"I found it so striking the degree to which people engaged in this conversation had no interest in grappling with the point being made. Nearly everyone said some version of “but we are right and they are wrong and that makes a big difference.” Of course it makes a big difference! And yet it makes no difference at all... that dynamic is precisely what I am describing. It’s not evidence against me; it’s the argument I am making. It’s not false equivalence because it says nothing about the rightness or wrongness of their respective views to note that Democrats and Republicans increasingly believe the other party is as such a threat to the survival of America."
Well, as one of those who replied in this way, let me say the following:
1) You're right; I, like you (and lots of people, if hardly a majority) have been worring about this for a while. But it's unclear what to *do*. As you can say, we can't divorce (although if the division were able to be drawn in any plausibly geographic way, I think succession would be worth serious consideration... but it probably can't so it's moot).
2) I still think it is worth saying, *every* time one talks about this, that there *is* an asymmetry here. Neither side trusts the other... but one side is *right* and the other wrong. That's important enough to matter.
3) It matters for another reason too: it shapes what we might consider doing. If they were right, then, of course, we would have to push for reform laws despite the damage it would do. If both sides had a point, then some compromise could be explored. But *since they are wrong*, then it really, really means we can't, and shouldn't, compromise.
All that said... I agree with you that it's a terrible mess. I see no good road out of it. Now, the world is complicated and there are doubtless factors I'm not considering... but when your hopes all lie in the unknown unknowns, you know it's not a great situation.
(1) It's possible for both sides to be wrong. For example, the Republicans can be completely delusional about the notion that the 2020 election was stolen *and* the Democrats can be wrong that the 2016 election was meaningfully swayed by Russian interference. Is it possible that we might find common ground in recognizing that fact? Even if both sides think "we're more right than they are" and "the ways they are wrong are far more dangerous"?
(2) Wrongness does not prevent compromise. On the contrary: you compromise with people you don't agree with. Moreover, it should be possible to do that without accepting a narrative you consider to be false. So, for example, if the other side is worried about voter fraud, which you think is largely mythical, could you still propose measures that would not be unduly burdensome but would increase voter confidence in the security of elections?
(3) I think the answer to the above questions is "maybe." The problem is that to a considerable extent the *point* is to sustain partisan hostility, not to solve problems. There's a decent amount of evidence that recent efforts at voter suppression have largely failed or even backfired. But that's because Democrats have gotten really riled up about the threat of voter suppression. If Democrats were more realistic in their messaging about it, instead of being alarmist, that might hurt turnout and, effectively, make those suppressive techniques more effective. Similarly, on the other side, fear of fraud seems to be a big motivator to vote, and vote in a strictly partisan fashion. So there are powerful incentives against any kind of reconciliation, regardless of the merits. And the incentives aren't all coming from above -- negative partisanship is also very much a from-below phenomenon driven by the dynamics of both mass media and social media combined with the increasingly geographic sorting of Americans into partisan enclaves.
(4) It's notable, though, that the parties *are* still capable of passing legislation when they want to. Congress just passed a huge industrial policy bill that is hardly trivial. That may be the equivalent of a couple in the midst of a nasty custody battle nonetheless agreeing on how to pay for the kids' college education, but that's still something.
1. Sure, it's possible for both sides to be wrong. And if you bring 2016 into it then maybe? I was thinking just about 2020, and 2024, where it's not both sides. (I do think the problem with 2016 is different: the win was illegitimate, not because of Russia, but because the electoral college is a fundamentally illegitimate institution. It's just one of the many anti-democratic features of our system which Rs are exploiting, of course, but it's a bad one.)
2. Wrongness doesn't prevent compromise in general. But on the issue of *who gets to vote*, that is, to participate in future decision-making, it does. Particularly given that you seem to be making the error of taking their objections at face value. Security measures that aren't unduly burdensome would undo the *whole point* of the measures, which is to be burdensome and let the Rs win with a minority. You might object that the Rs are operating in good faith... but while that's true I suppose of the citizenry, I don't think it's true of the politicians, who have to come around on the compromise. And the citizens are so brainwashed by Fox et. al. that they can't be reached. And, again, the facts *matter* here: it's not just about the formal structure.
3. I agree that at this point partisan hostility is a self-sustaining phenomenon; as I said, I, for one, can't imagine how it could end. As I also said, I assume there are unknown unknowns that might do it... but counting on those is like counting on a miracle, against which, as you may know, there is a talmudic prohibition.
4. I think your analogy of the paying for the kids college is spot-on, but undermines the point: it shows it doesn't mean much. (I will admit to having been checked out of the news far more than I have in decades since January 20 (and yes, mea culpa), but I thought the bill passed on a partisan basis? Was there non-trivial R support?)
All of which is to say: I agree with you, largely. We are in a terrible position; I don't see any way out; we need, and can't get, a national divorce. I just think that the fact that one party in the divorce is disconnected from reality and partly sociopathic can't be set aside; I think that it has to be a basic part of the analysis, even if it isn't true from *their* point of view. It doesn't, and shouldn't, go without saying.
"I found it so striking the degree to which people engaged in this conversation had no interest in grappling with the point being made. Nearly everyone said some version of “but we are right and they are wrong and that makes a big difference.” Of course it makes a big difference! And yet it makes no difference at all... that dynamic is precisely what I am describing. It’s not evidence against me; it’s the argument I am making. It’s not false equivalence because it says nothing about the rightness or wrongness of their respective views to note that Democrats and Republicans increasingly believe the other party is as such a threat to the survival of America."
Well, as one of those who replied in this way, let me say the following:
1) You're right; I, like you (and lots of people, if hardly a majority) have been worring about this for a while. But it's unclear what to *do*. As you can say, we can't divorce (although if the division were able to be drawn in any plausibly geographic way, I think succession would be worth serious consideration... but it probably can't so it's moot).
2) I still think it is worth saying, *every* time one talks about this, that there *is* an asymmetry here. Neither side trusts the other... but one side is *right* and the other wrong. That's important enough to matter.
3) It matters for another reason too: it shapes what we might consider doing. If they were right, then, of course, we would have to push for reform laws despite the damage it would do. If both sides had a point, then some compromise could be explored. But *since they are wrong*, then it really, really means we can't, and shouldn't, compromise.
All that said... I agree with you that it's a terrible mess. I see no good road out of it. Now, the world is complicated and there are doubtless factors I'm not considering... but when your hopes all lie in the unknown unknowns, you know it's not a great situation.
I hear you. I'll only add a handful of thoughts:
(1) It's possible for both sides to be wrong. For example, the Republicans can be completely delusional about the notion that the 2020 election was stolen *and* the Democrats can be wrong that the 2016 election was meaningfully swayed by Russian interference. Is it possible that we might find common ground in recognizing that fact? Even if both sides think "we're more right than they are" and "the ways they are wrong are far more dangerous"?
(2) Wrongness does not prevent compromise. On the contrary: you compromise with people you don't agree with. Moreover, it should be possible to do that without accepting a narrative you consider to be false. So, for example, if the other side is worried about voter fraud, which you think is largely mythical, could you still propose measures that would not be unduly burdensome but would increase voter confidence in the security of elections?
(3) I think the answer to the above questions is "maybe." The problem is that to a considerable extent the *point* is to sustain partisan hostility, not to solve problems. There's a decent amount of evidence that recent efforts at voter suppression have largely failed or even backfired. But that's because Democrats have gotten really riled up about the threat of voter suppression. If Democrats were more realistic in their messaging about it, instead of being alarmist, that might hurt turnout and, effectively, make those suppressive techniques more effective. Similarly, on the other side, fear of fraud seems to be a big motivator to vote, and vote in a strictly partisan fashion. So there are powerful incentives against any kind of reconciliation, regardless of the merits. And the incentives aren't all coming from above -- negative partisanship is also very much a from-below phenomenon driven by the dynamics of both mass media and social media combined with the increasingly geographic sorting of Americans into partisan enclaves.
(4) It's notable, though, that the parties *are* still capable of passing legislation when they want to. Congress just passed a huge industrial policy bill that is hardly trivial. That may be the equivalent of a couple in the midst of a nasty custody battle nonetheless agreeing on how to pay for the kids' college education, but that's still something.
1. Sure, it's possible for both sides to be wrong. And if you bring 2016 into it then maybe? I was thinking just about 2020, and 2024, where it's not both sides. (I do think the problem with 2016 is different: the win was illegitimate, not because of Russia, but because the electoral college is a fundamentally illegitimate institution. It's just one of the many anti-democratic features of our system which Rs are exploiting, of course, but it's a bad one.)
2. Wrongness doesn't prevent compromise in general. But on the issue of *who gets to vote*, that is, to participate in future decision-making, it does. Particularly given that you seem to be making the error of taking their objections at face value. Security measures that aren't unduly burdensome would undo the *whole point* of the measures, which is to be burdensome and let the Rs win with a minority. You might object that the Rs are operating in good faith... but while that's true I suppose of the citizenry, I don't think it's true of the politicians, who have to come around on the compromise. And the citizens are so brainwashed by Fox et. al. that they can't be reached. And, again, the facts *matter* here: it's not just about the formal structure.
3. I agree that at this point partisan hostility is a self-sustaining phenomenon; as I said, I, for one, can't imagine how it could end. As I also said, I assume there are unknown unknowns that might do it... but counting on those is like counting on a miracle, against which, as you may know, there is a talmudic prohibition.
4. I think your analogy of the paying for the kids college is spot-on, but undermines the point: it shows it doesn't mean much. (I will admit to having been checked out of the news far more than I have in decades since January 20 (and yes, mea culpa), but I thought the bill passed on a partisan basis? Was there non-trivial R support?)
All of which is to say: I agree with you, largely. We are in a terrible position; I don't see any way out; we need, and can't get, a national divorce. I just think that the fact that one party in the divorce is disconnected from reality and partly sociopathic can't be set aside; I think that it has to be a basic part of the analysis, even if it isn't true from *their* point of view. It doesn't, and shouldn't, go without saying.