8 ms·

There is no room for a truce. To oversimplify it, liberal democracy was basically a 200 year armistice between liberals and conservatives. Now, both sides see t

There is no room for a truce. To oversimplify it, liberal democracy was basically a 200 year armistice between liberals and conservatives. Now, both sides see the imminent prospect of either final defeat or final victory. The only thing that matters is winning. On this, both sides are right.

Dracophoenix 5y ago
The liberal-conservative dichotomy is a modern invention that only came about sometime during the 60's. There have been various parties and coalitions within parties throughout American history.
- legalcorrection 5y ago
  The battle isn't always being fought in interparty electoral competition. The left-wing project to replace all traditional hierarchy with radical egalitarianism has been in motion in Western society since at least the French Revolution, with some elements appearing in the American Revolution and Protestant Reformation. The right-wing project to preserve the traditional order has been around for longer, at least since the merchant classes threatened the power of the old aristocracy. This conflict has been sometimes dominated and drowned out by more particular, parochial, and pressing disagreements. The US, and to a lesser extent, England, through liberal democracy were able to contain the jacobin forces much more than societies on the continent were. But a 100 year streak of leftist victories has basically put them on the cusp of completely eradicating the old order. Even today, a conservative's mindset has little in common with the thoughts of a monarchist from the late 18th century. Those ways of thinking have been eradicated by political force. Some have tried to revive it, but it is just a faint echo, like trying to recreate a song from a critic's review of it.
- tempestn 5y ago
  I'm not sure about that. Polarization in the United States has certainly ebbed and flowed over time, but if you study history, there has been a rough liberal-conservative dichotomy in nearly every society I can think of, going back at least hundreds of years. There's a great podcast actually, Revolutions, by Mike Duncan - it devotes a season to each of several famous historical revolutions. Currently it's in the last season, on the Russian revolution, which is particularly interesting in the present day, as it plants the seeds for modern Russia. But given that these revolutions span centuries, it's really striking how many commonalities they have, and the echoes you can hear in modern discourse. For example, liberals are generally agitating for greater democratic freedoms, or in non-democratic societies, at least freedom from oppression. Conservatives are, as the name suggests, generally dissatisfied with the pace of change, and in favor of maintaining current power structures. Also, revolutions are generally presaged by exactly the kind of breakdowns in communication described here. Increased polarization, unwillingness to give the 'other side' any kind of a political win, even if it's beneficial for everyone, etc. So yeah, while I could see that digital communication might have been a catalyst for our current situation, for the most part this all looks very familiar. And as the article describes, the likely result doesn't look good.
  - beaconstudios 5y ago
    There's also reactionaries who want to run the clock back - traditionally these would take the form of loyalists after a monarchy was already deposed, like the Bonapartists in France.
goatlover 5y ago
What does winning mean for either side? The other side doesn't just cease to exist. Nor do the people in the middle our outside the dichotomy. Does it mean autocracy? And how will the prevent revolution? How does it prevent an ongoing, unwinnable civil war which fizzes out to another armistice after everyone is sick of not winning?
- legalcorrection 5y ago
  Opposition to homosexuality and racial integration did not disappear in America, but they substantially waned. Even the minority of people that privately hold opposite sentiments, they will not express them publicly for fear not just of public condemnation and private sanction but also legal liability. Consider that in 2008, a majority of the country opposed gay marriage, but in 2022, a majority support and it is considered completely unacceptable to advocate for a return to the old order. That's what victory looks like. Consider too that in 1990, a majority of the country was still against interracial marriage. Today, those same people would probably deny they ever felt that way, maybe even convincing themselves of that lie. That's what winning looks like. Today, a biological male can win women's sports competitions and a five year old can be recognized as transsexual. A robust majority of the country opposes it, but everyone outside of Republican electoral politics[1] is scared to put their face to any opposition to it. This is starting to look like final victory. [1] And even then, many Republican governors have vetoed bills that would ban this.
  - tempestn 5y ago
    FWIW, I agree that 4-5 year old transgender kids are something that strike most people as absurd. That is, unless they know some transgender people and talk to them about their experiences. I have a couple of close friends who are trans, and know several others (including a good friend of my son's in elementary school). All of them describing knowing their true gender with just as much certainty as you or I know ours from about age 4. Obviously that's just a second-hand anecdote, but it's enough for me to be confident that it is extremely common for trans people to experience strong gender dysphoria from essentially as soon as they become aware of the concept of their own gender. There is also research that shows suicide rates for transgender people are far higher than the general population—except for those who receive acceptance for their gender identity from childhood, in which case the difference is drastically reduced. And that's not hard for me to believe. Try imagining yourself in that position. You're a young boy, but for some reason you're in a girl's body. You know that's not right, but no one believes you, and instead they pressure you to act the part of someone you're not, and imply (or outright state) that there's something wrong with you for feeling otherwise. That's got to be a tough life. Contrast that with the same initial condition: you're a boy in a girl's body. But instead your parents and other people you trust understand and tell you that's OK and there are lots of other people experiencing the same thing, and if you're confident you want to live as a boy (or vice-versa the whole thing, obviously) then of course you can do that and they'll help. Sounds a hell of a lot better to me.

Dracophoenix 5y ago

The liberal-conservative dichotomy is a modern invention that only came about sometime during the 60's. There have been various parties and coalitions within parties throughout American history.

legalcorrection 5y ago
The battle isn't always being fought in interparty electoral competition. The left-wing project to replace all traditional hierarchy with radical egalitarianism has been in motion in Western society since at least the French Revolution, with some elements appearing in the American Revolution and Protestant Reformation. The right-wing project to preserve the traditional order has been around for longer, at least since the merchant classes threatened the power of the old aristocracy. This conflict has been sometimes dominated and drowned out by more particular, parochial, and pressing disagreements. The US, and to a lesser extent, England, through liberal democracy were able to contain the jacobin forces much more than societies on the continent were. But a 100 year streak of leftist victories has basically put them on the cusp of completely eradicating the old order. Even today, a conservative's mindset has little in common with the thoughts of a monarchist from the late 18th century. Those ways of thinking have been eradicated by political force. Some have tried to revive it, but it is just a faint echo, like trying to recreate a song from a critic's review of it.
tempestn 5y ago
I'm not sure about that. Polarization in the United States has certainly ebbed and flowed over time, but if you study history, there has been a rough liberal-conservative dichotomy in nearly every society I can think of, going back at least hundreds of years. There's a great podcast actually, Revolutions, by Mike Duncan - it devotes a season to each of several famous historical revolutions. Currently it's in the last season, on the Russian revolution, which is particularly interesting in the present day, as it plants the seeds for modern Russia. But given that these revolutions span centuries, it's really striking how many commonalities they have, and the echoes you can hear in modern discourse. For example, liberals are generally agitating for greater democratic freedoms, or in non-democratic societies, at least freedom from oppression. Conservatives are, as the name suggests, generally dissatisfied with the pace of change, and in favor of maintaining current power structures. Also, revolutions are generally presaged by exactly the kind of breakdowns in communication described here. Increased polarization, unwillingness to give the 'other side' any kind of a political win, even if it's beneficial for everyone, etc. So yeah, while I could see that digital communication might have been a catalyst for our current situation, for the most part this all looks very familiar. And as the article describes, the likely result doesn't look good.
- beaconstudios 5y ago
  There's also reactionaries who want to run the clock back - traditionally these would take the form of loyalists after a monarchy was already deposed, like the Bonapartists in France.

goatlover 5y ago

What does winning mean for either side? The other side doesn't just cease to exist. Nor do the people in the middle our outside the dichotomy. Does it mean autocracy? And how will the prevent revolution? How does it prevent an ongoing, unwinnable civil war which fizzes out to another armistice after everyone is sick of not winning?

legalcorrection 5y ago
Opposition to homosexuality and racial integration did not disappear in America, but they substantially waned. Even the minority of people that privately hold opposite sentiments, they will not express them publicly for fear not just of public condemnation and private sanction but also legal liability. Consider that in 2008, a majority of the country opposed gay marriage, but in 2022, a majority support and it is considered completely unacceptable to advocate for a return to the old order. That's what victory looks like. Consider too that in 1990, a majority of the country was still against interracial marriage. Today, those same people would probably deny they ever felt that way, maybe even convincing themselves of that lie. That's what winning looks like. Today, a biological male can win women's sports competitions and a five year old can be recognized as transsexual. A robust majority of the country opposes it, but everyone outside of Republican electoral politics[1] is scared to put their face to any opposition to it. This is starting to look like final victory. [1] And even then, many Republican governors have vetoed bills that would ban this.
- tempestn 5y ago
  FWIW, I agree that 4-5 year old transgender kids are something that strike most people as absurd. That is, unless they know some transgender people and talk to them about their experiences. I have a couple of close friends who are trans, and know several others (including a good friend of my son's in elementary school). All of them describing knowing their true gender with just as much certainty as you or I know ours from about age 4. Obviously that's just a second-hand anecdote, but it's enough for me to be confident that it is extremely common for trans people to experience strong gender dysphoria from essentially as soon as they become aware of the concept of their own gender. There is also research that shows suicide rates for transgender people are far higher than the general population—except for those who receive acceptance for their gender identity from childhood, in which case the difference is drastically reduced. And that's not hard for me to believe. Try imagining yourself in that position. You're a young boy, but for some reason you're in a girl's body. You know that's not right, but no one believes you, and instead they pressure you to act the part of someone you're not, and imply (or outright state) that there's something wrong with you for feeling otherwise. That's got to be a tough life. Contrast that with the same initial condition: you're a boy in a girl's body. But instead your parents and other people you trust understand and tell you that's OK and there are lots of other people experiencing the same thing, and if you're confident you want to live as a boy (or vice-versa the whole thing, obviously) then of course you can do that and they'll help. Sounds a hell of a lot better to me.