3 ms·

"In the 1960’s, only 5% of Republicans and 4% of Democrats reported that they would be “displeased” if their son or daughter chose to marry a political opponent

"In the 1960’s, only 5% of Republicans and 4% of Democrats reported that they would be “displeased” if their son or daughter chose to marry a political opponent (Iyengar et al., 2012). By 2010, these numbers had risen tenfold." When you combine that with twin, adoption, or half-sibling studies which all show that political orientation is partially inherited, it's like we're splitting into two different species. Hopefully things will get back on track long before that.

lupire 4y ago
In the 1960s, more parents opposed different race marriage, and different religion marriage, than different politics marriage. The difference now is that the "other species" now has a voice in 2-party politics, after previously being silenced. It wasn't better in the past when Democrats and Republicans worked together to oppress non-WASPs.
- rossdavidh 4y ago
  Certainly it wasn't. I would like to think that there is not a 'conservation of intolerance' principle here, though, that requires some other kind of intolerance to go up in order for intolerance of race, religion, etc. to go down.
photochemsyn 4y ago
If you look at the last ~40 years of government policy in the USA, and focus on where the Republicans and Democrats are in alignment (neoliberal trade policy & outsourcing of manufacturing, steadily increasing military-industrial budgets, and no-strings-attached bailouts of Wall Street firms), then you get a picture of the country as a corporation where the politicians are essentially little more than corporate middle managers. The middle manager has a rather unusual job - keep the corporate board and the shareholders wealthy and happy, and keep the rank-and-file employees productive and happy. The former job is done more in private, the latter job is done more in public. (Note how certain politicians notoriously stated the need for having both public and private positions, which fits this model). Somewhere along the way, the middle managers had a bright idea: if we ensure the rank-and-file employees distrust and hate one another more than either us or the corporate board, we can keep this whole thing rolling along, even while we screw them over and enrich ourselves and the board! Genius. For a while, anyway.
jrm4 4y ago
Yeah, I was about to say, I want no parts of this track that you want to get back on. If my kids bring home white people they want to marry, I no longer have to worry about the repercussions.
- rossdavidh 4y ago
  The 'track' I was referring to, was that it's ok for your kid to marry someone from another part of the political spectrum than yours.
  - jrm4 4y ago
    And what I am saying is that you can't separate these two things; the improvements in integration are at least partially the cause of this perceived "polarization." Back then, Democrats and Republicans alike could be comfortably racist; one might wonder if black folks even got to take the survey. But two things happened, one is the civil rights movement which made people less racist. (yay!) and the other is the radicalization of the Republican party. Today, Democrat/Republican is a much better proxy/predictor for -- well, let's be PC here and say, potential matches. It's not a bad predictor (and before someone says some nonsense comparing this to prejudice, political party is 100% a choice and nothing like racial discrimination.)
logicchains 4y ago
>When you combine that with twin, adoption, or half-sibling studies which all show that political orientation is partially inherited, it's like we're splitting into two different species. Hopefully things will get back on track long before that. Evolution is a very powerful force; ultimately the genes that make people incline towards having more children will become dominant. https://www.fatherly.com/health-science/republicans-have-more-children/ https://www.fatherly.com/health-science/republicans-have-mor... currently it looks like Republicans are winning the reproduction war.
- AlexandrB 4y ago
  This same train of thought comes up when talking about environmental conservation. Namely: "If you're worried about the environment, you should have more kids because they'll also be environmentalists". It's so ridiculous on its face that I'm not sure why I'm typing out this reply, but if there was a simple straight line between genetics and ideology, why would positions like those opposed to the Republicans exist at all? Shouldn't they all have been bred out by now? And what about the fact that what it means to be a Republican and a Democrat change as well. There used to be a time when the Democrats were the pro-slavery party. So what ideological elements are inherited exactly? Is it the broad party affiliation? Is it beliefs about tax policy? Beliefs about gun rights[1]? Religion? [1] Incidentally, the left is becoming increasingly pro-second-ammendment: https://www.theirisnyc.com/post/american-gun-rights-activism-finds-a-new-home-the-far-left https://www.theirisnyc.com/post/american-gun-rights-activism... Edit: Oh yeah, and anecdotally plenty of kids raised by conservatives grow up to hate their parents' guts. Perhaps because of the authoritarian nature of some conservative households. As you might expect, this is especially true for LGBTQ kids.
- watwut 4y ago
  If they did, they would had enough votes to win popular ballots. They don't, they need biased electoral system that guves more power to minority.
dragonwriter 4y ago
The 1960s was in the middle of the long overlapping double political realignment between the New Deal and the mid-1990s, so the main ideological divides in the country did not line up with the divide between the major parties. This resulted in less partisan division, but no less political division, as the large scale political violence of, particularly, the 1950s and 1960s, makes pretty clear. All the hand-wringing over the fact that we’ve in the last couple decades returned to the normal state where salient ideological divisions actually map reasonably well to the main partisan division is...bizarre.
gunfighthacksaw 4y ago
> it's like we're splitting into two different species. Or nations. A lot of the turmoil in Eastern Europe since the 90s is related to certain nations considering themselves distinct, and other nations refusing to entertain it. The former group will fight for their liberty and the latter group will try to conquer and absorb them. Will the same happen in the US? I see the African Americans being their own unique North American nation with associated food, music and culture, but also being part of the dominant American national culture. Not many of them appear to want to be fully separate, black nationalist extremists aside. If heartland white Americans attempted to distinguish themselves as a separate nation, it would be civil war 2, but fuelled by nationalism as opposed to slavery, traditionalism and states rights.
r00fus 4y ago
I firmly believe there are more than 2 parties. France is a good example - reactionary extreme right, centrist/corporatist, and far left. Both the left and right hate the centrist, but also have widely divergent views on how to unseat the centrists. It's just that in the US, only 2 parties can work given the FPTP system that makes all 3rd parties spoilers.

lupire 4y ago

In the 1960s, more parents opposed different race marriage, and different religion marriage, than different politics marriage. The difference now is that the "other species" now has a voice in 2-party politics, after previously being silenced. It wasn't better in the past when Democrats and Republicans worked together to oppress non-WASPs.

rossdavidh 4y ago
Certainly it wasn't. I would like to think that there is not a 'conservation of intolerance' principle here, though, that requires some other kind of intolerance to go up in order for intolerance of race, religion, etc. to go down.

photochemsyn 4y ago

If you look at the last ~40 years of government policy in the USA, and focus on where the Republicans and Democrats are in alignment (neoliberal trade policy & outsourcing of manufacturing, steadily increasing military-industrial budgets, and no-strings-attached bailouts of Wall Street firms), then you get a picture of the country as a corporation where the politicians are essentially little more than corporate middle managers. The middle manager has a rather unusual job - keep the corporate board and the shareholders wealthy and happy, and keep the rank-and-file employees productive and happy. The former job is done more in private, the latter job is done more in public. (Note how certain politicians notoriously stated the need for having both public and private positions, which fits this model). Somewhere along the way, the middle managers had a bright idea: if we ensure the rank-and-file employees distrust and hate one another more than either us or the corporate board, we can keep this whole thing rolling along, even while we screw them over and enrich ourselves and the board! Genius. For a while, anyway.

jrm4 4y ago

Yeah, I was about to say, I want no parts of this track that you want to get back on. If my kids bring home white people they want to marry, I no longer have to worry about the repercussions.

rossdavidh 4y ago
The 'track' I was referring to, was that it's ok for your kid to marry someone from another part of the political spectrum than yours.
- jrm4 4y ago
  And what I am saying is that you can't separate these two things; the improvements in integration are at least partially the cause of this perceived "polarization." Back then, Democrats and Republicans alike could be comfortably racist; one might wonder if black folks even got to take the survey. But two things happened, one is the civil rights movement which made people less racist. (yay!) and the other is the radicalization of the Republican party. Today, Democrat/Republican is a much better proxy/predictor for -- well, let's be PC here and say, potential matches. It's not a bad predictor (and before someone says some nonsense comparing this to prejudice, political party is 100% a choice and nothing like racial discrimination.)

logicchains 4y ago

>When you combine that with twin, adoption, or half-sibling studies which all show that political orientation is partially inherited, it's like we're splitting into two different species. Hopefully things will get back on track long before that. Evolution is a very powerful force; ultimately the genes that make people incline towards having more children will become dominant. https://www.fatherly.com/health-science/republicans-have-more-children/ https://www.fatherly.com/health-science/republicans-have-mor... currently it looks like Republicans are winning the reproduction war.

AlexandrB 4y ago
This same train of thought comes up when talking about environmental conservation. Namely: "If you're worried about the environment, you should have more kids because they'll also be environmentalists". It's so ridiculous on its face that I'm not sure why I'm typing out this reply, but if there was a simple straight line between genetics and ideology, why would positions like those opposed to the Republicans exist at all? Shouldn't they all have been bred out by now? And what about the fact that what it means to be a Republican and a Democrat change as well. There used to be a time when the Democrats were the pro-slavery party. So what ideological elements are inherited exactly? Is it the broad party affiliation? Is it beliefs about tax policy? Beliefs about gun rights[1]? Religion? [1] Incidentally, the left is becoming increasingly pro-second-ammendment: https://www.theirisnyc.com/post/american-gun-rights-activism-finds-a-new-home-the-far-left https://www.theirisnyc.com/post/american-gun-rights-activism... Edit: Oh yeah, and anecdotally plenty of kids raised by conservatives grow up to hate their parents' guts. Perhaps because of the authoritarian nature of some conservative households. As you might expect, this is especially true for LGBTQ kids.
watwut 4y ago
If they did, they would had enough votes to win popular ballots. They don't, they need biased electoral system that guves more power to minority.

dragonwriter 4y ago

The 1960s was in the middle of the long overlapping double political realignment between the New Deal and the mid-1990s, so the main ideological divides in the country did not line up with the divide between the major parties. This resulted in less partisan division, but no less political division, as the large scale political violence of, particularly, the 1950s and 1960s, makes pretty clear. All the hand-wringing over the fact that we’ve in the last couple decades returned to the normal state where salient ideological divisions actually map reasonably well to the main partisan division is...bizarre.

gunfighthacksaw 4y ago

> it's like we're splitting into two different species. Or nations. A lot of the turmoil in Eastern Europe since the 90s is related to certain nations considering themselves distinct, and other nations refusing to entertain it. The former group will fight for their liberty and the latter group will try to conquer and absorb them. Will the same happen in the US? I see the African Americans being their own unique North American nation with associated food, music and culture, but also being part of the dominant American national culture. Not many of them appear to want to be fully separate, black nationalist extremists aside. If heartland white Americans attempted to distinguish themselves as a separate nation, it would be civil war 2, but fuelled by nationalism as opposed to slavery, traditionalism and states rights.

r00fus 4y ago

I firmly believe there are more than 2 parties. France is a good example - reactionary extreme right, centrist/corporatist, and far left. Both the left and right hate the centrist, but also have widely divergent views on how to unseat the centrists. It's just that in the US, only 2 parties can work given the FPTP system that makes all 3rd parties spoilers.