[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / hikki / htg / lovelive / maka / sonyeon / strek / teto / tijuana ]

/liberty/ - Liberty

Non-authoritarian Discussion of Politics, Society, News, and the Human Condition (Fun Allowed)
Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Flag
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Oekaki
Show oekaki applet
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
dicesidesmodifier
Password (For file and post deletion.)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.


WARNING! Free Speech Zone - all local trashcans will be targeted for destruction by Antifa.

File: 93dcb966969392f⋯.png (88.26 KB, 557x271, 557:271, Democrat VS Republican.PNG)

 No.70472

>The US citizenry is becoming ideologically polarised

>The US party system is becoming ideologically homogeneous

 No.70473

>>70472

Are you saying those 2 things are contradictions? They don't have to be. U.S. Politics is becoming both homogeneous to serve the interests of our corporate Military-Industrial-Complex; But also becoming polarized by citizens arguing over the smallest most trivial shit that doesn't matter to present the illusion of our system being free.


 No.70475

This polarisation is only skin deep. Both sides agree on most things. They're democratic; they believe in the modern nation state; they assume the primacy of the state over religion; they believe in the state as a caretaker, don't believe that society can fulfill this role, and don't accept personal responsibility; they both lean towards, or fully accept, collectivism.

What divides them is the old, tired conflict between nationalism and internationalism, only seemingly a strict dichotomy. Both ideologies have the modern nation state as their premise. The left also drank far more of the kool aid than the right. The right is more moderate, in other words: Less collectivist, less egalitarian, more inclined to believe in personal responsibility. The latter shouldn't be overstated, however, as their concessions to personal responsibility often take the form of being exceptions to the rule that the state should take care of you. There is no strong movement on the right to abolish nationalized insurance, welfare or medical care.

A very strong conflict appears to be between the conservativism of the right and the destructive drive of the left, but the right is far from principled. They're not conservatives at all, really. Think of change as a racing fright train. The left wants to accelerate and then completely derail it. The right wants to decelerate it a little bit but they wouldn't hit the brakes or jump off. They want the world back that existed five to ten years ago, back when there weren't so many screeching harpyies in the universities and eight year olds didn't become drag queens. They don't think about ending the welfare state, the war on drugs, foreign intervention, the surveillance state, militarization, the income tax, and so on.


 No.70504

>>70475

One might even hypothesize that the rhetorical polarization between left and right is a reaction to their ideological homogenization; "we hate the 'them' that are almost almost the 'us'", and all that. The less practical distinction there is between the two parties, the more viciously polarizaing the rhetoric must be in order to create the notion of a difference between the two so as to convince people to vote for the one party as opposed to the other. One must appeal to the mean voter while convincing him that he should sooner light himself on fire than consider voting for the alternative candidate. That's my understanding, anyway.




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / hikki / htg / lovelive / maka / sonyeon / strek / teto / tijuana ]