6 ms·

I think the percentage of Americans who are politically ingrained is larger than at any time in memory, perhaps since reconstruction. It's made us more suscepti

I think the percentage of Americans who are politically ingrained is larger than at any time in memory, perhaps since reconstruction. It's made us more susceptible to a mindset of being under threat. And while politicians have long been addicted to pushing a threat mindset on the population - I can't personally recall a time where a primary goal was to turn citizens against each other.

partitioned 3y ago
The early 1900s and the push to give black Americans more rights is a good parallel to current times. The demonization of the “negro” and the “negro”lover. This was a time of a lot of political pushback in the south against white people starting to side with blacks. There’s lots of fun old timey propaganda posters equating black people with the devil.
- WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
  I do a fair amount of genealogy and I keep finding parallels between today and early 20th century. Housing is one. I think we're transitioning to a period that necessitates birth families living together longer - except that we lack the housing for it.
brucethemoose2 3y ago
Mmm, maybe George Washington was right and a two party system was a bad idea?
- notfromhere 3y ago
  The founders were wrong about a lot of things, they also failed to account for the fact that political parties were naturally going to emerge. Constitution as a frame for government worked well if you just want a land owning elite to run things, it works pretty poorly when you want to have a functioning democratic republic. It doesn't account for political parties, the checks and balances are weak and mainly depend on a gentleman's agreement, and a federal legislature that's biased towards land-based apportionment also functions poorly. Political polarization in the US is more potent than elsewhere because our voting system ensures that there are only two parties and that purists take over said parties. A parliamentary system that's reflective of the actual popular vote would be much more functional and responsive to what people actually want out of their government. GOP had a bunch of extremists take over and how they run half of the political system and look to Orban and Fidesz as a model of how to slowly smother democracy in its sleep.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > The founders were wrong about a lot of things, they also failed to account for the fact that political parties were naturally going to emerge. “Failed to account for” is a romanticization. The factions largely existed as the system was designed, and it was designed around and to accommodate them, with actual parties being set up around them immediately. Washington wasn’t making a warning, he was complaining about the existing status quo. > Constitution as a frame for government worked well if you just want a land owning elite to run things, it works pretty poorly when you want to have a functioning democratic republic. And it was a compromise between factions whose one point of agreement was that they wanted a landed elite to run things. This wasn't an accidental result.
localplume 3y ago
[dead]
dragonwriter 3y ago
> I think the percentage of Americans who are politically ingrained is larger than at any time in memory I don't think that's true; I don't think political engagement or polarization is higher than, say, the period of the Korean War-Civil Rights-Vietnam-Watergate period. I think partisanship is higher because we are in a normal partisan alignment (where the most politically salient issues tend split along the party divide) unlike the long, 60-ish year, overlapping realignment period starting with the New Deal Coalition stirring up the old alignment and continuing with Civil Rights stirring things uo further before that realignment had shaken out.
- WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
  > I don't think that's true; I don't think political engagement or polarization is higher than, say, the period of the Korean War-Civil Rights-Vietnam-Watergate period. I think this is a compelling argument and you may be right. But I think the flavor of modern divisiveness closer fits those days where Birth Of A Nation influenced a lot of the US. The scope may be less but indications are we're moving that way.

partitioned 3y ago

The early 1900s and the push to give black Americans more rights is a good parallel to current times. The demonization of the “negro” and the “negro”lover. This was a time of a lot of political pushback in the south against white people starting to side with blacks. There’s lots of fun old timey propaganda posters equating black people with the devil.

WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
I do a fair amount of genealogy and I keep finding parallels between today and early 20th century. Housing is one. I think we're transitioning to a period that necessitates birth families living together longer - except that we lack the housing for it.

brucethemoose2 3y ago

Mmm, maybe George Washington was right and a two party system was a bad idea?

notfromhere 3y ago
The founders were wrong about a lot of things, they also failed to account for the fact that political parties were naturally going to emerge. Constitution as a frame for government worked well if you just want a land owning elite to run things, it works pretty poorly when you want to have a functioning democratic republic. It doesn't account for political parties, the checks and balances are weak and mainly depend on a gentleman's agreement, and a federal legislature that's biased towards land-based apportionment also functions poorly. Political polarization in the US is more potent than elsewhere because our voting system ensures that there are only two parties and that purists take over said parties. A parliamentary system that's reflective of the actual popular vote would be much more functional and responsive to what people actually want out of their government. GOP had a bunch of extremists take over and how they run half of the political system and look to Orban and Fidesz as a model of how to slowly smother democracy in its sleep.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > The founders were wrong about a lot of things, they also failed to account for the fact that political parties were naturally going to emerge. “Failed to account for” is a romanticization. The factions largely existed as the system was designed, and it was designed around and to accommodate them, with actual parties being set up around them immediately. Washington wasn’t making a warning, he was complaining about the existing status quo. > Constitution as a frame for government worked well if you just want a land owning elite to run things, it works pretty poorly when you want to have a functioning democratic republic. And it was a compromise between factions whose one point of agreement was that they wanted a landed elite to run things. This wasn't an accidental result.

localplume 3y ago

[dead]

dragonwriter 3y ago

> I think the percentage of Americans who are politically ingrained is larger than at any time in memory I don't think that's true; I don't think political engagement or polarization is higher than, say, the period of the Korean War-Civil Rights-Vietnam-Watergate period. I think partisanship is higher because we are in a normal partisan alignment (where the most politically salient issues tend split along the party divide) unlike the long, 60-ish year, overlapping realignment period starting with the New Deal Coalition stirring up the old alignment and continuing with Civil Rights stirring things uo further before that realignment had shaken out.

WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
> I don't think that's true; I don't think political engagement or polarization is higher than, say, the period of the Korean War-Civil Rights-Vietnam-Watergate period. I think this is a compelling argument and you may be right. But I think the flavor of modern divisiveness closer fits those days where Birth Of A Nation influenced a lot of the US. The scope may be less but indications are we're moving that way.