• 20 of America's top political scientists gathered to discuss our democracy. They're scared.
    92 replies, posted
[QUOTE]Is American democracy in decline? Should we be worried? On October 6, some of America’s top political scientists gathered at Yale University to answer these questions. And nearly everyone agreed: American democracy is eroding on multiple fronts — socially, culturally, and economically.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]The scholars pointed to breakdowns in social cohesion (meaning citizens are more fragmented than ever), the rise of tribalism, the erosion of democratic norms such as a commitment to rule of law, and a loss of faith in the electoral and economic systems as clear signs of democratic erosion.[/QUOTE] [B]I highly recommend reading the whole article, it goes into deep detail and is written very well.[/B] Source is Vox so take bias into account: [url]https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/2017/10/13/16431502/america-democracy-decline-liberalism[/url] Can mods move to polidicks? [editline]8th January 2018[/editline] TLDR: America is too divided and cannot survive as such. People are increasingly becoming identiarian extremists or conservative extremists due to unhappiness with the economy and culture. Both sides live in opposite worlds and insist the other is a grave threat. The average American no longer has faith in the system “delivering” and so they are driven to extremes.
a civil war is not out of the question
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;53034581]a civil war is not out of the question[/QUOTE] More likely is the eroding of civil liberties due to explotation of the division. Wether by a leftist or rightist, to the point where democracy is unrecognizable. It is possible though. [QUOTE]Consider this stat: In 1960, 5 percent of Republicans and 4 percent of Democrats objected to the idea of their children marrying across political lines. In 2010, those numbers jumped to 46 percent and 33 percent respectively. Divides like this are eating away at the American social fabric.[/QUOTE]
Speaking of the division between Liberal and Conservative, I recall hearing that in the past both liberals and conservatives worked together in academia. Now years of anti-intellectualism and conspiracy in right-wing news groups and sponsors (such as big oil) have driven those numbers down. We're at the point where you have quite a few people calling scientific study a liberal conspiracy. And then it doesn't help that some of the people entering academia seem to have heard of this and decided to act it out unironically, using their influence to push far-left beliefs onto their students, or doing stupid shit like segregating dorms in the name of safety. Which just gives more fuel to the fire for the other side, which is now teetering on crazy.
People go on about the constitution and its amendments to the point where it's become a partisan issue to base parties around, ironic seeing how the founding fathers hated political parties. If they could see yall today Further ironic is the US pretty much inheriting the British empires place in the world, right down to the wigs vs libs style political parties, doomed invasions of Afghanistan, fighting Russia and massive inequality. You took our favoured pastime of meddling in places, you even went in for our sloppy seconds with Persia. You're not killing millions in India so I guess you're an improvement. The US political system was designed to minimise the input of the people voting. I wonder if this divide is designed to achieve the same end, give people a menu where they can pick between lgbt rights, racial equality, gun rights, abortion rights, religious rights but what they don't get to pick, and what is served with every meal regardleas of what you ordered is a main course of big business.
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;53034602]You took our favoured pastime of meddling in places, you even went in for our sloppy seconds with Persia.[/QUOTE] Hey! You asked us to do it! They wanted to nationalize your oil!
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;53034605]Hey! You asked us to do it! They wanted to nationalize your oil![/QUOTE] *UK and US together* Damn socialists
It's really really really hard not to shift most of the blame for this onto our cable news channels.
[QUOTE=Gbps;53034624]It's really really really hard not to shift most of the blame for this onto our cable news channels.[/QUOTE] Social media too. It's easier than ever to hide yourself away in a bubble and only speak with people who mirror/confirm your own views. But Orwell complained about the same thing happening back then so maybe its just a thing
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;53034640]Social media too. It's easier than ever to hide yourself away in a bubble and only speak with people who mirror/confirm your own views. But Orwell complained about the same thing happening back then so maybe its just a thing[/QUOTE] isolationism was never an endemic problem like it is today, and i would say part of that is due to the internet's ability to give you any echochamber you could ever wish for
America is my home so I don't want to leave but god damn every day is a new reason to move while I fucking [i]can[/i]
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;53034640]Social media too. It's easier than ever to hide yourself away in a bubble and only speak with people who mirror/confirm your own views. But Orwell complained about the same thing happening back then so maybe its just a thing[/QUOTE] It's really fucked up that Orwell's nightmare of a world where words and thoughts are controlled and ostracised and Huxley's nightmare where people are too apathetic and overwhelmed by pointless noise to do anything are both coming true at the same time.
[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;53034657]It's really fucked up that Orwell's nightmare of a world where words and thoughts are controlled and ostracised and Huxley's nightmare where people are too apathetic and overwhelmed by pointless noise to do anything are both coming true at the same time.[/QUOTE] Orwell recognised the big role apathy plays as well I think
[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;53034648]America is my home so I don't want to leave but god damn every day is a new reason to move while I fucking [i]can[/i][/QUOTE] Lucky that you can escape political, social, economic turmoil at a moments notice. For me, I'm not that self-sufficient, I am kind helpless when it comes to traveling. Been kind of scared to drive, and I take care of my parents, nothing much I can do when it comes to the grand scheme of things. So I will be here, observing, contemplating probable future outcomes that seem coherently possible for the US. It's going to be a overwhelming learning experience for the entire country. Absurdity, rabbit holes, mocking to nightmares.
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;53034640]Social media too. It's easier than ever to hide yourself away in a bubble and only speak with people who mirror/confirm your own views. But Orwell complained about the same thing happening back then so maybe its just a thing[/QUOTE] As opposed to back in the good old days where you were born in a bubble?
[QUOTE=LZTYBRN;53034644]isolationism was never an endemic problem like it is today, and i would say part of that is due to the internet's ability to give you any echochamber you could ever wish for[/QUOTE] Aye Also those targetted ads/algorithms and internet search bubbles. It's like automated echo chambers [editline]8th January 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=gokiyono;53034677]As opposed to back in the good old days where you were born in a bubble?[/QUOTE] Ye true but I think it might have had a moderating influence. If you held a view and wanted to explore it you had to expose it to people who may or may not have shared it - allowing it to be challenged. Now if a person has a radical view they can, without fail, find a place where their views are welcomed - no need to challenge it. Even if they don't go to a place which agrees with them, it's easier to share, they (or I should say we) have anonymity, we can walk away at any time - its easier to express a controversial idea online than it is irl. So ye bubbles existed but I guess they were different types of bubbles.
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;53034581]a civil war is not out of the question[/QUOTE] Depends on what kind of war you mean. I don't think it'll be fought with guns and explosives, mostly due to the general health and lack of experience of the general population, not to mention on the one hand you have conservative republican gun-rights activists who have plenty of firearm experience, while on the other hand you have liberal democrats who generally avoid it. Kind of a sweeping generalisation, sure, and I'm just going off my own anecdotal encounters with people on both ends of the spectrum, but that's what I see. Given the age we live in though, wars can be waged in other ways. Makes me wonder what a cyber-based civil war in the current information age would look like.
You could argue that a civil war on the internet would be more damaging to the economy than a traditional one if we assume the actions of the information recipients on society reflect the goals of the one's waging this kind of war.
We're at the point where republican texas is constantly shitting on liberal california over everything in actual official statements
[QUOTE=Firetornado;53034540]People are increasingly becoming identiarian extremists or conservative [/QUOTE] That's a false dichotomy because identitarians and conservative are both right-wing. The opposite of a conservative would be a progressive, and the opposite of an identitarian would be an internationalist
[QUOTE=gokiyono;53034677]As opposed to back in the good old days where you were born in a bubble?[/QUOTE] Everyone was confined to their own bubble before the Internet meant they could reach like-minded people across any distance. You lived in a bubble and inside that bubble shit could get pretty abnormal, but once you left that bubble, you were confronted with the outside of the bubble, and locating other like-minded bubbles wasn't as easy. The South was pretty racist but you didn't have people radicalizing in random places due to neo-nazi Internet outreach.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;53034598]Speaking of the division between Liberal and Conservative, I recall hearing that in the past both liberals and conservatives worked together in academia. Now years of anti-intellectualism and conspiracy in right-wing news groups and sponsors (such as big oil) have driven those numbers down. We're at the point where you have quite a few people calling scientific study a liberal conspiracy. And then it doesn't help that some of the people entering academia seem to have heard of this and decided to act it out unironically, using their influence to push far-left beliefs onto their students, or doing stupid shit like segregating dorms in the name of safety. Which just gives more fuel to the fire for the other side, which is now teetering on crazy.[/QUOTE] I think this attitude is part of the problem; blaming and alienating one side primarily and giving only a passing mention to the bilateral nature of the causes. You say it is the conservatives who have driven the wedge regarding collaboration and discussion within academia, maybe you're right, but I do not see conservatives no-platforming people. As for your dismissal of peoples concern regarding scientific study, I wonder if you are aware of the increasing politicization of science (on both sides) and the damage that is causing to science as an institution. Their concerns are legitimate, if misguided. You describe "the other side" as teetering on crazy and that leads me to believe you are unable to understand that whatever your side is, it can appear crazy to the other side, and that is the very crux of the problem undermining our democracies. Lack of mutual respect. You should read up on moral foundations theory and it's application to political ideology. I've seen one person here on facepunch say something like "all opinions are equally shitty, but some are more shitty than others". Like, fucking hell, read animal farm or something. We need to start respecting each other, and each others opinions, even if we don't agree with them, even if they make us froth and rage. Respect the human experience that led to the formation of that opinion. If you can disprove a statement somebody makes, do it, but do it with some fucking decency and kindness, helping them attain knowledge rather than beating them over the head with it in an ideological war. If you can't, respect it as their opinion and try to love and respect them as a fellow human being as difficult as that may be.
[QUOTE=th0rianite;53034788]I think this attitude is part of the problem; blaming and alienating one side primarily and giving only a passing mention to the bilateral nature of the causes. You say it is the conservatives who have driven the wedge regarding collaboration and discussion within academia, maybe you're right, but I do not see conservatives no-platforming people. As for your dismissal of peoples concern regarding scientific study, I wonder if you are aware of the increasing politicization of science (on both sides) and the damage that is causing to science as an institution. Their concerns are legitimate, if misguided. You describe "the other side" as teetering on crazy and that leads me to believe you are unable to understand that whatever your side is, it can appear crazy to the other side, and that is the very crux of the problem undermining our democracies. Lack of mutual respect. You should read up on moral foundations theory and it's application to political ideology. I've seen one person here on facepunch say something like "all opinions are equally shitty, but some are more shitty than others". Like, fucking hell, read animal farm or something. We need to start respecting each other, and each others opinions, even if we don't agree with them, even if they make us froth and rage. Respect the human experience that led to the formation of that opinion. If you can disprove a statement somebody makes, do it, but do it with some fucking decency and kindness, helping them attain knowledge rather than beating them over the head with it in an ideological war. If you can't, respect it as their opinion and try to love and respect them as a fellow human being as difficult as that may be.[/QUOTE] Very nice and optimistic but I dunno If someone lies for their own gain at someone else's expense then I can't respect that, if someone believes those lies coz they're too proud or lazy to correct themselves then I can't respect that either. Maybe I'm wrong but IMO people earn respect, it's not some inherent trait; and not all ideas have merit. I blame the people that propagate the misinformation, the people who believe the BS aren't so much at fault because the misinformation is so well produced and we aren't really prepared (biological wise or education wise) to deal with it. Best thing to do is not be too upset when someone doesn't respect your ideas
[QUOTE=th0rianite;53034788]I think this attitude is part of the problem; blaming and alienating one side primarily and giving only a passing mention to the bilateral nature of the causes. You say it is the conservatives who have driven the wedge regarding collaboration and discussion within academia, maybe you're right, but I do not see conservatives no-platforming people. As for your dismissal of peoples concern regarding scientific study, I wonder if you are aware of the increasing politicization of science (on both sides) and the damage that is causing to science as an institution. Their concerns are legitimate, if misguided. You describe "the other side" as teetering on crazy and that leads me to believe you are unable to understand that whatever your side is, it can appear crazy to the other side, and that is the very crux of the problem undermining our democracies. Lack of mutual respect. You should read up on moral foundations theory and it's application to political ideology. I've seen one person here on facepunch say something like "all opinions are equally shitty, but some are more shitty than others". Like, fucking hell, read animal farm or something. We need to start respecting each other, and each others opinions, even if we don't agree with them, even if they make us froth and rage. Respect the human experience that led to the formation of that opinion. If you can disprove a statement somebody makes, do it, but do it with some fucking decency and kindness, helping them attain knowledge rather than beating them over the head with it in an ideological war. If you can't, respect it as their opinion and try to love and respect them as a fellow human being as difficult as that may be.[/QUOTE] We don't need to respect each others' opinions. I will never respect the opinion that blacks are inferior, or that gay people deserve eternity in hell. Those opinions deserve absolutely no respect or consideration. Some opinions are shittier than others. An opinion that supports genocide is shittier than an opinion that child abuse is a bad thing. You're right in that we need outreach. We need to start respecting each other as countrymen and fellow humans again. But we should never, ever say "well you hate Muslims and have fantasies about slaughtering them despite never having met one, but that's your opinion and i'll respect that!" Politically, that means that the Democratic party needs to address the rural collapse of America. Both parties suffer from trying to choose their constituents - democracy is about constituents choosing their representatives. Democracy has been flipped on its head through demographic targeting that allows representatives to hand-pick the people who vote for them. This fosters extremism, as the only worry a rep in a "safe seat" has is from people further to the extremes of their own party. It encourages obstructionism, vilification of the opposition, refusal to compromise, and breakdown of the democratic process. Democrats consistently reject the racist and sexist rural America in favor of the cosmopolitan and diverse urban America. They shape their policy to cater to the vote of urban America, failing to address rural Americans on any significant issues. Republicans latch on to the suffocating rural America, using gerrymandering and voter obstruction to defend the vote from the undeniable liberalization of young Americans. The Republican party will not fix that themselves. They won't try to reach out. Reinhold Niebuhr would, without a shadow of a doubt, consider the Republican party as a whole "moral cynics" without any sort of unifying political ideology. They've proven, under Reagan and Bush and now Trump, that their motivator is self-interest and greed alone. Fix the deficit - until they're in office. States' rights - except weed and sanctuary cities. Foster inter-party cooperation - unless the president is a Democrat, then obstruct. There is no policy consistency. There is no ideology. Ailes, Murdoch, and the propaganda arm of the GOP aren't out there to inform voters about the pros and cons of policy. They lie, misdirect, confuse, and corrupt voters. Democrats need to stop their urban elitism. They need to stop looking at rural voters and saying "ew, racist redneck hillbilly southerners, gross, we're much more accepting and kind." The GOP as a political entity is a self-enriching rich boys' club with no intent to help the country. It's entirely up to the DNC to stop ignoring rural voters and to address their concerns, as FDR and the progressive wing once did, despite their racism and sexism. I care about Republican voters. They're hurting. The heartland of the country is hurting - their towns are disappearing, their roads are falling apart, their jobs no longer exist. It's the civic responsibility of the DNC to address those concerns, since the GOP has no qualms with continuing to imprison, impoverish, abuse, and loot rural America for the cents they have left.
[QUOTE=th0rianite;53034788]I think this attitude is part of the problem; blaming and alienating one side primarily and giving only a passing mention to the bilateral nature of the causes. You say it is the conservatives who have driven the wedge regarding collaboration and discussion within academia, maybe you're right, but I do not see conservatives no-platforming people. As for your dismissal of peoples concern regarding scientific study, I wonder if you are aware of the increasing politicization of science (on both sides) and the damage that is causing to science as an institution. Their concerns are legitimate, if misguided. You describe "the other side" as teetering on crazy and that leads me to believe you are unable to understand that whatever your side is, it can appear crazy to the other side, and that is the very crux of the problem undermining our democracies. Lack of mutual respect. You should read up on moral foundations theory and it's application to political ideology. I've seen one person here on facepunch say something like "all opinions are equally shitty, but some are more shitty than others". Like, fucking hell, read animal farm or something. We need to start respecting each other, and each others opinions, even if we don't agree with them, even if they make us froth and rage. Respect the human experience that led to the formation of that opinion. If you can disprove a statement somebody makes, do it, but do it with some fucking decency and kindness, helping them attain knowledge rather than beating them over the head with it in an ideological war. If you can't, respect it as their opinion and try to love and respect them as a fellow human being as difficult as that may be.[/QUOTE] I think you ought to read this [URL="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12115-014-9864-0"]review[/URL] on the leading models describing why academia is liberal. It's paywalled, but if you or anyone else wants to read it shoot me a PM and I'll send you a .pdf Self-selection bias is identified as the primary factor. Conservatives in bulk simply do not value the same things as those pursuing jobs within the academy. The review does go into some additional issues, like universities adopting mission statements that are filled with left-leaning ideas: [QUOTE=Woessner & Woessner]Similarly, colleges and universities have adapted their educational philosophies and mission statements to reflect liberal and progressive themes of diversity, sustainability, and social justice. While one can argue the merits of these concepts, they are clearly both political in nature and slanted toward the liberal end of the political spectrum.[/QUOTE] Most of the evidence however, points to conservatives' values being oriented towards family and wealth, which you pretty much have to give up for a while when you pursue graduate studies and the academic life. [URL="https://www.aaup.org/article/rethinking-plight-conservatives-higher-education"]Here's[/URL] a less comprehensive piece put out by the same author. Conservatives writ large have made the academy their enemy within their media and discourse. While the academy does have areas that they can and should improve on, the blame pretty squarely falls on the modern conservative movement: [QUOTE=Woessner]Since it would be perfectly absurd (although beautifully ironic) to reengineer the politics of academia through quotas or special admission policies, there is no easy solution on the horizon. [B]Nevertheless, one potentially important way of improving the Right’s representation in academia is to stop overstating the challenges conservatives face on campus. By promoting their peculiar brand of right-wing victimization, activists run the risk of exacerbating academia’s political imbalance by needlessly discouraging conservatives from considering careers in higher education[/B]. As much as I enjoy being one of academia’s token conservatives, I would prefer to see a bit more ideological balance within the professoriate.[/QUOTE] The phantom of liberal bias keeping conservatives from participating within academia is bullshit. Even more insidious, that whole line of thought is [I]actually[/I] keeping conservatives out of academia.
[QUOTE=1legmidget;53035020] The phantom of liberal bias keeping conservatives from participating within academia is bullshit. Even more insidious, that whole line of thought is [I]actually[/I] keeping conservatives out of academia.[/QUOTE] Hmm now theres a pattern we haven't seen before: create a [URL="https://www.politico.com/story/2010/10/the-gops-no-compromise-pledge-044311"]problem [/URL]then [URL="http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/001/016/674/802.jpg"]complain about it[/URL]
Can we please move to an alternative voting system that doesn't support the extreme polarization of political parties the same way first-past-the-post does? Either Instant Runoff or STV would solve most of the US's political problems by diversifying the candidates and subverting party primaries but neither Bernie supporters nor Republicans upset with Trump seem to be preaching it.
[QUOTE=MajorWX;53035124]Can we please move to an alternative voting system that doesn't support the extreme polarization of political parties the same way first-past-the-post does? Either Instant Runoff or STV would solve most of the US's political problems by diversifying the candidates and subverting party primaries but neither Bernie supporters nor Republicans upset with Trump seem to be preaching it.[/QUOTE] No because getting rid of FPTP would put hundreds of politicians' careers in jeopardy, and they're the ones with the power to get rid of it, not us. Also they don't want Americans to even know that other voting systems exist.
[QUOTE=MajorWX;53035124]Can we please move to an alternative voting system that doesn't support the extreme polarization of political parties the same way first-past-the-post does? Either Instant Runoff or STV would solve most of the US's political problems by diversifying the candidates and subverting party primaries but neither Bernie supporters nor Republicans upset with Trump seem to be preaching it.[/QUOTE] Instant Runoff doesn't really give you third parties or diversity tho, it just lessens the risk of voting third party a bit, but it still trends towards 2. STV would be an upgrade ofc, and something like it that retains local representation would probably be a necessarily compromise over full proportionality and diversity. Although good luck getting either. I wouldn't expect politicians themselves at the national level to implement (though some states ofc can.) That may require a referendum to be demanded, as was required in a few countries iirc. Buuut the US doesn't even technically have a process for a national referendum so it's not like some presidential candidate can promise it to seize a current election or something.
[QUOTE=MajorWX;53035124]Can we please move to an alternative voting system that doesn't support the extreme polarization of political parties the same way first-past-the-post does? Either Instant Runoff or STV would solve most of the US's political problems by diversifying the candidates and subverting party primaries but neither Bernie supporters nor Republicans upset with Trump seem to be preaching it.[/QUOTE] That's only a tiny part of the solution. We need an explicit judicial decision that ends political gerrymandering. We need a reversal of the Citizens United decision and a reinforcement of campaign contribution limits. We need to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine and expand it's application to online media sources. We need to drastically shorten the allowed period of time that representatives are allowed to run campaigns so that they aren't running near-permanent campaigns instead of legislating. We need to bring back trust-busting and smash apart the major banks, telecom companies, and media corporations. We need to reinstate the estate tax and drastically increase the effective tax rates of the wealthiest Americans. We need legislation to restrict CEO pay to some percentage of the company's median wage. We need to abolish the electoral college. The issues with the United States go far beyond just the political. Proportional voting isn't a cure-all - fixing income and wealth inequality, restricting campaign contributions, and limiting the power of faction are necessary to fix our country.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.