One more kinda disturbing political thought. . .

[xiphias]

Watching the reactions to recent Supreme Court decisions, it seems to me that we're getting more and more polarized in the United States, so that, real soon now, whatever happens, half the country is going to find it intolerable.

How do we prevent that from happening? Do we prevent that from happening? Should we prevent that from happening?

I mean, I know what I want the United States to look like, but I'm aware that there are lots of Americans who would be horrified if it did. Just as horrified as I would be if the United States looked the way THEY would like it to.

Is it possible to create a country in which both of us can live comfortably? Is it desirable to do so?

Comments

[brooksmoses]

One of the things that's interesting about this is that it's, in large part, not determined by geography. If it were largely determined by geography, one could talk of secession, but it's not really a plausible solution in this case (irrespective of the argument of whether it's a good one) without a lot of moving people around, and probably a lot of pain to the people who are somewhat in the middle and don't want a country run by intolerant extremists of either type.

The problem is that, when people do find their country intolerable, they tend to fight. And in ways that are sometimes a lot less peaceable than what the Republican agenda is purporting to intend to do to the budget.

On the other hand, I imagine that in (say) 1950 or so, there were a lot of people who were going to find it intolerable for black people to have rights to equal treatment and would be horrified at the idea of America being fully integrated, but the country seems to have mostly survived that and come out the other side without falling apart, albeit that the process really isn't over and won't be for a long time (as, incidentally, another of the recent Supreme Court decisions indicated -- but that one, as far as I can tell, isn't something that people find intolerable, merely "wrong").

[kiya]

I think there's a complicated dynamic equilibrium to be struck between having enough shared matter to be able to form a sensical unit and having enough different matter to . . . argh. No words for concept. Exist.

Of course, if I had words for concept, I'd probably have written about this already. I'm trying to get it to make words. . . .

[brooksmoses]

To spread out the boundaries enough that there's breathing room?

To provide a challenge to thought so that people have the opportunity to grow thereby?

Those seem the two main things, to me. And I'd say that they're both important.

[kiya]

*waves hands incoherently*

Can't have meaningful dialogue between perfectly identical entities.

Absolute affirmation isn't a society.

[brooksmoses]

Yes. Exactly.

[rosefox]

Image that comes to mind is of positive and negative poles of a battery needed for current.

[kiya]

Oh. Yes.

*nabs image*

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

For me, I want to live in a society that manages to Leave Everybody Basically Alone.

I want a government that manages to preserve people's rights, provide for a certain level of safety (including things like an economic safety net), and otherwise stays the hell out of everybody's way. Because of this, I feel that, when an issue becomes basically contentious, like "does calling gay marriage 'marriage' devaluate the idea of marraige?", the government should find a way to back out of the whole situation, and, for instance, recognize "civil unions" between people, and let chuches fight it out over which civil unions are marriages and which aren't.

Here's what I see as the Real Problem: there are lots of tools that you need to use to make a society work -- ethics, morals, ettiquette, and laws, among others. But Americans don't seem to get the distinction between all of those. Americans get "laws", so that's the only tool we use.

So we have a legal system that is strained and twisted to cover all these other roles. Grif, if you're reading this, THIS is related to MY answer to your Canadian friend who was wondering why our government is so intertwined with religion -- because (many) Americans don't really understand the distinction.

Lis and I lent folzgold a book tonight. It's by Heinlein, and it's called Take Back Your Government.

It's a political activism how-to manual. It was written half a century ago. And in it, Heinlein says that Americans, as a whole, want a certain amount of economic security, but becoming really, really rich isn't that important, and basically want to be left alone, and really fundamentally don't care what other people do.

That last bit is REAL important to making the kind of society I want to live in. And it's that fundamental American value of "live and let live" that I think that the Fundamentalists are betraying.

[griffen.livejournal.com]

May I quote some of this in a response to my friend?

And thanks in any case for the food for thought.

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

Quote away: it's why I specifically called your attention to it.

[navrins]

Here's what I see as the Real Problem: there are lots of tools that you need to use to make a society work -- ethics, morals, ettiquette, and laws, among others. But Americans don't seem to get the distinction between all of those. Americans get "laws", so that's the only tool we use.

Exactly.

[griffen.livejournal.com]

To be honest, I'm beginning to think we might all be better off if we just let all the conservatives live in one part of the country and all the liberals live in the other.

*sighs*

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

I understand the impulse. But I see problems. . .

[kightp.livejournal.com]

*nod* Border wars, for one thing.

But more important: I think it's critical to having a functioning society for us to meet, have dialogues with and attempt to understand those who don't think the way we do.

[navrins]

For example, that whole "boxing" issue. Not everybody fits neatly into the "conservative" box or the "liberal" box.

So, let's rejoice with loud fa-la....
That nature always does contrive...
That every boy and every gal
That's born into the world alive
Is either a little liberal,
Or else a little conservative...

- Gilbert and Sullivan, Iolanthe

[goljerp]

From earlier in that song,

When in that House M.P.'s divide,
If they've a brain and cerebellum, too,
They've got to leave that brain outside,
And vote just as their leaders tell 'em to.

It's sad how relevant G&S still is. (Even though the House of Lords has changed from hereditary uselessness to politically appointed uselessness. I still think they should've made it open to competitive examination.)

[cheshyre]

would things actually be better, or just easier?

tenants of a society

[the-siobhan.livejournal.com]

I think the basic difference is, that in a society that looks like the one that (I imagine) you would like, heterosexuals would be free to have opposite-sex relationships, Christians would be free to raise their children in the faith of their ancestors, and the upper classes would still receive fair and impartial trials if accused of a crime.

[redbird]

Part of the problem is that there are people who are very deliberately polarizing things--it's a large part of the Republican party's openly admitted strategy.

The FUD Factor

[red-frog.livejournal.com]

Precisely.

I do think that most people would like to just be left alone (although I'm less sure of that that I think you are, xiphias--living in the South gives one a different perspective on what's "normal" and around here I am definitely not). However, if there are those who are inciting panic that a change is threatening them, then the people feeling threatened will fight the change.

One question is, why is it to anyone's advantage to spread FUD? To get what they want, sure. But why do they want it?

Re: The FUD Factor

[navrins]

People want to be left alone. People do not want to leave other people alone.

Re: The FUD Factor

[red-frog.livejournal.com]

Well, that's the thing. Some people DO want to leave others alone so long as those others' behavior does not affect them. (I consider myself one of those.) What is it about those who give a swut about what does not affect them? I don't think I could ever get a real answer for this. I've tried asking before, and the only real response I can get is, "because it's wrong." Well, who says it's wrong and why should I listen to them?

I have mixed opinions about Heinlein as political philosopher, but he was right on the money in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress when Professor La Paz opined that people don't want laws passed to help themselves stop doing something, they want laws passed to help someone else stop doing something.