Thanks. Since 2916 I’ve had my doubts about the polarization narrative. This beautifully articulates why it is a problem. And also how important it is to stand up to the rightwing bully culture use of “balance.”
This is such an important piece to place these claims in their historical context. So much of what people believe is based on the stories they have heard or have created for themselves. The worst and most unfounded belief systems are completely ahistorical. A deeper analysis of the history will always complicate simplistic narratives like polarization.
What used to be a critical view is now a “polarizing” one. To be polarizing is to contribute to “the problem of polarization.” If you’re part of the problem, you can’t be taken seriously.
So critics are silenced and obstacles to minority rule are removed, one by one.
Oh, so now you’re jumping into the replies here too - after I’ve tolled you on other platforms to stop this pathetic trolling? I guess you’re a pathetic troll then, Zachary, and I will treat you as such going forward.
I've been saying some version of this for years so thanks for writing it down. The unity of white supremacists in the "old days" is not something to look back on with nostalgia. Time for true democracy!
That's a fascinating tweet from Ben Shapiro. (“If you want to de-polarize American society, begin with a simple task: say publicly that someone you totally disagree with…is a nice human being and people should give them a read or listen.”) If one assumes he is speaking to "the libs" and simply forgetting (how embarrassing!) to consider whether the identical message should apply to his own "conservative" side, a possible reply would be: "u first." But I think these performers of extremism don't merely forget to root out their own hypocrisy. They're being hypocritical on purpose, performatively. It's part of their act. So they don't need it pointed out to them. Ben Shapiro here, I think, is mimicking the discourse of those who perceive themselves as "reasonable centrists," and he's attempting to defuse the popularly lauded value of de-polarized civility by showing it has no power over him. I hear him saying "mi mi mi mi mi," opening and closing his hand like a talking duck, imitating Joe-Biden voice, making a joke out of the thing he's never gonna do.
Brillliant, as usual. Note, too, the disingenuous (at best) and misleading (as by Shapiro) use of "disagree." If X says that Democrats want to groom all children and force them to switch sexes, and Y says they don't, the two don't "disagree." X is either delusional, deeply stupid, or consciously lying. The issue is not a matter of opinion.
One question: How much are journalists' insistence on polarization a function of the preferences of their corporate owners? The Republican Party is turning fascist before our (and everyone's) eyes. How much are the owners--family; shareholders; institutions--of the NY Times loath to acknowledge that, because it threatens their status quo?
Agreed, re: your first point. Some disagreements are over matters of fact, not opinion.
Re: your second question, which I think is partly about whether newspapers fear the collapse of their own funding and are trying to keep lots of shareholders happy — I bet it's complicated, since different outlets are funded in different ways and they answer to different constituencies and bosses. I don't know the answer, but I think it's an important question about power and information.
"Polarization" implies that there are two equally legitimate points of view, which is not the case. We have one "side," the Democrats, who have dug in their heels as the sane, reasonable people willing to work with the unhinged, authoritarian/fascist "other side," who are mainly a cult that worships a fat, orange faced old criminal who regularly threatens people and seems to be slip-sliding away into dementia, claiming he ran for president against George Bush and Barack Obama.
I basically agree with all of this but I can't help noting that though it refers to the Right, Left, Center and elites the one group missing is liberals (in the modern American sense) who actually make up the bulk of the Democratic Party and the real opposition to the fascist (closer to Nazi) GOP. The Squad isn't mounting the defense against fascism, Biden, Jeffries, Pelosi etc. are.
Narrative warfare leads to Polarization and Chaos
Engineered Chaos leds to democracy failure!
Just posted a deep‑dive teaser on how foreign powers weaponize America’s internal chaos:
https://substack.com/@geopoliticsinplainsight/note/c-198193128
Thanks. Since 2916 I’ve had my doubts about the polarization narrative. This beautifully articulates why it is a problem. And also how important it is to stand up to the rightwing bully culture use of “balance.”
This is such an important piece to place these claims in their historical context. So much of what people believe is based on the stories they have heard or have created for themselves. The worst and most unfounded belief systems are completely ahistorical. A deeper analysis of the history will always complicate simplistic narratives like polarization.
What used to be a critical view is now a “polarizing” one. To be polarizing is to contribute to “the problem of polarization.” If you’re part of the problem, you can’t be taken seriously.
So critics are silenced and obstacles to minority rule are removed, one by one.
Oh, so now you’re jumping into the replies here too - after I’ve tolled you on other platforms to stop this pathetic trolling? I guess you’re a pathetic troll then, Zachary, and I will treat you as such going forward.
I've been saying some version of this for years so thanks for writing it down. The unity of white supremacists in the "old days" is not something to look back on with nostalgia. Time for true democracy!
This is something that badly needed to be written. Thank you.
Thank you for providing a lens and a framework for much needed discourse
That's a fascinating tweet from Ben Shapiro. (“If you want to de-polarize American society, begin with a simple task: say publicly that someone you totally disagree with…is a nice human being and people should give them a read or listen.”) If one assumes he is speaking to "the libs" and simply forgetting (how embarrassing!) to consider whether the identical message should apply to his own "conservative" side, a possible reply would be: "u first." But I think these performers of extremism don't merely forget to root out their own hypocrisy. They're being hypocritical on purpose, performatively. It's part of their act. So they don't need it pointed out to them. Ben Shapiro here, I think, is mimicking the discourse of those who perceive themselves as "reasonable centrists," and he's attempting to defuse the popularly lauded value of de-polarized civility by showing it has no power over him. I hear him saying "mi mi mi mi mi," opening and closing his hand like a talking duck, imitating Joe-Biden voice, making a joke out of the thing he's never gonna do.
Will your podcast be back soon?
Yes. Recording a new episode very soon. Hopefully this week - if not, then next week.
Completely wrong, but thanks for playing.
Brillliant, as usual. Note, too, the disingenuous (at best) and misleading (as by Shapiro) use of "disagree." If X says that Democrats want to groom all children and force them to switch sexes, and Y says they don't, the two don't "disagree." X is either delusional, deeply stupid, or consciously lying. The issue is not a matter of opinion.
One question: How much are journalists' insistence on polarization a function of the preferences of their corporate owners? The Republican Party is turning fascist before our (and everyone's) eyes. How much are the owners--family; shareholders; institutions--of the NY Times loath to acknowledge that, because it threatens their status quo?
Agreed, re: your first point. Some disagreements are over matters of fact, not opinion.
Re: your second question, which I think is partly about whether newspapers fear the collapse of their own funding and are trying to keep lots of shareholders happy — I bet it's complicated, since different outlets are funded in different ways and they answer to different constituencies and bosses. I don't know the answer, but I think it's an important question about power and information.
"Polarization" implies that there are two equally legitimate points of view, which is not the case. We have one "side," the Democrats, who have dug in their heels as the sane, reasonable people willing to work with the unhinged, authoritarian/fascist "other side," who are mainly a cult that worships a fat, orange faced old criminal who regularly threatens people and seems to be slip-sliding away into dementia, claiming he ran for president against George Bush and Barack Obama.
Author never mentions “Republican”. But a major political party has gone insane and irrational.
Speak out about it!
Because the idea of a consensus speaker in this context is absurd.
I hope every journalist and political scientist reads it. Thank you Thomas, for this view from 30,000 feet. Much needed.
I basically agree with all of this but I can't help noting that though it refers to the Right, Left, Center and elites the one group missing is liberals (in the modern American sense) who actually make up the bulk of the Democratic Party and the real opposition to the fascist (closer to Nazi) GOP. The Squad isn't mounting the defense against fascism, Biden, Jeffries, Pelosi etc. are.