Democrats who can unite the Country

[AN63093]

None, the US is so polarized that it's impossible for anyone to unite the country.  Basically the two sides are so far apart that no matter who becomes president a large chunk of the country will hate them.

This.  We have entered an era of intense polarization, and I fear it may only become worse.  Based on current trends, I suspect the US in 20 years will be hyper-polarized, with the parties in a South African type system (i.e., racial stratification by party- there will be the "White" party, and then the party for everyone else).  All debates will eventually lead back to identity politics.  There will be debates over other stuff, like economics and national security.. but they will be on the periphery.  Sorta like global warming now- sure, it comes up now and then, but no one really cares.  I have a projected long-term electoral map for this scenario here.

I suspect this will be the case, boomers or no boomers, because I think some of the trends driving polarization (e.g., geographical self-sorting, social media, 24/7 news cycle, tendency of media to sensationalize stories or add a racial lens, etc.), are not going away any time soon.

No one candidate can "unite the country."  Even JBE wouldn't be able to do it.  This is something that goes way beyond any one person's ability to fix.  And certainly not someone like Harris or Booker.  McGovernForPrez is right; if Obama couldn't, then they won't either.

What it will take is some catastrophic event to restore a sense of common purpose, national brotherhood, shared sacrifice, etc., that cuts across class and racial lines.  Maybe a severe depression would?  A war on the scale of WW2 probably would, where people are being drafted in the millions, and for a minute you're thinking just about survival.  Stuff like racial tensions aren't exactly on the mind when you're landing on the shores of Normandy trying not to get shot.

I'm not advocating for a war of that size, but just making an observation.  We would need something on that scale, truly society changing, to take us out of this "funk."

Of course, we don't need to de-polarize for the Dems to win again (and vise versa).  With the right candidate, Dems can just boost minority turnout in Detroit and FL, flip them and win in 2020.

[AN63093]

That's putting the cart before the horse.  Politicians don't create or drive anxiety, they are products of anxiety and the prevailing background culture that existed before them. 

Trump or no Trump, current anxiety isn't going to just disappear.  It was there before him, it'll be there after him.  Only in a certain climate could a Trump-like figure even appear in the first place.  If it wasn't Trump himself, it would've been someone else that emerged out of the woodwork.

There will be no "uniter."  I said it before and will say it again- this is a structural problem in society that no one man can fix.  There won't be some "Nixon figure," that just appears on the scene, snaps his fingers, and like a deus ex machina- all this polarization disappears.

Thinking such is incredibly naive.  Sorry, but that's the simple truth, whether you choose to accept it or not.

[AN63093]

That's putting the cart before the horse.  Politicians don't create or drive anxiety, they are products of anxiety and the prevailing background culture that existed before them. 

Trump or no Trump, current anxiety isn't going to just disappear.  It was there before him, it'll be there after him.  Only in a certain climate could a Trump-like figure even appear in the first place.  If it wasn't Trump himself, it would've been someone else that emerged out of the woodwork.

There will be no "uniter."  I said it before and will say it again- this is a structural problem in society that no one man can fix.  There won't be some "Nixon figure," that just appears on the scene, snaps his fingers, and like a deus ex machina- all this polarization disappears.

Thinking such is incredibly naive.  Sorry, but that's the simple truth, whether you choose to accept it or not.

You're putting words in my mouth.

No, I'm not.  You had two points; a) that the type of candidate that could end the anxiety would have to be a R, and b) that Trump is not helping matters by "fanning the flames."

My response to (a) was that no such R either exists now, will exist, or even can exist, and in fact, as the problem is greater than any one person can effectively do anything about, your hypothetical is meaningless, even as a purely academic thought exercise.  But I suppose, if it makes you happy, I would agree that yes, in the infinitely small probability that this messiah emerges.. even though this is all rather silly and quantifying such a thing is impossible.. he very well may be more likely to be a R.

My response to (b) was that, while perhaps true to some degree, is a bad case of missing the forest for the trees.

[AN63093]

None, the US is so polarized that it's impossible for anyone to unite the country.  Basically the two sides are so far apart that no matter who becomes president a large chunk of the country will hate them.

This.  We have entered an era of intense polarization, and I fear it may only become worse.  Based on current trends, I suspect the US in 20 years will be hyper-polarized, with the parties in a South African type system (i.e., racial stratification by party- there will be the "White" party, and then the party for everyone else).  All debates will eventually lead back to identity politics.  There will be debates over other stuff, like economics and national security.. but they will be on the periphery.  Sorta like global warming now- sure, it comes up now and then, but no one really cares.  I have a projected long-term electoral map for this scenario here.

I suspect this will be the case, boomers or no boomers, because I think some of the trends driving polarization (e.g., geographical self-sorting, social media, 24/7 news cycle, tendency of media to sensationalize stories or add a racial lens, etc.), are not going away any time soon.

No one candidate can "unite the country."  Even JBE wouldn't be able to do it.  This is something that goes way beyond any one person's ability to fix.  And certainly not someone like Harris or Booker.  McGovernForPrez is right; if Obama couldn't, then they won't either.

What it will take is some catastrophic event to restore a sense of common purpose, national brotherhood, shared sacrifice, etc., that cuts across class and racial lines.  Maybe a severe depression would?  A war on the scale of WW2 probably would, where people are being drafted in the millions, and for a minute you're thinking just about survival.  Stuff like racial tensions aren't exactly on the mind when you're landing on the shores of Normandy trying not to get shot.

I'm not advocating for a war of that size, but just making an observation.  We would need something on that scale, truly society changing, to take us out of this "funk."

Of course, we don't need to de-polarize for the Dems to win again (and vise versa).  With the right candidate, Dems can just boost minority turnout in Detroit and FL, flip them and win in 2020.

Aren't you one of the ones advocating a nuclear war with North Korea? As much as I hate polarization, I'd prefer polarization to tens of millions of people dying, thanks. I've already said I'd rather the Republicans control things for 100 years than that.

Also, since no one will attack us, we'd have to start it, and I'd caution the risks of turning into Nazi Germany for the sake of uniting the country. The long term consequences of such a thing are not just gonna be a repeat of the fairy tale past.

Beet, I think you have me confused with someone else.  I have not advocated for a nuclear war with North Korea.

[AN63093]

Well put.  Completely agree.

[AN63093]

We can't even agree on reality or what a "fact" is for Christ's sake. How is one suppose to unite the country with a clear mandate absent a national crisis in this kind of environment? It does not happen.

The last very polarizing era in American politics was the 1960s. How did that end? Well, it just sort of fizzled out. The center retook control in the early 1970s and the radicals were ridiculed into oblivion. All that's needed is for centrism to reassert itself.

Well, I think Techno Timmy's 'generations/economic systems' theory actually has a pretty good answer to that.  With the caveat that I don't want to put words in his month (so please, correct me if I'm wrong TT), but my understanding is he argues that neo-liberalism essentially emerged as the solution to the economic problem of the day (i.e., stagflation), and after a couple decades of strong growth, became the prevailing economic system for both parties.  This paralleled the ascendancy of the Boomers, who coming into peak power during a time of economic consensus, naturally shifted to the culture wars/social issues.

So I guess it 'fizzled' in a manner of speaking, but I think that sorta obfuscates the fact that it didn't just happen out of nowhere, like an unpredictable weather pattern or something.  But rather it was the confluence of certain factors given the times.

I think one thing you're missing (and again, I don't wanna speak for TT here), but at least when I'm saying a crisis has to happen, I'm not advocating for one (and I assume TT isn't either).  But rather I'm making an observation about what I think would be required to disrupt the system to the degree necessary in order to change the current consensus.

Let's take Trump for instance.  Yes, you are right that his positions were not just unorthodox, but in some ways opposite from the "Reagan GOP," but consider this- first, he had to fight the establishment tooth and nail on these issues (and they still hate him), and second, I don't see some seachange in the way business is done.  Neo-liberalism as the consensus economic ideology is very much alive and well, Trump or no Trump (and quite frankly, whether Clinton had been elected as well).  So the battle lines are drawn on the social issues instead.

You talk about how the Dems drive identity politics, and while they are certainly focused on that (I won't disagree with you there), I think you're putting the cart before the horse a little.  Are identity politics prevalent because the Dems push it, or do Dems push it because identity politics are such an important issue for the base?  See what I'm getting at?  Dems push these issues because they are the issues a lot of folks in the D base are emotional about and they're the issues that matter so much to them.  Now in a world where there wasn't such an economic consensus, or where some other catastrophic crisis was center stage, then perhaps that's where the fault line would be, but since that's not the case, the fight is currently one of primarily ethnic identity and related sub-issues, and I don't see that disappearing anytime soon.  The Dems are very much the yin to the GOP's yang- they may not agree on much, but what they do agree about is what to fight over.

This may all sound very pessimistic, but I'm a realist.  Hyper polarization is here to stay my friend.  I wish it would just 'fizzle,' I really do.  But I don't think that's in the cards.