Also, if someone says "Your group's basic rights should be taken away," and the other responds "No, my group should have rights," they're having a disagreement, but it's unfair to imply that their positions are exact mirror images of each other. Only the first person is trying to take away the second person's rights; the second person is not trying to do the same to the first.
Rightwing populism in the 90s was “in part a backlash against globalization” is not at all the same claim as “the polarization narrative was launched by the Republican Party’s Tea Party,” as you said above. Need to be a lot more precise here. Also, “a backlash to globalization” adopts and repeats two contemporaneous claims of the Right that should be questioned and investigated rather than just perpetuated: the “backlash” narrative (about which I’ve written here before) and the contemporaneous “it’s all because of globalization” discourse. Again, just like with all the “polarization” talk: We need to critically investigate these claims, not simply parrot them.
Disagreement among citizens is not the problem. Polar opposites will exist on every political spectrum. But how we disagree matters. Reasonable discourse about what exactly constitutes the public interest is the activity missing from our politics. To defeat destructive forces at the polls requires persuasion of a large majority of a diverse electorate. Facts and reason, not rage, must predominate, in my opinion.
I agree with you 100%, except confronting rage with facts and reason is like bringing a microphone to a gunfight, especially when the rage is fueled by disinformation and alternative facts.
Thanks for putting into words the feelings i have about the those who claim we are equally " polarized"! You explained it perfectly and exposed the hypocrisy in the networks today and the misunderstanding of what is actually happening in this country today-the demise of democracy by one party.
This is so well thought-out and well written. Thank you. It also gives me a framework to discuss "polarization" with others who do not see it for what it is.
When ever someone extols the necessity of compromise with the current Republican Party, I feel compelled to point out that there are just some areas where compromise isn’t good or tenable.
What is the acceptable middle ground between, “I don’t think LGBTQ+ people should be tolerated, and we need to take away any rights and protections they have.” And “I think all people, including LGBTQ+ should be afforded their civil and human rights as set forth in our constitution and laws?”
There's no sensible middle ground with people who are convinced their lives would be better if they were allowed to go back to openly harassing, abusing, discriminating against, and murdering “others” without consequences.
Meanwhile the “radical left” is trying to address climate change and the unaffordability crisis in housing, healthcare, childcare, etc… AND they’re not even actively trying to exclude republicans from the benefits. In fact much of the new investment laid out in the inflation reduction act is going to southern states that didn’t vote for Biden.
One party wants to subvert and eradicate their opposition, the other just wants votes to amount to actual reasonable representation, and to make everyone’s lives a little better, so then maybe authoritarians peddling fake populism don’t appeal to you as much as they do now. 🙃
"One party wants to subvert and eradicate their opposition, the other just wants votes to amount to actual reasonable representation, and to make everyone’s lives a little better, so then maybe authoritarians peddling fake populism don’t appeal to you as much as they do now."
This is such a huge part of the problem that most of the media/pundit class isn't articulating, let alone this well. One party actually has ideas for how they think they can improve the lives of others without exclusion; the other only seems to have ideas that will benefit the wealthy/powerful to the exclusion of everyone else and/or ideas that will actively harm people. That's if said party sets forth any ideas at all!
As an example, the 2024 race for NC governor is between Josh Stein (D), the current AG, and Mark Robinson (R), the current Lt Governor. Stein has successfully helped sue pharma companies most responsible for the opioid crisis, as well as led lawsuits against companies like Dupont for damaging the environment. A significant amount of settlement money was given to NC as a result. Robinson has done nothing other than rail against LGBTQIA and Muslim folks. He's also a hypocrite with respect to abortion. Yet the media treats them as equally serious candidates. It's the media's trump problem, just at the local level, and it's infuriating!
"The “globalization” narrative’s rise to prominence was indicative of a search for meaning in the post-Cold War moment, of a widespread longing for orientation and a new grand narrative to restore order to a world that, all of a sudden, seemed quite chaotic." I disagree. It was launched by the Republican party's Tea Party as a weapon against the changes in immigration and economic policies it foresaw within the Democratic party.
This is why "polarization" is a myth. Polarization implies there are 2 sides of equal merit but opposing viewpoints. In America today, we see one party hellbent on destroying the country and replacing democracy with authoritarianism, and the other desperately fighting against it.
I've found a lot to read about globalization and the populism movement in the 90's that came to be called the Tea Party, and there was plenty of discussion as to how it was in part a backlash against globalization. The trajectory of this movement became Trumpism, or MAGA.
This, with a double portion of this and a side helping of this. I said as much here two weeks ago: "polarization" only exists in the realm of *opinions,* in which differing, and even opposite, subjective taste and values are all seen as in some way valid. I like coconut; you hate it. You love opera; I hate it. I think taxes bring benefits to the entire society; you think taxation is theft. We're polarized as regards all these topics, because each of our positions is based on subjective opinion.
But if I think the 2020 election was legitimate, and you think it was stolen. we're not polarized, because you believe a series of lies. Its legitimacy is an objective fact. You may not LIKE the outcome of the election, but that's a different matter. When one side's position on a series of issues is based on a relentless campaign of lies, its opinions are not valid, and "polarization" is the wrong metaphor. The correct metaphor is brainwashing.
Exactly. And supporting a former president with 91 criminal charges pending against him is not polarization, it's sociopathic and sympathizing with a dangerous criminal. Being willing to be lied to, and embracing those lies, is mental illness, not polarization.
I find myself spouting this narrative often myself. Recently, someone backed me into a corner by asking: "what do liberals need to compromise to conservatives? And, what tradition are they conserving?" Touche.
Yes, the so-called left function as European centrists and the right is beginning to function as European fascists. Local party functionaries emulate their national leaders.This is all very much top to down transmission of tactics and policy. In central Illinois we see Republican elected representatives blocking the vote of Democratic elected representatives, thereby gaining control of a purportedly representative body.
I appreciate your thoughtful exploration of this dominant framing that the for-profit (thus for-"polarization") media continues to place around an Overton window that's been pushed by and to the Right for decades. It's maddening to hear even genuinely pro-democracy public intellectuals, pundits, and reporters tut-tut at "both sides" while the GOP sets out to methodically destroy democratic institutions and blame Democrats and progressives for bringing it on themselves. I look forward to reading Part II.
I don’t have a good way to put it, but if I am in the middle and reacting to a growing extreme right, it naturally forces me further left to balance things out a bit. This will appear also as polarization. I can’t win or even achieve a draw by fighting fair when you fight dirty.
That is the trap of extremism, which is the real enemy. Reason alone will get us through this. Emotional enmity distracts and divides. What serves the common good must be the focus of political debate. All else is noise.
Excellent political analysis of where we are in America due to the mainstreaming of radical right-wing extremism. The outright attack on democracy has reached a critical juncture where minoritarian rule for decades forward is a real possibility. It is most alarming that such a high percentage of Americans actually appear to support the move to authoritarianism. 74 million that voted for an extremist candidate that would essentially end the American democratic system is disturbing and more so now after all we know about the dysfunctional criminality of his regime has come to light. Hopefully, there is a “silent majority” that will break the authoritarian fever that has taken hold in this country.
Would love Part II of this!
https://thomaszimmer.substack.com/p/why-americas-elites-love-to-decry
Don’t know where to put this comment but I think it was a Rebecca Solnit tweet — maybe re-upped by someone else recently?
https://x.com/rebeccasolnit/status/1630281828279160832?s=12
This is a great article. It caused me to subscribe. Thank you!
Also, if someone says "Your group's basic rights should be taken away," and the other responds "No, my group should have rights," they're having a disagreement, but it's unfair to imply that their positions are exact mirror images of each other. Only the first person is trying to take away the second person's rights; the second person is not trying to do the same to the first.
You're taking away their right for you not to have other rights they don't like.
Rightwing populism in the 90s was “in part a backlash against globalization” is not at all the same claim as “the polarization narrative was launched by the Republican Party’s Tea Party,” as you said above. Need to be a lot more precise here. Also, “a backlash to globalization” adopts and repeats two contemporaneous claims of the Right that should be questioned and investigated rather than just perpetuated: the “backlash” narrative (about which I’ve written here before) and the contemporaneous “it’s all because of globalization” discourse. Again, just like with all the “polarization” talk: We need to critically investigate these claims, not simply parrot them.
Disagreement among citizens is not the problem. Polar opposites will exist on every political spectrum. But how we disagree matters. Reasonable discourse about what exactly constitutes the public interest is the activity missing from our politics. To defeat destructive forces at the polls requires persuasion of a large majority of a diverse electorate. Facts and reason, not rage, must predominate, in my opinion.
I agree with you 100%, except confronting rage with facts and reason is like bringing a microphone to a gunfight, especially when the rage is fueled by disinformation and alternative facts.
Sure, but if we’re still talking at all, it isn’t actually war yet. Most failing societies eventually descend to civil war. We should not.
Thanks for putting into words the feelings i have about the those who claim we are equally " polarized"! You explained it perfectly and exposed the hypocrisy in the networks today and the misunderstanding of what is actually happening in this country today-the demise of democracy by one party.
This is so well thought-out and well written. Thank you. It also gives me a framework to discuss "polarization" with others who do not see it for what it is.
When ever someone extols the necessity of compromise with the current Republican Party, I feel compelled to point out that there are just some areas where compromise isn’t good or tenable.
What is the acceptable middle ground between, “I don’t think LGBTQ+ people should be tolerated, and we need to take away any rights and protections they have.” And “I think all people, including LGBTQ+ should be afforded their civil and human rights as set forth in our constitution and laws?”
There's no sensible middle ground with people who are convinced their lives would be better if they were allowed to go back to openly harassing, abusing, discriminating against, and murdering “others” without consequences.
Meanwhile the “radical left” is trying to address climate change and the unaffordability crisis in housing, healthcare, childcare, etc… AND they’re not even actively trying to exclude republicans from the benefits. In fact much of the new investment laid out in the inflation reduction act is going to southern states that didn’t vote for Biden.
One party wants to subvert and eradicate their opposition, the other just wants votes to amount to actual reasonable representation, and to make everyone’s lives a little better, so then maybe authoritarians peddling fake populism don’t appeal to you as much as they do now. 🙃
"One party wants to subvert and eradicate their opposition, the other just wants votes to amount to actual reasonable representation, and to make everyone’s lives a little better, so then maybe authoritarians peddling fake populism don’t appeal to you as much as they do now."
This is such a huge part of the problem that most of the media/pundit class isn't articulating, let alone this well. One party actually has ideas for how they think they can improve the lives of others without exclusion; the other only seems to have ideas that will benefit the wealthy/powerful to the exclusion of everyone else and/or ideas that will actively harm people. That's if said party sets forth any ideas at all!
As an example, the 2024 race for NC governor is between Josh Stein (D), the current AG, and Mark Robinson (R), the current Lt Governor. Stein has successfully helped sue pharma companies most responsible for the opioid crisis, as well as led lawsuits against companies like Dupont for damaging the environment. A significant amount of settlement money was given to NC as a result. Robinson has done nothing other than rail against LGBTQIA and Muslim folks. He's also a hypocrite with respect to abortion. Yet the media treats them as equally serious candidates. It's the media's trump problem, just at the local level, and it's infuriating!
Can’t wait til part II!
"The “globalization” narrative’s rise to prominence was indicative of a search for meaning in the post-Cold War moment, of a widespread longing for orientation and a new grand narrative to restore order to a world that, all of a sudden, seemed quite chaotic." I disagree. It was launched by the Republican party's Tea Party as a weapon against the changes in immigration and economic policies it foresaw within the Democratic party.
This is why "polarization" is a myth. Polarization implies there are 2 sides of equal merit but opposing viewpoints. In America today, we see one party hellbent on destroying the country and replacing democracy with authoritarianism, and the other desperately fighting against it.
“Globalization” was the dominant political narrative of the mid-1990s. Has nothing to do with the Tea Party.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1742766517704470
It doesn't?
https://bigthink.com/politics-current-affairs/could-the-tea-party-movement-go-global/
I've found a lot to read about globalization and the populism movement in the 90's that came to be called the Tea Party, and there was plenty of discussion as to how it was in part a backlash against globalization. The trajectory of this movement became Trumpism, or MAGA.
This, with a double portion of this and a side helping of this. I said as much here two weeks ago: "polarization" only exists in the realm of *opinions,* in which differing, and even opposite, subjective taste and values are all seen as in some way valid. I like coconut; you hate it. You love opera; I hate it. I think taxes bring benefits to the entire society; you think taxation is theft. We're polarized as regards all these topics, because each of our positions is based on subjective opinion.
But if I think the 2020 election was legitimate, and you think it was stolen. we're not polarized, because you believe a series of lies. Its legitimacy is an objective fact. You may not LIKE the outcome of the election, but that's a different matter. When one side's position on a series of issues is based on a relentless campaign of lies, its opinions are not valid, and "polarization" is the wrong metaphor. The correct metaphor is brainwashing.
Exactly. And supporting a former president with 91 criminal charges pending against him is not polarization, it's sociopathic and sympathizing with a dangerous criminal. Being willing to be lied to, and embracing those lies, is mental illness, not polarization.
I find myself spouting this narrative often myself. Recently, someone backed me into a corner by asking: "what do liberals need to compromise to conservatives? And, what tradition are they conserving?" Touche.
Yes, the so-called left function as European centrists and the right is beginning to function as European fascists. Local party functionaries emulate their national leaders.This is all very much top to down transmission of tactics and policy. In central Illinois we see Republican elected representatives blocking the vote of Democratic elected representatives, thereby gaining control of a purportedly representative body.
I appreciate your thoughtful exploration of this dominant framing that the for-profit (thus for-"polarization") media continues to place around an Overton window that's been pushed by and to the Right for decades. It's maddening to hear even genuinely pro-democracy public intellectuals, pundits, and reporters tut-tut at "both sides" while the GOP sets out to methodically destroy democratic institutions and blame Democrats and progressives for bringing it on themselves. I look forward to reading Part II.
I don’t have a good way to put it, but if I am in the middle and reacting to a growing extreme right, it naturally forces me further left to balance things out a bit. This will appear also as polarization. I can’t win or even achieve a draw by fighting fair when you fight dirty.
That is the trap of extremism, which is the real enemy. Reason alone will get us through this. Emotional enmity distracts and divides. What serves the common good must be the focus of political debate. All else is noise.
Excellent political analysis of where we are in America due to the mainstreaming of radical right-wing extremism. The outright attack on democracy has reached a critical juncture where minoritarian rule for decades forward is a real possibility. It is most alarming that such a high percentage of Americans actually appear to support the move to authoritarianism. 74 million that voted for an extremist candidate that would essentially end the American democratic system is disturbing and more so now after all we know about the dysfunctional criminality of his regime has come to light. Hopefully, there is a “silent majority” that will break the authoritarian fever that has taken hold in this country.