It's funny to pretend that it's unreasonable to not want to live next to "the other party," until your neighbor walks up to your fence and tells you he just bought three thousand rounds of ammunition because the Democrats won an election. Which happened to me.
@@DrMorpheus It has been years, so I can't recall what he said verbatim, but he said something like: "The blacks are gonna rise up. It's gonna be race war." Except his language was less polite.
Call me crazy, but I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that most members of "the other party" don't act or think like that. Something like 44% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents own guns (www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/06/22/the-demographics-of-gun-ownership/), so by definition, people who run out and buy ammo after an election are a minority of "the other party". I'd bet dollars to donuts that only a small minority of that minority buys ammo because they think there's an impending race war. Lumping everyone in "the other party" together isn't productive. That was arguably one of the messages of this podcast...
Can you all add the panel members' names to the description to give them credit? I know you announce them at the beginning but having those written would be really helpful.
The biggest issue right now isn't so much the "grr i haet u" aspect, but the underlying fact taht the "two sides" are simply operating on entirely different and incompatible sets of "facts". When one side says climate change exists and the other says it doesn't, they're not even operating under the belief of the same reality, and there isn't room for compromise. It doesn't help that so many people "both-sides" the issues as well as if there's a reasonable compromise when only one of these realities is actually based the real, actual, reality. And I think that plays into the other non-policy things they're discussing as well - like, on the surface of it, why would I give a general benefit of the doubt and say I'd be willing to marry a Republican? If they're still supporting the party that just fundamentally argues against science in every single aspect, why would I assume we'd be compatible? The identifier itself at this point shows a lack of critical thinking ability and/or basic moral character. Obviously marriage though is a much bigger thing than, say, who my neighbors are - I'd be fine having Republican neighbors, but would I feel comfortable living in an area where they were particularly prevalent, or where a bunch of Q people live? Fuck no, as a progressive who tends to dislike the Democratic party I wouldn't take the online sentiment of what basically amounts to "shoot the commies" and "day of the rope" fan-fiction lightly when they're doing shit like storming the US Capitol. I also find it hilarious how you have to dance around the one-sidedness of this in many respects. Saying it's "the parties" choosing sides on the racial divide is well into bad-faith "both-sides" territory - Republicans chose to cater to racists, Democrats chose to not be racist, clearly both are at fault for their divisive rhetoric... I mean, I get why you do it, you don't want to piss off any moderate (or unaware) Republican who accidentally clicks on your video, but still, the normalization is just so aggrivating.
On the viewer question about the discourse and how "the left" paints "the right" as all just being racist, I think it's also important to consider who the subject of the discussion actually is - the voters? Or the politicians? I don't hate Republican voters, and I don't hate Republican politicians _for being Republican_. I hate Republican politicians for actively choosing to be lying bigoted assholes. My feeling towards the voters is mostly just pity, for being duped and swindled over and over again into voting for said assholes. I don't think all Republican voters are bigoted racists either, but they do seem to prefer voting for politicians who fit that mold.
Yeah this whole episode feels like a super ignorant “both sides” take that does not reflect reality. It’s not about hating Republicans just for fun. The Right is disliked for their direct actions that reinforce inequality and directly hurt others. And they’ve been doing it for decades. There’s no room for opinions when one side is allowing thousands of people to die from a preventable problem simply to win political points.
I feel like rural white voters have been duped into voting against their interests because of race bating by Republicans. While a lot of Republican voters are misguided, many of them are just rich suburbanites who vote for less taxes, even if that involves authoritarianism.
The only way to begin to heal the partisanship is for Dems to deliver in ways that improve the lives of the average American. It is difficult to hate the other side while they are passing legislation that improves your life in a tangible way.
It's actually quite easy. There are many cases of Republicans saying shit like "keep your government hands off my medicaid" or "repeal the ACA. I have obamacare, so I'm good". Honestly, the only thing I think would heal the country is to alter the news regulations, break up facebook, and funnel resources into the CDC to treat misinformation as its own pandemic
For me, these last couple of years have entirely recontextualised the experience of medieval peasants living under a monarchy. It never mattered whether common people had a say in policy. They didn't care about the autocratic nature of government then, and they don't care about the influence of lobby big donors now. It never mattered that the ruling class used taxpayer money to build sumptuous residences for themselves, as long as they were not starving to death. They didn't care about châteaux back then, and their base don't care about Putin's Baltic sea mansions, or Trump's profiteering from the presidency now. It never mattered what good or evil their kings or enemies did or didn't do, so long as they were not the direct victim. Both then and now, they don't care to learn about misdeeds, or invent blood libels to manufacture outrage as needed. The one thing they do care about is being _represented_ . Peasants revolted against rulers who didn't represent their culture, their faith, or their language then, as they do now. They rallied around a pretender who represented them better then, as they do now. The unfortunate truth seems to be that feudalism, imperialism, or democracy have only ever been flavors for the one true way homo sapiens sort themselves into societies: tribalism. Power has always come from identity. Identity is the only tool through which the sufficient consent of those who would have the power to break the status quo is maintained. The world's largest and most successful empires, those that lasted more than one generation, stood out by their ability to transmit their identity and build a large pool of people who share the same faith, culture, language, laws and customs, and take pride in the same achievements and heroes. The revolutions that created democracy and the modern world we live in did so by accident. A budding identity of Englishmen native from the new world didn't feel _represented_ by the government of their kingdom. Peasants came to think of themselves as a "third estate" in france and didn't feel _represented_ by the aristocracy. This means that the real battle was not really fought on the battlefields then, nor is it fought in the voting booth now. Sure, when the odds are close, a good general or a good outreach to the electorate makes the difference, but the true battle is fought one generation before, in the bedchamber, in the schools, in the playgrounds, in the churches, in the reeducation camps and in the media. What I am saying sounds... evil. Foul. The words strain my fingers as I type them. But what is more virtuous, refusing to acknowledge the rules of the game and attempting to be "good", only to lose the identity game 50 years from now and let bad policies prevail, or taking a Machiavellian outlook in order to win the identity game 50 years from now, and hope to generate some positive outcomes?
I’ll be candid with everyone, as a liberal, my resentments toward the other side is their moralism, that everyone needs to live by what Christianity, or the Bible, says is right... like on abortion and gay rights and such, and I believe that by all means they can practice their religion as they like... in their own homes and churches, but if they chose to do a job that caters to the public or have a government job that they need to get rid of those prejudices and serve everyone equally, and save their distaste and discomfort for “sinners” for at home, like the rest of us do. If you wanna say we’re going to hell, great. But don’t tell me I can’t love who I want or get rid of an unwanted pregnancy my wife and I don’t want. Hell, I’m even okay if you don’t want your tax dollars to go to it, but the push to make it illegal behavior is beyond the pale, to me, and what makes me resentful of much of the right.
You know how you feel when ppl say the left is a bunch of communists? You just did that with the right. The highly evangelical, fundamentalists do exist on the right, but they only get vocal pandering.
Abortion is the rub for both sides: is it a right or an atrocity? The parties are divided on abortion but united on center-right pro-business economics. We should be talking more about abortion differences, not less.
@@ricauburn9553 I’m sure that’s true, but I still hold animus towards those specific peoples views, and the fact that 80-90% of the Republican Party agrees with them. I’m not saying that I’m realistically even justified in my beliefs, just that it’s one of the things that actively boils my blood enough to say that I actively hate someone for their political beliefs because of it. It’s no different to the radicals on our side, I hate a lot of their ideals as well, but if you polled most of our party they would say they don’t agree with most of the views the extreme left holds. That’s not necessarily true on the other side, especially since about the mid 90s when it’s become basically a non-starter to be a candidate in the Republican Party if you disagree with almost any of the demands of the far right evangelical block. They allow some to provide lip service on those issues, but when it comes to voting on those issues republicans are in lock step with the most extremist sides of their party on those issues. It took the Supreme Court to make change on those issues because of it, rather than congress.
@@IntrusiveThot420 First off, state policy != Federal policy. Second, "numerous" is not exactly numerous; thinking it over, it's maybe like 2 or 3, if I'm being generous. For example, in AL they did gain enough power & banned abortion, but then ppl responded by electing Doug Jones (D) over Roy Moore (evangelical R), in that deep red state.
I had an interesting though at around 49:00 when it was mentioned Biden "leading" with/for unity after the Trump administration that it's possible, if not likely, that the issue of unity itself becomes divisive.
The point at 37:50 when Galen starts talking about extremism on the left is important. Left-leaning people (myself included) should do more to call out violence on 'our side' as well. This is why I find the way some progressives excused violence during the BLM protests so troubling (normally it wasn't 'this good!' more like framing violence as a semi-justified response to police brutality). Obviously, there isn't an equivalence between the BLM protests and the capitol riots (for one thing, only a tiny minority of BLM protestors were violent, whereas everyone who entered the capitol is culpable for what happened). Violence is not a healthy response to political grievances - whether it's a cause you agree with or not.
It would be great to be able to simply say, 'all political violence is bad', unfortunately context compels me to assert otherwise: if someone feels that peaceful protest isn't causing sufficient movement on an issue that is literally life or death for them, it's not unthinkable for them to feel that they need to make their problem everyone else's problem too (not to say I'm promoting this way of thinking, just trying to explain it); compare that to what the Capitol Hill rioters were motivated by and how easily they were motivated to violence - there's a reason why we're faster to condemn right-wing violence and it's a legitimate one
@@lukeedwards7677 Far Right wing protestors think that the left getting power is a life or death issue too - hardcore QAnon supporters think Biden spends his afternoons cannibalising babies, whilst white nationalists think a white genocide is going on. That is life or death. I'm not saying those beliefs have any basis in fact, but they are believed just as strongly as the beliefs of BLM protestors. You can't have a rule for one and not the other without coming off as a hypocrite, which just makes things worse (and fuels the rights persecuiion fantasies). When people on the right sympathise with the Capitol Rioters, by saying stuff like 'sure, they went over the top, but it's to be expected when the Dems steal an election!' the left (rightfully) interprets that has tacit support. Likewise, when people like AOC sympathise with violence at BLM protests, the Right interprets that as 'A radical wing on the Democratic party supports chaos in the streets! Stock up on guns!'
@@merrymachiavelli2041 Fair enough, but my response is to pile on the facts and, well, forgive my smugness but to quote Stephen Colbert, 'Reality is well-known to have a liberal bias'; if/when that fails, well, nothing will disabuse the far-right of their persecution complex Also, when has AOC condoned violence itself? Endorsing the protests is different from endorsing violence that occurs in a small part of them - and yeah, I recognize that only a small portion of right wing protests are violent too - it's only that violence I criticize too But more to the point, I've tired of criticizing left-wing violence and having that taken for granted when the right rarely does the same - the "why don't you criticize them too?" argument from the right is almost never made in good faith, so after a while, the double standard makes it so that it's not worth bothering
The Left needs to be MORE militant, not less. If the left gets its way, everyone gets healthcare and a decent living wage. If the right gets its way, they will shove the left (and large portions of the middle) into gas chambers. This is what history has shown us, again and again and again.
@@lukeedwards7677 I am on the left and I almost certainly agree with you politically, but please recognise your own partisanship. I really feel it’s clouding the lefts assessment of what is healthy political discourse. I’m not sure where you are getting your news, but most people on the right criticised violence at far right protests, it’s just many then sympathise with the reason the people are protesting. Note, this is the same as your stance on the BLM. This is a situation where both sides think the other is guilty of a double standard and TBH, on the specific issue of violence at protests I think the Right has a stronger case, On AOC, note the word I used was sympathise not condone I.e. say the same thing you did in your original post about violence as a response to a life or death situation.
I wonder what happened there. For me, Claire was the biggest draw - by far. I wonder if there was some jealously there that resulted in her unwilling exit.
@@dimgaard7056 she was let go from her job and they're not allowed to have her on anymore per station rules. This new girl monopolizes the conversation in an annoying way. I miss Claire too.
I came away from this, and from the women's article, thinking they didn't put enough emphasis on income disparity. I believe it's the lynchpin that if pulled would make much of the country's anger dissipate. As a controversial figure once said, "It's the economy, stupid."
Dems need to focus on lifting up everyone economically and funding stronger social safety nets. Whites will find it hard to complain about minorities when they are more educated and financial secure. Force the GOP into obstructing helping their current base and blast them for it next election.
@No Name You do know that you are conflating two dissimilar things to make a dubious and irrelevant point, right? "I plan to vote for Biden and a straight democratic ticket," Spencer tweeted on Sunday. "It's not based on 'accelerationism' or anything like that; the liberals are clearly more competent people." Biden’s campaign swiftly disavowed Spencer’s endorsement. vs. Will you unequivocally condemn David Duke and say that you don’t want his vote or that of other white supremacists in this election?” Trump: “Well, just so you understand, I don’t know anything about David Duke. Okay? I don’t know anything about what you’re even talking about with white supremacy or white supremacists. So, I don’t know. I don’t know, did he endorse me or what’s going on, because, you know, I know nothing about David Duke. I know nothing about white supremacists. And so you’re asking me a question that I’m supposed to be talking about people that I know nothing about.”
Perry - There is a lot more racists then you think. Especially ones that dont want you to move in their neighborhood. Half of my work and at least half my family says exactly that. I cant be the only one.
I consider would the family approve of an interracial marriage as a good example of modern racism. Lots of people are okay with different races as neighbors or classmates. As long as they keep to themselves. But when a family member brings someone of a different race home then you start hearing stuff.
The irony is that the left practices race-ism; seeing the world from the lens of race. The left blaming the right for racism is a projection of the left's racism. Conservatives utilize categories other than race. One could say Conservatives strive to be race-less, in a MLK "I have a Dream" sense, in their policies. Note that many of today's Conservatives say they would have marched in the civil rights movement had this been the 1960s.
Please look outside the USA. You seem to be really focussed on overanalysing the data from the US, and the US alone. From where I live in a democracy with proportional representation, it seems clear to me that the core of the problem is the first-past-the-post voting systems. We replaced it with proportional representation in 1917. The result is much more transparent, fact based, policy driven politics, as politicians are forced to cooperate with each other to form majorities and thus have to explain compromises to the voters and cannot demonize the other parties. A lot of the problems of the USA and UK come from FPTP.
Ummm this is podcast about US politics. That being said, the US state of Maine passed ranked choice voting, so the other states will hopefully adopt such a system.
FTTP has a lot of benefits and it would probably be good for the US, but it's not a bulletproof solution. Oftentimes it instead gives extremist parties disproportionately large power (Weimar Germany is the go-to example but a Far Left/Far Right coalition government between Syriza and the Independent Greeks in 2015 is a good modern example). I think that getting rid of closed primaries is a much better first step as it is more viable and considering that primaries mostly attract the freaks and losers of each party than getting rid of closed ones will help alienate the fringes.
What I found enlightening was when I visited a country that was very rural, except for one big city. There was a debate on TV about a new law against noisy neighbours. Everyone from the big city wanted it, but everyone from the country side was against "unnecessary rules". The environment shapes people's ideas, also on race, religion and many other factors, depending on who they interact with. I think that explains a lot of the difference between cities and more rural areas.
Agreed. On a somewhat related note, the fallacy that all cities are “liberal and crime infested” is always invoked incorrectly. It is a fact and always has been, that when there are large million+ populated cities, the crime rate is going to be higher per capita, homelessness becomes far more visible, and the contrast between rich and poor more extreme. Likewise, culture and education and many other positive things emerge in higher rates because of those numbers of people interacting. Every time I hear a conservative say, “poorly run liberal cities,” I know what they are referencing. (Masking racism with poor logic). Their logic is flawed because that’d be the same as saying “don’t swim along the coastline, that’s where most shark attacks on people happen.” They need to be told that it’s because that’s where 99% of people gather when visiting the ocean, not because sharks prefer being there. It’s so silly.
An entire thread where everyone has something useful to say. Now I remember why I sometimes spend a few minutes reading the comments after a 538 podcast episode. Thanks to all!
Good points here! For my 2 cents, in cities you are also much more likely to spend time in public space, in and amongst strangers, where you can make judgements about the outside world from your own perspective. Whereas, in suburbs and rural areas, you are much more likely to spend the majority of your time in private space (your home, driving to and from work - for cars are extensions of private space - etc.). Your perception of the outside world will then be filtered through the depictions of others via the media - specifically, the media of your choice, be it 538, Fox News or Democracy Now!. Cities are in part defined by their randomness, you don't know who will get on the bus you take to work, therefore to thrive in an urban setting a certain level of tolerance and in a sense empathy for others is required. This in part explains 'liberal' city politics. Also, rural and suburban politics is often inexorably tied to home ownership and thus fiscal conservatism - 'what's good for the economy is good for me' and all that jazz.
@@snakejuice4300 Not true at all. There are numerous cities with low crime rates like Tokyo and Singapore. Liberal democrat policies of defund-the-police, bail reform i.e. don't restrain violent criminals, and policies encouraging broken families via welfare are responsible for the lawlessness we see in places like Portland, Seattle, Chicago and New York.
@@jsrodman It would go a long way to fixing it though, given the various kinds guarantee minority representation, drastically lessen the effects of gerrymandering, and force moderation by practically requiring coalition-forming to get things done.
in the UK this phenomena is called Punch and Judy effect where you characterize principles into story lines as good and evil. This has always been Newt Gingrich's polarizing or partisan goal. Once separated the two can never agree common truth. Thus only a cataclysmic event like WWII can bring common ground. Thus we are heading for much, much more turbulent times ie 1930's Germany and need luck to get through if we see democracy as a virtue
We would be much better off if we broke America out into several independent countries that are each able to govern themselves better. We are sick of flipping back and forth ruling people we hate.
It's a double edged sword though - if we ended up with Cascadia, New England, and Jesusland, the former two would save a lot of money in taxes that they could spend on themselves, but in the long run having a third world nation (with nukes) that absolutely resents us and blames us for all of their problems right on our doorstep would not ultimately be a good situation.
Its true unfortunately... used to be one of those things you could overlook in another person but now its seen as something of a character flaw... to be on the other side. People also seem to have lost the ability to compartmentalize their politics, to separate it from their work and family so we can't even have a conversation about unrelated topics The media doesn't help by making everything a do or die contest of wills, its crept into the way regular people communicate as well.
What is the main cause? Right wing media, and by reaction some left wing media that points out what they are doing which causes animosity. It's not that difficult guys.
@No Name Richard Spencer endorsed Biden in a desparate bid to stay relevant. Since he got punched that one time, most of his followers abandoned him and he moved in with his parents.
Race is certainly a factor. But these attitudes are to some extent pushed by class. Economic inequality may underlie much of the emergence of racial tension. At least we can say these issues are intertwined.
1. Regarding the first segment, I am much less optimistic about DC Statehood. Given what life was like this month (January 2021), not to mention last summer (2020), I've decided that I am moving out of DC (after more than 30 years) to California upon early retirement in a few years. (California is in one of the best positions to function as a separate, liberal country if necessary.) 2. Regarding the second segment, there are fundamental differences in morals and basic human values between the parties. Republicans' playbook, particularly under the agenda of Carl Rove in the 1990s, has been to demonize the other: women, black Americans, gays, immigrants. As a gay person, I now refuse ever to vote for a Republican, due to the party's platform against gay people for decades.
Honestly, I do think less of people who say they are Republicans and slowly reduce my interactions with them. I just don't see how I can friends with someone I disagree with on so many fundamental issues. I have never said I'm not your friend and I'm far from rude but I know I don't initiate the interactions with them and eventually, we simply talk when it happens.
What if each year, each party gets 2 filibuster cards, they can choose to play it on any issue that's that important. But they only have two and they have to do it like an old fashioned keep talking filibuster
And it can be reversed the next year. Say the 1st year Dems pick voting rights and $15 minimum wage, Repubs pick protection for oil and coal companies and help for small businesses because of the pandemic. I purposely chose polar opposites for the Republicans since they seem so hypocritical as of late. Anyway, my point would be that both parties can get their 2 big ticket items and related trimmings passed and they would remain law unless the Supreme Court rules against it, just like now. Than year 2 they each get new things to have as their 2. I think it should be called The Party's Annual Free Pass.
The really big thing no one seems to discuss (and I spend all day / every day interacting widest possible swath of people) is that a lot of Republican-identifying people feel that - for better or worse - Republicans care about military and military members more.
Also - for a lot, their perception of Trump is, “yeah he’s a jerk but he talks about rural veterans” more so than “yay, he’s racist”. Again, this is observational.
Hotdogs. They suck. They're rubbery, bland, entirely dependant on condiments for flavor, mildly carcinogenic, and the bun your obligated to eat them with might as well be a dry dish sponge. Bratwurst definitely is miles better but still... Eh.
@@korayven9255 I've had good bratwurst (not lately, admittedly) But I prefer to eat them without bun or condiments usually. Maybe some sweet sauerkraut. If I'm going to have meat (which isn't all that often anymore) I want it to have it's own flavor and be cooked like adult food. Hot dogs are for kids or when you're really really desperate for hot food on the move like a sports game
@@vikmanphotography7984 I mean, yeah, bratwurst and currywurst are amazing, but the simple taste and mouthfeel of a good hotdog is a worthwhile contender, at least for me. Think of it this way: I don't like vanilla. I think it's bland and boring, but I do know a bunch of people who absolutely love vanilla because it is so simple and basic. That's not to say I think all vanilla sucks, it's probably just my personal taste, but when I do find vanilla treats that I like, I can't help but wonder how much skill and effort they put to make something so simple so good and I think the same goes for hotdogs.
Those are facts- Hot dogs are about feeling ...especially nostalgic feelings about condiments. since moving to Germany, land of the wurst, I have learned to appreciate sauerkraut and mustard with more palatable, nonmeat foods.
@tom tuker If you get called a bigot so much that you feel the need to seek out democratic videos and leave comments...maybe you need to reevaluate what you are doing to get called a bigot so much
tom tuker No, more like, Trumpists taking only what their dear leader says as truth and disregarding all else as fake news. Your party honors the confederacy and dismisses science and anything based in fact if it goes against your cult. Lastly, you want to wipe out any groups that aren’t white or Christian. You crave a white theocracy, and are willing to murder to achieve it.
Anyone who thinks only republicans dehumanize their political opponents is a fucking idiot, or more likely is just lying. Obviously the democrats do this too, everyone nowadays does this. (Before the accusations roll in, not a Trump supporter. I think Trump belongs in prison.)
Why do we use the terms to discribe the countries population as African Amercian, Asian Amercian, even Native Amercian. If we continue to use these terms, we should also call the whites as Euro Amercians.
ABC doesn't like Claire it's not a budgeting issue. It's a ideology issue. They've got so many others to fill it in even if they don't work in the format.
Even if we put aside the issue of race (which we shouldn't), it's very hard to just tolerate a party with strong tendencies to help those who don't need more wealth while fighting policies that help those who lack it, while also pushing a Christianity inspired agenda into laws that affect not only those who are Christain but don't quite agree with the particulars of the ethics and moralities being put into law but also people who aren't Christain or even religious, and, let us not forget, endorsed and enabled those who stood to gain power and profit by demonizing and delegitimizing their opposition, systematically rejecting the truth, and supporting an authoritarian movement within its own country.
It's been so many years now that we've all been on the feed, I.e. having an information diet which is unique to us... it's just so hard to take a step back and see where other people are coming from... Here's why I think racism and sexism and transphobia are uniquely positioned in the culture war... to be a racist, or a sexist, one must merely entertain a certain sort of thought. To think "so and so acted this way because of their race or gender", etc. To have such a thought, and admit to it, or to put stock in it, is anathema for someone who is a progressive. After all, thoughts become words and actions, and those lead to systemic injustices, and those cause actual harm in the real world. That line of reasoning means that someone who is a progressive should not take right wing ideas seriously. To entertain the right with seriousness is to invite the possibility that racist or sexist (or otherwise) might be further propagated in the world. People on the right perceive this. They generally realise that they cannot be properly heard or understood by progressives, because progressives are troubled that they might cause harm in the world by engaging with their ideas. Progressives will need to learn how to seriously engage with right wing ideas and thinkers in order for there to be unity in America. In truth, right wing ideaspace is not just some weirdo inversion of left wing ideas. It is its own culture, one that has been developing for many years, and has a unique phenomenonology that can be expressed without reference to progressivism. It is free standing, not defined by racism (or whathaveyou), and exceptionally poorly understood by left wing institutions. Five Thirty Eight had been guilty of that blindness in this podcast, as well. Good luck to everyone involved in the project of unity.
Agreed that if you don't talk to people about their ideas (which you disagree with) and instead shut them out/down then there is no progress. Years ago I met an American who was openly racist - no-one in my country says it out loud. I continued the conversation asking simple questions for both him and I to investigate the logic (or rather the lack of it) of his opinions and get him to start questioning his beliefs Sadly as I was getting to some of his illogic, an English couple sat at our table and shutdown the conversation. They were the rude idiots, no-one is going to change their opinion if you tell them to shut up.
At the risk of causing harm to unity, I have to ask: have you tried engaging with a troll? Certainly, *some* people might change their minds when questioned about the reasons they hold the beliefs they do and will listen to evidence and I'm grateful for those few I've met, but for the most part, those with the loudest voices have no interest in the possibility that they could be wrong and see those who want to reason with them as fools to be taken advantage of; there's a reason why 'Don't feed the trolls' is a saying
Sorry, but much of this was like a report from grad students. Why not include some of the researchers from the article? (It's not like they'd need to travel.)
Re distinction between identity and policy is deceptive. One result of Internet sorting and new source sorting is that the "identity is" are short hands for distinct Overton windows.
I am reluctant to just say the elites need to change because the system sorts for the type of person who ends up as an elite so them trying to change is ineffective or counter to their goals. That is why the experts are so much a fan of systems reform, because while it might not solve problems quickly it changes the incentives so that pushing unity helps get elected slightly more than pushing divisions, the opposite of how it is now, setting the tone of the country more naturally towards cooling off.
Maggie makes a good point that racism means different things to different people - but by implying that 'racism' only means what progressives think it means is wrong. Ironically, she implies that many people on the Right take a view of racism, and solving it, that was put forth by Martin Luther King Jr. (that black children and white people should play together without worrying about the colour of their skin), and that such an approach is wrong. That seems like a pretty bizarre conclusion to me, and probably to many Americans. To me, Progressives are now conflating racism with poverty (ie. assuming that any poverty within the black community is due to racism and solving racism will solve poverty). This is a problem because if you want to solve poverty, there are a number of clear potential solutions such as fixing educational opportunities. On the other hand, 'fixing' racism is a setup for culture wars with no clear impact on poverty. Perry is frequently the only one who comes close to pointing this out.
"Mission Accomplished" in 2003 is the beginning I think. In 2000 the joke was that Al Gore and George Bush were so alike that there was no difference (I can hardly believe that but I remember it). After 9/11 Dems came together with Repubs and were burned for it by Bush's rush to an unpopular war. 1998 and Newt Gringrich were the harbingers, but "Mission Accomplished" and "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" in 2003 was the arrival of the hyperpartisanship in my opinion.
Not even close. The rise of hyperpartisanship can be traced all the way back to the Civil Rights Era. As a result of unprecedent obstruction, the filibuster was modified in such a way that it (unintentionally) rewarded obstruction and partisanship. Suddenly it made more sense for the minority party to stand together to stop a bill rather than individual members compromise. As it's easier to get nothing done and blame the other side than actually govern, this continued to divide the parties all the way to today.
@@theoldfinalchapters8319 obstruction does ebb and flow - I think grouping the 60s era obstruction with today is really just describing post-WWII modernism in general. While there are similarities, I think the zero-sum-game obstructionist current era has distinct features worth discussing.
@@jakem72 It was just the catalyst for the macro change. I'm not saying the obstruction was anywhere near the levels we see today. Rather, obstruction and hyperpartisanship has risen to where it is because it has been rewarded since then.
Yes, I remember people in 2000 who said Gore and Bush were more alike than different. I thought they were idiots then and I still think so now. BTW, hyper partisanship was alive and well in the 1990s. Remember when the Republicans impeached Clinton for lying about a blowjob?
It is so frustrating to see your panelist discuss party alignment on race without basic historical knowledge. Those of us who are both well educated and old enough to remember this past five decades watched the Republican Southern strategy which started with pro segregation Barry Goldwater running for President in 1964 followed by Nixon and liberal Republicans literally being driven out of the party by 1970. The lack of historical knowledge deeply saddens me. There were liberal Republicans like Senators Jacob Javits and Charles Goodell from New York, Charles Percy, Michigan Governor George Romney who was also a liberal. This is basic American political history. Who are you guys talking to? Jeez, this discussion was a disaster. By the way anyone who votes for Trump are tolerant of the structure of racism which Trump both expressed and embodied. It is obvious that no one on your panel has formally or academically studied race and racism as I have. No one on the panel, including Perry understands racism. Please get some scholars on your panel. There is so much literature on this topic going back for the decades. Please read it. Contact me if you you want some study materials. Read some of the critical race studies scholars as opposed to just political scientists even though that was my undergraduate major. Read Black writers like Derrick Bell who in the 1980s wrote and taught about this at Harvard and NYU after working as a civil rights attorney for decades. Your panel does not understand the long structural basis of these divisions in American politics. This is not an individual issue. Moving on from this is much more difficult than this panel envisions. What is racism permanent? It has been here since the European colonization of the Americas. Please get serious about broadening your reading and education. Speak to som people in the Africana and Latino Studies Department of Hunter College, CUNY which was one of the pioneering institutions in this field of study.
this is a debunked liberal myth. most of the racism comes from democrats: Matthew Lassiter says: "A suburban-centered vision reveals that demographic change played a more important role than racial demagoguery in the emergence of a two-party system in the American South".[98][99] Lassiter argues that race-based appeals cannot explain the GOP shift in the South while also noting that the real situation is far more complex.[100][101][102][98] According to Lassiter, political scientists and historians point out that the timing does not fit the "Southern Strategy" model. Nixon carried 49 states in 1972, so he operated a successful national rather than regional strategy. But the Republican Party remained quite weak at the local and state level across the entire South for decades.[103] Bruce Kalk and George Tindall argue that Nixon's Southern Strategy was to find a compromise on race that would take the issue out of politics, allowing conservatives in the South to rally behind his grand plan to reorganize the national government. Kalk and Tindall emphasize the similarity between Nixon's operations and the series of compromises orchestrated by Rutherford B. Hayes in 1877 that ended the battles over Reconstruction and put Hayes in the White House. Kalk says Nixon did end the reform impulse and sowed the seeds for the political rise of white Southerners and the decline of the civil rights movement.[104][105] Dean Kotlowski argues that Nixon's overall civil rights record was on the whole responsible and that Nixon tended to seek the middle ground. He campaigned as a moderate in 1968, pitching his appeal to the widest range of voters. Furthermore, he continued this strategy as president. As a matter of principle, says Kotlowski, he supported integration of schools. However, Nixon chose not to antagonize Southerners who opposed it and left enforcement to the judiciary, which had originated the issue in the first place.[106][107] In particular, Kotlowski believes historians have been somewhat misled by Nixon's rhetorical Southern Strategy that had limited influence on actual policies.[108]
Man, a nice dirty water hotdog on a lunch break with an ice cold ginger ale while sitting in the park watching people go by...really looking forward to when life can go back to “normal.”
"not being racist" is a difficult thing for any human - like it or not. Anyone that is not actively trying "not to be racist" all the time - inevitably will fall into lazy patterns of behavior that are rightly called racist.
I think they need to start enforcing actual stand there and talk filibusters. Then they need to play the same games with shuffling and and out senators from the Capitol building so the Democrats can rest because they know there's not going to be a sudden call to a vote but Republicans have to stay at the Capitol Building because there could be a vote called on something at any time. This business is stipulating that a filibuster occurred needs to end. That's not the filibuster that's a legislative veto. I think they also need to make a point of giving Federal contracts and maintaining the budget for programs in perhaps a dozen Republican states and those who are obviously going to vote no to everything, they should start removing Federal contracts and veto any Amendment those particular Senators try to offer. Democrats have to show they are willing to use their power. Democrats need to punish their enemies and reward their friends. If someone votes with Democrats they get a cookie or an amendment in the Bill. And if someone votes against Democrats, then they lose something in return. Especially with the budgetary process. Give things to Republican states that the Republican Senators don't want and will remove such as Healthcare and aid for the poor. Matching funds to raise salaries for teachers. Federal tracks for anti-racism programs. When they made it clear they're not going to be pushovers for the Republicans anymore then I think the Republicans will start to come around. Especially if the Democrats pick up seats in 2022 in the Senate. One of the things that repels voters from Democrats is that they are so damn weak.
"-structural reform to the way our democracy works, to electoral processes-" To that goal I suggest to end 7: 1. The Electoral College; 2. The Filibuster; 3. The Presidential Interregnum. 4. End Voter Disenfranchisement (maybe by Enacting Universal Mandatory Voter Registration?); 5. End Winner Take All (maybe 'Ranked Choice Voting' so candidates pander to moderates instead of extremist QAnons?); 6. End Gerrymandering (Have voters select politicians like in UK instead of politicians selecting voters like we do in US); 7. Stop The 2nd Class Citizenship of the Territories (Statehood for DC & a state that combines Puerto Rico & US Virgin Islands).
If we want to understand when this deadly polarization began and what drives it, how about looking at the history of American cities in the half century from 1960 to 2010? In 1960 "white flight" was already under way -- then came the urban street violence of the mid 60s -- so that the average white person tended to think of cities as dangerous and evil. 1975 was a watershed moment in that story -- NYC went bankrupt and the NY Post issued that famous headline: "Ford to City: Drop Dead." (Ford was a Republican). In that same year, the few braves souls who chose to live in NYC and other big cities probably felt very comfortable with diverse neighbors -- people of all races, ages, colors, genders, and sexualities. Meanwhile, racism & homophobia were thriving in the suburbs and exurbs. By 1985, cities were growing again and gentrification was well underway in NYC. By 2010, gentrification had transformed every big or medium-sized city in the country, causing former urbanites to flee to the suburbs or to much smaller cities. (Case in point: in 1976 you could get a 300 sq. ft. apartment in lower Manhattan for $120/month. By 2016 -- 40 years later -- Manhattan apartments that size were going for $2,000/month.) So even the suburbs have become diverse now. How have all those shifting demographics contributed to the big divides in wealth and attitudes toward race, gender, and sexuality that we see today?
I think the moral dispute predates the political one and goes back to the fact on the moral values and intuitions of World War II. Of recently out the 19th century Christianity had control of the morrow intuitions of the Western population even among those who did not follow supernaturalisticly Christianity. World War II was a psychological shot that reordered the moral intuitions of the West. Starting with those already uncomfortable with the existing moral standards , One sorry but and a new moral framework on the foundational moral truth nazis bad. Run this a number of things become blindingly obvious. Racial discrimination is fundamentally evil. Be Civil War was a battle between good and evil. And and the reason mortar and robbery are wrong is a fundamental limit on behavior . These specific limit on behavior will come to being white 2nd wave feminism and the objections to toxic masculinity or as much as murder is wrong. This is the pre Boomer adulthood version of the moral framework that the democrats are currently associated with and by which democratic partisans judge large numbers of Republican partisans as evil. The protestant preachers and theologians who follow this pair will be calm known as mainline. Burrows who think that the pre existing morrow system is fundamentally sound and merely needs safeguards put in place to prevent it from being distorted, form the other path. Send me soundness of Christian morality is fundamental here they rally around churches that agree with them and transform that into what we would now call evangelical Christianity. Send this is a movement of resisting a change in moral understanding on a national level by local people who disagree, people who have experience doing that come to the fore most notably the cult of the lost cause. The combination of the 2 (the Southern Baptist church) Be comes the leadership that steers this path through its 1st generation. Thereby th civil rights era and the feminist revolution the Democratic Party embraced the former most notably due to Catholic being othered then elected democratic and then killed so they becam martered caricatures. Similarly the Southern strategy, the mobilization of Christianity as a political force, rallied the latter group around the Republican party. With the now conservative movement weekend in the sixties and seventies to the to morality's began to clash openly in the the public square politics included. Be civil rights movement being disasterously poetically and so sure standing for the latter group (and them having maintained as morally a legitimate a more aggressive and bullying sense of proper masculinity), atempts to inforce the latter groups moralities on the former group became illegal under anti discrimination and anti harassment laws. Under such circumstances the lead left morality was making large gains throughout the sixties and seventies. To counter this the right morality's began the crying individuals following the left morality as "politicly correct." Do you write moralities I had a problem still. Dant being is that historically disadvantaged individuals who shared their moral views politically aligned with the left morality that was anti discrimination as a fundamental value. This meant that they were in an untenable electoral position. They embrace the anti democratic element of the anti civil rights movement and to justify this limit their concept of morality to only the things the left morality broke with after World War II. This allowed them to tell themselves that the voices they were silencing were the voices of immoral people that didn't deserve a voice anyway. Having convinced themselves that democrats were in hair antly evil the right morality built what they could convince themself was a restoration of morality which became the Reagan revolution. Answered attempt at a son treads balance in this highly in ballon such a way Jean came up in what was called Clinton triangulation. The failures of the anti-Clinton movements after the 94 midterms showed that the majority had lefed the right morality as their moral foundation. The mainstreaming of celebrating both pride and divorce among other things were celebration Balmain democrats of behaviors that the right morality considered immoral. See you right morality who had already rallied around a mocking be following of the left morality wanted to similarly celebrate defiance of the other morality. Send this was naught a moral protection of activity that the other objected to but a celebration of defiance for its own sake, it was to those who even considered the left morality potentially legitimate, a celebration of evil. You'd eat is both the civil rights era inforcements and that inforcement chain as well as of this celebration of what the left morality considered evil that all the acts that republicans overwhelmingly engage in that democrats think of as making them evil. In summary, here is naught how leader call polarization making political distinctions into moral distinctions. What it is is to fundamentally unrelated based and a fundamentally incompatible moral systems forming to fundamentally incompatible cultures in the United States. What you have seen is an alignment of politics with these 2 separate polities much like it is in Northern Ireland divided between republicans and unionists. That is to say that the to hams formed 1st and the political alliances realign themselves to match the existing camps with him the public.
I think that "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" is OK (now I know all Star Wars fans wants to kill me because of a fictional galaxy far far away and I know that the only way to calm them is to say I saw Star Wars in theatre in 1977 and that I love Mandalorian. In the USA - to throw a dial on anything is reduced to binary. O or 1. With subtext as the only moderator. Why America generated this black and white perspective of things? I do not know. I grew as a kid in the late 70s and early 80s when I followed your culture close. Ronald Reagen was well informed of climate change. And that is science not culture. Fame and Flashdance allowed boys dancing without being too accused of being gay. By 2002 - Americans released a TV show called the Wire without too much identity politics. A show that took on all the heavy lifting of reality and is still probably the most amazing TV-series ever. Americans hate Wonder Woman these days. Figure out why it is uncool why by bringing back the happy Reagen years of 1984. She was not in the days of Nixon. Figure out conservatism. Wonder Woman was wonderful in 1941 in USA - now she is hated. I truly think that how America treats super-heroes is a good thermometer to how America is feeling since fiction is never cut off from reality. The job of superheroes is to paraphrase reality, after all. Now that schism has gone crazy since star-wars fans have been digging down on the personal opinions of an actor on gender issues while hating on a show about baby yoda. Demonstrating that for many in USA, WandaVision is a bit late to refute reality. Heck - most republicans thing they won the popular vote in 2020 - after Trump lost the popular vote in 2016. The reality in USA is by now a trade. And it is interesting and scary to watch your national decadal experiment.
i wish you tried to be atleast a little more impartial sometimes. I know you're all yuppie wonks but maybe see why there is such economic insecurity on the conservative side and how the message of globalism has shaped that. yes minorities and immigrants are used as a scapegoat but you're missing the point if you only at that superficial level
I think that your ability to deliver a nuanced understanding of conservative policy positions, despite being given a prompt requesting one, continues to be hampered by the lack of anyone sympathetic to those views (much less holding them) on the panel. Also, I was in grad school with Lilly Mason, glad to hear she's making a name for herself. Hi if you read the comments.
@@buckyharris9465 A realistic choice? No, I don't listen to enough podcasts to know who'd be interested. But Yuval Levin, just to show I'm not talking about imaginary creatures.
![KSI - Dirty [Official Visualiser]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/VoDh1h1dPUE/mqdefault.jpg)
It's funny to pretend that it's unreasonable to not want to live next to "the other party," until your neighbor walks up to your fence and tells you he just bought three thousand rounds of ammunition because the Democrats won an election. Which happened to me.
Just buy 4 thousand rounds.
@@josephlynch7655 i think it needs to be answered with a plausible nuclear threat. Why risk a shooting match if you have deterrence in your toolbox?
What's he intend to do with them?
@@DrMorpheus It has been years, so I can't recall what he said verbatim, but he said something like: "The blacks are gonna rise up. It's gonna be race war." Except his language was less polite.
Call me crazy, but I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that most members of "the other party" don't act or think like that. Something like 44% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents own guns (www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/06/22/the-demographics-of-gun-ownership/), so by definition, people who run out and buy ammo after an election are a minority of "the other party". I'd bet dollars to donuts that only a small minority of that minority buys ammo because they think there's an impending race war. Lumping everyone in "the other party" together isn't productive. That was arguably one of the messages of this podcast...
Can you all add the panel members' names to the description to give them credit? I know you announce them at the beginning but having those written would be really helpful.
The biggest issue right now isn't so much the "grr i haet u" aspect, but the underlying fact taht the "two sides" are simply operating on entirely different and incompatible sets of "facts". When one side says climate change exists and the other says it doesn't, they're not even operating under the belief of the same reality, and there isn't room for compromise. It doesn't help that so many people "both-sides" the issues as well as if there's a reasonable compromise when only one of these realities is actually based the real, actual, reality.
And I think that plays into the other non-policy things they're discussing as well - like, on the surface of it, why would I give a general benefit of the doubt and say I'd be willing to marry a Republican? If they're still supporting the party that just fundamentally argues against science in every single aspect, why would I assume we'd be compatible? The identifier itself at this point shows a lack of critical thinking ability and/or basic moral character. Obviously marriage though is a much bigger thing than, say, who my neighbors are - I'd be fine having Republican neighbors, but would I feel comfortable living in an area where they were particularly prevalent, or where a bunch of Q people live? Fuck no, as a progressive who tends to dislike the Democratic party I wouldn't take the online sentiment of what basically amounts to "shoot the commies" and "day of the rope" fan-fiction lightly when they're doing shit like storming the US Capitol.
I also find it hilarious how you have to dance around the one-sidedness of this in many respects. Saying it's "the parties" choosing sides on the racial divide is well into bad-faith "both-sides" territory - Republicans chose to cater to racists, Democrats chose to not be racist, clearly both are at fault for their divisive rhetoric... I mean, I get why you do it, you don't want to piss off any moderate (or unaware) Republican who accidentally clicks on your video, but still, the normalization is just so aggrivating.
On the viewer question about the discourse and how "the left" paints "the right" as all just being racist, I think it's also important to consider who the subject of the discussion actually is - the voters? Or the politicians? I don't hate Republican voters, and I don't hate Republican politicians _for being Republican_. I hate Republican politicians for actively choosing to be lying bigoted assholes. My feeling towards the voters is mostly just pity, for being duped and swindled over and over again into voting for said assholes. I don't think all Republican voters are bigoted racists either, but they do seem to prefer voting for politicians who fit that mold.
Yeah this whole episode feels like a super ignorant “both sides” take that does not reflect reality. It’s not about hating Republicans just for fun. The Right is disliked for their direct actions that reinforce inequality and directly hurt others. And they’ve been doing it for decades. There’s no room for opinions when one side is allowing thousands of people to die from a preventable problem simply to win political points.
I feel like rural white voters have been duped into voting against their interests because of race bating by Republicans.
While a lot of Republican voters are misguided, many of them are just rich suburbanites who vote for less taxes, even if that involves authoritarianism.
I would say the 1994 midterm was when the GOP became super partisan due to Newt Gingrich.
Dont leave right wing radio out. Excellence in Broadcasting. Pervaerss of division and Hate.
@@milmex317th oh absolutely. My dad has been listening to Rush Limpd!ck for at least 20 years. Extremely toxic.
The only way to begin to heal the partisanship is for Dems to deliver in ways that improve the lives of the average American. It is difficult to hate the other side while they are passing legislation that improves your life in a tangible way.
It's actually quite easy. There are many cases of Republicans saying shit like "keep your government hands off my medicaid" or "repeal the ACA. I have obamacare, so I'm good".
Honestly, the only thing I think would heal the country is to alter the news regulations, break up facebook, and funnel resources into the CDC to treat misinformation as its own pandemic
I feel like a widow every time I click on the new podcast waiting for my CLARE to return back home.
What happened to Clare
No gonna lie. I like everyone on the podcast, but the feeling of not seeing Clare kinda makes me click away right after seeing that she's not here.
@@gazny816 She was laid off by the corporate bosses at ABC news
Well that's unfortunate, it will take time to adjust to not seeing her, nat, galen and perry together
But, yay!! At least TWO women... nice
...but for only 60% of the podcast ... huh
After stating such SINFUL beliefs upon the GLORIOUS Hot Dog, Galen Druke has been, #canceled.
For me, these last couple of years have entirely recontextualised the experience of medieval peasants living under a monarchy.
It never mattered whether common people had a say in policy. They didn't care about the autocratic nature of government then, and they don't care about the influence of lobby big donors now. It never mattered that the ruling class used taxpayer money to build sumptuous residences for themselves, as long as they were not starving to death. They didn't care about châteaux back then, and their base don't care about Putin's Baltic sea mansions, or Trump's profiteering from the presidency now. It never mattered what good or evil their kings or enemies did or didn't do, so long as they were not the direct victim. Both then and now, they don't care to learn about misdeeds, or invent blood libels to manufacture outrage as needed.
The one thing they do care about is being _represented_ . Peasants revolted against rulers who didn't represent their culture, their faith, or their language then, as they do now. They rallied around a pretender who represented them better then, as they do now. The unfortunate truth seems to be that feudalism, imperialism, or democracy have only ever been flavors for the one true way homo sapiens sort themselves into societies: tribalism. Power has always come from identity. Identity is the only tool through which the sufficient consent of those who would have the power to break the status quo is maintained. The world's largest and most successful empires, those that lasted more than one generation, stood out by their ability to transmit their identity and build a large pool of people who share the same faith, culture, language, laws and customs, and take pride in the same achievements and heroes.
The revolutions that created democracy and the modern world we live in did so by accident. A budding identity of Englishmen native from the new world didn't feel _represented_ by the government of their kingdom. Peasants came to think of themselves as a "third estate" in france and didn't feel _represented_ by the aristocracy.
This means that the real battle was not really fought on the battlefields then, nor is it fought in the voting booth now. Sure, when the odds are close, a good general or a good outreach to the electorate makes the difference, but the true battle is fought one generation before, in the bedchamber, in the schools, in the playgrounds, in the churches, in the reeducation camps and in the media.
What I am saying sounds... evil. Foul. The words strain my fingers as I type them. But what is more virtuous, refusing to acknowledge the rules of the game and attempting to be "good", only to lose the identity game 50 years from now and let bad policies prevail, or taking a Machiavellian outlook in order to win the identity game 50 years from now, and hope to generate some positive outcomes?
We Miss Claire!!!!
The party of Trump went into the RNC with no platform or policy. You give those 74 million a lot of credit or they’ve never been to the south.
I’ll be candid with everyone, as a liberal, my resentments toward the other side is their moralism, that everyone needs to live by what Christianity, or the Bible, says is right... like on abortion and gay rights and such, and I believe that by all means they can practice their religion as they like... in their own homes and churches, but if they chose to do a job that caters to the public or have a government job that they need to get rid of those prejudices and serve everyone equally, and save their distaste and discomfort for “sinners” for at home, like the rest of us do. If you wanna say we’re going to hell, great. But don’t tell me I can’t love who I want or get rid of an unwanted pregnancy my wife and I don’t want. Hell, I’m even okay if you don’t want your tax dollars to go to it, but the push to make it illegal behavior is beyond the pale, to me, and what makes me resentful of much of the right.
You know how you feel when ppl say the left is a bunch of communists? You just did that with the right. The highly evangelical, fundamentalists do exist on the right, but they only get vocal pandering.
Abortion is the rub for both sides: is it a right or an atrocity? The parties are divided on abortion but united on center-right pro-business economics. We should be talking more about abortion differences, not less.
@@ricauburn9553 the evangelicals don't get token support, lol. They set the policy in numerous states. You can't weasel out of blatant reality.
@@ricauburn9553 I’m sure that’s true, but I still hold animus towards those specific peoples views, and the fact that 80-90% of the Republican Party agrees with them. I’m not saying that I’m realistically even justified in my beliefs, just that it’s one of the things that actively boils my blood enough to say that I actively hate someone for their political beliefs because of it. It’s no different to the radicals on our side, I hate a lot of their ideals as well, but if you polled most of our party they would say they don’t agree with most of the views the extreme left holds. That’s not necessarily true on the other side, especially since about the mid 90s when it’s become basically a non-starter to be a candidate in the Republican Party if you disagree with almost any of the demands of the far right evangelical block. They allow some to provide lip service on those issues, but when it comes to voting on those issues republicans are in lock step with the most extremist sides of their party on those issues. It took the Supreme Court to make change on those issues because of it, rather than congress.
@@IntrusiveThot420 First off, state policy != Federal policy. Second, "numerous" is not exactly numerous; thinking it over, it's maybe like 2 or 3, if I'm being generous. For example, in AL they did gain enough power & banned abortion, but then ppl responded by electing Doug Jones (D) over Roy Moore (evangelical R), in that deep red state.
I had an interesting though at around 49:00 when it was mentioned Biden "leading" with/for unity after the Trump administration that it's possible, if not likely, that the issue of unity itself becomes divisive.
The new partisan politcs: pro hot dog or anti hot dog?
No one will ever win Iowa by being anti hot dog.
Ewww. Salty boiled meat in a tube.
God damn it Jian-Yang. I don't care if its a hotdog or not hotdog
I don't think I can ever trust Galen's political opinions again, he's so clearly on the wrong side of the hotdog debate!
When (time mark) in the discussion did they talk about hot dog? Aside from the beginning teaser?
The point at 37:50 when Galen starts talking about extremism on the left is important. Left-leaning people (myself included) should do more to call out violence on 'our side' as well. This is why I find the way some progressives excused violence during the BLM protests so troubling (normally it wasn't 'this good!' more like framing violence as a semi-justified response to police brutality). Obviously, there isn't an equivalence between the BLM protests and the capitol riots (for one thing, only a tiny minority of BLM protestors were violent, whereas everyone who entered the capitol is culpable for what happened). Violence is not a healthy response to political grievances - whether it's a cause you agree with or not.
It would be great to be able to simply say, 'all political violence is bad', unfortunately context compels me to assert otherwise: if someone feels that peaceful protest isn't causing sufficient movement on an issue that is literally life or death for them, it's not unthinkable for them to feel that they need to make their problem everyone else's problem too (not to say I'm promoting this way of thinking, just trying to explain it); compare that to what the Capitol Hill rioters were motivated by and how easily they were motivated to violence - there's a reason why we're faster to condemn right-wing violence and it's a legitimate one
@@lukeedwards7677 Far Right wing protestors think that the left getting power is a life or death issue too - hardcore QAnon supporters think Biden spends his afternoons cannibalising babies, whilst white nationalists think a white genocide is going on. That is life or death. I'm not saying those beliefs have any basis in fact, but they are believed just as strongly as the beliefs of BLM protestors. You can't have a rule for one and not the other without coming off as a hypocrite, which just makes things worse (and fuels the rights persecuiion fantasies).
When people on the right sympathise with the Capitol Rioters, by saying stuff like 'sure, they went over the top, but it's to be expected when the Dems steal an election!' the left (rightfully) interprets that has tacit support. Likewise, when people like AOC sympathise with violence at BLM protests, the Right interprets that as 'A radical wing on the Democratic party supports chaos in the streets! Stock up on guns!'
@@merrymachiavelli2041 Fair enough, but my response is to pile on the facts and, well, forgive my smugness but to quote Stephen Colbert, 'Reality is well-known to have a liberal bias'; if/when that fails, well, nothing will disabuse the far-right of their persecution complex
Also, when has AOC condoned violence itself? Endorsing the protests is different from endorsing violence that occurs in a small part of them - and yeah, I recognize that only a small portion of right wing protests are violent too - it's only that violence I criticize too
But more to the point, I've tired of criticizing left-wing violence and having that taken for granted when the right rarely does the same - the "why don't you criticize them too?" argument from the right is almost never made in good faith, so after a while, the double standard makes it so that it's not worth bothering
The Left needs to be MORE militant, not less. If the left gets its way, everyone gets healthcare and a decent living wage. If the right gets its way, they will shove the left (and large portions of the middle) into gas chambers. This is what history has shown us, again and again and again.
@@lukeedwards7677 I am on the left and I almost certainly agree with you politically, but please recognise your own partisanship. I really feel it’s clouding the lefts assessment of what is healthy political discourse.
I’m not sure where you are getting your news, but most people on the right criticised violence at far right protests, it’s just many then sympathise with the reason the people are protesting. Note, this is the same as your stance on the BLM.
This is a situation where both sides think the other is guilty of a double standard and TBH, on the specific issue of violence at protests I think the Right has a stronger case,
On AOC, note the word I used was sympathise not condone I.e. say the same thing you did in your original post about violence as a response to a life or death situation.
Not seen this yet but may I do the traditional...really miss Claire.
They even mentioned an article she wrote!
I wonder what happened there. For me, Claire was the biggest draw - by far. I wonder if there was some jealously there that resulted in her unwilling exit.
@@dimgaard7056 she was let go from her job and they're not allowed to have her on anymore per station rules. This new girl monopolizes the conversation in an annoying way. I miss Claire too.
>Galen calls hot dogs overrated
Midwesterners: *"You've just made an enemy for life"*
Why nobody is talking about: Nate says to Gaylen, "you haven't had the right hotdog yet", and Gaylen repartees, "what hotdog should I be having then?"
This hot dog disagreement can only be settled with a fist foght
PHRASING...
Chicago Style Vienna Beef
@@penelopegreene Are we still doing that?
@@kamheed All your base are belong to us.
Please bring back Clare!
I miss her so much :,(
@@alangivre2474 me three
28:00 - It was Goldwater and the Southern Strategy - you'll upset easily offended Republicans, but just say it, you know it's the real answer.
I came away from this, and from the women's article, thinking they didn't put enough emphasis on income disparity. I believe it's the lynchpin that if pulled would make much of the country's anger dissipate. As a controversial figure once said, "It's the economy, stupid."
Where did I say there weren't, @Sarah Rai?
Too frequently, the Republican party has been on one side (i.e. racial resentment, white grievance), and the Democratic party has waffled.
Dems need to focus on lifting up everyone economically and funding stronger social safety nets. Whites will find it hard to complain about minorities when they are more educated and financial secure. Force the GOP into obstructing helping their current base and blast them for it next election.
@No Name
You do know that you are conflating two dissimilar things to make a dubious and irrelevant point, right?
"I plan to vote for Biden and a straight democratic ticket," Spencer tweeted on Sunday. "It's not based on 'accelerationism' or anything like that; the liberals are clearly more competent people."
Biden’s campaign swiftly disavowed Spencer’s endorsement.
vs.
Will you unequivocally condemn David Duke and say that you don’t want his vote or that of other white supremacists in this election?”
Trump: “Well, just so you understand, I don’t know anything about David Duke. Okay? I don’t know anything about what you’re even talking about with white supremacy or white supremacists. So, I don’t know. I don’t know, did he endorse me or what’s going on, because, you know, I know nothing about David Duke. I know nothing about white supremacists. And so you’re asking me a question that I’m supposed to be talking about people that I know nothing about.”
Perry - There is a lot more racists then you think. Especially ones that dont want you to move in their neighborhood. Half of my work and at least half my family says exactly that. I cant be the only one.
Just go onto Nextdoor. You'll find out just how many racists live in your neighborhood.
I consider would the family approve of an interracial marriage as a good example of modern racism. Lots of people are okay with different races as neighbors or classmates. As long as they keep to themselves. But when a family member brings someone of a different race home then you start hearing stuff.
it's naive to not believe that most of the republican base is at the VERY LEAST ok with racism
The irony is that the left practices race-ism; seeing the world from the lens of race. The left blaming the right for racism is a projection of the left's racism.
Conservatives utilize categories other than race. One could say Conservatives strive to be race-less, in a MLK "I have a Dream" sense, in their policies. Note that many of today's Conservatives say they would have marched in the civil rights movement had this been the 1960s.
#WheresClare :(
Please look outside the USA. You seem to be really focussed on overanalysing the data from the US, and the US alone.
From where I live in a democracy with proportional representation, it seems clear to me that the core of the problem is the first-past-the-post voting systems.
We replaced it with proportional representation in 1917. The result is much more transparent, fact based, policy driven politics, as politicians are forced to cooperate with each other to form majorities and thus have to explain compromises to the voters and cannot demonize the other parties. A lot of the problems of the USA and UK come from FPTP.
god i wish the us was like that, you're making me jealous.
Canada 🇨🇦??
Ummm this is podcast about US politics. That being said, the US state of Maine passed ranked choice voting, so the other states will hopefully adopt such a system.
FTTP has a lot of benefits and it would probably be good for the US, but it's not a bulletproof solution. Oftentimes it instead gives extremist parties disproportionately large power (Weimar Germany is the go-to example but a Far Left/Far Right coalition government between Syriza and the Independent Greeks in 2015 is a good modern example).
I think that getting rid of closed primaries is a much better first step as it is more viable and considering that primaries mostly attract the freaks and losers of each party than getting rid of closed ones will help alienate the fringes.
Great conversation. Thanks to all.
WE WANT CLAIRE
What I found enlightening was when I visited a country that was very rural, except for one big city.
There was a debate on TV about a new law against noisy neighbours. Everyone from the big city wanted it, but everyone from the country side was against "unnecessary rules".
The environment shapes people's ideas, also on race, religion and many other factors, depending on who they interact with.
I think that explains a lot of the difference between cities and more rural areas.
Agreed. On a somewhat related note, the fallacy that all cities are “liberal and crime infested” is always invoked incorrectly. It is a fact and always has been, that when there are large million+ populated cities, the crime rate is going to be higher per capita, homelessness becomes far more visible, and the contrast between rich and poor more extreme. Likewise, culture and education and many other positive things emerge in higher rates because of those numbers of people interacting. Every time I hear a conservative say, “poorly run liberal cities,” I know what they are referencing. (Masking racism with poor logic). Their logic is flawed because that’d be the same as saying “don’t swim along the coastline, that’s where most shark attacks on people happen.” They need to be told that it’s because that’s where 99% of people gather when visiting the ocean, not because sharks prefer being there. It’s so silly.
Which is one reason segregation is bad.
An entire thread where everyone has something useful to say. Now I remember why I sometimes spend a few minutes reading the comments after a 538 podcast episode. Thanks to all!
Good points here! For my 2 cents, in cities you are also much more likely to spend time in public space, in and amongst strangers, where you can make judgements about the outside world from your own perspective. Whereas, in suburbs and rural areas, you are much more likely to spend the majority of your time in private space (your home, driving to and from work - for cars are extensions of private space - etc.). Your perception of the outside world will then be filtered through the depictions of others via the media - specifically, the media of your choice, be it 538, Fox News or Democracy Now!. Cities are in part defined by their randomness, you don't know who will get on the bus you take to work, therefore to thrive in an urban setting a certain level of tolerance and in a sense empathy for others is required. This in part explains 'liberal' city politics. Also, rural and suburban politics is often inexorably tied to home ownership and thus fiscal conservatism - 'what's good for the economy is good for me' and all that jazz.
@@snakejuice4300 Not true at all. There are numerous cities with low crime rates like Tokyo and Singapore. Liberal democrat policies of defund-the-police, bail reform i.e. don't restrain violent criminals, and policies encouraging broken families via welfare are responsible for the lawlessness we see in places like Portland, Seattle, Chicago and New York.
You all need proportional representation.
You all need Jesus
@@lonesaiyan27 Jesus is cool with proportional representation.
@@epakai " let us prophesy according to the proportion" Romans 12 verse 6 from the marco rubio school of bible tweets
It would probably be better. It wouldn't fix our politics though.
@@jsrodman It would go a long way to fixing it though, given the various kinds guarantee minority representation, drastically lessen the effects of gerrymandering, and force moderation by practically requiring coalition-forming to get things done.
in the UK this phenomena is called Punch and Judy effect where you characterize principles into story lines as good and evil. This has always been Newt Gingrich's polarizing or partisan goal. Once separated the two can never agree common truth. Thus only a cataclysmic event like WWII can bring common ground. Thus we are heading for much, much more turbulent times ie 1930's Germany and need luck to get through if we see democracy as a virtue
We would be much better off if we broke America out into several independent countries that are each able to govern themselves better. We are sick of flipping back and forth ruling people we hate.
It's a double edged sword though - if we ended up with Cascadia, New England, and Jesusland, the former two would save a lot of money in taxes that they could spend on themselves, but in the long run having a third world nation (with nukes) that absolutely resents us and blames us for all of their problems right on our doorstep would not ultimately be a good situation.
Its true unfortunately... used to be one of those things you could overlook in another person but now its seen as something of a character flaw... to be on the other side. People also seem to have lost the ability to compartmentalize their politics, to separate it from their work and family so we can't even have a conversation about unrelated topics The media doesn't help by making everything a do or die contest of wills, its crept into the way regular people communicate as well.
What is the main cause? Right wing media, and by reaction some left wing media that points out what they are doing which causes animosity. It's not that difficult guys.
@tom tuker I'm not going to argue with a troll.
Where I struggle is the idea that I would want unity with people who are okay with actual Nazis.
Don't unify with those people then. Most Trump supporters aren't okay with actual nazis.
@No Name Richard Spencer endorsed Biden in a desparate bid to stay relevant. Since he got punched that one time, most of his followers abandoned him and he moved in with his parents.
Race is certainly a factor. But these attitudes are to some extent pushed by class. Economic inequality may underlie much of the emergence of racial tension. At least we can say these issues are intertwined.
1. Regarding the first segment, I am much less optimistic about DC Statehood. Given what life was like this month (January 2021), not to mention last summer (2020), I've decided that I am moving out of DC (after more than 30 years) to California upon early retirement in a few years. (California is in one of the best positions to function as a separate, liberal country if necessary.) 2. Regarding the second segment, there are fundamental differences in morals and basic human values between the parties. Republicans' playbook, particularly under the agenda of Carl Rove in the 1990s, has been to demonize the other: women, black Americans, gays, immigrants. As a gay person, I now refuse ever to vote for a Republican, due to the party's platform against gay people for decades.
Honestly, I do think less of people who say they are Republicans and slowly reduce my interactions with them. I just don't see how I can friends with someone I disagree with on so many fundamental issues.
I have never said I'm not your friend and I'm far from rude but I know I don't initiate the interactions with them and eventually, we simply talk when it happens.
I'm glad to see Maggie on a video that isn't about the pandemic.
What if each year, each party gets 2 filibuster cards, they can choose to play it on any issue that's that important. But they only have two and they have to do it like an old fashioned keep talking filibuster
And it can be reversed the next year. Say the 1st year Dems pick voting rights and $15 minimum wage, Repubs pick protection for oil and coal companies and help for small businesses because of the pandemic. I purposely chose polar opposites for the Republicans since they seem so hypocritical as of late.
Anyway, my point would be that both parties can get their 2 big ticket items and related trimmings passed and they would remain law unless the Supreme Court rules against it, just like now.
Than year 2 they each get new things to have as their 2.
I think it should be called The Party's Annual Free Pass.
Nelson Rockefeller predicted where the GOP is today back in 1964
You got a source I can read?
The really big thing no one seems to discuss (and I spend all day / every day interacting widest possible swath of people) is that a lot of Republican-identifying people feel that - for better or worse - Republicans care about military and military members more.
Also - for a lot, their perception of Trump is, “yeah he’s a jerk but he talks about rural veterans” more so than “yay, he’s racist”. Again, this is observational.
Hotdogs. They suck. They're rubbery, bland, entirely dependant on condiments for flavor, mildly carcinogenic, and the bun your obligated to eat them with might as well be a dry dish sponge. Bratwurst definitely is miles better but still... Eh.
Just sounds like you've never had a good hotdog.
It's good a few times a year
@@korayven9255 I've had good bratwurst (not lately, admittedly) But I prefer to eat them without bun or condiments usually. Maybe some sweet sauerkraut.
If I'm going to have meat (which isn't all that often anymore) I want it to have it's own flavor and be cooked like adult food. Hot dogs are for kids or when you're really really desperate for hot food on the move like a sports game
@@vikmanphotography7984 I mean, yeah, bratwurst and currywurst are amazing, but the simple taste and mouthfeel of a good hotdog is a worthwhile contender, at least for me. Think of it this way: I don't like vanilla. I think it's bland and boring, but I do know a bunch of people who absolutely love vanilla because it is so simple and basic. That's not to say I think all vanilla sucks, it's probably just my personal taste, but when I do find vanilla treats that I like, I can't help but wonder how much skill and effort they put to make something so simple so good and I think the same goes for hotdogs.
Those are facts- Hot dogs are about feeling ...especially nostalgic feelings about condiments. since moving to Germany, land of the wurst, I have learned to appreciate sauerkraut and mustard with more palatable, nonmeat foods.
Took a while to find an hour to listen through this one in a single sitting, but great discussion. Perry, Ima buy you a beer one of these days.
Standard fascist tactics: demonize the opposition to dehumanize them, invalidate their policies, and make it easy to be cruel and inhumane.
@tom tuker An insurrection happened 2 weeks ago
Edit:: you not gonna respond, dude? Guess that really got him
@tom tuker If you get called a bigot so much that you feel the need to seek out democratic videos and leave comments...maybe you need to reevaluate what you are doing to get called a bigot so much
tom tuker No, more like, Trumpists taking only what their dear leader says as truth and disregarding all else as fake news. Your party honors the confederacy and dismisses science and anything based in fact if it goes against your cult. Lastly, you want to wipe out any groups that aren’t white or Christian. You crave a white theocracy, and are willing to murder to achieve it.
@@muhammadgheith2492 An insurrection has been happening for a half year before. Did you notice that, Muhammad?
Anyone who thinks only republicans dehumanize their political opponents is a fucking idiot, or more likely is just lying. Obviously the democrats do this too, everyone nowadays does this.
(Before the accusations roll in, not a Trump supporter. I think Trump belongs in prison.)
The irony of the patronisation, straw-manning, and oversimplification in this comment section is simultaneously disturbing and amusing...
How can we possibly undermine the two party system? Rank choice voting
Make them do a real filibuster where they have to hold the floor and keep talking. The way it used to be. That will curb a lot of this bullshit.
You really want Ted Cruz reads higlights from 50 Shades of Mother Goose?
@@youtubewatcher2 Yes, since when his voice gives out. Dems can read all the stuff Trump said about Cruz's wife and father.
How does the current filibuster work if not like this?
Why do we use the terms to discribe the countries population as African Amercian, Asian Amercian, even Native Amercian. If we continue to use these terms, we should also call the whites as Euro Amercians.
Just not the same without Clare. Bring her back!!!
ABC doesn't like Claire it's not a budgeting issue. It's a ideology issue. They've got so many others to fill it in even if they don't work in the format.
@@bryaneller3657 What is the ideology issue?
Even if we put aside the issue of race (which we shouldn't), it's very hard to just tolerate a party with strong tendencies to help those who don't need more wealth while fighting policies that help those who lack it, while also pushing a Christianity inspired agenda into laws that affect not only those who are Christain but don't quite agree with the particulars of the ethics and moralities being put into law but also people who aren't Christain or even religious, and, let us not forget, endorsed and enabled those who stood to gain power and profit by demonizing and delegitimizing their opposition, systematically rejecting the truth, and supporting an authoritarian movement within its own country.
I think I agree with you, but please express your ideas in slightly shorter sentences!
democrat states have the most inequality
What about Clare Malone tho
Claire :,(. Miss her so much
@@alangivre2474 I'll join the Clair Malone party
@@alangivre2474 let's storm ABC (kidding). Her wit is missing here.
It's been so many years now that we've all been on the feed, I.e. having an information diet which is unique to us... it's just so hard to take a step back and see where other people are coming from...
Here's why I think racism and sexism and transphobia are uniquely positioned in the culture war... to be a racist, or a sexist, one must merely entertain a certain sort of thought. To think "so and so acted this way because of their race or gender", etc. To have such a thought, and admit to it, or to put stock in it, is anathema for someone who is a progressive. After all, thoughts become words and actions, and those lead to systemic injustices, and those cause actual harm in the real world.
That line of reasoning means that someone who is a progressive should not take right wing ideas seriously. To entertain the right with seriousness is to invite the possibility that racist or sexist (or otherwise) might be further propagated in the world.
People on the right perceive this. They generally realise that they cannot be properly heard or understood by progressives, because progressives are troubled that they might cause harm in the world by engaging with their ideas.
Progressives will need to learn how to seriously engage with right wing ideas and thinkers in order for there to be unity in America. In truth, right wing ideaspace is not just some weirdo inversion of left wing ideas. It is its own culture, one that has been developing for many years, and has a unique phenomenonology that can be expressed without reference to progressivism. It is free standing, not defined by racism (or whathaveyou), and exceptionally poorly understood by left wing institutions.
Five Thirty Eight had been guilty of that blindness in this podcast, as well. Good luck to everyone involved in the project of unity.
Agreed that if you don't talk to people about their ideas (which you disagree with) and instead shut them out/down then there is no progress.
Years ago I met an American who was openly racist - no-one in my country says it out loud. I continued the conversation asking simple questions for both him and I to investigate the logic (or rather the lack of it) of his opinions and get him to start questioning his beliefs
Sadly as I was getting to some of his illogic, an English couple sat at our table and shutdown the conversation. They were the rude idiots, no-one is going to change their opinion if you tell them to shut up.
At the risk of causing harm to unity, I have to ask: have you tried engaging with a troll? Certainly, *some* people might change their minds when questioned about the reasons they hold the beliefs they do and will listen to evidence and I'm grateful for those few I've met, but for the most part, those with the loudest voices have no interest in the possibility that they could be wrong and see those who want to reason with them as fools to be taken advantage of; there's a reason why 'Don't feed the trolls' is a saying
bring back earmarks and mandate full monetary transparency for all public offices.
Sounds like you all are discussing "Ripped Apart" by Stoft
And Alaska's recent voting reforms ( www.sightline.org/2020/11/17/alaskauselectionscure/ ); might be worth an episode on!
When is the Biden approval model
THIS!!
Sorry, but much of this was like a report from grad students. Why not include some of the researchers from the article? (It's not like they'd need to travel.)
Re distinction between identity and policy is deceptive. One result of Internet sorting and new source sorting is that the "identity is" are short hands for distinct Overton windows.
I am reluctant to just say the elites need to change because the system sorts for the type of person who ends up as an elite so them trying to change is ineffective or counter to their goals. That is why the experts are so much a fan of systems reform, because while it might not solve problems quickly it changes the incentives so that pushing unity helps get elected slightly more than pushing divisions, the opposite of how it is now, setting the tone of the country more naturally towards cooling off.
What about policies that have majority public support...and there are many.
This video could have used a Claire Malone perspective. =(
bacon wrapped street hot dogs in LA are p insane
You haven't had a bacon wrapped dog until you've been to Copenhagen
When is Clare coming back?
You can move to my neighborhood, Perry
He can move to my house :)
So much thirst lol
@@SimBol1216 I intended that as a platonic affirmation, but I see how it could be taken that way, I guess.
As a kansan, I can't see anything from the democrats that Moran would agree to unless there's an overwhelming majority in the senate voting for it.
as a klansman, i can't see anything that josh hawley and tom cotton would agree to. period.
Maggie makes a good point that racism means different things to different people - but by implying that 'racism' only means what progressives think it means is wrong. Ironically, she implies that many people on the Right take a view of racism, and solving it, that was put forth by Martin Luther King Jr. (that black children and white people should play together without worrying about the colour of their skin), and that such an approach is wrong. That seems like a pretty bizarre conclusion to me, and probably to many Americans.
To me, Progressives are now conflating racism with poverty (ie. assuming that any poverty within the black community is due to racism and solving racism will solve poverty). This is a problem because if you want to solve poverty, there are a number of clear potential solutions such as fixing educational opportunities. On the other hand, 'fixing' racism is a setup for culture wars with no clear impact on poverty. Perry is frequently the only one who comes close to pointing this out.
Has Galen never had a Nathan's dog???
"Mission Accomplished" in 2003 is the beginning I think. In 2000 the joke was that Al Gore and George Bush were so alike that there was no difference (I can hardly believe that but I remember it). After 9/11 Dems came together with Repubs and were burned for it by Bush's rush to an unpopular war. 1998 and Newt Gringrich were the harbingers, but "Mission Accomplished" and "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" in 2003 was the arrival of the hyperpartisanship in my opinion.
Not even close. The rise of hyperpartisanship can be traced all the way back to the Civil Rights Era. As a result of unprecedent obstruction, the filibuster was modified in such a way that it (unintentionally) rewarded obstruction and partisanship. Suddenly it made more sense for the minority party to stand together to stop a bill rather than individual members compromise. As it's easier to get nothing done and blame the other side than actually govern, this continued to divide the parties all the way to today.
@@theoldfinalchapters8319 obstruction does ebb and flow - I think grouping the 60s era obstruction with today is really just describing post-WWII modernism in general. While there are similarities, I think the zero-sum-game obstructionist current era has distinct features worth discussing.
@@jakem72 It was just the catalyst for the macro change. I'm not saying the obstruction was anywhere near the levels we see today. Rather, obstruction and hyperpartisanship has risen to where it is because it has been rewarded since then.
Yes, I remember people in 2000 who said Gore and Bush were more alike than different. I thought they were idiots then and I still think so now. BTW, hyper partisanship was alive and well in the 1990s. Remember when the Republicans impeached Clinton for lying about a blowjob?
@@buckyharris9465 No, he was impeached for lying about his affair with Linda Tripp to congress. Monica Lewinsky had nothing to do with it.
It is so frustrating to see your panelist discuss party alignment on race without basic historical knowledge. Those of us who are both well educated and old enough to remember this past five decades watched the Republican Southern strategy which started with pro segregation Barry Goldwater running for President in 1964 followed by Nixon and liberal Republicans literally being driven out of the party by 1970. The lack of historical knowledge deeply saddens me. There were liberal Republicans like Senators Jacob Javits and Charles Goodell from New York, Charles Percy, Michigan Governor George Romney who was also a liberal. This is basic American political history. Who are you guys talking to? Jeez, this discussion was a disaster.
By the way anyone who votes for Trump are tolerant of the structure of racism which Trump both expressed and embodied. It is obvious that no one on your panel has formally or academically studied race and racism as I have. No one on the panel, including Perry understands racism. Please get some scholars on your panel. There is so much literature on this topic going back for the decades. Please read it. Contact me if you you want some study materials. Read some of the critical race studies scholars as opposed to just political scientists even though that was my undergraduate major. Read Black writers like Derrick Bell who in the 1980s wrote and taught about this at Harvard and NYU after working as a civil rights attorney for decades.
Your panel does not understand the long structural basis of these divisions in American politics. This is not an individual issue. Moving on from this is much more difficult than this panel envisions. What is racism permanent? It has been here since the European colonization of the Americas. Please get serious about broadening your reading and education. Speak to som people in the Africana and Latino Studies Department of Hunter College, CUNY which was one of the pioneering institutions in this field of study.
this is a debunked liberal myth. most of the racism comes from democrats:
Matthew Lassiter says: "A suburban-centered vision reveals that demographic change played a more important role than racial demagoguery in the emergence of a two-party system in the American South".[98][99] Lassiter argues that race-based appeals cannot explain the GOP shift in the South while also noting that the real situation is far more complex.[100][101][102][98] According to Lassiter, political scientists and historians point out that the timing does not fit the "Southern Strategy" model. Nixon carried 49 states in 1972, so he operated a successful national rather than regional strategy. But the Republican Party remained quite weak at the local and state level across the entire South for decades.[103]
Bruce Kalk and George Tindall argue that Nixon's Southern Strategy was to find a compromise on race that would take the issue out of politics, allowing conservatives in the South to rally behind his grand plan to reorganize the national government. Kalk and Tindall emphasize the similarity between Nixon's operations and the series of compromises orchestrated by Rutherford B. Hayes in 1877 that ended the battles over Reconstruction and put Hayes in the White House. Kalk says Nixon did end the reform impulse and sowed the seeds for the political rise of white Southerners and the decline of the civil rights movement.[104][105]
Dean Kotlowski argues that Nixon's overall civil rights record was on the whole responsible and that Nixon tended to seek the middle ground. He campaigned as a moderate in 1968, pitching his appeal to the widest range of voters. Furthermore, he continued this strategy as president. As a matter of principle, says Kotlowski, he supported integration of schools. However, Nixon chose not to antagonize Southerners who opposed it and left enforcement to the judiciary, which had originated the issue in the first place.[106][107] In particular, Kotlowski believes historians have been somewhat misled by Nixon's rhetorical Southern Strategy that had limited influence on actual policies.[108]
@@cnnnpc4351 Nice copypasta.
Thank you for the discussion 538.
With respect, hot dogs are awesome. Bologna, also underrated because it's always served in its least appetizing form.
@25:18 still can't believe they let Clare go...
Galen speaks the truth in that intro
Man, a nice dirty water hotdog on a lunch break with an ice cold ginger ale while sitting in the park watching people go by...really looking forward to when life can go back to “normal.”
Y'all are sure welcome to find right at the start of martini hour here on the Left coast.
Am I a bad person for getting tired of hearing race everytime we discuss politics.
Not discussing race when talking about politics is like talking about a hockey game without mentioning any of the players.
@@mickmickymick6927 it would be not discussing the candidates.
Someone needs to introduce Galen to a good hot dog
"not being racist" is a difficult thing for any human - like it or not. Anyone that is not actively trying "not to be racist" all the time - inevitably will fall into lazy patterns of behavior that are rightly called racist.
I think they need to start enforcing actual stand there and talk filibusters.
Then they need to play the same games with shuffling and and out senators from the Capitol building so the Democrats can rest because they know there's not going to be a sudden call to a vote but Republicans have to stay at the Capitol Building because there could be a vote called on something at any time.
This business is stipulating that a filibuster occurred needs to end. That's not the filibuster that's a legislative veto.
I think they also need to make a point of giving Federal contracts and maintaining the budget for programs in perhaps a dozen Republican states and those who are obviously going to vote no to everything, they should start removing Federal contracts and veto any Amendment those particular Senators try to offer. Democrats have to show they are willing to use their power. Democrats need to punish their enemies and reward their friends.
If someone votes with Democrats they get a cookie or an amendment in the Bill. And if someone votes against Democrats, then they lose something in return. Especially with the budgetary process.
Give things to Republican states that the Republican Senators don't want and will remove such as Healthcare and aid for the poor. Matching funds to raise salaries for teachers. Federal tracks for anti-racism programs.
When they made it clear they're not going to be pushovers for the Republicans anymore then I think the Republicans will start to come around. Especially if the Democrats pick up seats in 2022 in the Senate.
One of the things that repels voters from Democrats is that they are so damn weak.
Vegan hot dogs are the way to go.
We need Claire
"-structural reform to the way our democracy works, to electoral processes-" To that goal I suggest to end 7: 1. The Electoral College; 2. The Filibuster; 3. The Presidential Interregnum. 4. End Voter Disenfranchisement (maybe by Enacting Universal Mandatory Voter Registration?); 5. End Winner Take All (maybe 'Ranked Choice Voting' so candidates pander to moderates instead of extremist QAnons?); 6. End Gerrymandering (Have voters select politicians like in UK instead of politicians selecting voters like we do in US); 7. Stop The 2nd Class Citizenship of the Territories (Statehood for DC & a state that combines Puerto Rico & US Virgin Islands).
Come on you I cant believe have just discovered warmed water...
Weird country in which voting against health care is "moderate".
How can Democrats pass HR1, John Lewis voting rights act, DC statehood, DREAM Act without filibuster abolition?
You have no claim to legitimate views on hotdogs. #nohotdogsnopeace
If we want to understand when this deadly polarization began and what drives it, how about looking at the history of American cities in the half century from 1960 to 2010? In 1960 "white flight" was already under way -- then came the urban street violence of the mid 60s -- so that the average white person tended to think of cities as dangerous and evil. 1975 was a watershed moment in that story -- NYC went bankrupt and the NY Post issued that famous headline: "Ford to City: Drop Dead." (Ford was a Republican). In that same year, the few braves souls who chose to live in NYC and other big cities probably felt very comfortable with diverse neighbors -- people of all races, ages, colors, genders, and sexualities. Meanwhile, racism & homophobia were thriving in the suburbs and exurbs.
By 1985, cities were growing again and gentrification was well underway in NYC. By 2010, gentrification had transformed every big or medium-sized city in the country, causing former urbanites to flee to the suburbs or to much smaller cities. (Case in point: in 1976 you could get a 300 sq. ft. apartment in lower Manhattan for $120/month. By 2016 -- 40 years later -- Manhattan apartments that size were going for $2,000/month.) So even the suburbs have become diverse now.
How have all those shifting demographics contributed to the big divides in wealth and attitudes toward race, gender, and sexuality that we see today?
This title is not wrong.... I don’t wanna unite with THEM... hard pass
But it's the only way forward, that or civil war
I think the most divisive issue is abortion
I agree hotdogs suck. Don’t ruin a good sausage with cheap, processed bread rolls
You haven't had a good hotdog then!
Perry, you can move to my neighborhood, we'd be happy to have you
Galen wants impossibledogs
How are hot dogs rated either way????? @__@
Medicare & hot dogs for all
I think the moral dispute predates the political one and goes back to the fact on the moral values and intuitions of World War II. Of recently out the 19th century Christianity had control of the morrow intuitions of the Western population even among those who did not follow supernaturalisticly Christianity. World War II was a psychological shot that reordered the moral intuitions of the West.
Starting with those already uncomfortable with the existing moral standards , One sorry but and a new moral framework on the foundational moral truth nazis bad. Run this a number of things become blindingly obvious. Racial discrimination is fundamentally evil. Be Civil War was a battle between good and evil. And and the reason mortar and robbery are wrong is a fundamental limit on behavior . These specific limit on behavior will come to being white 2nd wave feminism and the objections to toxic masculinity or as much as murder is wrong. This is the pre Boomer adulthood version of the moral framework that the democrats are currently associated with and by which democratic partisans judge large numbers of Republican partisans as evil. The protestant preachers and theologians who follow this pair will be calm known as mainline.
Burrows who think that the pre existing morrow system is fundamentally sound and merely needs safeguards put in place to prevent it from being distorted, form the other path. Send me soundness of Christian morality is fundamental here they rally around churches that agree with them and transform that into what we would now call evangelical Christianity. Send this is a movement of resisting a change in moral understanding on a national level by local people who disagree, people who have experience doing that come to the fore most notably the cult of the lost cause. The combination of the 2 (the Southern Baptist church) Be comes the leadership that steers this path through its 1st generation.
Thereby th civil rights era and the feminist revolution the Democratic Party embraced the former most notably due to Catholic being othered then elected democratic and then killed so they becam martered caricatures.
Similarly the Southern strategy, the mobilization of Christianity as a political force, rallied the latter group around the Republican party.
With the now conservative movement weekend in the sixties and seventies to the to morality's began to clash openly in the the public square politics included. Be civil rights movement being disasterously poetically and so sure standing for the latter group (and them having maintained as morally a legitimate a more aggressive and bullying sense of proper masculinity), atempts to inforce the latter groups moralities on the former group became illegal under anti discrimination and anti harassment laws.
Under such circumstances the lead left morality was making large gains throughout the sixties and seventies. To counter this the right morality's began the crying individuals following the left morality as "politicly correct."
Do you write moralities I had a problem still. Dant being is that historically disadvantaged individuals who shared their moral views politically aligned with the left morality that was anti discrimination as a fundamental value. This meant that they were in an untenable electoral position. They embrace the anti democratic element of the anti civil rights movement and to justify this limit their concept of morality to only the things the left morality broke with after World War II. This allowed them to tell themselves that the voices they were silencing were the voices of immoral people that didn't deserve a voice anyway.
Having convinced themselves that democrats were in hair antly evil the right morality built what they could convince themself was a restoration of morality which became the Reagan revolution. Answered attempt at a son treads balance in this highly in ballon such a way Jean came up in what was called Clinton triangulation. The failures of the anti-Clinton movements after the 94 midterms showed that the majority had lefed the right morality as their moral foundation.
The mainstreaming of celebrating both pride and divorce among other things were celebration Balmain democrats of behaviors that the right morality considered immoral. See you right morality who had already rallied around a mocking be following of the left morality wanted to similarly celebrate defiance of the other morality. Send this was naught a moral protection of activity that the other objected to but a celebration of defiance for its own sake, it was to those who even considered the left morality potentially legitimate, a celebration of evil. You'd eat is both the civil rights era inforcements and that inforcement chain as well as of this celebration of what the left morality considered evil that all the acts that republicans overwhelmingly engage in that democrats think of as making them evil.
In summary, here is naught how leader call polarization making political distinctions into moral distinctions. What it is is to fundamentally unrelated based and a fundamentally incompatible moral systems forming to fundamentally incompatible cultures in the United States. What you have seen is an alignment of politics with these 2 separate polities much like it is in Northern Ireland divided between republicans and unionists. That is to say that the to hams formed 1st and the political alliances realign themselves to match the existing camps with him the public.
I think that "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" is OK (now I know all Star Wars fans wants to kill me because of a fictional galaxy far far away and I know that the only way to calm them is to say I saw Star Wars in theatre in 1977 and that I love Mandalorian.
In the USA - to throw a dial on anything is reduced to binary. O or 1. With subtext as the only moderator.
Why America generated this black and white perspective of things? I do not know. I grew as a kid in the late 70s and early 80s when I followed your culture close. Ronald Reagen was well informed of climate change. And that is science not culture. Fame and Flashdance allowed boys dancing without being too accused of being gay. By 2002 - Americans released a TV show called the Wire without too much identity politics. A show that took on all the heavy lifting of reality and is still probably the most amazing TV-series ever.
Americans hate Wonder Woman these days. Figure out why it is uncool why by bringing back the happy Reagen years of 1984. She was not in the days of Nixon. Figure out conservatism. Wonder Woman was wonderful in 1941 in USA - now she is hated.
I truly think that how America treats super-heroes is a good thermometer to how America is feeling since fiction is never cut off from reality. The job of superheroes is to paraphrase reality, after all. Now that schism has gone crazy since star-wars fans have been digging down on the personal opinions of an actor on gender issues while hating on a show about baby yoda. Demonstrating that for many in USA, WandaVision is a bit late to refute reality. Heck - most republicans thing they won the popular vote in 2020 - after Trump lost the popular vote in 2016. The reality in USA is by now a trade. And it is interesting and scary to watch your national decadal experiment.
Crack a beer and get in here 538 fans! Should be an interesting ep.
i wish you tried to be atleast a little more impartial sometimes. I know you're all yuppie wonks but maybe see why there is such economic insecurity on the conservative side and how the message of globalism has shaped that. yes minorities and immigrants are used as a scapegoat but you're missing the point if you only at that superficial level
Calre ;_;
I think that your ability to deliver a nuanced understanding of conservative policy positions, despite being given a prompt requesting one, continues to be hampered by the lack of anyone sympathetic to those views (much less holding them) on the panel. Also, I was in grad school with Lilly Mason, glad to hear she's making a name for herself. Hi if you read the comments.
Can you suggest a conservative panelist who respects factual reality, argues in good faith, and doesn't tell big lies?
@@buckyharris9465 A realistic choice? No, I don't listen to enough podcasts to know who'd be interested. But Yuval Levin, just to show I'm not talking about imaginary creatures.