The rancor started with line in the sand issues. Abortion drove a wedge between the parties after Roe v. Wade. The Welfare state started with Johnson’s Great Society in the 60’s. It’s been bitterly contested by conservatives.
There are many other give no quarter, no compromise issues that leave no room for bipartisanship.
We’re at a point now where there’s a huge divide between conservative and liberal. Each side envisions a completely different version of the US.
It’s also a elitist urban vs mid Western problem. Democrats usually win the heavily populated coastal states. Republicans win the heartland.
I suspect Roe v Wade was premature. The Court was ahead of the public decision. As I understand it, abortion laws were being liberalized in many states over a long period. This process was never much of a hot potato. Then the Supreme Court managed to make it a national issue.
A lot of Americans were told to shut up about abortion when they were not finished noodling it over. People being people they disliked being told to shut up. People double-down on their positions when they are told they are wrong.
Gradual persuasion and conversation would have worked better, but taken longer.
And this cost in 1973 would have been less than it was in 1972, and 1974 would have had even less cost, 1976 would have continued the trend. Self-government is a slow, confused and messy project. It takes time. In this case liberalization of abortion was proceeding apace. Hurrying it may have been a mistake.
At the danger of asking a serious question, Roe v Wade helped make abortion rights a Big Deal on the right. When did they become a Big Deal on the left? About the same time?
Yes, I realize that a lot of conservatives feel that way about liberals. People can feel however they want about global warming or whatever else, but feeling and knowing are two different things.
But my problem with modern conservatives - again not 100% of them by any means - is that it’s gotten to the point where their antics have essentially poisoned the well of political discourse to the point where there is no discourse. The fine people at Fox News, the Rush Limbaughs, the Sean Hannities, the Alex Jones…they’ve basically shut down the conversation.
I think that the left is starting to become more radicalized, but it’s in response to the radicalization of the right, which has existed and gone mainstream for quite some time now. I don’t like the radicalization and polarization on either side. But I don’t accept that both sides are equally responsible.
Why do you roll your eyes? Why is it that conservatives smugly laugh off something that has been scientifically established? Look, just because Al Gore’s prediction of polar ice caps melting in 10 years or whatever the fuck he said in his documentary didn’t happen, that doesn’t change the basic fact that humans are heating up the earth.
If you eat junk food every day of your life you’re in danger of everything from heart disease to diabetes to cancer. A doctor may not be able to tell you which one of these will take you to your grave early or when, but he knows it’s going to lead to an inevitably early death unless you do something about it. The same applies to the issue of human activity and climate change.
Again, this is an example of why it’s difficult to discuss anything with conservatives who live in a fact-free world and don’t seem interested in acknowledging basic reality.
Again, the result of more right wing ignorance. For one thing, a similar play took place during the Obama administration and I never once heard any controversy about that. But beyond that the message of the play is to consider what happened as a result of Caesar’s death. His assassination was followed by chaos and instability that actually led to the collapse of Rome as a republic. That’s the message of the point of the play: using undemocratic means to resolve a perceived political crisis is generally unwise.
But all we’ve heard the last few days is how this play is somehow encouraging violence, and now people in the right wing media out of their own ignorance are implicitly encouraging unruly Trump supporters to interrupt a live performance. It’s really unfortunate, but I’m not going to wait for anyone at Fox News or any other right wing mouthpiece to crack open a fucking book and read about the play or the historical record that it refers to, or to simply have the decency to ask someone in the production about the purpose of substituting ‘Caesar’ with a sitting president. I can deal with occasional ignorance, but it’s much harder to have a favorable opinion of someone when it’s clear that they want to continue a “debate” by doubling down on their own ignorance. I don’t have time for that.
Back to the topic at hand, which I believe was why we can’t get along…I generally do avoid name calling because namecalling is just being a douchebag. But do I want to spend time around people who have unhealthy attitudes toward foreigners (especially when my wife and in-laws are ‘foreigners’)? Do I want to spend time with people who talk over me and try to shout me down and double down on their ignorance? Do I want to live in cities where people are okay with polluting rivers and lakes? Do I want to live in a state that cuts funding for education and public transportation to give sweetheart tax breaks for “job creators”? No, I really don’t. I’m fine not being in their presence. I still have conservative friends and family members but they live in their part of the world and I live in mine, and we don’t talk politics much anymore. It’s just better this way - it allows me to appreciate the many things about them I do like.
Actually, I don’t think it’s that rare of an outlook. Puddlegum suggests that a compromise on gay marriage is to allow it in some states, but not others: that some Americans should have less rights than others depending if they live in red America. I’m just calling it what it is.
Whether it is the right to marry or the right to decide what happens to your own body, the idea that some Americans should wait for their rights while we let the most bigoted get used to the idea is repugnant. As MLK wrote in his letter from the Birmingham Jail:
We won’t go extinct. But climate change might well cause mass human suffering greater than any catastrophe in millenia, even the Holocaust – tens or hundreds of millions, or more, might starve to death, along with the accompanying mass chaos and conflict from vital resources (water and food) being very uncertain.
The Earth will be fine in the long run, no matter what we do. It’s humans that I’m worried about – huge numbers of people could suffer if most scientists are right about climate change.
I agree with this. If there’s a way to reach or connect with devoted listeners to Hannity, Limbaugh, Jones, and the like on anything substantive, I haven’t yet figured it out.
You can blame Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes along with the Internet for creating the radical political environment we live in now in the mid 90s. The internet gave a voice to every crackpot and fridge conspiracist and Fox New’s pioneering of “angry political news reporting” gave them legitimacy.
Why is it an “elitist” urban problem and not just an urban vs problem?
The world is changing and in general is becoming more urbanized, more interconnected and more globalized in general. These are irresistible forces being generated by advances in technology and the desire of billions of people to enjoy a higher standard of living. The “problem” IMHO is that these trends are intruding on these disparate, previously disconnected “red state” communities and it scares them. Some of these fears are legitimate. Like unseen forces of globalization closing the local factory and killing the town. Other fear, like objecting to gay marriage, are not.
This is important because it disrupts the narrative of conservative states being dictated to by a relatively small group of liberal ivory tower intellectuals in New York and San Francisco. I know plenty of New Yorkers who voted for Trump and there appear to be plenty of liberals on this board living in Alabama.
Going back to the general theme of the thread, I know you are trying to start an honest discussion and trying to be centered, objective, and fair - and that’s absolutely noble. Objectivity and fairness are democratic, egalitarian values, and I agree with them.
But I find that there are people who don’t really subscribe to those same sets of values, and that is where I draw the line. And no amount of trying to rationalize with them is going to work – they just want what they want. The Civil Rights movement is a classic example of this. The segregationists didn’t want fair system; they wanted a system that elevated ‘their kind’ over others. No amount of talking to them was ever going to change their minds on this. It was up to the rest of America to say that this is not something we’re going to accept. Obviously there’s a right way and a wrong way to go about voicing that disagreement, but just hoping that everyone would eventually appeal to their better angels isn’t always going to work. There are times when you simply have to call it like you see it and confront people on their bullshit.
You have admitted, in so many words, that you voted for Trump in large part as an F.U. to liberals. Thus, the following statement is nothing by hypocrisy.
I think you’ve been treated better here by most posters than you actually deserve.
I wrote a similar response but didn’t post it because it was too long. But I completely agree with this. We could have slow-rolled any number of socially progressive changes until greater consensus was built. Chief among them would be abolition of slavery, women’s voting rights, civil rights movement, SSM, etc…
It’s easy to preach patience when you’re not the one on the business end of the stick of injustice. But we must look honestly at whose feelings we are looking to protect when we delay actions to achieving a more just society; it’s rarely the victims of injustice, it’s almost always those standing in opposition and fear of change.
Haven’t read the whole thread but a big part of the problem begins with uniformity of opinion. I mean, there’s no reason that a person’s stand on, say, abortion rights should be a predictor of their position on capital gains taxes or intervention in the Elbonian civil war, but it has become one because any deviation from the orthodoxy makes one suspect.