Addressing the 'other' side.

[Missy]

This was an article I found this morning which I felt deserved a small amount of specific credit

For my part I think it's a fairly wise angle, allowing everyone to be of a fundamentally equal footing (even when they're wrong somehow) is the most critical and basic aspects of reconcilliation. It's going to be hard to reconcile the really fucked up aspects of American society now, more so for as long as Trump and his cronies are around. Still it seems to me a fair amount of wisdom to reserve actual disgust for those cronies and those who are actually extremists as opposed to those who are trapped in the other side of an ecosystem of division.

[Callie Del Noire]

My problem is how do we deescalate and roll back this increasing divide. It’s always been there to a degree, but got really started back with Newt Gingrich and started truly accelerate with the ‘Tea Party’.  Trumpism is here to stay I’m afraid, and as a RINO I’ve already decided in six months after January 20th to  change parties if I don’t see party leadership take charge rather than the BS running the party as they do now.

Truthfully, it’s harder with every hour to hold to that six month promise.  Some actions I’ve seen this weekend make me think hard on the words treason and sedition.

[Andol]

My problem is how do we deescalate and roll back this increasing divide. It’s always been there to a degree, but got really started back with Newt Gingrich and started truly accelerate with the ‘Tea Party’.  Trumpism is here to stay I’m afraid, and as a RINO I’ve already decided in six months after January 20th to  change parties if I don’t see party leadership take charge rather than the BS running the party as they do now.

Truthfully, it’s harder with every hour to hold to that six month promise.  Some actions I’ve seen this weekend make me think hard on the words treason and sedition.

So... Trump gets his own -ism now? Ok 

I have to admit that I am kind of with you there Callie, but there is just to much I can't reconcile at the ballot box to make the jump in parties. This is even more so the case on the local level where it will actually effect my day to day life. 

[Skynet]

This was an article I found this morning which I felt deserved a small amount of specific credit

For my part I think it's a fairly wise angle, allowing everyone to be of a fundamentally equal footing (even when they're wrong somehow) is the most critical and basic aspects of reconcilliation. It's going to be hard to reconcile the really fucked up aspects of American society now, more so for as long as Trump and his cronies are around. Still it seems to me a fair amount of wisdom to reserve actual disgust for those cronies and those who are actually extremists as opposed to those who are trapped in the other side of an ecosystem of division.

But what do you do when a huge portion of the base are extremists? The below is a repost from earlier, but I feel it's just as pertinent now.

So this isn't one article or story, but rather a group of related ones that hint to the decline of the Republican Party as a whole. For a while now, the Lincoln Project were the self-declared vanguard of Never Trump Republicans. Their ads were praised as hard-hitting, and even had accolades in liberal spaces in spite of the fact that many of its members helped strengthen previous administrations which did a lot of harm towards the very same groups that the Trump administration's hurting.

But as of November 4th, their project of weaning off Republicans from Trump is more or less a failure. In terms of numbers they are politically negligible, with not even 10 red electoral districts turning blue. Furthermore, a Gallup poll examining Trump's approval rating found that 95% of Republicans approved of him during the time period of October 27th to 30th, 2020. This is in comparison to 41% of Independents and 3% of Democrats.

Fox News and certain Republicans such as Ted Cruz are doing their part to distance themselves from Trump now. But all in all, this is cowardice and opportunism, given that this was done only during election nights when the tide began to turn in the electoral college. 70 million Americans still saw fit to vote for Trump, and there's likely many more; the under-18s who have Trump-loving family members and social circles, and the convicted felons who'd want to vote for him but cannot. Trumpism is still a strong political force in American politics, and will be for a while.

Some time earlier this year, a little over half of Republicans in a YouGov poll (which used a nationwide sample of 1.5 thousand people) would refuse a COVID vaccine if it became available.

Even the conservative Washington Times reported that around half of polled Republicans, also in a YouGov/Economist survey back in 2016, believed that there's some truth to the Pizzagate scandal.

Huge swathes of the country believe that a secret cabal of liberal Satanist cannibal pedophiles are drinking the blood of children to stay immortal. An equally huge swath believe that a pandemic that has killed nearly a quarter million people in their own country does not even exist, or if it does is not a big deal. Any talk of reuniting with these advocates or rehabilitating their behavior is dangerous, for it risks moving society in a more hateful, anti-science direction.

[Andol]

Any talk of reuniting with these advocates or rehabilitating their behavior is dangerous, for it risks moving society in a more hateful, anti-science direction.

I am not sure what you mean by this...?

[Skynet]

A huge portion of the GOP electorate thinks a centrist liberal party (Democrats) are full of baby-killing Communists, including Joe Biden who's cozied up to Wall Street. You can't logic someone out of something they didn't use reason and logic to get into. Compromising with them only shifts the Overton Window to the right, and as of now it's rightward enough that formerly intolerable viewpoints are no longer the social faux pas they were in the past.

[Andol]

No I got that part, but implication of your suggestion sounds like the divide in this country has gone so far that there is no way back anymore. I mean if that is the case, then that is the case, but have we really reached that point of cutting the proverbial thing in half and everyone keep to their side. 

[stormwyrm]

At the rate things are going we'll have a "Jesusland" of the sort described in Richard K. Morgan's (pre-Altered Carbon) novels, though it will likely be called "Trumpland" instead, or similar such states described in Neal Stephenson's Fall, or Dodge in Hell.

[Deamonbane]

[Caela]

So. Much. This.

[Fox Lokison]

No I got that part, but implication of your suggestion sounds like the divide in this country has gone so far that there is no way back anymore. I mean if that is the case, then that is the case, but have we really reached that point of cutting the proverbial thing in half and everyone keep to their side. 

You cannot go back with people who do not want to go back. At this point the country has reached a fundamental divide. This isn't about red or blue. It's about what the USA stands for, how it should be run, who should get to live in it, what rights they should get... these are tensions long boiling that came to a head. We have been drifting apart for a while now.

It'd be easier to reconcile if we all had the same idea of America. The same country to fight for. But the way America is seen has shifted in the eyes of the people. Is America a corrupt imperialist state, built to benefit the wealthy and disenfranchise everyone else? In favor of the elite, and more interested in war than their own citizens? Or is America a good and strong nationalist country that was built by the people, for the people, and is civilizing the rest of the world and doing good? Is it a nation that has done some harm but can heal? Is it a nation that's beyond saving and doesn't deserve to exist? Should we abandon traditional industries and work to become more globalized, go green? Or should we stick by our traditions, and reject the influences of the outside world? More immigrants? Less? More civil rights? Less? President, or leader for life? Two party, many party, no parties? Socialist, capitalist, communist? Democratic, republican? Theres so many divides that have only split open further and further.

Is there a way back? Idk. What I know is that we have come to a point of fundamental disagreement in what america even is, or should be, and the differing sides have less and less of a middle ground as time goes on. You can only compromise if theres things to compromise on, and you're working for the same general goal.

[joeman]

Ain't it kinda funny in a dark way that the candidates that we've got are Rite and Rite Lite?

[Fox Lokison]

Yeah, the American "left" makes me twitch. Welcome to America, you get to pick corrupt capitalism with no healthcare, benefits, assistance, and everything is run by the rich... or you get capitalism lite, where the rich still run everything, but there's marginal benefits, and the rich who call the shots at least think Americans deserve basic human rights.

Fuck the rest of the world tho, according to them.

[Remiel]

I'll try to keep this short, since I know my style tends toward bombastic at times. 

But I believe that you do not have to compromise your principles in order to have a rational discussion with conservatives.  You do not have to give up your values in order to treat people with whom you do not agree with civility and respect.  Sure, it is tempting--and easy--to dehumanize the enemy.  It is tempting to write them all off as fools or suckers or worse.  It's basic human nature, after all.  Human beings evolved as tribes, and we learned very quickly that if you were not part of our particular tribe, you represented a potential threat to our very survival as a group.  Society has, of course, changed substantially since then, but this sense of tribalism, like so many other things from our distant past, has maintained its grip on our animal brains.  You are either part of Us, or you are Them.  And if you are Them, then you are the Enemy.  This is how Fox News operates, after all.  I have written previously about how right-wing propaganda trades in fear--a common theme among the junk mail that I get, for example is "Trump is the only thing that stands between you and the liberals like Pelosi and AOC and Schiff who are coming for your money, your bibles, your guns"--and, as H.P. Lovecraft aptly pointed out,

The oldest and strongest emotion of mankind is fear, and the oldest and strongest kind of fear is fear of the unknown.

In other words, we fear what we do not understand.  Anything strange, anything alien, anything that challenges our perception of reality, or what we perceive to be the natural order, is to be feared as a threat to our way of life, and therefore we should treat it as such.  This is Fox News, in a nutshell.

In the Struggles of the Politically "Purple" thread, Regina Minx posed the question "why should I care about Trump supporters, when it is obvious that they do not care about me?"  (Paraphrased).  I believe this is a fair assessment, and one I have struggled with for some time.  I mean, it's a very fair question.   Why should the onus fall to liberals and progressives to take the high road, to be the better person?

The best answer to this question, I think, lies in the words of Neil DeGrasse Tyson, who said:

It is not good enough to be right.  You must also be effective.

In other words, it is not enough to talk the talk.  You must also walk the walk.  You must, as Gandhi said, be the change that you want to see in the world.  Are you taking a stand for your principles in your everyday life?  Are you treating people as you would like to be treated?  Or are you just making noise? 

I believe that, because of technological and cultural innovations such as social media, such as the Internet, such as niche targeted mass media outlets such as Fox News, we humans living in the 21st century have lost the ability to debate.   We have lost the ability to challenge others and be challenged in turn.  It is much easier to hide in our echo chambers and our safe spaces, to be surrounded by others who share our viewpoints and passions and endlessly amplify them in groupthink, than it is to go out and encounter those who disagree with us.  It is much easier to cancel the other side, to shout them down and drown them out, than it is to patiently sit down and explain why they are wrong. 

But I agree with Tyson.   It's not enough to be right.  You must also be persuasive.  And, as any student of social psychology knows, when you attack someone, when you begin the debate with "You're an idiot,"  this will only cause them to double down on their notions, to further entrench them, to cause them to shut their minds and their ears, rather than listen to anything you have to say.

[Skynet]

It's a bit hard to care for people who willingly risk spreading the virus, either out of belief in its nonexistence or that probably death is worth the freedom to not change one's personal living conveniences.

Myself, as well as my own family, have been put at risk by antimaskers and in one case a COVID positive person. I'm thankful that none of us got it, and I'm thankful that I as well as those I care about are still alive.

But the onus should not be on the harmed and aggrieved parties to try and persuade those spreading harm to stop. Oratory speaking is a skill only a few people possess, and given my own autism I really can't 'read' people or adapt to situations unless I'm communicating entirely in a text format. Talk about unity and healing is inefficient when it's done in bad faith, and on some level there must be consequences to those who continue to do harm. MLK was successful not just for showing the world the brutality of segregation, but the race riots that grew out of his situation shown white American that things were going to get worse for everyone if they continued withholding civil rights.

Well right now the coronavirus is making things worse for everyone, especially Trump supporters. They had all the time to listen to experts, to family members, to their own number who got it and regretted what happened, even as they shared their last words on social media recorded from a hospital bed.

At this point the shoe is on the other foot. What will Republicans do to show good faith in healing America? The left has extended their hand, now it's time for them to do the same.

[Andol]

At this point the shoe is on the other foot. What will Republicans do to show good faith in healing America? The left has extended their hand, now it's time for them to do the same.

I am just curious... what was this hand that the left extended? I have seen from both sides is a unwillingness to budge an inch. I mean just pointing to your first sentence...

It's a bit hard to care for people who willingly risk spreading the virus, either out of belief in its nonexistence or that probably death is worth the freedom to not change one's personal living conveniences.

I mean I get the frustration within this sentence, but in a way it just sounds like an excuse for one side... like the other to continue to find reasons to never go anywhere with this. Which I kind of think in a way leads to my post before about it is starting to look like the proverbial no turning back point has either been reached or is getting closer and closer.

[Skynet]

They compromised on stimulus checks.

Not to mention various policies that have scientifically been proven to be helpful to things that conservatives want. Like comprehensive sex education in schools helps cut down on abortion, as well as better healthcare for poor people. A lot of anti-abortion people also oppose these issues, in spite of such stances leading to more abortions. The right-leaning news outlet Forbes agrees on this, too.

I mean I get the frustration within this sentence, but in a way it just sounds like an excuse for one side... like the other to continue to find reasons to never go anywhere with this. Which I kind of think in a way leads to my post before about it is starting to look like the proverbial no turning back point has either been reached or is getting closer and closer.

400,000 people are dead in just a year. Democrats have a plan to clamp down on these deaths, Republicans more or less don't care.

[Skynet]

To clarify my last post, conservatives are the party (especially post Tear Party) that are much less willing to compromise on issues. Like compromising on finding a way of reducing abortion, even if means giving concessions to "socialist" healthcare. A lot of anti-abortion voters claim to be single-issue or have that as the overriding one, but they want to have their cake and eat it too. They basically hate helping poor people more than they care about unborn babies.

[Fox Lokison]

The thing about compromise is that it best works when both parties are standing still. Republicans have been moving further right for decades now, which means in order to find middle ground, the Democrats have to do the same. Its called "shifting the Overton window", and it's a very effective way to shift political climates and policy in your favor.

To very BRIEFLY summarize, the Overton window is the range of policies considered politically acceptable at the time.

A good example of the shifting Overton window is the marginal tax rate on the wealthy. Compared to Reagan's time, it's gotten a lot lower. The idea of raising it has been touted as unacceptable, as a punishment for being wealthy, as a process that would make rich people go broke, as something never done before... but it was. However, shifting the Overton window to where it is now has made the idea sound outlandish.

As a result of this continual shift, the American Left - Democrats in particular - are more like centrists at best, with maybe a toe in actual leftist beliefs. Even Bernie Sanders was barely in the left - his policies aren't at all radical, it's just Americans beliefs on socialism that make it so. All of this means that the left compromising simply involves them moving FURTHER right. Republicans will dig their heels in until Democrats reach out to them. Because it works.

[Fox Lokison]

Real quick addition about the Overton Window - it's easiest to shift if you're patient. Playing the long game. Which Republicans have had no problem doing, as they generally can afford to wait. The people who urgently need leftist policies can't afford to wait, and are more likely to, essentially, die out or leave. People who need socialized healthcare, a decent min wage, etc, they don't have the ability to hold out for decades until it's acceptable to ask for those things. That makes the left seem radical and demanding even more, while the right is seen as moderate and willing to compromise.

[laa]

So the right is seen as willing to compromise by not being willing to compromise? I'm not really buying your line of reasoning, Fox. By the end of the day, what is seen as 'radical' and what is seen as 'normal' is almost entirely dictated by the media we consume, as it's the only window we have into the political process in the first place. I'd much rather point the finger at Fox News, CNN, etc. for spreading propaganda for decades than at any sort of clever political play.

[Skynet]

But that does prove the point about the Overton Window. 60 years ago being in favor of integration was considered far-left. State-subsidized healthcare is considered socialist in the USA, yet in many European countries even right-wing parties are in favor of said policy.

As for the "willing to compromise by not willing to compromise," Richard Nixon during the Southern Strategy is a great example in his use of dog-whistle politics. He and quite a few conservatives said that they were neither in favor of instant integration nor segregation forever, saying that there must be 'a middle road.' Sounded centrist to many at the time, until you realize that the midway point between 0 and infinity is meaningless.

Nixon's emphasis on middle ground also played into "law and order."

Black Panthers called for a political revolution just as George Wallace supporters touted white rights as an anecdote for racial integration, and Richard Nixon carved a racially toxic “middle” ground through a law-and-order message that promised suburban redemption at the expense of inner cities across the nation.  “The Whole World is Watching!” became the clarion call of demonstrators at the riotous 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago as “Black Power!” became America’s latest global export.

He also used the fact that he was running against George Wallace in 1968 (a man who was upset about segregation being illegal now) to portray himself as a reasonable middle in spite of paving the way for segregationists into the Republican Party via the Southern Strategy.

Nixon was the 'quiet' dog-whistle racism to Wallace's loud crossburning racism. Both were courting dangerous extremists, but in very different languages. Nixon didn't really 'compromise' given that integration was now the law of the land, but could still come out looking like the reasonable middle in all this.

[Fox Lokison]

I get why it might seem confusing. But I think, by bringing up the media, you're putting the cart before the horse. The media puts a spin on things that already happened, yes. I'd be lying my face off if I said politicians didn't use the media to their benefit, either. Any press can be good press, if you spin it right.

I was mostly typing on mobile when I made my replies, so they were a little less detailed than what I usually give. Now that I'm on PC, I can spell it out a little better.

So the right is seen as willing to compromise by not being willing to compromise?

Yes, and no. There's more context to it that makes it work. The Overton Window is essentially about making a new normal. The thing about politics is that politicians have an acceptable range they're allowed to act in. If they act or speak outside it, there will be backlash. So, for example, (and I just picked two random politicians that sprang to mind here) if AOC got up tomorrow and said she was starting the Communist Party of America, or Ted Cruz got up and said he was starting the American National Party (ie, a fascist party). Both of these would obviously go poorly, as America is not interested in communism or fascism. They fall outside the Overton Window. Likewise, if AOC said "I think we should open the borders and allow all migrants to come to the US freely", there'd be an uproar, same as if Cruz said "I think we should send all non-white people back to their homelands." As political stances, these do not fall within the range of acceptability.

What changes the range, however, isn't media. I'm not gonna say media isn't a tool, because boy howdy, is media a great tool - but it's a tool, not the guy holding it. It's done by both politicians and the people. Two things to consider are people's changing needs, and politicians' changing reactions to those. Right now, we have people in desperate need of better wages and healthcare and general quality of living. We have a class of hyper-wealthy people who are continuing to profit, even through the worst economic downturns of the country. The latter group can afford to keep paying politicians to side with them. But, those politicians need to do something to appease the people. You can't have the people blame the rich, so you have to find a new acceptable target. That is an example of shifting the Overton Window - who it is acceptable to blame for the country's economic crisis.

To get to your point about compromise... you have to shift the narrative so you're the reasonable one, and what the other party is asking for is unreasonable. An American example is socialized healthcare. This is not an unreasonable suggestion. By in large, it's worked for many "developed nations" across the world, including our own neighbors. Yes, we could all waffle about the cost, and the population size, and yadda yadda, but as far as suggestions go, it's largely realistic in a practical sense. It could be done. There's just barriers in the way. Yet, it is treated as an impossible, extremist position to have.

Another example is the marginal tax rate. There's a lot of talk about how raising the taxes on the wealthy would "tax them out of existence". That it's never been done before, that it's unamerican, and basically a whole host of excuses. Yet, in fact, America has had multiple periods where the tax rate on the wealthy was high as fuck, to the tune of 94% in World War II. Then to about 70% all through to the 80s, at which point Reagan slashed it down. Tax rates on the wealthy have risen and fallen with the needs of the American people, which included multiple wars and the Great Depression. It's about as American as apple pie, to tax the rich heavily in times of crisis. Yet the narrative is set that we've never done it, that it would make it impossible to be wealthy, and that it's unamerican.

So when we talk about compromise, here's the thing you have to remember. The stage was set so that one side looked outlandish, and one side looked rational. The idea of socialized healthcare, or a higher tax rate, are both ideas that have been tried and tested, with a lot of success. They aren't new or radical ideas. They're old as dirt. BUT, when you set the narrative that these are new and scary ideas, then you look like you're making a reasonable compromise by increasing the tax on the rich by, say, 2%. When in reality, anyone who knows their history knows that this isn't a compromise - it's bullshit.

If the framing of these ideas hadn't shifted the way they have, then Democrat proposals for these policies wouldn't sound quite so radical. Socialized healthcare and high tax rates on the rich aren't "radical leftist" ideas. It's just that America's been in a center-right position for such a long time, that even the slightest actual leftist policies sound completely bonkers. So the Republican party sits there, doing the bare minimum to appease the people, and reaping the rewards of "we compromised with the Democrats, but they just want more and more and more, they're so greedy".

[Fox Lokison]

I wanted to split this up because these are two very different topics, so here's the second half.

I'd much rather point the finger at Fox News, CNN, etc. for spreading propaganda for decades than at any sort of clever political play.

Why?

I'd like to know what the purpose of spreading propaganda is, if it doesn't benefit the people in power, or the people craving it. The thing about propaganda is that it needs a reason. It doesn't just exist so TV stations can stay on the air. It exists to convince the masses of something or other.

A thing about propaganda I find a little disheartening, is how it's become a negative term. As a concept, it's a neutral thing. Everyone has an agenda of their own - another word that's become far too negative. It's a thing they want for themselves and the people around them. You can't get that unless you spread your ideas. One person going "I want socialized healthcare" doesn't go far, so he prints up a piece about how he thinks it'll benefit the people, and shares it around his town. That's propaganda. He's pushing his agenda - healthcare - using media to persuade people. That's really all it is.

The discussion around the media tends to center on this idea that they're just stirring the pot and lying all the time to get ratings, but that's not true. While big media stations are often funded by certain groups, and come with biases, media as a whole does not exist merely to perpetuate itself. It can't power itself. I think it would be erroneous to blame decades of political action by the American people on a handful of news stations. Media is the way the upper and lower classes communicate, and it's also the way politicians communicate with the people. If it did not benefit politicians, if it did not benefit the wealthy, they'd stop funding these stations. CNN and Fox News did not get to be national news stations because they built themselves from the ground up. They're paid for. Why would the people paying for them want them to spread lies and stir up the American people? That's not good for stability, or their careers.

But I'm not gonna just spitball here. Let's break it down.

Fox News is owned by Fox Corporation. Fox Corporation is owned by the Murdoch family. Rupert Murdoch, the chairman, is hardly an apolitical figure. You can read about his political machinations with sources here, but to summarize...

• He supported Edward Koch for mayor of New York - a Democrat who also was able to win endorsements for the Republican ticket, and who endorsed Rudy Giuliani, Mike Bloomberg, and George W Bush
• Was credited by Reagan's campaign team for earning Reagan his victory in the presidential election, an act which Reagan rewarded him for
• Hosted fundraisers for Hillary Clinton's Senate re-election campaign
• Avidly endorsed Obama during his run for presidency
• Gave a million dollars to the Republican Governors Association, and another to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce
• Served on the board of directors for the Cato Institute, a libertarian organization
• Advocates for more open immigration policies; he even testified House Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law Membership on the "Role of Immigration in Strengthening America's Economy"
• He was critical of Romney during his presidental run, but backed him none the less (because of his party) and tweeted "Of course I want him [Romney] to win, save us from socialism, etc."
• Praised Ben Carson, tweeting "Ben and Candy Carson terrific. What about a real black President who can properly address the racial divide? And much else."
• And of course, the constant backing of Donald Trump

This is just his politics in the US. Let's not get into what he does overseas, else we'll be here forever. Point being, he's hardly an apolitical man. He's also got a net worth of $16.3 billion, as of May 2020. His corporation has over 800 companies in more than 50 counties, and a net worth of over $5 billion. His son and heir has a net worth of $3.76 billion, which, like his, increased during the pandemic.

CNN is eventually owned by AT&T, which gets a bit too big for me to break down in a timely manner, but it's the world's largest media and entertainment company in terms of revenue, which was ranked at $181 billion as of 2020. It's the parent company of WarnerMedia, which has a revenue of $34.2 billion as of 2019. The list of names associated with it, and the list of lifetime politicians associated with them, is long and would spam this page.

My point with all of this is that the founders and owners of these corporations are not apolitical entities, and in fact maintain close connections with politicians, as well as being incredibly wealthy people themselves. They have been the vehicles of success for politicians, even presidents. They aren't distinct from politics - they're the vehicles used by politicians, who in turn are being used by the wealthy people who own and operate these news stations. Historically speaking, that's just normal. The wealthy fund the politicians and the press, who then benefit the interests of the wealthy. I don't really see the point in trying to make the media distinct from the machine it operates within. Yes, media does dictate a lot of what the common people think. That's why it's in the hands of those who need the common people to back them.

The fact that you're willing to blame the media rather than the politics behind it generally means that it's working.

[laa]

When I said "clever political play" I meant literally "clever" political play, IE: Filibustering, diplomatic agreements, etc. Not that politics doesn't play a role in propaganda. Not that the media isn't owned by wealthy benefactors.