5 ms·

> The level of political polarization now, while high, is less than the late 1850's. I know this is in the context of the build up to the civil war, but how mu

> The level of political polarization now, while high, is less than the late 1850's. I know this is in the context of the build up to the civil war, but how much were neighbors at each other’s necks? I don’t know much about that period aside from the obvious events that followed (slavery being the huge and obvious motivator for the war), so I’m not sure how divided everybody was. But it seems like in the US today, the divide is spread across the entire country. Nearly everybody is aligned with either A or B group and agrees with nearly straight down the column with that group’s general viewpoints. Some areas lean A or B, but you’ll always have someone vehemently against the other group no matter where you go. I don’t think the US today would have a north-south divide so much as it would a political party divide.

Mountain_Skies 5y ago
That Trump's pleas for his supporters to take the vaccine fell on deaf ears appears to indicate things aren't quite that clear cut. Perhaps some groups are more inclined to force compliance with all of their views than other groups.
- titzer 5y ago
  [flagged]
  - wyldfire 5y ago
    I think it's just the idea of endorsing prophylactic medicine. Since anyone could be a potential victim of a virus, everyone should consider vaccination. And while it's not compulsory, the suggestion that it be widely advocated sets the conspiracy folks on edge. They seem to pin their identity on { I'm not like the others + mistrust of authority }. So it's really easy to accept a message that the too-trusting have all fallen into a trap that they're too smart for. If it's not tracking, it's greed, or some other motive driving evildoers to vaccinate the world. Hydroxychloroquine was attractive because it was available before the vaccine and you would only need to administer it to the infected. Of course, a few did try to take it prophylactically and at least one OD'd. Trump is so purely and consistently self serving. He didn't promote the vaccine enough because he feared his successor would get the credit and he (rightly) feared his base would hold it against him. And he only promoted it when he realized that his supporters were dropping like flies and millions of the kids in the next generation will turn eighteen before the next presidential election. The vaccines are a triumph of humanity that should be celebrated. They were produced, tested and distributed very rapidly (among the wealthiest countries). We could stand to improve significantly at how well it was distributed to poorer nations. But IMO a positive story overall. And antivaxxers might have had reason to be cautious at first, but now it's so widely distributed that it doesn't make much sense to fear it anymore. the long term consequences of the infection are likely much much worse than the long term consequences of vaccination.
    - positus 5y ago
      What are your primary sources for Trump's motivations?
      - nobody9999 5y ago
        Not GP (although I agree with them), but Trump's words and actions over the past 40 years or so make it quite clear that Donald Trump cares about three things: 1. Donald Trump 2. Donald J. Trump 3. Donald John Trump and everything else is just background noise, if that.
      - lovich 5y ago
        His public actions his entire life.
- redisman 5y ago
  I think this just shows that politics is largely not a generative project. Trump tapped into a current of grievance and honed his message on that and almost never went against whatever got the biggest cheers at his rallies. He wasn’t the mastermind who came up with these ideas. They were already there.
chrisbrandow 5y ago
It seems clear that the central issue of slavery transformed over 50 years from a general agreement that it was less than ideal and would go away in its own, to a deeply polarized issue which half the country thought it an abomination that should be immediately eliminated and the other half began to to think of it as a positive good for the slaveholder and slave. It was more regional than our current disputes which are almost fractal in their geography
- hattmall 5y ago
  That's just not what happened, slavery wasn't a main topic for the average person. Even in the south where there were slaves most people didn't own slaves. The debate around it did exist but it was an infrequent topic. Much much more common was discussions regarding import and export issues and transportation networks. Support for the poor and insane were big issues. Religion and temperance we're far more debated than slavery. There's a lot of places to read newspapers from that time period online and you can see what topics were frequent and divisive.
nradov 5y ago
You would only believe that if you don't actually talk to your neighbors. In the real world (i.e. not the corporate media) most people have more moderate and nuanced viewpoints. Demonizing and alienating those people is not a winning political strategy. This is, by the way, one reason why the Joe Rogan Experience podcast has been so amazingly popular. The host comes across as a moderate leftist, but he has guests from across the political spectrum and gives them a chance to fully explain their views instead of shouting at them. The corporate media are naturally horrified by this since it undermines their ability to drive ratings by pushing a false "red versus blue" narrative.
- grapeskin 5y ago
  Not trying to fit into your red vs blue grouping, but I don’t think anyone considers Joe Rogan to be left at all. He’s generally seen at Dr Oz for 30 year old dudes. I’ve listened to some after hearing him hyped up and generally fitting into the target demographic. Didn’t find much nuance.
  - nradov 5y ago
    Rogan claims to have voted for Barack Obama twice. That's pretty typical for a moderate leftist. He gives his guests a chance to express a lot more nuance than you see in mainstream media channels. Most of the criticism comes from people who haven't actually listened to many episodes all the way through, and just rely on biased takes from critics or short quotes taken out of context. I also used to have a negative opinion until I played some whole episodes with interviews of really interesting people.
    - lovich 5y ago
      Youre skipping the criticism of his guest list. He's had Bernie Sanders on what, once, twice? Then he's had no other major leftist political figures or commentators but has has loads of extreme right wing figures including crackpots like Alex Jones. Joe Rogan can claim he is a moderate leftist all he wants, but his guest list on JRE does not support that
_hcuq 5y ago
In Missouri the civil war was a vicious neighbor vs neighbor affair.
hihihihi1234 5y ago
Look up "bleeding Kansas"
_fat_santa 5y ago
> But it seems like in the US today, the divide is spread across the entire country. Personally I don't think the divide is as large as we think it is, I think it's just a result of social media skewing what is "popular". If you have 100 people, 80 are moderates, 10 have stronger political views, and the other 10 have extreme political views. Social media algorithms will almost always promote the content from those 10 because it gets the most shares and the world will seem like it's filled with those 10 folks.
rossdavidh 5y ago
Well I'm told there were numerous instances of brothers in the same family fighting on different sides. In some states such as Kansas, neighbors were most definitely attacking each other (and not just verbally).

Mountain_Skies 5y ago

That Trump's pleas for his supporters to take the vaccine fell on deaf ears appears to indicate things aren't quite that clear cut. Perhaps some groups are more inclined to force compliance with all of their views than other groups.

titzer 5y ago
[flagged]
- wyldfire 5y ago
  I think it's just the idea of endorsing prophylactic medicine. Since anyone could be a potential victim of a virus, everyone should consider vaccination. And while it's not compulsory, the suggestion that it be widely advocated sets the conspiracy folks on edge. They seem to pin their identity on { I'm not like the others + mistrust of authority }. So it's really easy to accept a message that the too-trusting have all fallen into a trap that they're too smart for. If it's not tracking, it's greed, or some other motive driving evildoers to vaccinate the world. Hydroxychloroquine was attractive because it was available before the vaccine and you would only need to administer it to the infected. Of course, a few did try to take it prophylactically and at least one OD'd. Trump is so purely and consistently self serving. He didn't promote the vaccine enough because he feared his successor would get the credit and he (rightly) feared his base would hold it against him. And he only promoted it when he realized that his supporters were dropping like flies and millions of the kids in the next generation will turn eighteen before the next presidential election. The vaccines are a triumph of humanity that should be celebrated. They were produced, tested and distributed very rapidly (among the wealthiest countries). We could stand to improve significantly at how well it was distributed to poorer nations. But IMO a positive story overall. And antivaxxers might have had reason to be cautious at first, but now it's so widely distributed that it doesn't make much sense to fear it anymore. the long term consequences of the infection are likely much much worse than the long term consequences of vaccination.
  - positus 5y ago
    What are your primary sources for Trump's motivations?
    - nobody9999 5y ago
      Not GP (although I agree with them), but Trump's words and actions over the past 40 years or so make it quite clear that Donald Trump cares about three things: 1. Donald Trump 2. Donald J. Trump 3. Donald John Trump and everything else is just background noise, if that.
    - lovich 5y ago
      His public actions his entire life.
redisman 5y ago
I think this just shows that politics is largely not a generative project. Trump tapped into a current of grievance and honed his message on that and almost never went against whatever got the biggest cheers at his rallies. He wasn’t the mastermind who came up with these ideas. They were already there.

chrisbrandow 5y ago

It seems clear that the central issue of slavery transformed over 50 years from a general agreement that it was less than ideal and would go away in its own, to a deeply polarized issue which half the country thought it an abomination that should be immediately eliminated and the other half began to to think of it as a positive good for the slaveholder and slave. It was more regional than our current disputes which are almost fractal in their geography

hattmall 5y ago
That's just not what happened, slavery wasn't a main topic for the average person. Even in the south where there were slaves most people didn't own slaves. The debate around it did exist but it was an infrequent topic. Much much more common was discussions regarding import and export issues and transportation networks. Support for the poor and insane were big issues. Religion and temperance we're far more debated than slavery. There's a lot of places to read newspapers from that time period online and you can see what topics were frequent and divisive.

nradov 5y ago

You would only believe that if you don't actually talk to your neighbors. In the real world (i.e. not the corporate media) most people have more moderate and nuanced viewpoints. Demonizing and alienating those people is not a winning political strategy. This is, by the way, one reason why the Joe Rogan Experience podcast has been so amazingly popular. The host comes across as a moderate leftist, but he has guests from across the political spectrum and gives them a chance to fully explain their views instead of shouting at them. The corporate media are naturally horrified by this since it undermines their ability to drive ratings by pushing a false "red versus blue" narrative.

grapeskin 5y ago
Not trying to fit into your red vs blue grouping, but I don’t think anyone considers Joe Rogan to be left at all. He’s generally seen at Dr Oz for 30 year old dudes. I’ve listened to some after hearing him hyped up and generally fitting into the target demographic. Didn’t find much nuance.
- nradov 5y ago
  Rogan claims to have voted for Barack Obama twice. That's pretty typical for a moderate leftist. He gives his guests a chance to express a lot more nuance than you see in mainstream media channels. Most of the criticism comes from people who haven't actually listened to many episodes all the way through, and just rely on biased takes from critics or short quotes taken out of context. I also used to have a negative opinion until I played some whole episodes with interviews of really interesting people.
  - lovich 5y ago
    Youre skipping the criticism of his guest list. He's had Bernie Sanders on what, once, twice? Then he's had no other major leftist political figures or commentators but has has loads of extreme right wing figures including crackpots like Alex Jones. Joe Rogan can claim he is a moderate leftist all he wants, but his guest list on JRE does not support that

_hcuq 5y ago

In Missouri the civil war was a vicious neighbor vs neighbor affair.

hihihihi1234 5y ago

Look up "bleeding Kansas"

_fat_santa 5y ago

> But it seems like in the US today, the divide is spread across the entire country. Personally I don't think the divide is as large as we think it is, I think it's just a result of social media skewing what is "popular". If you have 100 people, 80 are moderates, 10 have stronger political views, and the other 10 have extreme political views. Social media algorithms will almost always promote the content from those 10 because it gets the most shares and the world will seem like it's filled with those 10 folks.

rossdavidh 5y ago

Well I'm told there were numerous instances of brothers in the same family fighting on different sides. In some states such as Kansas, neighbors were most definitely attacking each other (and not just verbally).