You must log in or register to comment.
I’ve heard others say that the concept of polarization isn’t particularly useful, but this is the first article that has made the case convincingly.
Citations Needed did a really good episode on why “polarization” is a ridiculous concept. Some takeaways:
It trains you to think that there’s some kind of non-nebulous “non-polarized” middle that you’re supposed to hew toward, in the name of “rationality”.
It allows disingenuous actors (and corporations) to constantly shift the Overton window, because they know you’ll try to find a happy middle, no matter how far to the extreme fringe they drift.
It weaves a fanciful (and bullshit) narrative that politics were formerly more stable and less controversial, which protects existing power structures because it convinces you that it’s your fault that you push back harder against the things you see in your own life.
Edit: Ooh, this nugget from OP’s article is juicy:
What positively distinguishes their analysis is that they provide a convincing dissection of how the pre-1960s “consensus” was based on racial exclusion and depended on a cross-party agreement amongst white men to leave white patriarchal supremacy intact.
i.e. Politics was “stable” and worked toward “consensus” because half of the country wasn’t even allowed through the fucking door!
Maybe we have different definitions of polarization. I’m not focussing on the article right now, so hope I didn’t misunderstand but it talks about the fiction of a common middle ground. That doesn’t matter.
To me, “polarization” is similar to brinksmanship and caught up with that old saying”making laws is like making sausage”. It used to be that whatever the differences, legislators got together to make progress. It results in ugly massive bills filled with ground up random bits and pieces of various animals stuffed in an intestine, but everyone got something out of it. The country won, plus both sides could claim to win something, and the overall affect was somewhat middle of the road. All legislators could succeed in something for their constituents. Now it’s all or nothing. Every little preference is a call for brinksmanship. Every political stunt is an attempt to block something. All too often there is no way to proceed without a supermajority. Congress is dysfunctional. That’s polarization.
The electorate is also polarized. Maybe this is too much a personal experience, too anecdotal, but I used to be able to understand both/all points of view before deciding my opinion. Now I just can’t. As far as I can tell, supporters of one political party has gone so far around the bend that I can no longer relate to them, no longer understand what planet they’re from. Maybe that’s also just what makes the news: people I know who are more conservative are still relatable, although usually seem ignorant or racist. We’re certainly starting from different experience, but our beliefs are even farther apart. That’s polarization
