I think American politics today can be broken down as follows:
There are three main groups in America today: revolutionaries (we’ll call them progressives), reactionaries (we’ll call them conservatives), and the supporters of the status quo (we’ll call them centrists).
The centrists are people who are generally doing well, are generally happy and content, and therefore don’t want things to change significantly. They might be willing to accept relatively minor changes, but only if the changes don’t negatively impact them in any meaningful way.
Progressives are people who are generally unhappy and discontent. They don’t feel that things are working for them, so they want to radically change things, in the hopes of making society more like their hypothetical or theoretical ideal.
Conservatives are generally a reaction to progressives. Like progressives, conservatives aren’t entirely content with the status quo, but they generally blame progressives for any problems. They believe it was progressives who created the problems when they tried to make radical changes, and conservatives therefore think the best way to solve the problems is to roll back any of the changes and to just generally go back to a better, more stable, more traditional past.
Progressives hate the centrists, for their opposition to the radical changes they propose, changes that progressives view as absolutely necessary. Progressives feel that the centrists lack empathy, as they are unable to see, or don’t care, that progressives are very unhappy and discontented, and may even be suffering.
The centrists see progressives as overly idealistic malcontents who are simply blind to how good they have it and to all the status quo has given them. The centrists also resent the progressives for asking them to make sacrifices. The centrists believe they earned their success, and there’s no reason to punish them for it, and that progressives are just “sore losers.”
Conservatives absolutely hate progressives, with a murderous rage. They hate that progressives want to radically change things, and they hate that progressives reject tradition and established hierarchies/hegemony. conservatives are infuriated that progressives won’t show deference to traditional authority, and even dare, in some cases, to call for the destruction of said authority.
Conservatives don’t necessarily like the centrists either, but any problems they have with the centrists comes down to any willingness they may have to work with progressives. For instance, if the centrists are ever willing to listen to or compromise with progressives, conservatives view that as total capitulation to the progressives, and/or the status quo being completely co-opted or infiltrated by progressives.
Conservatives now believe that the status quo has been taken over by progressives, and thus they make no distinction between the centrists and progressives, viewing both as the enemy. Therefore, it has become necessary for the centrists to ally with progressives (as much as they might hate that thought) against conservatives. However, the alliance is restricted only to opposing conservatives, and does nothing to change the centrists’ general opposition to the aims and ambitions of progressives. For this reason, progressives are reluctant to form an alliance with the centrists, since they believe the centrists are asking for the progressives’ help without offering anything in return. The centrists argue that they don’t have to offer anything to the progressives, and that the progressives should help the centrists because it is also in their interest to see the conservatives defeated.
I think this is a deeply flawed and simplistic categorization of Americans’ political sentiment. “Progressives” capture a broad swathe of people with different concerns and intents, very many of whom are doing just fine but appreciate the myriad systemic issues that merit address. Keep in mind, Republicans have effectively turned being focused on the existential threat that is unchecked climate change into a “progressive” issue and part of their culture war.
Moreover, political spectrum positioning historically shifts only one step one way or another between generations (i.e., children are usually one step more centrist than their parents when they settle into a stable political outlook). What this means is that most people just don’t give significant thought about their politics and their practical and lived impact on their lives. This isn’t to say most people are stupid, but rather they are thoughtless and myopic. It also means that a very large portion are not reacting to anything-- they’re just bumbling along like humans always have and it’s the incidental cascade from flapping butterflies here and there that cause the population level swings and societal changes we ultimately see.
You are making the same mistake that economists (used to and some still do) make in that you are baking perfect rationality, at least along some axes, where it just does not exist. And trying to build any sort of model from such a flawed axiom is doomed.
I think this is a deeply flawed and simplistic categorization of Americans’ political sentiment.
It is an oversimplification, I don’t deny that. But just because my analysis is a simplification doesn’t mean it is wholly inaccurate or lacking in usefulness.
“Progressives” capture a broad swathe of people with different concerns and intents, very many of whom are doing just fine but appreciate the myriad systemic issues that merit address.
That’s true, although I don’t know how many progressives are “doing just fine.” Perhaps it’s many, or even most, but I don’t think anyone can say for certain. I’m not sure it matters, either, whether progressives are just disaffected people or disaffected people and their allies and advocates. The point is, despite their differences, they want radical change, and that is ultimately what puts them at odds with centrists.
most people just don’t give significant thought about their politics and their practical and lived impact on their lives.
I think that’s true as well, but I’m not really making a distinction between the people who identify with and lend their loyalty to one political tribe or the other, even if passively, and the thought leaders of said tribes.
It also means that a very large portion are not reacting to anything-- they’re just bumbling along like humans always have and it’s the incidental cascade from flapping butterflies here and there that cause the population level swings and societal changes we ultimately see.
Well, I think you might be doing the thing you accused me of and oversimplifying. I don’t think societal changes are simply a result of an incidental cascade brought on by bumbling, thoughtless humans flapping around mindlessly. Certainly some people have much more influence on societal change than others, and many people are mostly just passengers, but that doesn’t mean societal changes are merely random.
I think you are missing out on the fourth group of people too tired, too overwhelmed or simply too disenfranchised to care enough to actually do anything for any side… this group is by far the largest of them all
Progressives are people who are generally unhappy and discontent. They don’t feel that things are working for them, so they want to radically change things, in the hopes of making society more like their hypothetical or theoretical ideal.
Things are working fine for me but I care about other people. I am progressive.
Progressives are people who are generally unhappy and discontent. They don’t feel that things are working for them, so they want to radically change things, in the hopes of making society more like their hypothetical or theoretical ideal.
In so much as things are not working out for progressives, it’s because many of them are usually people with higher levels of compassion and empathy. I think you’re equating socioeconomic status with political alignment, which will lead to inaccurate conclusions.
On the flip side, there are many conservatives who are poor, trapped in abusive jobs or U.S. states, dying of one reason or another but will blame progressives for their problems because of the culture war bullshit/distraction tactic.
We’re all victims of unabated greed, it’s just that some of us have Stockholm syndrome or a delusional fantasy of one day becoming an abuser a captain of industry
I think you’re equating socioeconomic status with political alignment
I’m not, necessarily. I think a person can be unhappy and discontented even if they aren’t of low socioeconomic status. I think you can be unhappy even if you are doing relatively ok economically. I think that because that’s my exact situation. I’m not poor or trapped in an abusive job, yet I am very dissatisfied with the status quo.
I’ll add to that as things are getting worse, fewer and fewer people are going to go to bat for the status quo, making the situation unsustainable. The status quo is what created these conditions in the first place, and if there isn’t at least a reasonable pathway towards addressing the various crises and underlying problems, it should be considered a non-starter.
I definitely think the centrist middle is going to become more and more hollowed out as more people break from the middle into the progressive or conservative camps. That being said, while I don’t think any of the three groups represents a majority of Americans, I do think centrists still have a plurality, though I think they will soon be overtaken by one of the other groups. Unfortunately, I think more centrists are likely to break conservative than progressive. I think more Americans are likely to have a negative reaction to the possibility of radical change than a positive one. But perhaps that depends on the changes being proposed. One thing I am very confident of is if the proposed changes are socialist, even if only in name, I think a majority of Americans will have a negative reaction to them.
Bruh…it may be the dab I just hit, but you just blew my freaking mind with the accuracy of that description. I’m stealing this for a future family argument.
I think American politics today can be broken down as follows:
There are three main groups in America today: revolutionaries (we’ll call them progressives), reactionaries (we’ll call them conservatives), and the supporters of the status quo (we’ll call them centrists).
The centrists are people who are generally doing well, are generally happy and content, and therefore don’t want things to change significantly. They might be willing to accept relatively minor changes, but only if the changes don’t negatively impact them in any meaningful way.
Progressives are people who are generally unhappy and discontent. They don’t feel that things are working for them, so they want to radically change things, in the hopes of making society more like their hypothetical or theoretical ideal.
Conservatives are generally a reaction to progressives. Like progressives, conservatives aren’t entirely content with the status quo, but they generally blame progressives for any problems. They believe it was progressives who created the problems when they tried to make radical changes, and conservatives therefore think the best way to solve the problems is to roll back any of the changes and to just generally go back to a better, more stable, more traditional past.
Progressives hate the centrists, for their opposition to the radical changes they propose, changes that progressives view as absolutely necessary. Progressives feel that the centrists lack empathy, as they are unable to see, or don’t care, that progressives are very unhappy and discontented, and may even be suffering.
The centrists see progressives as overly idealistic malcontents who are simply blind to how good they have it and to all the status quo has given them. The centrists also resent the progressives for asking them to make sacrifices. The centrists believe they earned their success, and there’s no reason to punish them for it, and that progressives are just “sore losers.”
Conservatives absolutely hate progressives, with a murderous rage. They hate that progressives want to radically change things, and they hate that progressives reject tradition and established hierarchies/hegemony. conservatives are infuriated that progressives won’t show deference to traditional authority, and even dare, in some cases, to call for the destruction of said authority.
Conservatives don’t necessarily like the centrists either, but any problems they have with the centrists comes down to any willingness they may have to work with progressives. For instance, if the centrists are ever willing to listen to or compromise with progressives, conservatives view that as total capitulation to the progressives, and/or the status quo being completely co-opted or infiltrated by progressives.
Conservatives now believe that the status quo has been taken over by progressives, and thus they make no distinction between the centrists and progressives, viewing both as the enemy. Therefore, it has become necessary for the centrists to ally with progressives (as much as they might hate that thought) against conservatives. However, the alliance is restricted only to opposing conservatives, and does nothing to change the centrists’ general opposition to the aims and ambitions of progressives. For this reason, progressives are reluctant to form an alliance with the centrists, since they believe the centrists are asking for the progressives’ help without offering anything in return. The centrists argue that they don’t have to offer anything to the progressives, and that the progressives should help the centrists because it is also in their interest to see the conservatives defeated.
I think this is a deeply flawed and simplistic categorization of Americans’ political sentiment. “Progressives” capture a broad swathe of people with different concerns and intents, very many of whom are doing just fine but appreciate the myriad systemic issues that merit address. Keep in mind, Republicans have effectively turned being focused on the existential threat that is unchecked climate change into a “progressive” issue and part of their culture war.
Moreover, political spectrum positioning historically shifts only one step one way or another between generations (i.e., children are usually one step more centrist than their parents when they settle into a stable political outlook). What this means is that most people just don’t give significant thought about their politics and their practical and lived impact on their lives. This isn’t to say most people are stupid, but rather they are thoughtless and myopic. It also means that a very large portion are not reacting to anything-- they’re just bumbling along like humans always have and it’s the incidental cascade from flapping butterflies here and there that cause the population level swings and societal changes we ultimately see.
You are making the same mistake that economists (used to and some still do) make in that you are baking perfect rationality, at least along some axes, where it just does not exist. And trying to build any sort of model from such a flawed axiom is doomed.
It is an oversimplification, I don’t deny that. But just because my analysis is a simplification doesn’t mean it is wholly inaccurate or lacking in usefulness.
That’s true, although I don’t know how many progressives are “doing just fine.” Perhaps it’s many, or even most, but I don’t think anyone can say for certain. I’m not sure it matters, either, whether progressives are just disaffected people or disaffected people and their allies and advocates. The point is, despite their differences, they want radical change, and that is ultimately what puts them at odds with centrists.
I think that’s true as well, but I’m not really making a distinction between the people who identify with and lend their loyalty to one political tribe or the other, even if passively, and the thought leaders of said tribes.
Well, I think you might be doing the thing you accused me of and oversimplifying. I don’t think societal changes are simply a result of an incidental cascade brought on by bumbling, thoughtless humans flapping around mindlessly. Certainly some people have much more influence on societal change than others, and many people are mostly just passengers, but that doesn’t mean societal changes are merely random.
I think you are missing out on the fourth group of people too tired, too overwhelmed or simply too disenfranchised to care enough to actually do anything for any side… this group is by far the largest of them all
Things are working fine for me but I care about other people. I am progressive.
In so much as things are not working out for progressives, it’s because many of them are usually people with higher levels of compassion and empathy. I think you’re equating socioeconomic status with political alignment, which will lead to inaccurate conclusions.
On the flip side, there are many conservatives who are poor, trapped in abusive jobs or U.S. states, dying of one reason or another but will blame progressives for their problems because of the culture war bullshit/distraction tactic.
We’re all victims of unabated greed, it’s just that some of us have Stockholm syndrome or a delusional fantasy of one day becoming
an abusera captain of industryI’m not, necessarily. I think a person can be unhappy and discontented even if they aren’t of low socioeconomic status. I think you can be unhappy even if you are doing relatively ok economically. I think that because that’s my exact situation. I’m not poor or trapped in an abusive job, yet I am very dissatisfied with the status quo.
I’ll add to that as things are getting worse, fewer and fewer people are going to go to bat for the status quo, making the situation unsustainable. The status quo is what created these conditions in the first place, and if there isn’t at least a reasonable pathway towards addressing the various crises and underlying problems, it should be considered a non-starter.
I definitely think the centrist middle is going to become more and more hollowed out as more people break from the middle into the progressive or conservative camps. That being said, while I don’t think any of the three groups represents a majority of Americans, I do think centrists still have a plurality, though I think they will soon be overtaken by one of the other groups. Unfortunately, I think more centrists are likely to break conservative than progressive. I think more Americans are likely to have a negative reaction to the possibility of radical change than a positive one. But perhaps that depends on the changes being proposed. One thing I am very confident of is if the proposed changes are socialist, even if only in name, I think a majority of Americans will have a negative reaction to them.
You could practically swap conversations and progressives in this, depending on the audience.
Bruh…it may be the dab I just hit, but you just blew my freaking mind with the accuracy of that description. I’m stealing this for a future family argument.