7 ms·

Anyone read a practical 20 year plan to decrease divisiveness in the US (say, to 1990s levels)? Or: Ignoring funding, what would you do? An example year 1 goa

Anyone read a practical 20 year plan to decrease divisiveness in the US (say, to 1990s levels)? Or: Ignoring funding, what would you do? An example year 1 goal: "Get X million people to watch 10 hours/year of strangers who they would normally not encounter or agree with, and to see them as real people." To do that, produce and televise + stream a long-form TV show, like a version of Braver Angels' Red/Blue Workshops[1] that's actually fun to watch. Imagine a well-produced show with deep participant profiles - a cross between a reality TV show and a HBO/Netflix long-form movie. It would humanize the participants first, then after viewers care about them, their lives, and their families, the actors gradually explain their backgrounds and opinions - some of which a viewer will disagree with. Viewers would "meet" people they may not interact with regularly. (Sarah Silverman's "I Love You, America"[2] is the closest I've seen to this, and it's not all that close.) This would need to be a multi-decade plan, probably with philanthropic and public funding. [1]: https://braverangels.org/what-we-do/red-blue-workshops/ https://braverangels.org/what-we-do/red-blue-workshops/ [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmQpf-B94mc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmQpf-B94mc

humanrebar 6y ago
I think any plan that neglects ratcheting down high-stakes issues to more local levels is fighting against strong headwinds. In other words, we can avoid winner-take-all dysfunction by allowing more diversity in governance. If we make every issue national, it makes it too important who runs the national government. Within reason, we should find ways to let California be California and Alabama be Alabama. Alabama and California shouldn't have to struggle against one another as much as they do.
- harimau777 6y ago
  The only way that I could see that working is if we allowed states to impose tariffs embargoes and on each other. There would need to be some way for states to protect themselves from other states' negative externalities or a race to the bottom.
  - mac01021 6y ago
    When there is an externality, of course the federal government can get involved. But does the majority of federal regulation really happen in domains where there would be inevitable externalities without it?
    - harimau777 6y ago
      I don't think that the majority of federal regulation necessarily does, but I think that the majority of Americas current problems do. For example climate change, immigration, poverty, healthcare, and gun control.
- dlp211 6y ago
  The fundamental flaw is that a lot of things can only be accomplished at the Federal level. 50 plans for global climate change not only doesn't make sense, it would result in direct violation of the interstate clause.
  - mac01021 6y ago
    Climate change is just one thing, though. National defense and military activity may be another. But do you really think it is not the case that most forms of regulation and resource distribution cannot be administered effectively, with some creativity, at the state level? I don't see any reason that 70% of issues can't become local or state issues. (Ignoring the lack of a political will to make that happen, I mean.)
    - dlp211 6y ago
      What do you think is being administered at the Federal Level that isn't 1) really just a way to distribute money to the states and 2) should be administered strictly by the states themselves that won't violate the interstate clause?
    - dodobirdlord 6y ago
      Do you think you could name some of these topics you're thinking of? 70% seems like a substantial overestimate. As a back-of-the-envelope estimate, using budget as a proxy for "regulation and resource distribution", ~70% of government spending went to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Defense. You've called out national defense as something that should remain at the Federal level. Social Security spending consists literally of distributing money to individuals. Medicare and Medicaid in a roundabout way are essentially the same, and America's poor and elderly are certainly not uniformly distributed among the states. This leaves only a maximum of 30% of resource allocation that could even potentially be pushed back to the states. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget#/media/File:2019_Federal_Budget_Infographic.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget#/...
      - humanrebar 6y ago
cm2012 6y ago
The thing is, any reasonable, evidence based discussion is going to end up concluding that the 90% of GOP talking points are lies, so right leaning people would claim the show is left biased.
camgunz 6y ago
1. Separate opinion journalism from reporting journalism. Opinion journalism can be w/e. Reporting journalism has to be fact checked. Masquerading as reporting journalism should be a big bad. You gotta disclose opinion journalism up front, like you gotta put a Surgeon General's warning on cigarettes. 2. Mandate non-partisan districting boards and do away with "safe" districts. This would lose majority-minority districts, which are responsible for a big proportion of our Reps of color. But safe districts skyrocket partisanship; politicians in safe districts can wander super far from the mainstream--think Steve King for example. And actually they oftentimes have to become radical in order to survive primaries. There's only so much you can do here with the current system but, a little would help a lot. 3. Empower state and local governments by repealing balanced budget amendments and term limits. State governments have really hamstrung themselves with these policies, and as a result the federal government has to do a lot. This creates a perception--right or wrong--that a far away government is telling you how to live your life. If the federal government has secured rights for all and managed federal concerns, it should be reasonable for say, Oregon to have one set of gun regulations and Illinois to have another. 4. Make voting compulsory, make Election Day a holiday, expand early voting, establish same day registration everywhere. The majority of Senators (and in midterms, the majority of Reps) are elected by a minority of people who are much more partisan than the mean. This pushes politicians out of the mainstream. 5. Federally finance elections, shorten the length, and amend the Constitution to obviate Citizens United. Campaigns and their ads are super polarizing. Special interests run messaging campaigns on wedge issues (abortion, immigration, gun rights) in order to pass bills like SOPA or subsidies for fossil fuel energy companies in the night. Campaign finance reform disarms all this. 6. Limit the terms of Supreme Court Justices to 18 years and enact jurisdiction stripping. The stakes of Supreme Court nominations are so high that it drives us all crazy. We should limit their terms so that 2-term presidents get to nominate 2 Justices, and we should limit the power of the Supreme Court on the basis that it's a deeply undemocratic and unaccountable institution. Pro-lifers feel this every day, as do progressives. We all agree it's bad; let's change it. 7. Enact affirmative action for mortgage companies, fund housing assistance, and reform public schools. The US has a huge de facto segregation issue due to generations of discriminatory practices by mortgage companies, and the sky high cost of housing in neighborhoods with good schools. This creates fertile ground for bubbles and othering, not just in adults but also in children. 8. Re-establish affirmative action for colleges, and make it free. The partisanship gap in the US now largely traces the education and income gap. 9. Establish clear boundaries on religious freedom. Religious freedom is a fundamental part of the fabric of the United States, but so are personal liberty and individual rights. We need to give people the ability to live out their beliefs, but also establish a pluralistic society free of discrimination towards _and from_ the religious. Fighting a culture via religious freedom debases us all.
molsongolden 6y ago
Compulsory national service to prevent people from living their entire lives within the bubbles into which they were born. Compulsory service erases geographic distance along with racial and class divides.
pzone 6y ago
I don’t think this can be done without altering social media algorithms to revert back from the “engagement-maximizing” firehose of vituperative extremist polarizing political sludge they pump into everyone’s feed these days.
- disgruntledphd2 6y ago
  This was happening long before social media became a thing. As i keep saying, the best thing to do would be to re-instate the Fairness Doctrine.

humanrebar 6y ago

I think any plan that neglects ratcheting down high-stakes issues to more local levels is fighting against strong headwinds. In other words, we can avoid winner-take-all dysfunction by allowing more diversity in governance. If we make every issue national, it makes it too important who runs the national government. Within reason, we should find ways to let California be California and Alabama be Alabama. Alabama and California shouldn't have to struggle against one another as much as they do.

harimau777 6y ago
The only way that I could see that working is if we allowed states to impose tariffs embargoes and on each other. There would need to be some way for states to protect themselves from other states' negative externalities or a race to the bottom.
- mac01021 6y ago
  When there is an externality, of course the federal government can get involved. But does the majority of federal regulation really happen in domains where there would be inevitable externalities without it?
  - harimau777 6y ago
    I don't think that the majority of federal regulation necessarily does, but I think that the majority of Americas current problems do. For example climate change, immigration, poverty, healthcare, and gun control.
dlp211 6y ago
The fundamental flaw is that a lot of things can only be accomplished at the Federal level. 50 plans for global climate change not only doesn't make sense, it would result in direct violation of the interstate clause.
- mac01021 6y ago
  Climate change is just one thing, though. National defense and military activity may be another. But do you really think it is not the case that most forms of regulation and resource distribution cannot be administered effectively, with some creativity, at the state level? I don't see any reason that 70% of issues can't become local or state issues. (Ignoring the lack of a political will to make that happen, I mean.)
  - dlp211 6y ago
    What do you think is being administered at the Federal Level that isn't 1) really just a way to distribute money to the states and 2) should be administered strictly by the states themselves that won't violate the interstate clause?
  - dodobirdlord 6y ago
    Do you think you could name some of these topics you're thinking of? 70% seems like a substantial overestimate. As a back-of-the-envelope estimate, using budget as a proxy for "regulation and resource distribution", ~70% of government spending went to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Defense. You've called out national defense as something that should remain at the Federal level. Social Security spending consists literally of distributing money to individuals. Medicare and Medicaid in a roundabout way are essentially the same, and America's poor and elderly are certainly not uniformly distributed among the states. This leaves only a maximum of 30% of resource allocation that could even potentially be pushed back to the states. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget#/media/File:2019_Federal_Budget_Infographic.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget#/...
    - humanrebar 6y ago

cm2012 6y ago

The thing is, any reasonable, evidence based discussion is going to end up concluding that the 90% of GOP talking points are lies, so right leaning people would claim the show is left biased.

camgunz 6y ago

1. Separate opinion journalism from reporting journalism. Opinion journalism can be w/e. Reporting journalism has to be fact checked. Masquerading as reporting journalism should be a big bad. You gotta disclose opinion journalism up front, like you gotta put a Surgeon General's warning on cigarettes. 2. Mandate non-partisan districting boards and do away with "safe" districts. This would lose majority-minority districts, which are responsible for a big proportion of our Reps of color. But safe districts skyrocket partisanship; politicians in safe districts can wander super far from the mainstream--think Steve King for example. And actually they oftentimes have to become radical in order to survive primaries. There's only so much you can do here with the current system but, a little would help a lot. 3. Empower state and local governments by repealing balanced budget amendments and term limits. State governments have really hamstrung themselves with these policies, and as a result the federal government has to do a lot. This creates a perception--right or wrong--that a far away government is telling you how to live your life. If the federal government has secured rights for all and managed federal concerns, it should be reasonable for say, Oregon to have one set of gun regulations and Illinois to have another. 4. Make voting compulsory, make Election Day a holiday, expand early voting, establish same day registration everywhere. The majority of Senators (and in midterms, the majority of Reps) are elected by a minority of people who are much more partisan than the mean. This pushes politicians out of the mainstream. 5. Federally finance elections, shorten the length, and amend the Constitution to obviate Citizens United. Campaigns and their ads are super polarizing. Special interests run messaging campaigns on wedge issues (abortion, immigration, gun rights) in order to pass bills like SOPA or subsidies for fossil fuel energy companies in the night. Campaign finance reform disarms all this. 6. Limit the terms of Supreme Court Justices to 18 years and enact jurisdiction stripping. The stakes of Supreme Court nominations are so high that it drives us all crazy. We should limit their terms so that 2-term presidents get to nominate 2 Justices, and we should limit the power of the Supreme Court on the basis that it's a deeply undemocratic and unaccountable institution. Pro-lifers feel this every day, as do progressives. We all agree it's bad; let's change it. 7. Enact affirmative action for mortgage companies, fund housing assistance, and reform public schools. The US has a huge de facto segregation issue due to generations of discriminatory practices by mortgage companies, and the sky high cost of housing in neighborhoods with good schools. This creates fertile ground for bubbles and othering, not just in adults but also in children. 8. Re-establish affirmative action for colleges, and make it free. The partisanship gap in the US now largely traces the education and income gap. 9. Establish clear boundaries on religious freedom. Religious freedom is a fundamental part of the fabric of the United States, but so are personal liberty and individual rights. We need to give people the ability to live out their beliefs, but also establish a pluralistic society free of discrimination towards _and from_ the religious. Fighting a culture via religious freedom debases us all.

molsongolden 6y ago

Compulsory national service to prevent people from living their entire lives within the bubbles into which they were born. Compulsory service erases geographic distance along with racial and class divides.

pzone 6y ago

I don’t think this can be done without altering social media algorithms to revert back from the “engagement-maximizing” firehose of vituperative extremist polarizing political sludge they pump into everyone’s feed these days.

disgruntledphd2 6y ago
This was happening long before social media became a thing. As i keep saying, the best thing to do would be to re-instate the Fairness Doctrine.