Will the death of American social conservatism produce a completely new party system?

[Steve_MB]

@Pjen

I am not sure how we can predict future religious affiliation. In the UK we have gone from nearly full church attendance to less than 10% in a century!

@Hector_St_Clare

It’s not a very sophisticated estimate, but you can do a back-of-the envelope estimate based on fertility rates and interconversion rates.

Religious people have more children than secular ones* (evangelicals have about 2.5 per women, secular people about 1.5), and people raised ‘secular’ are somewhat more likely to convert to a religion as adults, than people raised religious are to lose their religion. (The Pew Forum refers to this as secularists having a lower ‘retention rate’ than religious people as a whole, and also lower than most individual religions). Those two are factors that tend to decrease the relative proportion of secularists. On the flip side, there is a much larger number of religious people right now, in America. So even if only 33% of raised-religious people convert to secularism as adults, as compared to 50% of people raised secular, that still produces a net outflow of people from religion into secularism.

Assuming birth rates and interconversion rates stay the same, the religious and secular populations should reach equilibrium at around 60:40. IIRC, relatively soon, within a couple generations or so. Anyone with the time and access to the data is welcome to make a better estimate, as I said this is purely back-of-the-envelope.

*Religiosity is also somewhat heritable, IIRC the heritability is around 0.5.

Well, that’s a very impressive proof you got there, demonstrating the utter impossibility of going from nearly full church attendance to less than 10% in a century. Got one that proves that bumblebees can’t fly?

[adaher]

@ElvisL1ves

We’ve never had multiple languages or racial enclaves before, have we? :rolleyes:

Of course we have. When we are a melting pot, we do fine. Some, however, believe that we’re getting away from assimilation, which would be truly disastrous in the long term.

[ElvisL1ves]

“Some” believe that, do they?

Why do you?

[adaher]

Don’t know. Multiculturalism has certainly replaced assimilation in the national consciousness, but immigrants’ kids still stubbornly insist on being indistinguishable from other Americans culturally, so maybe there’s no problem. I guess we’ll find out.

[BrainGlutton]

@adaher

Watch the old HBO movie, “The Second Civil War”. Balkanization is historically no nation’s friend.

Balkanization is by definition geographical. No such danger looms over America. The geographical divide in our politics is not North v. South or East v. West or Coasts v. Flyover, but City v. Countryside, and you can’t make a secessionist movement out of the latter.

From The Next American Nation, by Michael Lind:

The chief danger confronting the twenty-first century United States is not Balkanization but what might be called Brazilianization. By Brazilianization I mean not the separation of cultures by race, but the separation of races by class. As in Brazil, a common American culture could be indefinitely compatible with a blurry, informal caste system in which most of those at the top of the social hierarchy are white, and most brown and black Americans are on the bottom – forever. Behind all the boosterish talk about the wonders of the new American rainbow is the reality of enduring racial division by class, something that multicultural education initiatives and racial preference policies do not begin to address.

In the absence of sustained popular pressure from below or concern about America’s international status, the white overclass has no incentive to combat Brazilianization in the United States. For one thing, any serious effort to reduce racial separation by class would inevitably mean higher taxes on the affluent – not just the rich, but the politically powerful upper-middle class. What is more, the dominance of the white oligarchy in American politics is strengthened by the emergent dynamics of a polarized society. In a more homogeneous society, the increasing concentration of wealth and power at the top might produce a populist reaction by the majority. But in a society like that of present-day America where a small, homogeneous oligarchy confronts a diverse population that shares a common national culture but remains divided along racial lines, the position of the outnumbered elite can be very secure. This is because the resentments caused by economic decline are likely to be expressed as hostility between the groups at the bottom, rather than as a rebellion against the top. In the Los Angeles riot, black, Hispanic, and white rioters turned on Korean middlemen, rather than march on Beverly Hills.

[BrainGlutton]

@ElvisL1ves

We’ve never had multiple languages or racial enclaves before, have we? :rolleyes:

Lawrence Welk spoke with a kindasorta German accent all his life because he grew up in a town in North Dakota where nobody spoke anything else.

[ElvisL1ves]

The results were “truly disastrous in the long term” too.

[adaher]

Back then, assimilation was expected and taught in the school system.

For 150 years, immersion has been a proven method to teach a language. Today, our society prefers bilingual education.

[ElvisL1ves]

And getting off lawns.

[adaher]

That’s what I think whenever someone brings up the Fairness Doctrine. Or high marginal tax rates. Or increasing tariffs.

[Human_Action]

@adaher

Back then, assimilation was expected and taught in the school system.

For 150 years, immersion has been a proven method to teach a language. Today, our society prefers bilingual education.

Not since 2002, No Child Left Behind reduced funding for bilingual education and emphasized English immersion.

[BobLibDem]

@adaher

We’ll never be libertarian as the Libertarian Party sees it, but we continue to become more libertarian with time. The country is inexorably moving towards more freedom in both the social and economic spheres and the public is only growing more and more distrustful of government. The last time the American public’s attitudes towards government warmed was when it was being cut, during the Clinton years.

I think that in 50 years America will be a very different place and both right and left will have victories to cheer. Fiscal realities plus changing American attitudes means that the federal government in 50 years will be nothing more than an insurance company with an army. It will have mostly abandoned any of its other roles. On the bright side for liberals, at least no one will be able to say that the government is too complex for a President to manage. Just keep the checks going out. Who can screw that up?

I doubt your theory- note the subdued outrage over the TSA and NSA. Government intrusion seems to be tolerated in some areas, so I’m not seeing that mistrust of government that you note. Also note that the big crisis of 2008 was largely caused by lack of government oversight and regulation, so a lot of us are welcoming new restrictions on banking and investing. Faith in government will return when we rid it of Republican obstructionism.

Your 50 year vision is humorous. We’ll still have the FDA, SEC, FCC, TSA, FBI, USDA, etc. and there will be a sizeable bureaucracy left.

[adaher]

The only reason outrage over TSA and NSA was subdued was because Democrats proved they had no principles. For some reason I can’t fathom, all of a sudden this stuff was okay. I wonder what changed? Oh well, we can fix that. Elect a Republican, and then the country will be united in anti government fervor again.

As for the bureaucracies, the fact that entitlements will increasingly crowd out other agency spending is a well understood problem. It is unlikely to be solved, because when push comes to shove, it’s easier to just do these other jobs badly, or devolve them to the states, then take away people’s monthly checks or medical care.

[iiandyiiii]

@adaher

The only reason outrage over TSA and NSA was subdued was because Democrats proved they had no principles.

Why spout such nonsense? Are you a right-wing talking points machine? Are you Hannity’s teleprompter?

[adaher]

In 2006, only 37% of Democrats found NSA surveillance acceptable, and 61% found it unacceptable. Today, the numbers almost flipped: 64% find it acceptable, and 34% find it unacceptable. What’s the difference? Why, there’s a Democrat in office, of course! They don’t want that mean old war-mongering cowboy George W. Bush spying on them, but Obama’s only listening to them because he’s sensitive. As a group, Democrats now support NSA surveillance more than Independents (53%) and Republicans (52%). Republicans have their own hypocrisy, for sure: Republican support dropped from 75% to 52%, still maintaining a majority.

Do Democratic partisans forget that House Dems Voted 2:1 against extending...

[iiandyiiii]

@adaher

In 2006, only 37% of Democrats found NSA surveillance acceptable, and 61% found it unacceptable. Today, the numbers almost flipped: 64% find it acceptable, and 34% find it unacceptable. What’s the difference? Why, there’s a Democrat in office, of course! They don’t want that mean old war-mongering cowboy George W. Bush spying on them, but Obama’s only listening to them because he’s sensitive. As a group, Democrats now support NSA surveillance more than Independents (53%) and Republicans (52%). Republicans have their own hypocrisy, for sure: Republican support dropped from 75% to 52%, still maintaining a majority.

Do Democratic partisans forget that House Dems Voted 2:1 against extending the PATRIOT Act in 2011?

So “Democrats have no principles”, Mr. Hannity. What’s the point?

[adaher]

The point was that that’s the only reason the country wasn’t outraged about NSA spying or the TSA. Responding to BrainGlutton, who used that as an example that the country isn’t becoming more libertarian. I argue that this is simply a temporary result caused by a Democratic President who Democrats for some reason really trust. He could probably take us to war in Iran with no problem.

[iiandyiiii]

@adaher

The point was that that’s the only reason the country wasn’t outraged about NSA spying or the TSA. Responding to BrainGlutton, who used that as an example that the country isn’t becoming more libertarian. I argue that this is simply a temporary result caused by a Democratic President who Democrats for some reason really trust.

Okay, this is a reasonable supposition. Saying “Democrats have no principles” is not.

He could probably take us to war in Iran with no problem.

This is not reasonable.

[adaher]

A large percentage of Democrats either have no principles or just have a weird amount of trust in a politician. This, I argue is unhealthy.

And why wouldn’t assuming Obama could take us to war with Iran without a problem unreasonable? He took us to war in Libya with barely a peep from anyone.

[Kobal2]

@adaher

He took us to war in Libya with barely a peep from anyone.

No, he didn’t.