5 ms·

> rather than through the lens of the broken US political parties / election system This is key, in my observation as an immigrant from Europe who's lived here

by Swizec 2y ago

> rather than through the lens of the broken US political parties / election system This is key, in my observation as an immigrant from Europe who's lived here ~10 years. Europe for the most part has multi-party democracies meaning that for every pet cause you might have there is a party that focuses on your cause. Larger causes get parties that might even get elected into parliament. Those larger parties still have to work together with other parties to form a coalition/anti-coalition. Those coalitions then end up running the country. In practice this means that when you're discussing politics with friends, you don't bifurcate into right/wrong, you discuss differences on specific causes. You and your friend might disagree about UBI, or trans rights, or whatever, but you both understand that you more or less agree on the other 9/10 issues. You are more alike than you are different and that makes debating your differences easier. Contrast that with american politics where it's all or nothing. If you like abortion and low taxes, there is no way for you to vote. Additionally americans have this weird thing where they worship politicians instead of treating them as disposable public servants who exist at the mercy of your vote. People actually treat whom they vote for as a part of their identity. That always felt weird to me. It means any discussion of politics becomes a triggering assault on your ego. edit to share an example: In college I signed a thing to support The Pirate Party. The most they've ever achieved is like 1 or 2 seats in parliament. But this means that every law that gets discussed has a voice or two talking about its impact on copyleft, opensource, net neutrality, etc. This is great! And it doesn't mean anyone has to abandon the bigger more important issues to get this representation.

sologoub 2y ago
Agree, the forced two-party system is very limiting and the identity tied to politics is emblematic of modern US. In EU, as I believe in India from the anecdotes in the article, a lot of the identity is tied to the place you are from and the social strata the family occupies. Those are somewhat immutable things (where you were born and what family you are from), so deciding to break off communication with that community is “expensive” socially because there is no other community that will readily accept you as their own. Whereas in US, it’s quite normal to change social circles at will. Density/proximity makes it much more obvious, but the semi-fixed social circles I believe have a lot to do with it. Many US expats report loneliness when moving abroad for similar reasons - it’s hard to find a new inner circle in societies built around other identities.
dgoldstein0 2y ago
That last part is called "identity politics". It's partly due to different politicians and parties trying to directly pander to specific demographics. It doesn't always work - like Trump saying you can't be Jewish and vote for Harris is laughable. But in rural areas it's hard to be a Democrat and be out and proud about it; in urban areas, it's hard to be a Republican in the sea of Democrats. And much of that has to do with how heated politics has gotten around issues like abortion, trans rights, DEI, immigration. Politicians on both sides have leaned into the "culture war" - Democrats arguing the rich should pay their fair share, Republicans with their "stop woke". It's really unfortunate that quick sound bytes work so much better than real policy discussion.
Nursie 2y ago
> americans have this weird thing where they worship politicians instead of treating them as disposable public servants who exist at the mercy of your vote As a British person I also find this weird. There was a tiny amount of it with Boris Johnson and that was mirrored in the very small cult of personality that rose up around Jeremy Corbyn. But for the most part politicians of all stripes are considered with mild disdain and actual membership of a political party is seen as probably a bit weird. In America... rallies! Thousands of people actually pay to go and listen to this self-aggrandising nonsense. It's very odd. In the UK I usually voted for the liberal democrats or the greens because each appealed to my views in different ways. Occasionally held my nose and voted Labour when "get the conservatives out" seemed the most important thing. Here in Aus, when I get citizenship, I will feel even more free to vote for smaller parties because we have preference voting. I can (and do) discuss politics with friends who have different views, though as my friends mostly skew liberal (ironically) this means none of them will be voting for the Liberal Party...
- justin66 2y ago
  > Thousands of people actually pay to go and listen to this self-aggrandising nonsense. It's very odd. I’m pretty sure they’re free. They are nevertheless odd.
- mike_hearn 2y ago
  Corbyn was famous for organizing large rallies, if anything this was a criticism of him - he was much more interested in rallies and protests than leadership. Pictures of Corbyn in front of huge crowds at rallies: https://labourlist.org/2019/08/corbyn-encourages-labour-mps-to-join-rallies-against-shutdown/ https://labourlist.org/2019/08/corbyn-encourages-labour-mps-... https://www.counterfire.org/article/letter-left-corbyn-labour-gloves-off-time-to-fight/ https://www.counterfire.org/article/letter-left-corbyn-labou... https://socialistworker.co.uk/news/thousands-rally-for-jeremy-corbyn-as-labour-mps-try-and-force-him-out/ https://socialistworker.co.uk/news/thousands-rally-for-jerem...
  - Nursie 2y ago
    That first one seems to be a bit more protest than rally - but yes, he did seem to, and that’s quite unusual in the UK political landscape.
rebeccaskinner 2y ago
> Those larger parties still have to work together with other parties to form a coalition/anti-coalition. Those coalitions then end up running the country. Although I think there might be some benefits to this style of government, I also think people over-index on it. One way or another these groups end up forming coalitions and making compromises in order to govern. In one case it happens before the election, and mostly behind the scenes with some influence from the primary process. In the other case, it happens after the election when the parties are figure out how to form a majority after the representatives have been selected. One advantage to the former is that at least you know who what other policies your special interest are going to align you with ahead of time, rather than finding out after the fact that your vote brought along more baggage than you bargained for. > You and your friend might disagree about UBI, or trans rights, or whatever, but you both understand that you more or less agree on the other 9/10 issues. But if one the people in that discussion is trans, and the other person doesn't believe that trans people are real, have a right to exist, deserve health care, etc. then it doesn't matter if they agree on 9/10 other issues. Same with abortion. If one person in a discussion believes in the value of rational evidence based decision making, and the other believes in woke 5g space lasers, there's simply no foundation on which to build a shared understanding upon which to base a conversation. Many of the central arguments that are causing polarization in politics today are due to fundamental incompatibilities in values- the kind that no amount of agreement on other matters of policy > Contrast that with american politics where it's all or nothing. If you like abortion and low taxes, there is no way for you to vote. There absolutely is. There's no perfect candidate, but there's still going to be a better choice. You pick what matters most to you, and how many things you are willing to compromise for those things, make the best choice available, and work to push the discussion of one party or the other closer toward your views in the areas you don't like.
- Swizec 2y ago
  > But if one the people in that discussion is trans, and the other person doesn't believe that trans people are real ... Why tho? Just because we might disagree on the details of gender doesn't mean we can't discuss NIMBYism. I don't see what gender has to do with housing. It's possible I'm the weirdo here because the American obsession with identity never quite clicked for me. We once did a "What are your identities" team building exercise and the question felt so nonsensical that I couldn't complete the exercise. (for the record I am pro-trans, at worst indifferent and think it's none of my business)
jaarse 2y ago
Very well put. I think it’s this tribalism, us vs them mentality that is the issue
maeil 2y ago
> Contrast that with american politics where it's all or nothing. If you like abortion and low taxes, there is no way for you to vote. I'm European. The most influential topic in voting behaviour is immigration, as any study (or recent European election result) would tell you. In the wealthier countries, climate policy is also in the top 5. If I want to vote for progressive climate policy and being tough on immigration, there isn't a single party that I can vote for. And there hasn't been, for decades. It's hardly better in Europe.

by Swizec 2y ago

sologoub 2y ago

Agree, the forced two-party system is very limiting and the identity tied to politics is emblematic of modern US. In EU, as I believe in India from the anecdotes in the article, a lot of the identity is tied to the place you are from and the social strata the family occupies. Those are somewhat immutable things (where you were born and what family you are from), so deciding to break off communication with that community is “expensive” socially because there is no other community that will readily accept you as their own. Whereas in US, it’s quite normal to change social circles at will. Density/proximity makes it much more obvious, but the semi-fixed social circles I believe have a lot to do with it. Many US expats report loneliness when moving abroad for similar reasons - it’s hard to find a new inner circle in societies built around other identities.

dgoldstein0 2y ago

That last part is called "identity politics". It's partly due to different politicians and parties trying to directly pander to specific demographics. It doesn't always work - like Trump saying you can't be Jewish and vote for Harris is laughable. But in rural areas it's hard to be a Democrat and be out and proud about it; in urban areas, it's hard to be a Republican in the sea of Democrats. And much of that has to do with how heated politics has gotten around issues like abortion, trans rights, DEI, immigration. Politicians on both sides have leaned into the "culture war" - Democrats arguing the rich should pay their fair share, Republicans with their "stop woke". It's really unfortunate that quick sound bytes work so much better than real policy discussion.

Nursie 2y ago

> americans have this weird thing where they worship politicians instead of treating them as disposable public servants who exist at the mercy of your vote As a British person I also find this weird. There was a tiny amount of it with Boris Johnson and that was mirrored in the very small cult of personality that rose up around Jeremy Corbyn. But for the most part politicians of all stripes are considered with mild disdain and actual membership of a political party is seen as probably a bit weird. In America... rallies! Thousands of people actually pay to go and listen to this self-aggrandising nonsense. It's very odd. In the UK I usually voted for the liberal democrats or the greens because each appealed to my views in different ways. Occasionally held my nose and voted Labour when "get the conservatives out" seemed the most important thing. Here in Aus, when I get citizenship, I will feel even more free to vote for smaller parties because we have preference voting. I can (and do) discuss politics with friends who have different views, though as my friends mostly skew liberal (ironically) this means none of them will be voting for the Liberal Party...

justin66 2y ago
> Thousands of people actually pay to go and listen to this self-aggrandising nonsense. It's very odd. I’m pretty sure they’re free. They are nevertheless odd.
mike_hearn 2y ago
Corbyn was famous for organizing large rallies, if anything this was a criticism of him - he was much more interested in rallies and protests than leadership. Pictures of Corbyn in front of huge crowds at rallies: https://labourlist.org/2019/08/corbyn-encourages-labour-mps-to-join-rallies-against-shutdown/ https://labourlist.org/2019/08/corbyn-encourages-labour-mps-... https://www.counterfire.org/article/letter-left-corbyn-labour-gloves-off-time-to-fight/ https://www.counterfire.org/article/letter-left-corbyn-labou... https://socialistworker.co.uk/news/thousands-rally-for-jeremy-corbyn-as-labour-mps-try-and-force-him-out/ https://socialistworker.co.uk/news/thousands-rally-for-jerem...
- Nursie 2y ago
  That first one seems to be a bit more protest than rally - but yes, he did seem to, and that’s quite unusual in the UK political landscape.

rebeccaskinner 2y ago

> Those larger parties still have to work together with other parties to form a coalition/anti-coalition. Those coalitions then end up running the country. Although I think there might be some benefits to this style of government, I also think people over-index on it. One way or another these groups end up forming coalitions and making compromises in order to govern. In one case it happens before the election, and mostly behind the scenes with some influence from the primary process. In the other case, it happens after the election when the parties are figure out how to form a majority after the representatives have been selected. One advantage to the former is that at least you know who what other policies your special interest are going to align you with ahead of time, rather than finding out after the fact that your vote brought along more baggage than you bargained for. > You and your friend might disagree about UBI, or trans rights, or whatever, but you both understand that you more or less agree on the other 9/10 issues. But if one the people in that discussion is trans, and the other person doesn't believe that trans people are real, have a right to exist, deserve health care, etc. then it doesn't matter if they agree on 9/10 other issues. Same with abortion. If one person in a discussion believes in the value of rational evidence based decision making, and the other believes in woke 5g space lasers, there's simply no foundation on which to build a shared understanding upon which to base a conversation. Many of the central arguments that are causing polarization in politics today are due to fundamental incompatibilities in values- the kind that no amount of agreement on other matters of policy > Contrast that with american politics where it's all or nothing. If you like abortion and low taxes, there is no way for you to vote. There absolutely is. There's no perfect candidate, but there's still going to be a better choice. You pick what matters most to you, and how many things you are willing to compromise for those things, make the best choice available, and work to push the discussion of one party or the other closer toward your views in the areas you don't like.

Swizec 2y ago
> But if one the people in that discussion is trans, and the other person doesn't believe that trans people are real ... Why tho? Just because we might disagree on the details of gender doesn't mean we can't discuss NIMBYism. I don't see what gender has to do with housing. It's possible I'm the weirdo here because the American obsession with identity never quite clicked for me. We once did a "What are your identities" team building exercise and the question felt so nonsensical that I couldn't complete the exercise. (for the record I am pro-trans, at worst indifferent and think it's none of my business)

jaarse 2y ago

Very well put. I think it’s this tribalism, us vs them mentality that is the issue

maeil 2y ago

> Contrast that with american politics where it's all or nothing. If you like abortion and low taxes, there is no way for you to vote. I'm European. The most influential topic in voting behaviour is immigration, as any study (or recent European election result) would tell you. In the wealthier countries, climate policy is also in the top 5. If I want to vote for progressive climate policy and being tough on immigration, there isn't a single party that I can vote for. And there hasn't been, for decades. It's hardly better in Europe.