of democratic government come together with the kind of people who think it's entirely right and proper for a president to do his best to prevent his political opponents from voting -- by disrupting the postal service, by soliciting the help of multiple hostile foreign governments to smear his opponent, calling for his opponents to be imprisoned without charge, and by attempting to halt vote counting in the courts? How do people with any kind of respect for the value of human life watch video of the George Floyd killing and come together with the kind of people who watch the video and argue that the police did nothing wrong? I don't think these divides can be healed. These issues are not matters, like arguments over the size of government, where compromise is both possible and mutually beneficial. Instead, they are moral red lines about which compromise is neither possible or desirable. What the 70-odd million who voted from Trump want out of their country isn't compatible with the basic moral outlook of the 75-odd million people who voted against him. To take an extreme example, if a bunch of Nazis want to kill 10 million people, 'compromising' by agreeing to let them kill only 5 million people isn't acceptable -- and yet, this is exactly the kind of moral compromise (truly in the other sense of the word) that would be involved in bringing together Trumpist and anti-Trumpist factions. In addition to the moral divide, there is a reality/gullibility divide between the Trumpist and anti-Trumpist factions. Trumpists believe an awful lot of stuff that is factually untrue. They reject global warming and dismiss the scientific evidence as the product of a Chinese hoax to destroy America. 56% of Republicans now believe in Qanon (an ideological conspiracy theory born out of the argument that Democrats eat babies) to some extent[0]. The overwhelming majority of Trumpists get their news from Fox, a media outlet which spreads more misleading information than accurate information.[1] How does anyone with a commitment to respecting consensus reality reach people who have chosen to live in comforting fantasyland rather than cope with the world as it is? I don't see any way for the US to get out of this mess without breaking up into multiple countries. And, to the usual 'downvote to -1' crowd: what part of this analysis is wrong? [0] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-electio https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-electio... [1] https://www.politicususa.com/2015/02/06/fact-checker-finds-6 https://www.politicususa.com/2015/02/06/fact-checker-finds-6...