Is it all about the demographic shift?

Great Debates
1

I think so. It’s a huge controversy: why has U.S. culture become so polarized? But I think the answer is pretty simple.

When White Christian straight males had all the power (1776-19??), non-white non-Christian non-straight non-males could be safely ignored or marginalized or patronized, but when the tide began to turn, the two sides began to form separate camps, and when people saw that this would result, at some point, in the minority voices eventually becoming a majority, the side with all the power began to panic.

They started to oppose the concept of voting, for example. They began to think of authoritarianism as acceptable. They made conspiracy thinking respectable (at least among themselves). They promoted views that science was not valid.

Which only hardened the opposition to them. I, for example, haven’t had to think very hard about who I agree with and disagree with for quite a while: all I have to do is quickly evaluate which camp favors an idea and which one opposes it to know what I think.

Basically, what happened was that Right understood that, very soon, what having a liberal democracy would mean is that their power to impose their values on the rest of the country by fiat will inevitably disappear. This being utterly unacceptable to them, they ceased all attempts to compromise or form any sort of coalition with their political opponents, which is why we are in the polarized state we’re in right now, and it can only get more so.

2

That might be part of it. I think a big part is the rise of social media and the use of algorithms to deliver more and more extreme content to people based on their browsing/posting history. Along with this there is the phenomena of advertising revenue based on “clicks”, the use of “click bait” article titles / headlines, and the unwillingness of people to read past the headline.

3

Perceptions of a demographic shift have importance, but it’s more complicated than Roger lets on.

While right-wingers have been very slow to modify positions to appeal to new classes of voters (while pursuing a limited core of diehards for short-term power), the idea of inevitable triumph through demographics has made progressives complacent and less willing to compromise. As immigrants and younger voters gain status, their allegiance to progressive ideals tends to wane and they may find conservative (or at least centrist) candidates more appealing.

My irony meter’s needle just slammed against the stop.

4

I think it’s more about politicians ignoring the working-class and focusing on coastal cities, like Hillary ignoring the midwest in 2016. It also might be about ‘country boys can survive’.

5

I think you’re largely correct.

Humans, historically, have NOT given up power willingly. It’s nothing to do with being white or being male–in any culture in which black females (for example) were at the top of the status hierarchy for millennia and then had to give that up, those black females would behave very much the way a lot of white males behave now. (That is, to form political groups aimed at stopping the change.)

I can’t point to a concrete example of this, as history provides few instances in which black females were the undoubted rulers of entire political units and then were deposed by demographic change. Nonetheless, I believe it to be true that humans in all their variety are prone to trying to hang onto power (if they have it).

I mention all this because I believe it’s a serious strategic error for the left to imply or even state outright that (say) straight white Christian males are trying to keep others from voting because straight white Christian males are inherently evil.

Nope–it’s just that human trait of wanting to stay at the top of the power hierarchy, and having no trouble justifying vicious conduct in the service of that goal. Those who do have trouble with self-justification, of course, form the opposition to the fascists.

But in other circumstances, people of other demographic traits are capable of being just as fascist in their conduct and philosophy as are ‘straight white Christian males.’

6

Are you suggesting that all the White, Christian, straight males are on one side and everybody else is on the other side?

7

I think Richard_Pearse is on the right track. It’s much easier nowadays, it appears, to ideologically self-segregate. The fact that so-called modern liberals have now turned into humorless, censorious scolds and zealots hasn’t helped either.

8

Why? Because I’m recognizing my own part in the process? I didn’t initiate the process, but I’ve certainly responded to the polarization by becoming more polarized myself.

9

That attitude certainly makes things easier. One needn’t think for oneself!

10

And do you suppose I’m unaware of this change in myself? I rather enjoyed discerning the times I endorsed the more conservative viewpoint, when there was one. Now there’s not. I don’t need to think very long or very long on whether the Nazi position makes some sense to me.

11

I wish I could find it now, but I once saw a graph that showed the percentage of bills in Congress that were sponsored by Republicans and Democrats.

The graph showed a relatively high percentage of bills were sponsored by Republicans and Democrats up until around 1981. And then the percentage steadily decreased as the years went on.

So maybe Reagan is to blame for sowing the seeds of “us against them.”

12

Actually, and this is more IMHO territory that GD, I think there is a truth to the Reagan years being a turning point, because that’s the point when the Republican party tied itself to the Christian Conservative movement.

Again, IMHO, prior to this, the parties opposed each other to a degree, but it was based on various different priorities and governing philosophies, as well as supporting each side’s own vested interests (they weren’t innocent on either side by any means).

But once the Religious Right became a major part of the platform, then there was definitely a shift towards one side claiming it was righteous, and by direct statement or just nuance, the other party was not disagreeing, or mistaken, or even wrong, but they were EVIL.

And it’s only gotten worse with each election cycle since then. It used to amuse me when you’d see the Republican primaries, and each candidate would claim ever increasingly their religious bona fides, and then try to ignore that when the general election come around and they had to appeal to the mainstream undecided posters.

Combine this with the issues outlined above (media fractals, changing demographics, changing assumption, etc), it seems that the intractability is here to stay.

And this completely leaves out the most recent trend, which is electing representatives that exist by their own admission to troll the other side with zero legislative intent on their own, or at best just negating the other party. That’s their sole purpose.

One additional, and very important point I want to make: we shouldn’t oversimplify. I don’t think we CAN tie responsibility to any one thing, and by trying to do so, we leave ourselves open to being blindsided by factors we failed to consider. Not that I think any of us are actually doing that, but it’s an easy hole to fall into when debating the merits of the many POVs represented.

13

This is similar, and is based on voting records of congress people. Note how the plots begin to diverge starting in the early 1980s:

14

You’re missing the point that I think OP was making. When one “side” is now nothing more than reality-denying fascist lunatics, actively and openly seeking to undermine democracy, it takes no time and no deep thought for any civilized person to realize that they must support the other side, even if they do not agree with the other side’s positions in every detail. As in P.J.O’Rourke’s reluctant support for Clinton, “wrong within normal parameters”. And to suggest that both sides then bear responsibility for ruling out any reasonable prospect of bipartisan compromise in government is ludicrous.

15

I think a huge part of it is that the Right managed to wind religion into it all.

That way, the people who are voting Republican are voting that way out of a degree of religious conviction and the absolute unwillingness to compromise that entails, as they know that they’re right. There’s no arguing with true believers.

16

Having seen a lot of Hispanic and Asian Americans here in Texas and elsewhere embracing Trumpism and ludicrous QAnon-like conspiracies, I really think it has little to do with race and rather it’s much more about religion.

The Christian conservative right must win one way or another. This shows up in many ways, in elections and also in the church. In church, for instance, it means that if children genuinely grow up as true Christians who love God, that’s perfect - truly ideal! But if they don’t, then the grown ups must, reluctantly, with a heavy heart, force them to accept God or at least pretend to. What’s unacceptable is for them to be “allowed” to not be Christian. This is why you see many conservative-Christian parents forcing Christianity down their kids’ throats - a behavior seen in white and non-white conservative Christian parenting alike. It’s really not about race. A Hispanic parent of this sort can be every bit as domineering as a white parent, in fact maybe even more so.

Same thing with elections. Ideally, America would vote conservative with a willing heart - that’s perfect! Truly ideal. But if America strays from the path and goes liberal, then the conservatives must, reluctantly, with a sigh, force America to be conservative again. What’s unacceptable is an America that is…not conservative.

In other words, it all boils down to a mentality of “We can do this the easy way, or the hard way. What’s not acceptable is not doing it at all.”

17

When the demographics of the people who got arrested for attending the January 6th coup were looked into, it was found that the coup arrestees didn’t come from hardcore Trump counties. They found that the faster the population of non-whites was growing in the counties they were from, the higher likelihood that (white) people went to the capitol from those counties to try to overthrow the government.

The 377 people did not come from pro-Trump counties. In fact, the majority of them came from “blue counties that [Joe] Biden won comfortably,” Pape found. But he also analyzed recent demographic changes in the home counties of the protesters, leading him to this finding:

“By far the most interesting characteristic common to the insurrectionists’ backgrounds has to do with changes in their local demographics: Counties with the most significant declines in the non-Hispanic White population are the most likely to produce insurrectionists who now face charges.”

To restate that for emphasis or clarity: Those protesters who did enough to get arrested and charged with crimes came from counties that both were carried by Biden, and, while still majority white, have recently experienced a significant increase in non-whites in their populations.

Basically, places like Virginia (to name a state where a lot of us have seen it go from red to purple to blue in our lifetimes) which used to be hardcore right wing strongholds but now are purple/blue areas due to things like growing minority population cause the whites who subscribe to fears of replacement theory more likely to do something radical to try to regain power.

But as to OP, yeah, its all about demographics and replacement theory. Whenever the white christian patriarchal power structure feels threatened they always resort to terrorism and rolling back democracy to maintain power. Whats happening now is no different than what happened after the civil war, or during the immigration waves fo the 1920s, or during the civil rights era of the 1960s. Each of these periods saw outgroups grow in number and power, and it results in white christian conservatives engaging in terrorism and anti-democracy activities to prevent the out-groups from using their new powers.

IMO, this is the fourth major pushback period against democracy and in favor of terrorism from disgruntled white christians upset about multiculturalism and a multiracial society since the civil war. Like those periods, I’m hoping it’ll eventually stop but who knows.

18

Who, precisely, has been saying that?

Yeah, I’ve got a problem with that, myself.

19

The one thing that quickly become abundantly clear is that we have a lot of problems in society. Far too many to actually deal with them. I have always suggested that we need to go down a little lower on the tree and closer to the trunk. Peoples needs are not being met, Not just talking about food, shelter and sex. Many of us are having a hard time becoming someone we like and admire. If we focused more on ways to give people more opportunities to realize an identify they are happy with many of the other issues would fall into place. Social media has this potential but is being misused. Humans put great value on things that allow them to feel better about themselves and become very loyal to the source of that validation. Color and race are a lot less relevant than they appear to be. I would like to see a society where advocates for others held a very hgh status. I firmly believe that something as simple as this could get things going in the right direction.

20

IMHO the bigger conflict is between supporters of authoritarianism* and supporters of democracy*. The conflict seems to be a worldwide problem, which for whatever reason started flaring up around the time that Trump was elected. I don’t believe that Trump winning triggered the problem, but his election did make things worse. Consider all the other authoritarian rulers around the world that have enjoyed success since around 2015. It’s not just those in the traditional authoritarian countries like Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea. There’s leaders like Modi in India, Bolsonaro in Brazil, Duterte in the Philippines, and Orban in Hungary. South Korea and Japan have conservative leaders. Then of course there’s Trump and Boris Johnson, as well as Brexit being successful. Why authoritarianism has had a surge in popularity around the world is unclear to me, but I can’t deny that this isn’t a worldwide problem, not just a problem in the United States or the West, and not due just to the demographics of non-white people in the suburbs of the United States.

*. I’m defining the two sides broadly. Authoritarians are those that believe in might makes right, do as I say because I have moral authority type leadership. From an economic standpoint, the authoritarians tend to be of the “I’ve got mine so fuck you” or “I don’t have mine so I’ll take it unfairly” type mindset. They believe in their leaders because they are the leaders, or because God told them to trust those leaders, not because the leaders have the best knowledge.

Small d democrats are those that believe not just in representative democracy, but in authoritative rather than authoritarian leadership. They trust their leaders because their leaders are advised by the most knowledgable technocrats (Dr. Fauci is the most recent best example). From an economic standpoint the democrats tend have “a rising tide lifts all boats” mindset.