2 Nations Under God

[Guest Unorthodox]

Deleted

[Guest TheProudDuck]

I get to wear blue! I get to wear blue! I called it first!

[Snow]

Although the two parties are fairly antagonistic towards each other, the nation is not nearly so polarized as in some parts of it's history. It is just a cyclical blip on the screen.

Besides, people aren't all that polarized. Cal and I disagree completely and taxes and the wealthy. Do we disagree enough to want seperate countries? In reality Cal probably want a 42% tax rate and I want a 37% rate... not exactly polar opposites. It is not like one party believes in good and the other evil, they disagree about tactics and strategies and the differences is a matter of degree. And disagreements don't break down state by state. And those who agree on one issue disagree on other issues.

In short, you have asked a silly question, says I.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Snow,

The problem with that take is that I don't think the "issues" that divide the country really even matter any more. The issues are just markers, to show which tribe you belong to. The country is becoming increasingly divided between (I'm going to oversimplify horrendously here) two tribes.

One is a class of highly-educated, generally secular mandarins who depend, directly or indirectly, on government or quasi-governmental institutions for their livelihoods -- lawyers, academia, government workers, nonprofit institutions, conventional media, old-line Protestant churches and the people who follow them.

The other is a merely college-educated class defined by entrepreneurship and business, and is enthusiastically religious, often belonging to churches that are driven by major lay participation.

Even when the issues that separate the two tribes are trivial, they're presented as gigantically important. The New Class of secular meritocrats have a great deal invested in their self-image as the enlightened ones, to the point where they often engage in absolutely silly stereotypes of all religious traditionalists as ignorant snake-handling hillbilly buffoons. There is probably a countervailing need for the other side to believe that the New Class has more exaggerated characteristics than it does.

I do agree that we're all way to intermixed to have any kind of secession crisis.

[Snow]

I don't mind if it is horrendously oversimplified I just wonder if it is SO horrendously oversimplified that it isn't useful to better understand the reality.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by Snow@Oct 15 2004, 11:43 PM

I don't mind if it is horrendously oversimplified I just wonder if it is SO horrendously oversimplified that it isn't useful to better understand the reality.

I read a review of what looks like an interesting book making something similar to my point:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/158...4743278-2349743

I really do think that what a person thinks is less important than what a person thinks says about his identity. People really do seem to be taking sides, and while you're right that the positions on the issues that define each side are small, they sure generate a lot of heat.

One identity is defined by political correctness. The other side is also elevating identity over substance. For example, the recent rise of evangelical Christianity places an incredibly high premium on Christian identity, rather than Christian life. That's the whole substance of the doctrine of solafidianism -- it doesn't matter what you do, as long as you're on th Christian team.

[Guest Unorthodox]

Deleted

[Snow]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Oct 16 2004, 10:48 AM

I read a review of what looks like an interesting book making something similar to my point:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/158...4743278-2349743

...One identity is defined by political correctness.  The other side is also elevating identity over substance.  For example, the recent rise of evangelical Christianity places an incredibly high premium on Christian identity, rather than Christian life.  That's the whole substance of the doctrine of solafidianism -- it doesn't matter what you do, as long as you're on th Christian team.

I've been thinking about your bifurcation scheme (I always love to work the word "bifurcate" into a conversation). I understand the point and agree that there is something to it but I still don't see it as a useful abstraction of reality. For that matter, the thought behind the post goes towards, not only exaggerating the differences, but promoting them. For the most part, I think the public are large are not well-informed on most political matters to have a valid opinion. I say that because I am better-informed that the average citizen and I am not that well-informed - so when it comes to taking a stand, people aren't really taking a stand on a particular issue, they are acquiesing to party line - the party they most identify with - so in that sense we are divided but the depth of our division, on average, doesn't run so deep that we feel compelled to actually know and understand what we are talking about --- so as you say, style is favored over substance.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Snow, you've got a point, which I tried to make in my "tribes" post originally but didn't. I definitely do think that the people who matter -- who point the country in the direction it will go -- fall into one of the two tribes. There are some fringes around the edges, but they are becoming fewer.

Now, the vast bulk of people may not belong to either tribe. But the masses don't steer the civilization; the people who matter do. Of course, it's entirely possible that BOTH tribes will ultimately make themselves so annoying by overemphasizing petty differences (not that all their differences are petty) that they'll stop being the "people who matter" and new tribes will arise from the presently apathetic mass to take their place.

I still want to wear blue in the civil war.