5 ms·

"Intensely polarized societies seem to create this backfire effect where, rather than bringing groups together, exposure to a common enemy makes them more likel

"Intensely polarized societies seem to create this backfire effect where, rather than bringing groups together, exposure to a common enemy makes them more likely to accuse each other of being on the enemy's side." Seems like the "money quote" to me. If I'd had to guess what the conclusion of this article was going to be before reading it, I'd have guessed something very close to that. It's a pretty obvious scenario really... The easiest way to justify hate for your opponent in the face of a common enemy would be to make exactly that kind of leap "You're taking the side of our 'common enemy' therefore YOU ARE THE ENEMY!" What I wish I knew, is how to prevent this kind of thing from spreading all through our society and polluting everyone's thinking.

anigbrowl 4y ago
You have to shut it down early, before it becomes entrenched. Unfortunately, the very longevity of the US as a republic has been part of the problem, because Cassandra types like myself who were pointing out such risks 10+ years ago were often refuted with truisms about guardrails, the universal love of the Constitution, and so on. Very well educated and experienced people can be so proud of the legal/ social/ political order (and sincerely dedicated to the relevant ideals) that observations about it's vulnerabilities and structural weaknesses simply don't register with them. Groups of armed militants taunting and facing off against each other are becoming an increasingly common sight in the US. This is a scenario that generally does not end well. Saying that what we need is better education or a different approach to debate or for people to get out of their information bubbles is all very well, but the majority of people expressing these sentiments are just conflict-averse and don't have any first hand experience to draw on. In many ways, their unwillingness to acknowledge the severity of polarization has been part of the problem.
- version_five 4y ago
  > truisms about guardrails, the universal love of the Constitution, and so on. As an aside, I actually think the US is an extremely well set up liberal democracy compared to alternatives, and unlike many places that have just gone off the rails in one direction or another, the country has stayed relatively balanced under pressure. I think the increasingly intense hyperpartisanship we're seeing is actually the system struggling to maintain normalcy, sort of like how a control circuit might have to produce increasingly high internal currents to deal with some disturbance.
  - anigbrowl 4y ago
    I think the US has been long-lived not because of any great institutional superiority but because the country essentially started with a free continent of unspoiled natural resources whose indigenous occupants were few in number and technologically unsophisticated. Australia is a somewhat similar example. Huge and largely empty tracts of land make a big difference; recall that many early settlers in the US sought their fortunes there because they did not have good economic prospects in Europe, eg because of primogeniture. I'd suggest that the potential emergence of internecine conflict here is a reversion to the mean of political development. This pattern has been observed before in history by professional imperialists like John Baggott Glubb, and also by scholars like Peter Turchin, though I haven't read enough of his work to comment. 'The Fate of Empires' is a short essay by Glubb and well worth your time. http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/glubb.pdf http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/glubb.pdf
    - version_five 4y ago
      Compared to Australia and Canada the US has done much better to preserve liberal democratic norms and (vs Canada, I don't know about Australian politics) has a functional system that lets voters toss out a government that they don't like. (Canada only has one political orientation, even if there are two parties). Definitely what you say is a big factor but the US also has a stronger constitution and system of checks and balances vs peers
      - sudosysgen 4y ago
        Canada has three parties with a strong and direct impact in policy, and in many provinces there are even more. As far as Canada having less lattitude in political orientation it's a simple result of the Canadian electorate being pretty close in opinion to one of the big three (except in Québec, but there are other parties there).
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]

anigbrowl 4y ago

You have to shut it down early, before it becomes entrenched. Unfortunately, the very longevity of the US as a republic has been part of the problem, because Cassandra types like myself who were pointing out such risks 10+ years ago were often refuted with truisms about guardrails, the universal love of the Constitution, and so on. Very well educated and experienced people can be so proud of the legal/ social/ political order (and sincerely dedicated to the relevant ideals) that observations about it's vulnerabilities and structural weaknesses simply don't register with them. Groups of armed militants taunting and facing off against each other are becoming an increasingly common sight in the US. This is a scenario that generally does not end well. Saying that what we need is better education or a different approach to debate or for people to get out of their information bubbles is all very well, but the majority of people expressing these sentiments are just conflict-averse and don't have any first hand experience to draw on. In many ways, their unwillingness to acknowledge the severity of polarization has been part of the problem.

version_five 4y ago
> truisms about guardrails, the universal love of the Constitution, and so on. As an aside, I actually think the US is an extremely well set up liberal democracy compared to alternatives, and unlike many places that have just gone off the rails in one direction or another, the country has stayed relatively balanced under pressure. I think the increasingly intense hyperpartisanship we're seeing is actually the system struggling to maintain normalcy, sort of like how a control circuit might have to produce increasingly high internal currents to deal with some disturbance.
- anigbrowl 4y ago
  I think the US has been long-lived not because of any great institutional superiority but because the country essentially started with a free continent of unspoiled natural resources whose indigenous occupants were few in number and technologically unsophisticated. Australia is a somewhat similar example. Huge and largely empty tracts of land make a big difference; recall that many early settlers in the US sought their fortunes there because they did not have good economic prospects in Europe, eg because of primogeniture. I'd suggest that the potential emergence of internecine conflict here is a reversion to the mean of political development. This pattern has been observed before in history by professional imperialists like John Baggott Glubb, and also by scholars like Peter Turchin, though I haven't read enough of his work to comment. 'The Fate of Empires' is a short essay by Glubb and well worth your time. http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/glubb.pdf http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/glubb.pdf
  - version_five 4y ago
    Compared to Australia and Canada the US has done much better to preserve liberal democratic norms and (vs Canada, I don't know about Australian politics) has a functional system that lets voters toss out a government that they don't like. (Canada only has one political orientation, even if there are two parties). Definitely what you say is a big factor but the US also has a stronger constitution and system of checks and balances vs peers
    - sudosysgen 4y ago
      Canada has three parties with a strong and direct impact in policy, and in many provinces there are even more. As far as Canada having less lattitude in political orientation it's a simple result of the Canadian electorate being pretty close in opinion to one of the big three (except in Québec, but there are other parties there).
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]