At Cato Unbound. I contributed the lead essay.
New analyses of polarization keep appearing, and new signs of the severity our political fault lines keep emerging. As a result, I sense that the latest edition of The Three Languages manages to be both timely and out of date. This essay will sketch some of the book’s key points, and then I will offer my current thinking, particularly concerning cultural forces that I think are behind the surge in polarization, and what we might do to try to counter those forces.
Read the whole essay before commenting. Note that some distinguished folks will be contributing essays in response. You can check out the overview page over this week and next (I’ll probably post reminders).
A very clear and succinct explanation of the Three Languages of Politics. I appreciate the emphasis on the search for a 4th axis to better explain Trump-style protectionism/populism.
I’m sometimes confused at what draws the MAGA evangelists to the comment section here but I have to admit that mike shupp’s rant about Purdue Pharma and asdf’s rant about the scandalous D.C. Deep State over the last few days have given me greater insight, if not exactly an Aha moment, about their MAGA perspective. First I’m convinced they are not engaged in some kind of sophistry; they are adhering to some kind of 4th axis logic that differs fundamentally from my own. It seems to be some combination of single-factor-messaging, over emphasis on human agency vs emergent factors (e.g. agglomeration effects), and preference for zero-sum explanations.
I’m also not convinced that Kling isn’t guilty of simplified single-factor messaging, like his just-say-no position on Facebook and Twitter. If Kling is susceptible then I wonder what my blind spots are. Social media has a part to play in polarization but it is no more the single driving factor than OxyContin is in the global struggle with opiate/opioid addiction and overdoses.
Oh dear. If I’m being classified as a “MAGA evangelist” one of us is doing something seriously wrong.
My bad. I re-read your Law and Blame comment and it is not pro MAGA, more “Law is hard but OK and improving” position. I was thrown by a +1 by asdf, laziness in scanning the comments, laziness checking my memory of recent comments, and a bad attempt at generalizing a sentiment that is mostly expressed by asdf. My sincere apologies.
No biggie. I’m not the clearest of commenters I have to admit. When I’m not snapping off curt snide remarks, I’m all too prone to slide off with ambiguous statements rather than start or end with flat assertions. It’s gotten me kicked off sites (not here!) as a troll.
Ah well.
OK, I read it. I am not the person to discuss this, I am a full time troller.
The obvious choice for a fourth axis is polarization itself. You could call it the polarization, zealotism, tribalism, demonization or fanaticism axis. The axis would measure the level of commitment for disagreements on the other axis’. At one end would be political stability and at the other end would be civil war. Maybe the “civil war” axis would be better.
In my previous profession in the intelligence world, this kind of axis was a big focus, with the goal of estimating major political power shifts and, especially, political violence. Because at some point the divide and demonization will grow to the point where people move beyond words to action and then to violence. So while I think your three axes are useful as an analysis tool, we also need something (IMO at least) to show and measure the wider effects of those divisions.
Fortunately, polarization and demonization have not resulted in significant political violence in the US yet. Social media may be fanning the flames, but it may also be an outlet that gives individuals an opportunity to vent instead of smashing someone’s face in.
I keep looking for indicators of a shift from the safe virtue signaling on social media and the TV to putting actual skin in the game. So far most people don’t appear to be invested enough to do things that require leaving the keyboard behind.
But the turning point can be emergent and very abrupt. Just consider that the actions of a single street vendor in Tunisia was the spark that ignited the Arab Spring and all its attendant consequences. We are not an autocracy and so are not as vulnerable, but there are many examples in history where internal divisions simmer and the violently ignite with little warning. To me, this is the most important issue for there are few things more destructive to a society than civil war.
Wouldn’t Antifa be an example of emergent violence?
It’s an example of political violence for sure, but I don’t get the sense that it’s increasing and it’s one of the few examples of political violence currently. We haven’t had a major riot in almost two decades and no political assassinations – all of which were regular occurrences in the 60’s.
I think a big test will be the campaign next year, and how that proceeds.
On June 14, 2017, during a practice session for the annual Congressional Baseball Game for Charity in Alexandria, Virginia, James Hodgkinson shot U.S. House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, U.S. Capitol Police officer Crystal Griner, congressional aide Zack Barth, and lobbyist Matt Mika.
Rand Paul was attacked and severely injured.
The Trump inauguration was marred by attacks on attendees, limousines were barred, and the Park Service allowed violent demonstrators to block entrances.
There has been no shortage of violence but since it has been directed against Republicans there is no concern and it is ignored.
Good heavens.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States#Right-wing_extremism_and_anti-government
P.S. Rand Paul was assaulted by a neighbor over a domestic complaint.
Boucher’s attorney claimed the attack on Paul was about yard waste left in view but we will never know his actual motivation, will we. And Boucher was a registeredDemocrat. The GAO report on which the Wikipedia link is based is amusing. It would be interesting to see a list of the killings they purport to be by right wingers. A lot of political killers have muddled at bes ideologies.
A few isolated incidents are not a trend. I’m looking at this in terms of historical patterns that precede major social upheavals and civil wars.
Political violence (and violence generally) is, on an objective basis, currently very low in our society compared to, for example, the 1960’s.
I still can’t help but wonder if our government is a lot closer to the median voter of government and the polarization is still limited to more online complaining and trolling. We can obviously find lots of political discourse issues today but your points about the public moving Vietnam forgets the the campus protests lasted years. (1967 – 1973) It took 6 years for people to give up on Vietnam and today campus is nothing to the degree of protest battles of 1960s.
1) In terms of political discourse, how much of the Post-WW2 is the historical outlier that 80% of population was pleased they won WW2 and survived the Great Depression. Or the 1990s was satisfaction was due to winning Cold War and Wow! this Internet thing is awesome! Great don’t last forever!
2) Think about Watergate. It still took 2 years for Richard Nixon to resign and I still believe the main reason was the 1974 Oil Recession that sent Unemployment to 9.4% the next year. And our nation has had two true Presidential scandals, Iran-Contra & Whitewater, in which the President was not removed during economic good times. I bet if the economy started going down hard tomorrow like it 2nd half of 2008, Trump is removed but right now he can survive.
3) Compare the violence today to the further past. The Vietnam protest were terrible in terms of violence and current antifica/oathkeepers are nowhere those levels. Or even the Ferguson protest were well below what happened in Los Angeles in 1992 or the various 1960s riots. Or how the riots and protests in 1919 or 1920?
4) Even South America is full of protest! Do you remember the 1970s coups and revolutions with all kinds of Cold War backing? The current protests are not good but it is restrained the 1970s if you remember it. (Obviously there are exceptions and I don’t know how China deals with Hong Kong but there HK/Taiwan mixed feelings of Chinese culture and current government is their issue.)
The current political discourse is not good but not historical terrible either.
I think that Populists belong on the Oppressor/Oppressed axis along with Progressives. The key difference is who the two groups see as the Oppressors and Oppressed.
Progressives – who are mostly white and cis-gendered – see white, cis-gendered people as the Oppressors and minorities as the Oppressed. As such, theirs is something of an altruistic fight waged on behalf of others.
Populists, by contrast, see themselves as the Oppressed. Their Oppressors include: The Elite, the mainstream media, globalists, corporations, immigrants, and Jews. Trump reflects this view in an exaggerated form – he sees himself as the Oppressed, the “victim-in-chief.”
Because Trump’s supporters and Progressives generally share the same world view – albeit with a different focus – their arguments are very similar. In addition, they tend to believe in the same solution: Gain control of government and use government to enforce their views on others.
You have to be studiously obtuse to not know what populists want. Reagan, Clinton, Obama, and Trump were all populists. They all campaigned claiming that the welfare of ordinary people was their top priority and that a corrupt elite was putting its own welfare above that of ordinary people. Of course Trump is a different kettle of fish in that he doesn’t practice the time honored tradition in American politics of “screw the base,” that is telling primary voters one thing but then switching when in office to curry favor with opponents and boost personal popularity ratings. The Guardian of all places does a nice job of explaining the populist axis: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/may/01/populism-what-is-yougov-cambridge-globalism-project-methodology
The tribalistic attack on South America is ill-informed and mean spirited. South America has a deep commitment to Democracy and her people have fought hard to overcome dictatorships. The successful revolt in Bolivia against a tyrant is a beautiful example of the power of populism. If only there was the pride, individualism, and commitment to democracy in the USA that there is in much of South America, the USA might have a future.
Ann Althouse has a good bit of pushback on the whole “persuasion is good” assumption: https://althouse.blogspot.com/2019/11/humans-have-something-of-built-in-anti.html?m=1 Apparently humans have a bit of evolutionary programming to resist slick-talk.
In your account, progressives are crusaders against oppression, where: “Oppression occurs when one group in society is abused by a more powerful group.” If this were the whole story, progressives would be sympathetic to libertarians, since abuse is usually (or, I would say, always) the denial of freedom. But progressives hate libertarians, because simply giving freedom to people puts too much responsibility on them. Progressives want everyone to be taken care of, in which case there will be no need for personal freedom and responsibility. Society should be one big happy family, in which the people are the children and the government plays the parental role.
Does this model arise out of statistical analysis? If not, or if it isn’t supported by survey data, then I would be skeptical. Why not start with voter blocks as determined by political scientists, and just analyze what seems to motivate each block?