The Crisis of American Democracy Distilled

[Beet]

Partisan Polarization

Simply put, American government was designed by the Founders to have a lot of veto points, ostensibly to control the unwashed masses; but without consideration for political parties. The problem with having a government with a lot of veto points means that it requires consensus to get things done. However, when the two parties are extremely polarized, it prevents them from agreeing and thus getting things done. That is because in a polarized environment everything is seen as a zero-sum game. If X benefits party A, it must cost party B, no matter what X is. So even if party B thinks X is a good idea, it must oppose it. The result of this is paralysis and the inability of American government to get things done compared to authoritarian governments.

Corollary: Partisanship has also spread more extremely into other areas of society, such as the Courts system and the Media. Critically, it has begun to undermine the Police forces of society. If it begins to affect the Military and Security Services, American democracy is on its last legs.

Racial/Partisan Alignment

The alignment of racial identification and partisan alignment has greatly accelerated partisan polarization, adding all of the hatreds of racism on top of party divisions. The Republican Party is becoming the party of white people and the Democratic party is becoming the party of minorities. Thus not only do members of the other party now hate you for what you believe, they hate you for what you look like.

Corollary: The rise of identity politics means people are now judged more on who they are than what ideas they advocate or what they do. This short circuits critical pathways intended to keep society healthy: the First Amendment was intended to allow people to hash out their differences in the marketplace of ideas via dialogue. But if identity, rather than ideas, is what is important, this can no longer serve that function. Secondly, meritocracy was supposed to reward prosocial behaviors (those that help society) and punish antisocial behaviors. But if identity supercedes behavior, this mechanism also breaks down.

Community Collapse and Atomization

The reason why identity and partisanship has become important is that America's communities have collapsed. While similar problems affect other OECD countries, America has the most neoliberal economic system of virtually any developed country. Over time, this system via rural flight, gentrification, and numerous other economic forces, have broken up this country's organic communities. Where people live and who they associate with is increasingly determined only by economic need. Therefore, there is a lack of a sense of community and belonging, which people need, that is filled by more abstract forms of identity and partisanship.

This is also a reason why American feels more distrustful of their institutions and further away from their political representatives. With the decay of organic communities, politicians' economic bases have become more corporate. This has led to a great increase in dissatisfaction with corruption, but thanks to America's many veto points and polarization, the political system is incapable of fixing itself. Even though if you asked Republicans and Democrats there would probably be broad agreement on this point (as with many others). Polls show a vast majority of Americans agree on economic and corruption issues, and are divided on social issues.

Conclusion

Americans have simply become so divided that it has surpassed the ability of the political system to handle it or fix itself. "A house divided cannot stand." - Abraham Lincoln

[AtorBoltox]

The problem with American democracy is the Republican party

[dead0man]

The problem with American democracy is the Republican party

Excellent job proving what he said was right in the first response and using so few words to do it.

[Beet]

The problem with American democracy is the Republican party

Excellent job proving what he said was right in the first response and using so few words to do it.

The older we get, the more we seem to see eye to eye on certain things dead0man

[136or142]

The problem with American democracy is the Republican party

Excellent job proving what he said was right in the first response and using so few words to do it.

“Network Propaganda: Manipulation, Disinformation and Radicalization in American Politics,” by Yochai Benkler, Robert Faris and Hal Roberts.

There are a lot of books on networks, social media, propaganda, polarization and American politics. This is the best.

Packed with data, it is organized by a clean, simple story, which is that it’s the right vs. the rest, not the right vs. the left. The authors identify a right-wing ecosystem, led by Fox News and Breitbart, and it amounts to its own political universe. What happens on Twitter, Facebook and elsewhere is in significant part a result of an ideological feedback loop, self-consciously manipulated by the right.

In the process of documenting all this, the authors raise serious questions about some widespread understandings. It’s too simple, and in important respects wrong, to say that social media are driving political polarization. The role of the Russians in the 2016 election turns out to be more complicated, and more subtle, than people think.

It’s not right to say that the right and the left have their own echo chambers; the left doesn’t, at least not in anything like the same sense. The authors also have a host of ideas about how to make democracy work better.

Cass Sunstein book review

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-12-17/best-books-of-2018-politics-poker-and-bob-dylan

That polarization is the problem and that Republicans are responsible for the polarization are not mutually exclusive.

[Sir Mohamed]

The problem with American democracy is the Republican party

This is true, because the American system of government is designed for compromise. And over the past decade, a vast majority of the party has grown unable to reach reasonable compromises, mainly due to the hard shift to the right (in short: increasing influence of the religious right and the permanent fear by officeholders to be primaried). Of course, there are several factors why this has happend. Dems are starting to move into this direction, too, especially since Trump. But they're still far more constructive than the GOP.

[OSR stands with Israel]

The problem is our media particularly cable news  as Fox News is the Republican Hack Channel, MSNBC is the Democratic Hack one while CNN is just sensationalist bs  whichs leads to people being more uninformed and partisan. The fact is the media has done a terrible job of reporting the news for at least the past 20 years and its no surprise that polarization has dramatically increased during this period .


The fact that people were more informed about various issues and less partisan during an era where news would only be shown for 30 minutes a day and during special events shows you how big of a failure cable news has been

[136or142]

The problem is our media particularly cable news  as Fox News is the Republican Hack Channel, MSNBC is the Democratic Hack one while CNN is just sensationalist bs  whichs leads to people being more uninformed and partisan. The fact is the media has done a terrible job of reporting the news for at least the past 20 years and its no surprise that polarization has dramatically increased during this period .


The fact that people were more informed about various issues and less partisan during an era where news would only be shown for 30 minutes a day and during special events shows you how big of a failure cable news has been

Polarization has increased much more among Republicans.

[OSR stands with Israel]

The problem is our media particularly cable news  as Fox News is the Republican Hack Channel, MSNBC is the Democratic Hack one while CNN is just sensationalist bs  whichs leads to people being more uninformed and partisan. The fact is the media has done a terrible job of reporting the news for at least the past 20 years and its no surprise that polarization has dramatically increased during this period .


The fact that people were more informed about various issues and less partisan during an era where news would only be shown for 30 minutes a day and during special events shows you how big of a failure cable news has been

Polarization has increased much more among Republicans.

While that may be true , the reason for that is because of Fox a cable news company .


Cable News has literally done a terrible job for decades now (All 3 major channells have done a terrible job) and they still manage to get worse and worse

[136or142]

The problem is our media particularly cable news  as Fox News is the Republican Hack Channel, MSNBC is the Democratic Hack one while CNN is just sensationalist bs  whichs leads to people being more uninformed and partisan. The fact is the media has done a terrible job of reporting the news for at least the past 20 years and its no surprise that polarization has dramatically increased during this period .


The fact that people were more informed about various issues and less partisan during an era where news would only be shown for 30 minutes a day and during special events shows you how big of a failure cable news has been

Polarization has increased much more among Republicans.

While that may be true , the reason for that is because of Fox a cable news company .


Cable News has literally done a terrible job for decades now (All 3 major channells have done a terrible job) and they still manage to get worse and worse

Fox 'News' only started in 1996.  Before that was Newt Gingrich, and before that was Lee Atwater and Pre Fox Roger Ailes, and before that was Rush Limbaugh.

There is no equivalent of any of this with Democrats.

[OSR stands with Israel]

The problem is our media particularly cable news  as Fox News is the Republican Hack Channel, MSNBC is the Democratic Hack one while CNN is just sensationalist bs  whichs leads to people being more uninformed and partisan. The fact is the media has done a terrible job of reporting the news for at least the past 20 years and its no surprise that polarization has dramatically increased during this period .


The fact that people were more informed about various issues and less partisan during an era where news would only be shown for 30 minutes a day and during special events shows you how big of a failure cable news has been

Polarization has increased much more among Republicans.

While that may be true , the reason for that is because of Fox a cable news company .


Cable News has literally done a terrible job for decades now (All 3 major channells have done a terrible job) and they still manage to get worse and worse

Fox 'News' only started in 1996.  Before that was Newt Gingrich, and before that was Lee Atwater and Pre Fox Roger Ailes, and before that was Rush Limbaugh.

There is no equivalent of any of this with Democrats.

The 1980s was probably the least polarizing decade in modern times

- Despite Republicans winning two massive landslides and three landslides overall, Democrats had a pretty clear majority in the house and controlled overwhelmingly the amount of state legislatures

- Reagan got most of his agenda passed with a Democratic Controlled House

- Reagan support was pretty uniform across the nation(except in the North East)

In 1980:

Reagan won 52%-42% in the Midwest , 52%-45% in the South , 54%-36% in the West , and 48%-44% in the East(https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/how-groups-voted-1980/)


In 1984:

Reagan won 62%-38% in the Midwest , 64%-36% in the South , 62%-38% in the West, and 53%-47% in the North East.

The only decade which I would argue was less polarizing was the 1950s

The 1990s until 1998 weren't that polarizing either as Newt and Clinton worked together to pass many major reforms . Polarization then increased during Clinton impeachment then fell back again until the disputed Flordia battle in 2000 and other than from around late 2001-late 2003 polarization ramped up and ramped up massively and keeps just getting worse

[RI]

Great post.

[Insomnian]

Racial polarization is overblown. 2016 was actually less racially polarized than 2012.

[Ban my account ffs!]

The problem with American democracy is the Republican party

Looks like someone is in denial.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     The lefties desperate to point fingers should consider why it is that so many people continue to vote against their agenda if they insist on the pride of being the self-annointed "big tent". I know that I will get a bunch of talking points unthinkingly slung at me for even broaching the issue, but it is the assumptions that lie within those talking points that illustrate why an anti-left reaction can carry so much currency in the country today.

[Insomnian]

     The lefties desperate to point fingers should consider why it is that so many people continue to vote against their agenda if they insist on the pride of being the self-annointed "big tent". I know that I will get a bunch of talking points unthinkingly slung at me for even broaching the issue, but it is the assumptions that lie within those talking points that illustrate why an anti-left reaction can carry so much currency in the country today.

The defining characteristic of the social/cultural "left" is that it quickly ends up not being a big tent. The Spanish Nationalists were ironically a much bigger tent than the Spanish Republicans by the end.

The Kirkpatrick doctrine of the 1980's, which I actually do deplore because it led to many horrific atrocities (East Timor, that Mozote thing that just came up, Zaire, etc.) did have a point in saying that left-wing revolutionary regimes tend to eat their own and right-wing regimes don't. I think American conservatives just vastly and tragically overestimated how left-wing the Soviet Union, most liberation theology advocates, and most anti-colonial nationalists were.

[Leinad]

The problem is our media

This is definitely a good point. The system of media is constructed for ratings, not "accurate, fair reporting." People prefer to get mad at things, see drama, and listen to people who agree with what they already think than learn about nuanced issues and grow in their comprehension of the world around them and how to actually solve problems, so a sensationalist echo chamber gets better ratings, which gets more money, so...yeah...

The issue is that it's not really easy to construct a different model. Human nature is to go for profit and control, always. I guess the only way to "make it work" would be to instill a sense of obligation to "quality news" that helps people over "profitable news" that ends up causing harm. But that goes against human nature, so we're kinda screwed, right?


Another issue is people seeing disagreements as hostile. If you tell some conservatives that you think abortion should be legal they'll think you want to kill kids. If you tell some progressives that you think gun ownership is okay they'll think you want to kill kids. Maybe not the best examples, but my point is a general one: far few people hear an idea they disagree with and respond with respect and curiosity. More likely they will immediately dismiss the intelligence if not the humanity of the person making the argument and in doing so forfeit any chance of increasing mutual understanding or insight into the issue.

Even if the other person really is objectively wrong, it helps no one to respond like this. This is why it's surreal to see people saying that the fault lies solely on the Republican Party, because in doing so they are literally part of the problem themselves.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

The paradox of the media issue is that liberalism and leftism spent centuries assaulting the sources of "orthodox truth": "Believe in X, not the Church or the State." There came a point when they were finally in a position to themselves be the sources of orthodoxy, and they were surprised that alternatives would emerge. "Why would anyone question the media when we are the media!?" It gets even funnier when you consider that liberal punditry longs nostalgically for a time when they were considered the unquestionable authorities on everything. It's almost as though there's a spirit of the past they would like to recapture; perhaps they would like to "Make America Great Again"? Tools and arguments are entirely rotational based on who controls what.

[Devout Centrist]

I'm gonna go ahead and disagree with you on this, Beet. It's rather easy to blame partisanship and polarization as the cause of our current woes. Obviously, political parties have become more rigid in their coalition in the past few decades. That much is obvious. However, polarization is not a new phenomenon. Maybe self segregation is, but polarized politics have a long history within American politics. While political parties may not have been so partisan, certainly the electorate has been politically polarized between diametrically opposed ideas. Indeed, most public polls today suggest most Americans have a broad consensus on a bevy of issues.

For example, if 80% of Americans support increased background checks, why can't Congress pass a bill doing that? Is it because of moneyed interests backing the NRA? Perhaps, but the NRA does have a measure of popular support. Is it because of an extremist minority? Looking at polling, that might be the case; yet an entire political party has taken up their cause and has done remarkably well at winning local elections.

What's causing this? I would argue that people place a lot more emphasis on their personal values rather than on support, or opposition to, a particular piece of policy. There's a lot to be said about the emotional portion of a voter's mindset. Most voters are disengaged from the political process and tend to make decisions based on their feelings towards a particular candidate or a set of values. In this context, policy is less relevant to a voter's choice. I would argue that we are not experiencing a polarization in terms of ideas or policies, but a polarization in terms of values and ideals.

This is nothing new. In fact, there is rarely consensus among Americans as to what those values actually mean. Sure, most Americans will say they support liberty and justice for all people. But what does that really mean?

One person's vision of a just world is often very different than that of someone else. The central conflict of American democracy consists of differing visions of this country. Again, this is nothing new. Conflict after conflict has been precipitated by these clashing perspectives. Who is American? Who can be American? What does liberty really look like? What is justice? Most voters will give very different answers to these questions. The similarities are often what draw political coalitions together. There is a reason why most White Americans share a vision of America that is radically different than most Black Americans. Different experiences, different backgrounds, different views on the state and its authority all factor into this.

You bring up the divide on social issues, which I think helps to illustrate my point. The conflicts at the heart of American democracy are based on what people value and what they want the world to look like.

I also take issue with the notion that 'organic communities' (whatever that means) are on the way out. Lest we forget that the 20th century saw the transfer of millions of people from rural areas to urban areas across the country. There was tremendous migration from rural places to cities, vastly exceeding the current trend. These were profoundly disruptive, too, but most contemporary pundits ignore these historical movements. Machine politics, too, were common in the 20th century. There were massive disruptions in rural life during the 20th century, far greater than the displacement caused in the past 30 years.

Segregation, too, is nothing new. Beyond redlining and restrictive covenants, you have vast immigrant enclaves which tended to include members of only one ethnic group. Coupled with this is regional division, which was far worse than any contemporary problem in this area.

I’ve gone on for a bit, but I’ll finish with this: Do you know what was going on in the United States 100 years ago? World War I had just ended, soldiers were coming home...must have been a time of peace and prosperity, yes?

Well, no. The country entered into a harsh recession, with waves of labor strikes. A steel strike was broken up by US steel and crippled organized labor for a decade. There was a red scare, which was used to break up strikes and arrest political dissidents. There were anarchist bombings and war time sedition laws. On top of all of this, you have race riots that engulfed many American cities. Bad times were on the horizon for farmers as the global price of wheat and corn plummeted. The Ku Klux Klan began to make a comeback and eugenics was becoming a popular topic among scientists of the day.

Despite all of this, reform came to America. Soon, reform will come to America again. I would argue that the great problem with American democracy is an unwillingness to revisit and revise the Constitution. The men who wrote that document never intended it to remain the same Constitution for 200 years. Perhaps a constitutional convention could help resolve many of our current problems with government. A new compromise between the power of the majority and the rights of the minority may be needed.

In any case, reform will come. The Republic has survived far worse and will continue to endure. We live in relatively unremarkable times. If our nation exists a century from now, most of our current strife will be long forgotten.

[136or142]

The paradox of the media issue is that liberalism and leftism spent centuries assaulting the sources of "orthodox truth": "Believe in X, not the Church or the State." There came a point when they were finally in a position to themselves be the sources of orthodoxy, and they were surprised that alternatives would emerge. "Why would anyone question the media when we are the media!?" It gets even funnier when you consider that liberal punditry longs nostalgically for a time when they were considered the unquestionable authorities on everything. It's almost as though there's a spirit of the past they would like to recapture; perhaps they would like to "Make America Great Again"? Tools and arguments are entirely rotational based on who controls what.

The stupid and false myth of the 'liberal media.'

[RI]

The paradox of the media issue is that liberalism and leftism spent centuries assaulting the sources of "orthodox truth": "Believe in X, not the Church or the State." There came a point when they were finally in a position to themselves be the sources of orthodoxy, and they were surprised that alternatives would emerge. "Why would anyone question the media when we are the media!?" It gets even funnier when you consider that liberal punditry longs nostalgically for a time when they were considered the unquestionable authorities on everything. It's almost as though there's a spirit of the past they would like to recapture; perhaps they would like to "Make America Great Again"? Tools and arguments are entirely rotational based on who controls what.

The stupid and false myth of the 'liberal media.'

It's not stupid or false. It's incomplete, certainly, and typically subtle. Mainstream media articles almost always assume "liberal as default" in their day-to-day writings. They use terminology which frames debates on left-wing terms. Right wing movements are framed as "anti-" ("anti-abortion rights" as opposed to "pro-life" or "pro-fetal rights", "anti-immigration" as opposed to "pro-immigration control", "anti-gay rights" as opposed to "pro-religious freedom" etc.) while similarly restrictive left wing movements are framed are "pro-" ("pro-gun control" as opposed to "anti-gun rights", etc.). On the rare occasion that the left is cast as "anti-", it's always against something obviously bad such as "anti-sexual assault" or "anti-hate speech" when they could just as easily be cast as "anti-due process" or "anti-free speech" on their respective issues.

When international/local events such as the Argentinian abortion vote occur, you're much more likely to see interviews and reporting from the perspective of the left-wing group. A left-wing victory is cast as a victory for progress, while a right-wing victory is a "disappointment" or a setback. Statements by the right as taken as uncharitably as possible (e.g. "second amendment folks" implying a call to assassinate Hillary, Trump's comments about subgroups being generalized to larger groups, Trump's recent "I didn't have to do this" comment, Kavanaugh's comments as "bitter" rather than legitimately aggrieved) while similar statements by the left are interpreted away or simply not covered. Outlandish stories such as the Covington or Sussie stories are repeated as fact immediately because they fit a predefined narrative and disappear when they're proven wrong.

This biased framing is especially pernicious because (I'd bet) a lot of the media likely doesn't realize they're doing it. It just feels natural to them.

[darklordoftech]

The paradox of the media issue is that liberalism and leftism spent centuries assaulting the sources of "orthodox truth": "Believe in X, not the Church or the State." There came a point when they were finally in a position to themselves be the sources of orthodoxy, and they were surprised that alternatives would emerge. "Why would anyone question the media when we are the media!?" It gets even funnier when you consider that liberal punditry longs nostalgically for a time when they were considered the unquestionable authorities on everything. It's almost as though there's a spirit of the past they would like to recapture; perhaps they would like to "Make America Great Again"? Tools and arguments are entirely rotational based on who controls what.

The stupid and false myth of the 'liberal media.'

Radio has been conservative since ~1988, and Cable TV was conservative in 1999-2003.

[OSR stands with Israel]

The paradox of the media issue is that liberalism and leftism spent centuries assaulting the sources of "orthodox truth": "Believe in X, not the Church or the State." There came a point when they were finally in a position to themselves be the sources of orthodoxy, and they were surprised that alternatives would emerge. "Why would anyone question the media when we are the media!?" It gets even funnier when you consider that liberal punditry longs nostalgically for a time when they were considered the unquestionable authorities on everything. It's almost as though there's a spirit of the past they would like to recapture; perhaps they would like to "Make America Great Again"? Tools and arguments are entirely rotational based on who controls what.

The stupid and false myth of the 'liberal media.'

Reagan  is the only Republican President and infact nominee since 1960 the media has covered positively .


Bush was from late 2001-mid 2003 but other than that the media savaged him

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

The paradox of the media issue is that liberalism and leftism spent centuries assaulting the sources of "orthodox truth": "Believe in X, not the Church or the State." There came a point when they were finally in a position to themselves be the sources of orthodoxy, and they were surprised that alternatives would emerge. "Why would anyone question the media when we are the media!?" It gets even funnier when you consider that liberal punditry longs nostalgically for a time when they were considered the unquestionable authorities on everything. It's almost as though there's a spirit of the past they would like to recapture; perhaps they would like to "Make America Great Again"? Tools and arguments are entirely rotational based on who controls what.

The stupid and false myth of the 'liberal media.'

We can talk all day about how the media unfairly covered Trump to the detriment of both his primary opponents and the Clinton campaign, but the fact is that the fretting by media personalities during the campaign and afterwards was all of a certain type. I don't dislike the media--far from it, they're how I get most of my news! That said, things such as conferences on the "Fourth Estate" occurred in an environment where, for the organizes and speakers, it was unimaginable that one might credibly doubt what they have to say all of the time! The ethos of journalism calls on people to question authority, but fails to account for when large news corporations are themselves authorities--they have the power to employ conscious and unconscious bias, to choose what to cover, and to issue public cries for certain causes. It of course doesn't help that news agencies have now liberally mixed the transmission of information with the opinion-based roles of "talk show hosts". Yes, Fox does this too. Maybe more than any other channel, I wouldn't know. That doesn't excuse the purveyors of "real" news any bit. And when journalists and, perhaps with far more guilt, news anchors and talk show hosts are called to account, they tend to hide behind journalistic principles. They're a fine set of principles. But merely laying claim to certain values means nothing in and of itself--otherwise, the Church would have no scandals.

[136or142]

The paradox of the media issue is that liberalism and leftism spent centuries assaulting the sources of "orthodox truth": "Believe in X, not the Church or the State." There came a point when they were finally in a position to themselves be the sources of orthodoxy, and they were surprised that alternatives would emerge. "Why would anyone question the media when we are the media!?" It gets even funnier when you consider that liberal punditry longs nostalgically for a time when they were considered the unquestionable authorities on everything. It's almost as though there's a spirit of the past they would like to recapture; perhaps they would like to "Make America Great Again"? Tools and arguments are entirely rotational based on who controls what.

The stupid and false myth of the 'liberal media.'

We can talk all day about how the media unfairly covered Trump to the detriment of both his primary opponents and the Clinton campaign, but the fact is that the fretting by media personalities during the campaign and afterwards was all of a certain type. I don't dislike the media--far from it, they're how I get most of my news! That said, things such as conferences on the "Fourth Estate" occurred in an environment where, for the organizes and speakers, it was unimaginable that one might credibly doubt what they have to say all of the time! The ethos of journalism calls on people to question authority, but fails to account for when large news corporations are themselves authorities--they have the power to employ conscious and unconscious bias, to choose what to cover, and to issue public cries for certain causes. It of course doesn't help that news agencies have now liberally mixed the transmission of information with the opinion-based roles of "talk show hosts". Yes, Fox does this too. Maybe more than any other channel, I wouldn't know. That doesn't excuse the purveyors of "real" news any bit. And when journalists and, perhaps with far more guilt, news anchors and talk show hosts are called to account, they tend to hide behind journalistic principles. They're a fine set of principles. But merely laying claim to certain values means nothing in and of itself--otherwise, the Church would have no scandals.

I don't know what this has to do with what you wrote originally.