Politics

Americans: You Gotta Keep 'Em Separated

Diverse people who dislike one another are perfectly capable of sharing a country-if you don't insist on driving them into mutual conflict.

|

"America is now two countries, eyeing each other across a chasm of distrust and contempt," wrote Michelle Goldberg in her debut column at The New York Times. Her solution, in an apparent attempt to take the virtual Twitter wars and give them a life on the streets, is to tweak the political system so that the "urban, diverse and outward-looking" faction that she favors can dominate the "white, provincial and culturally revanchist" faction she opposes, instead of the other way around.

In a land dominated by red tribe vs. blue tribe divisions, I can't help but (dimly) remember the last time I was in a mosh pit, and the cautionary words of The Offspring, "The gangs stake their own campus locale. And if they catch you slippin' then it's all over pal… You gotta keep 'em separated."

Actually, they're already pretty separated. Two-thirds of Americans think President Trump has done more to divide the country than to unite it, according to a recent Washington Post-ABC poll. Of course, people felt pretty much the same about his predecessor, with a plurality of respondents telling pollsters Obama left the country more divided than he found it. It's pretty clear that our countrymen are feeling less than warm and fuzzy toward one-another, and that they don't need much prodding from political posturers to fuel the mutual animosity.

It would be a tall order to ask a president to bring Americans together at this point in history, anyway, considering how much the various factions have found to dislike about each other. A majority of Americans disagree with Trump about the desirability of firing football players who take a knee during the national anthem to protest the state of race relations—or just to support teammates' right to make that statement. But a plurality are also unhappy about the protests themselves. Commendably tolerant of their opponents' free speech rights, many of those unhappy with the protests are turning away from the game itself. "National anthem protests were the top reason that NFL fans watched fewer games last season," reported ESPN.

So watching the game together drops from the short list of things that still unite Americans.

That may be for the best, since there wouldn't be a lot of safe conversation topics at the tailgate party. "The divisions between Republicans and Democrats on fundamental political values—on government, race, immigration, national security, environmental protection and other areas—reached record levels during Barack Obama's presidency. In Donald Trump's first year as president, these gaps have grown even larger," Pew Research Center reported earlier this month. Pew also reports that "a declining share of Americans hold a mix of liberal and conservative views," that as "Republicans and Democrats have moved further apart on political values and issues, there has been an accompanying increase in the level of negative sentiment that they direct toward the opposing party." The report adds, "the friend networks of both Republicans and Democrats are dominated by members of their own party and include few members of the other party."

Which is to say, teams red and blue increasingly disagree with each other, feel growing antipathy for one another, and avoid each other's company.

That avoidance isn't all that hard, given that Pew found big differences in lifestyle preferences. "Most Republicans (65 percent) say they would rather live in a community where houses are larger and farther apart and where schools and shopping are not nearby. A majority of Democrats (61 percent) prefer smaller houses within walking distance of schools and shopping."

The increasing connection between politics and lifestyle has been noted for several years. "Liberals and conservatives have self-segregating preferences, with many explicitly preferring to live around people with similar political views, and others expressing preferences that indirectly lead them toward communities dominated by their fellow partisans," Nate Cohn wrote of survey results in 2014. That is, even when the political tribes are not explicitly seeking to live apart from one another, the growing correlation between ideology and lifestyle is leading people to sort into like-minded communities. And then, those communities become self-reinforcing, driving people to become more like the communities they've chosen.

"It takes only a very small 'nudge,' whether from 'within' or 'above,' to tip a large population into a self-reinforcing dynamic that can carve deep cultural fissures into the demographic landscape," wrote Daniel DellaPosta, Yongren Shi, and Michael Macy of Cornell University in "Why Do Liberals Drink Lattes?" a paper published in 2015 in the American Journal of Sociology. "When cultural tastes in turn have a reciprocal effect on personal networks, such divisions are likely to be even further exaggerated…leading to a starkly divided world of latte-sipping liberals and bird-hunting conservatives."

Unshockingly, separate polling shows "growing political divisions between rural and urban Americans" based in widely different values and mutual alienation.

I've written before that the association between politics and lifestyle has dangers beyond incompatible policy preferences and a divided population. It makes it possible for the members of one faction to punish political enemies by targeting their pastimes, way of life, and sources of income with limited risk of hurting allies—if we're so foolish as to pit the tribes against each other in a dominance game.

In her column, Goldberg quoted California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) on the possibility that the country could eventually break apart because of its divisions and mutual antipathies. But there are less drastic ways to "keep 'em separated" than to draw new national borders. If Americans are divided and factionalized along lines of ideology, lifestyle, culture, and geography, then we could devolve political decision-making down to the state, local, and (best of all) individual level.

If I remember right, that was called "federalism" when the Constitution was first adopted for a diverse country in which people disagreed on a variety of issues and didn't relish the prospect of a lot of one-size-fits-all policy-making. The solution then was to let people disagree and generally govern themselves without dominating one another. It was an imperfect system, for sure, but it averted a lot of conflict.

Some version of that decentralized approach to politics would seem to be in order now, so that people don't have to live subject to rules they dislike cooked up by people they detest. Unless, that is, we want to turn the whole country into a mosh pit.

Keep 'em separated.

Advertisement

NEXT: Rand Paul Throws Incredible Shade At Lindsey Graham for Being a Warmonger

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Keep ’em separated.

    You know who else…

    1. I think the LAPD if I recall the context of the song.

      1. My Whole month’s on-line financ-ial gain is $2287. i’m currently ready to fulfill my dreams simply and reside home with my family additionally. I work just for two hours on a daily basis. everybody will use this home profit system by this link…….. http://www.webcash20.com

    2. Not just separated, but, to minimize consumption of space, concentrated as well.

      1. And they can attend camps to learn more about how to work together.

    3. The Offspring?

      1. Tuccille is pretty fly for a white guy.

    4. Andrew Jackson, the proto-Trump?

  2. I think the more interesting question is why is politics and lifestyle converging so much these days? If this really is new, why is that? Because I know I fit the libertarian stereotype of wanting to buy a compound in the desert near Winkleman AZ. Why is that though?

    1. Serious answer:

      Because fears over climate change, resentment of large-scale immigration and global trade, worry about rampant government spending and the national debt, culture war agitprop for gun control and socialized healthcare, desperation about skyrocketing college tuition fees, racial animus in response to mass incarceration/police irresponsibility and disparately-impactful drug war initiatives, Islamist terror activity and North Korea’s nuclear program have all had the distinct discourtesy to accelerate in intensity during roughly the same period of time, fueling a pragmatic shift towards 24/7 defensive/preemptive partisanship in light of the sheer number of important issues being adjudicated by the zeitgeist contemporaneously.

      Commonly accepted answer:

      “Hey, it’s not my fault those people are a bunch of deplorables/snowflakes.”

      1. This is not partisan enough. Does not compute. Does not compute.

    2. I think it’s somewhat new, because, unlike in older times, people are now far more free, both from state coercion (laws in much the world use to tether you to a duchy or province) and from economic constraints. Now that we can live wherever and however we want, we can more effectively self-segregate along ideological lines. And once this starts to happen, it becomes a positive feedback loop. We become more and more like those with whom we surround ourselves.

      1. The trend is certainly not new; it has been going on for decades, longer than I’ve been alive; and I noted at a young age that all the white middle-class and above folks lived in the suburbs and voted Republican and all the poor whites and all the blacks lived in the city and voted Democrat.

        I think the reason it’s in the zeitgeist now is that the Left has gone absolutely b—–t insane. (No offense to all the writers who keep claiming that the two teams are drifting farther apart from the center.) The Left are the ones who insert politics into everything.

        1. It’s all their fault. Only they do it. Jesus bro.

          1. “The personal is political” is practically a leftist manifesto, bro.

            1. Amurikans agree on just a very few things, to include…

              Don’t tax you, don’t tax me, tax the fella behind the tree!

              I am righteous (and deserve bennies), and you are NOT righteous (and deserve NO bennies!)

              Your shit stinks, and mine does NOT!

              MY politicians will make it BETTER, and YOUR politicians will make it WORSE!

              1. Shorter summary:

                I am righteous and you are NOT, so you should be heavily taxed to provide me my well-deserved bennies!

          2. Someone got all triggered by a suggestion that the left was worse…

          3. It’s not only the left. There are certainly people on the right who like to insert abortion or immigration into every conversation they have. But it’s more common from the left in my experience.

            1. When the baseline for a movement is the status quo, more or less, it’s difficult to single them out as someone that wants change. By the same token, if your political philosophy is radical change you’re going to but up against those who prefer the status quo.

              If you’re for radical change, can you successfully blame those who are for the status quo for your own actions in an attempt to bring about radical change? Yes, you apparently can, but is seems bizarre to me.

        2. “”I think the reason it’s in the zeitgeist now is that the Left has gone absolutely b—–t insane””

          Take a step back and you will see the Right has been batshit insane as well. It was the Right that elected Trump after all. It is the Right that demands to be walled off from the outside world. Fiscal responsibility is virtually unknown, and where it is known it is laughed at. Republicans dominate the Presidency, both houses of Congress, and a good chunk of the judiciary, but the idea of a reining in spending is met by open mockery. Fuckers can’t even manage to get a vote on government micromanaged healthcare after spending eight years promising to fix it. Memes mocking the former first lady, of all people, flow like cheap wine.

          Fox News has become the Safe Room of the Right, and any employee of Fox who dares not follow script gets booted. The whining about the whiners on the Left is ear piercing. Claims of micro-aggressing against Trump are ceaseless. The only real difference I see between the Left and Right is that one wears pink pussy hats and one wears red MAGA hats.

          1. I think it’s a stretch to see a full equivalence there. The Right may have Fox but the Left has all of the rest of the MSM and all of higher education and most of the “Deep State” (i.e. the bureaucrats who run everything behind the scenes). There’s no comparison in my book.

            1. Fox is much more partisan than any of the other media. Come on. It looks like it and it sounds like it. Smells. It’s a duck. The network itself is obviously a cesspool given the lawsuits and settlements. Equating the “deep state” with “the left” is an error as well. Why would it lean significantly that way? Republicans have had ample chance to staff it. And they don’t cut spending, they increase it.

              1. Go watch MSDNC for 15 minutes and get back to me.

            2. Reconsider your comment.

              The Deep State is not the bureaucrats who run everything . . . however, you are not wrong to accuse the federal agencies and their bureaucrats of operating without supervision or public knowledge.

              The Deep State is the name for the collusion of Wall Street, Big Banks, Big Oil, the Pentagon, and the military industrial complex. It is this power structure that is all but invisible to the average citizen, but is that which pushes the US into starting and continuing foreign wars and relies of the Pentagon to continue its money-making and power-mongering effects.

              Trump said he would dismantle this monster, but in fact, we see daily he’s embracing it and offering obscene amounts of money to expand it. What’s going on that the rest of his supporters don’t see?

              1. You have divergence between the Trumpkins and others about what the “Deep State” means. According to the Trumpkins the Deep State is any bureaucrat who was left over from the previous administration. They have no clue about collusion between corporate entities and the military industrial complex to skim all the tax dollars off the top bottom and middle.

          2. The upside of this is that, since the right has gone batshit insane, libertarians now represent the sane, moderate center.

            Now, if only we can get people to stop dancing naked on stage at the party convention.

            1. libertarians now represent the sane, moderate center.

              *snicker*

            2. Compared to the left and right, dancing naked on stage IS normal!

              1. Maybe we can rebrand ourselves as the fun party. We’ll need sexier nudists though.

            3. Now, if only we can get people to stop dancing naked on stage at the party convention.

              He had to celebrate winning the Presidential nomination *somehow*…

          3. It was the Right that elected Trump after all.

            It was the Right that refused to elect Clinton.

          4. The left did everything they could to help Trump get the nomination. Like actively trying to help Trump. Then passively ensured the right would be stuck voting for him by nominating someone impossible themselves.

        3. Yes. That’s the central reason it’s difficult for everyone else address the real dilemma.

          And, then there’s this. “If Americans are divided and factionalized (sic) along lines of ideology, lifestyle, culture, and geography, then we could devolve political decision-making down to the state, local, and (best of all) individual level.”

          What a provocative concept. We ought to change from how things are being done presently to the original ideas of our nation’s founding. I think he might be onto something.

      2. Nah, it’s Facebook and Twitter.

    3. Social media, the echo chamber. It’s much easier for people to isolate themselves in groups of like-minded people online, and to filter their news into their own alternate reality spheres.

      1. It’s much easier for people to isolate themselves in groups of like-minded people online, and to filter their news into their own alternate reality spheres.

        While I don’t disagree, I would add that both ends have been rounded off by (social) media. During the Renaissance and The Enlightenment a depth of thought and a permanence of ideas was valued. Even if you’re listening to NPR, watching Fox News, and reading Reason magazine, there’s not a lot of time to unwind all the bullshit packed into, “A WaPo-ABC News poll says President Trump has divided the country further (than his predecessor did).”

        Did he promise to unite the country (and if he did, who believed him)? Did he really divide the country or is WaPo-ABC still certain Hillary could win? Presumably, he himself didn’t divide the country, right? If we all agree that we should have a better option than Trump are we really divided?

    4. I think the more interesting question is why is politics and lifestyle converging so much these days?

      Because tribalism.

    5. In contrast to MarkLastname, I’d say because law/bureaucracy has insinuated itself into every last aspect of society, mostly due to the rise in complexity requires even greater rules to govern. I mean there are whole segments of law that are exclusive to interstate contracts of railroads. Less than 100 even know what they are or how they interact. That is the degree of complexity we have now.

      And with that insinuation, government becomes a very tempting lever to move the world.

      I’d argue it is less we are divided (like when has this ever been not the case), but the current structures of government are ill-equipped to deal with that level of complexity. Sure, sure, federalism as it makes sense, but instead of one large problem, you have 50 smaller ones that may be more difficult to address (especially if it requires coordination from several parties) .

      The structure of government will most likely need to evolve to fit our current circumstance.

    6. A priori we should consider the Internet as the primary accelerator of trends.

  3. Keep ’em separated.

    Good idea. Lame song reference. Why are we here in California and our fellow travelers in Cascadia in the same political entity as Arkansas again? The USA has sucked ever since LBJ decided to prioritize the Vietnam War over the Great Society. Why go down with a sinking ship?

    1. Leave it to a lefty to hate another lefty for destroying what made America great- freedom.

      1. LOL, how many more trillions of dollars will make the “Great Society” work, I wonder.

        1. Look you may not like the idea of taking money from rich people and giving it to poorer people but don’t pretend like people aren’t better off getting that money.

          1. How is keeping them trapped in poverty & government dependency better for them? Your discredited ideas see people as members of permanant “classes” instead of individuals who want to better themselves. Disgusting.

            1. Gawd, your privileged, un-enlightened, Bourgeois, misunderstanding of the metaphysical value of suffering and privation for the common good are wholly anti-social, you racist.

              1. If I haven’t been called a racist at some point in the day, I’m not doing it right.

              2. Actually, you want the epithet “petit-bourgeois” to make this resonate

          2. Look you may not like the idea of taking money from rich people and giving it to poorer people but don’t pretend like people aren’t better off getting that money.

            Can you name any evidence to bolster that claim?

            1. Well, they’re better off financially, for the moment. So it’s true in a very narrow sense. But the social costs and opportunity costs are ignored if you look at it that way.

              1. I await any evidence that the “war on poverty” has elevated the standard of living of inner-city anybody. The money comes without being earned and is spent like water accordingly.

            2. Is Paul Ryan evidence for or against?

          3. Memory Hole|10.24.17 @ 9:28AM|#
            “Look you may not like the idea of taking money from rich people and giving it to poorer people but don’t pretend like people aren’t better off getting that money.”

            You should really do some reading before you put your foot in our mouth:
            “Losing Ground: American Social Policy, 1950-1980 ”
            https://www.amazon. com/Losing-Ground-America n-Social-1950-1980/ dp/0465042317

          4. Sort of like how at least one person is enjoying themselves during rape?

            1. Five out of six people enjoy gang rape.

      2. Dude LBJ was no liberal as the term is understood today. You would do well to think past the labels (D) and (C) when considering how the politics of the past align with today’s delineations.

        1. LBJ was certainly not a classic liberal. He signed the Civil Rights Act, which was far from civil rights for all Americans.

          LBJ was a progressive socialist. His “Great Society” scheme only set back the USA by decades in terms of race relations and growth.

          LBJ and Obama also share the macabre honor of being war presidents with US troops involved in war during their entire presidencies.

          1. Yes, but Liberal as it’s understood today has come to mean BernieBro Warmed Over Communist. LBJ was many monstrous things, but he wasn’t a commie.

    2. “Why are we here in California and our fellow travelers in Cascadia in the same political entity as Arkansas again?”

      Good question.
      Please leave and don’t let the door hit your ass.

      1. Eh, you say that, but Alaska and Texas’s have been threatening to secede for decades and haven’t gotten around to it yet either.

        Face it, it’s fun to think about, but as bad as things are, the people aren’t there yet.

        1. Well, in all fairness Texas actually did secede and the North decided to march troops down here and shoot a whole lot of people then place the entire southern United States under glorified Martial Law. Does that count?

          1. Texas is the only state to gain independence from two countries.

            Mexico and the United States.

            1. Well, I mean it didn’t really work out the second time around. The only nation to defeat Texas could also be said to be the United States, so there is that.

          2. … at best, you’re saying that Texans are just bluffing, which is what I was saying.

            At worst, you’re giving a reason that *no* state is serious about seceding.

            Either way, it’s irrational to expect California to take the lead on this.

    3. Why are we here in California and our fellow travelers in Cascadia in the same political entity as Arkansas again?

      History, mostly.

      There are other reasons (economic, safety, etc.) But those are more likely to start a debate and I don’t feel like getting into that at the moment.

      But #1? History.

    4. It’s really 2 countries, so split them up. Let each of the 50 states decide which country to join, BlueLand or Redonia.
      Better yet, let each city and county decide. And then let Libertopia be an option too.

      Even better, let each individual household decide which federal government to belong to. No more arguments.
      The only thing the various federal governments would have to agree on would be declaring war, so they don’t get the other federal governments in the same territory invaded or bombed by foreign enemies. A declaration of war (or troop deployment) would have to be unanimous among all the federal governments.

      Panarchy for the win.

      1. Was that “Redonia” or “Fredonia”?

        1. Firefly 2020!

  4. I’m appalled that there wasn’t a larger picture of the flag carrying brunette.

    Damn, unsatisfying article.

    1. That’s the only reason I clicked through to this article and was sorely disappointed.

      1. Better than her being sorely disappointed.

        Sorry. Couldn’t resist.

        1. I’m sure the NYPD would love to keep her sorely disappointed. You know, for everyone safety! Also, she deserved it, heres proof.

          1. Because of her provocative flag-waving.

    2. I was hoping for a video.

  5. Most of the perceived divisions are caused by lack of education. By lack of education, I mean PhDs (who consider themselves Democrats or Republicans) who have only a basic understanding of history and follow the lefty and “big government saves all” narrative like sheep.

    The other thing is that the silent majority is conservative and mostly, well, silent. Its the SJW minority that the media loves to put in the news.

    1. How do you square the fact that Clinton won the popular vote with your belief that conservatives are a majority? And how do you square that belief with polling shows that more identify as Democrats than as Republicans and as socially liberal. Finally that “silent” description doesn’t apply in the age of social media.

      1. Hillary didn’t get a majority of Americans to vote for her. She did get more voters to vote for her but lost the Electoral College badly. Millions of people don’t vote for various reasons. Some live in large cities which tend to go Democrat and some live in rural areas which tend to go conservative.

        The number one reason why I know America is still conservative is because we still have our Constitution and guns are mostly protected. There are enclaves of socialists trying to destroy the constitution and end gun gun rights but those are mainly large cities and some people in Commifornia and New York.

        Most people in the USA don’t use social media for babbling about politics.

        The silent majority of conservatives come out to vote and they win. Its why the majority of state houses are conservative and governors.
        State partisan composition
        Only 14 states are Democrat controlled legislatures and there are 32 Republican controlled states. There are only 6 Democrat trifectas and 26 Republican trifectas (Control legislatures and governorships).

        1. The left would rather “states” just went away already. That is the only way to achieve their dream of ruling the country exclusively from the large population centers.

          1. They keep getting to close for comfort.

      2. How do you square the fact that Clinton won the popular vote with your belief that conservatives are a majority?

        She won CA by a lot. Without CA, Trump wins popular vote comfortably.

        And CA isn’t exactly diligent on keeping illegals from voting…

        1. “And CA isn’t exactly diligent on keeping illegals from voting…”

          By that you mean, its openly promoted and encouraged. Because everyone knows whom they’re going to vote for and it’s the same shitty policies that ruined the very countries they’re fleeing from.

        2. Sure, if we discount 12% of the population we can come up with all sorts of distorted data.

          1. There used to be ~10M illegals. That’s less than 3% of the ~330M people in America.

            1. … and?

              The folks saying “if you don’t count California” aren’t talking about the supposed “illegal voters”. They’re talking about the entire state, which is about 12% of the nation’s population.

              1. We’d be happy to leave.

                1. Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

              2. Trump would have gotten quite a few more votes in California if the election had been a nationwide popular vote. But because Republican voters knew that Hillary would win the statewide electoral vote and the Senate election was between two Democrats, they stayed home.

      3. Memory Hole|10.24.17 @ 9:38AM|#
        “How do you square the fact that Clinton won the popular vote with your belief that conservatives are a majority?”

        2014: “Total population 239.9 million (38.5% voted)”
        https://www.census.gov/ content/dam/Census/library/ publications/2015/ demo/p20-577.pdf
        Is the TV your source of information?

      4. it wouldn’t surprise me if a lot of conservatives didn’t vote because of Trump. I almost didn’t but decided to hold my nose and voted

        1. In CA, your vote simply doesn’t count. I voted for Johnson, but many just didn’t bother to vote at all.

          1. Yeah, that’s pretty much the heart of the argument against the electoral college and for proportional voting.

            1. No. California is why the EC is direly needed.

              1. … and? The complaint I was responding to was that non-Democrat votes don’t count in California.

            2. Taxifornia’s policy are not in keeping with the rest of the USA, which is why a Democratic Republic is important to keep crazy populations in only a few states from running ruining the show.

            3. Why stop there? Just advocate for a Parliamentary system of some kind.

              1. I like how you complain your vote doesn’t count, then dismiss all the alternative systems that would allow it to count.

            4. The best change to the EC would be to have each congressional district counted instead of “winner take all”. Granted the point of the EC was to put up a barrier to actually representative elections, but we are at a point where if something along these lines isn’t done, we are done

          2. I voted for Johnson just so he might get over 5%. I would have voted for Trump if I though it would have mattered.

            1. I voted for Johnson because he was the best qualified candidate with the best policy proposals, and appeared to be only candidate who wasn’t crazy or power mad.

      5. How do you square the fact that Clinton won the popular vote with your belief that conservatives are a majority?

        Easily

        Clinton votes + Jill Stein votes = 67,310,878
        Trump votes + Gary Johnson votes + Evan McMullin votes + Darrel Castle votes = 68,409,733

        All other lesser candidates combined come up to only 250,000 votes.

        There were 1,154,084 million write-in votes, but they’d almost all have to have been for Bernie to even the scales.

  6. A major part of this is that the Progressive/Liberal/Socialist Left is in the process of imploding (much the way the traditional Right did with the Depression/election of FDR). Their policies and obsessions have run their course and hit a wall of obdurate reality. National Health Care does not work, and (based on the global evidence) cannot be made to work. Gun control was a non-starter, and is going the way of the passenger pigeon. Political Correctness as become a toxic parody of itself. Nobody with the sense to pour pee out of a boot believes the Liberal Media is anything but a propaganda outlet…it’s just a matter of are they annoyed, or do they hope it will work?

    Like so many elites before them, the Liberal Intellectual Radical Progressives are bringing about their own obsolescence …and like many elites they are kicking and screaming and grabbing random pieces of furniture as they are dragged out the door. I suppose it’s possible they will foment a Civil War the way the (never sufficiently damned) Planter Aristocracy did, but I don’t think they have the numbers, the arms, or the tactical sense to make a go of it.

    1. In your dreams.

      1. No, seriously; The Political Left made themselves an Elite over the course of some decades. And like all such, they are running out of mojo (Hillary Clinton? Come on, people, was Bozo The Clown unavailable?). Oh, remnants of such elites linger on in the corners…the European Aristocracy still technically exists, but I don’t see them making a comeback.

        It’s always messy when one of these elites starts falling apart. It’s always noisy and acrimonious. After all the members of the Elite firmly believe that they were placed on Earth by a Higher Power to tell the rest of us how to live. They are indignant that the Unwashed could POSSIBLY think they are wrong.

        And before too long (in historical terms) they will be replaced by whatever is next. And it will look like an improvement. They usually do. The Social Darwinists looked like an improvement on the Planter Aristocracy. I expect the European Aristocracy looked like an improvement on the Viking Raiders.

        And that new Elite will, in time, over extend its virtues into vices, and decay, and be replaced.

        1. Um, the Raiders just need to replace [underperforming team member] and they’ll be fine.

  7. “Pew also reports that “a declining share of Americans hold a mix of liberal and conservative views,”

    ??? Commies on the Left of me, Nationalists on the Right, here I am stuck in the middle with you. ???

    1. But.. who’s ear are we cutting off?

    2. It’s sad that my beliefs for greater amounts of tolerance towards all individuals gets classified as right wing due to my libertarian status.

      1. I just tell people who ask that I don’t bother voting because the two major parties are corrupt pieces of shit. Nobody can argue with that…

  8. To adopt federalism as a solution we’d have to face the fact that one of our political tribes thinks it’s code for slavery and racism, and the other tribe (rightly) doesn’t want to apply federalism in all cases – I mean, we’d still want the feds enforcing civil liberties and fighting state-level protectionism.

    To get a consensus on which local policies fall under federalism, we’d first have to cure the very divide we’re deploring, including divides within the “right-wing,” non-insane tribe.

    1. But if you really want to beat the localism drum, get Bill Kauffman back. He used to write for you, no reason he can’t do so again. Maybe drop one of your existing contributors to make room for Kauffman?

    2. The thing is, we are humans. Fallible. No system we develop will be perfect, or perfectible. All structures will tend to calcify over time. We need enough built in cracks in the structure to allow flex.

    3. Define “civil liberties” and “protectionism”.

      Haha, trick question. If you do, you undo federalism. Those terms should rightly be defined by the States. People who disagree can vote at the ballot box, with their dollars, or, ultimately, with their feet. For example, not living there, I don’t care, or need to care, what manner of insanity CA proposes inside of its borders.

      I would approve of the feds being able to investigate State-level corruption (per State laws), but I’d need to see a Constitutional amendment granting them that power.

      1. I don’t care, or need to care, what manner of insanity CA proposes inside of its borders.

        Good, now we get to keep more of our tax revenues, we’ll call it even.

        1. If only we could get that in writing. 🙁

    4. Yes, if we went radical federalism there would almost certainly be at least a few places where the local population would try to reimpose racial segregation, or something to that effect. We do want the federal government enforcing civil liberties and preventing localities from violating their residents rights.
      The problem is that many of those civil liberties protections are culture war issues which define the divisions between the two tribes. Federal protection for gay rights is something that the red tribe is not going to be happy with ever, and lack of federal protection or gay rights is something that the blue tribe will not be happy with (rightly), so there’s an impasse.

      1. People are always free to vote with their feet, though, as this article points out. Why would a heterosexual want to move to Provincetown, MA, or a non-jew to Kyrias Joel, NY, a social conservative to SF, etc? Places are already de-facto segregated and many of the wealthiest communities which vote D are more than 90% white. Unless the feds start forcing people against their will to move to these places, it will stay that way.

      2. there would almost certainly be at least a few places where the local population would try to reimpose racial segregation

        Don’t be so hard on Berkeley.

        1. No straight, white males allowed?

    5. I think you overstate Republican interest in federalism. As they repeatedly demonstrate, they only care about federalism when they think they can’t win at the national level. The moment they think they can impose their preference nation-wide? They try.

      To be clear, I’m not saying Democrats don’t do the same thing. But I’m not the one claiming any political party sincerely cares about federalism.

      1. I said “the other tribe (rightly) doesn’t want to apply federalism in all cases.”

        I should have added “sometimes they refuse to apply it when they should.”

        1. Still overstating. Based on their actions, they’re just as “statist” and “authoritarian” as Democrats.

          Feel free to say “I like their lies better”, but you shouldn’t fool yourself as to their sincerity.

    6. This is why our Federalist system had these things called enumerated powers but we see exactly how long that lasted.

    7. Unless you split the country in two. Let the blue states have high taxes and cradle to grave social welfare benefits and hate speech laws and gun bans, just like Europe. Let the red states keep the old constitution and attract all the businesses with low taxes and leave self-reliant people to fend for themselves.

      1. And have a federal government that sticks to the powers the Constitution enumerates, collecting taxes from each state, proportional to their populations, for only those activities.
        Who woulda thought such a system could work?

  9. 2chili hasn’t been in a mosh pit since the Offspring came out? I’m gonna have to reconsider my opinion of him.

    1. The pit reduced his individual self worth and identity.

      1. They probably wouldn’t let him bring all of his guns in, either.

  10. Two-thirds of Americans think President Trump has done more to divide the country than to unite it,

    Feature – not bug!

  11. Last time I checked, there’s a huge chunk of the country that doesn’t give a crap about politics and culture. They couldn’t tell you whether Trump’s a Democrat or a Republican, have no idea what BLM or Antifa are, don’t read the papers or watch the news, they’ve got no idea what’s going on in the world – but they’re doing as much to change the direction of politics and culture as any random ribbon-wearing, Facebook-posting, slogan-spouting, ill-informed jackass that does pay attention but is too stupid to know how ignorant they are.

    1. I think you overstate the matter. I expect all but a tiny minority know that Trump is branded Republican. What they DON’T do is care. They consider the dedicated political partisan as demented as the all-consuming model railroad enthusiast (and much more annoying).

      1. Trump is branded Republican, but he has been a Democrat for decades and only signed onto the Republican ticket to win the presidency.

        So, is Trump a Republican or a Democrat?

        I still find it hilarious that the tribalists want to throw him into a category to hate him. But the irony escapes them that he is from their tribe and is still very much apart of it. The democrats were on both sides of the ticket last election.

        The population’s ignorance is put on grand display when the very people that we were given as “viable” candidates over the last 30 years all attend the same parties, the same schools and go to one another’s weddings. What more proof do you need of a semi-monarchy than having another Clinton or Bush running for president?

        1. LOL, an inbred semi-monarchy at that.

  12. Most people who deplore division and divisiveness are mad that *their* favorite polities and politicians meet with opposition.

    1. policies not polities

  13. It is difficult when the right is completely delusional. I often hear from conservatives that saying “Merry Christmas” has been outlawed by liberals. How can you confront abject stupidity?

    1. Were you going for irony? Because that was textbook.

      1. What? Was the ban on saying “Merry Christmas” one of those fake regulations Trump claims he revoked? I missed it then.

        1. So it was unintentional. That makes it even funnier, Tony.

  14. “Yeah, lets do away with that stinky Electoral College, so that we woke people don’t have to even talk to the evil people in flyover country except to give them orders.” Sure, that will work out just the way you want it to, honey.

    1. Given that the flyover country bumpkins produce shit and do not want to let the city folk decide even for themselves, fuck ’em. Two generations top.

      1. You might want to travel the USA some day. Most of the food in the USA is produced away from the coastal cities. More manufactured goods are produced away from coastal cities too because the costs are less.

        In fact, many of the USA’s problems come from the massive welfare cities and corruption oozing from cities. Detroit is one example.

        The funniest thing about what you said is that cities tend to only have service jobs like restaurants and middle-men type jobs. In other words, you don’t produce shit.

        Luckily, the US economy has a mix of business that make it strong even outside the manufacturing industry.

    2. Indeed,

      There seems to be this believe Hilary would have won if we went by popular vote. I’ve come to describe this sort of thinking as “one-dimensional”.

      It doesn’t occur to them that if you change the rules of the contest, you change the strategies of those involved in the contest.

      Baseball games are played with vastly different strategy, player composition, etc. than home run derbies.

      They don’t seem to understand that it’s a huge gamble as to whether there are more dormant Republican leaning votes in Blue states like CA, NY, etc. vs dormant Democrat leaning votes in Red States like MS,LA,AL,TN,TX, etc.
      Another factor is dormant voters in swing states like FL,NC,PA,etc.

      I sarcastically suggest that people who want popular vote based presidental elections should get states like CA,NY,MA,IL, etc. to start by apportioning their electoral votes by percentage of vote.

      1. It doesn’t occur to them that if you change the rules of the contest, you change the strategies of those involved in the contest.

        Actually, that’s one of the arguments *for* direct election if the president. By making every citizen’s vote count equally, Democrats are incentivized to care about Democrats in Texas and Alabama, Republicans are incentivized to care about Republican votes in New York and California, and so-on.

        Politicians changing their strategy and paying attention to states they normally ignore is a feature, not a bug.

        1. Both sides would focus on the biggest concentrations of population, because their advertising dollars would have the biggest impact.
          They would pay attention to far fewer states than they do, now.

      2. So you’re saying it may have been a mistake for Clinton to campaign for cash in Hollywood and Silicon Valley most of the time, instead of going to fish frys in Wisconsin to campaign for votes?

        1. Not a matter of fish frys, really. Al Gore played the “alpha male” card in this way and didn’t get far. We know when someone is real and when someone is not. It’s a matter of making at least a good show about caring about the people there. Trump ballyhooed; Hillary didn’t even bother to show up. If she still wants to know “what happened”, that’s it in a nutshell.

    3. Quite opposite of that, I’ve thought we need to implement an “electoral college” system for electing US Senators. Especially in New York State. Each county would get one consolidated vote. Heck, if I understand the structure of NYC, even the nasty cesspool would get 5 “county” votes. But it would force the balance out so a senator would recognize they represent a state in it’s entirety, and not just the population centers. No more “flying over” the central counties and only hitting the big cities.

      It’s not like those population clusters wouldn’t have adequate representation. That’s what the House of Representatives is for.

  15. But there are less drastic ways to “keep ’em separated” than to draw new national borders.

    Why does this always have to be pitched as a bad thing?

    1. Gimme a marker and a map.

  16. The big split used to be betweeen urban and rural, city and country. It was the fodder for renaissance comedy, even as far back as ancient Rome they saw it. But things are changing now, and it’s primarily due to jobs going to the city. Not nearly as many people are needed to grow our food. The split is now between urban and suburban, city and town. And in some places, it’s the north borough versus the south borough.

    The old split was conservative versus liberal in the old world sense. Now it’s left versus right, and the war over which hoary old monarch will rule us, Marx or Bismarck. Classic liberalism is the enemy of both. Outsiders can’t see any difference between the sides. The words are different, the actions identical. The last election was a race to see who could be most protectionist.

    Walk into a neighborhood that is 51% Republican and they let you know it. Walk into one that is 51% Democrat and they let you know it. The opposite is assumed simply not to exist. Every bar is one or the other. Every water cooler conversation assumes one or the other. Civil discourse is gone. The mainstream media fuels it, the social media filters it. Memes have become the hieroglyphics of a new language.designed to hinder communication.

    I’ve got more in common with a 1970s radical Leftist, than I do most modern liberal or conservative banner wavers. The State has won, the bickering is just circuses to keep them happy.

    1. Jobs are not going to the cities. Some direct consumer service jobs may be, but with the internet jobs can be had everywhere, even Helena Montana.

      As for “let you know it”, I can guarantee you that this is far more true in liberal areas than in conservative ones. We are generally more “live and let live”. Liberals have to social work you night and day.

  17. The problem with a “federalism” approach is that the division isn’t *really* between states anymore. Sure, we describe ’em as red states and blue states, but the truth is “red rural and blue cities”, regardless of state. So for an emphasis on federalism to be effective we’d need either a dramatic redrawing if state lines or making states impotent and skip straight from federal to local.

    And that’s before we even begin to itemize all the things currently handled at the federal level that would be”pushed down” to the states, and the intrinsic problems with trying to manage those issues at the state (or city-state and rural-state, I suppose) level.

    Now, I’m sure that doesn’t sound all that terrible to libertarians, but you have to remember: it’s not yourselves you need to convince.

    1. As someone once explained it, there are simply too few congressional districts. We’ve been stuck with 435 representative for over a century now. That gives higher population centers more and more clout, especially when compounded by gerrymandering. Get back to one representative per 40,000 citizens, and red states will start looking red again.

      1. The original suggestions for the Bill of Rights had, as it’s first amendment, a requirement that no Congressional district be larger than 50,000 people.
        That would put the number of districts at greater than 4500.
        There is, even some dispute as to whether it was ratified.
        See: http://www.boldtruth.com/

  18. the politics of the left has forced those who disagree with them to self segregate from those on the left. No one wants to live or work where you know you are considered a racist and a moron just for having different ideals on any level not just the big phillisophical questions. the left will judge people for things as minor as the food they eat to the religion they practice. who would want to live near such people

    1. Both sides are guilty of the fallacy that if you disagree with anything their tribe thinks, you must belong to the other tribe, so they assume you agree with every terrible belief they ascribe to the other side.

      For example, idiots who think that if you support school vouchers, you must be a racist, and conversely, that if you support liberalized immigration laws you’re a race traitor who hates white people.

      1. How does that mesh with the belief that wanting immigration to work differently means you’re a dirty racist who hates brown people?

        1. Seriously. For someone who resorts to the “brown people” canard so easily, that’s a curious statement to make.

          1. Racists often make very curious statements. Well, ugly ones, but the time they make them? Curious

        2. A lot of people who oppose immigration lately do so on the grounds that Hispanics are somehow culturally incapable of adopting American political values. There are various thought-leaders of the alt-right to explicitly claim that Hispanics are genetically less intelligent. To me, that is pretty racist.
          It’s hard to argue , given those facts, that a significant part of the the opposition to immigration has nothing to do with racism.

          1. There are plenty of Hispanics that adopt the American culture of freedom and millions that don’t.

            All illegals have shown that they have no respect for American culture because they openly violate our immigration laws.

            All the racist stuff about certain races being less intelligent sounds like the Democrat’s idea of protecting non-white people they deem inferior and unable to make it without government.

            1. “All illegals have shown that they have no respect for American culture because they openly violate our immigration”

              And I have no respect for drug or traffic laws and gladly violate them. Does that imply that I also don’t deserve to live here?

              1. If the consequence for violating those laws was to be removed from the country, then it would.

          2. A lot of people who oppose immigration lately do so …

            I remember once upon a time when you claimed to be a solid individualist. And look at you now.

            1. You really don’t understand phrases like “a lot of” and “significant part”, do you?

            2. You really don’t understand phrases like “a lot of” and “significant part”, do you?

          3. You do nobody any service by referring to “opposing immigration”. I know of few who do. I do know of many, including most of my Hispanic friends, who oppose illegal immigration. That’s actually a pretty broad sentiment.

            1. Yup. I’m part Mexican myself, and I am 110% against illegal immigration, and low skill immigration in general. Mexican doctors or programmers are welcome, but we don’t need more dish washers while we have millions of slackers on welfare here already.

          4. Try looking into the actual data… Every set of IQ tests ever done has shown significant differences in IQs between races, ethnicities, nationalities, and even sub regions of countries. It should be common sense that 100K+ years of divergent evolution between some certain sets of humans and others might produce at least minor differences in intelligence, and it in fact used to be accepted as the evidence all showed this. Then the PC brigade came in.

            People have tried to debunk it, but nobody has ever explained away the differences fully, or even significantly. Even PC people who do research in the field admit the gap is real, but play blame game on why, and never admit that the explanation that explains all their data is that it’s genetic. It’s interesting because difference races score differently on different subsections of testing. Blacks score higher on some parts than white, and vice versa. Average black American = 85 overall IQ, average white 100/101. There’s always been a gap, and probably always will be.

            Google it, and read up on it. It’s not NICE that this stuff is true, but it is as scientifically sound as anything. East Asians highest, Europeans next, then bounces around between latin America/Middle East/etc, and sub Saharan Africans have the lowest.

      2. My politics do lean conservative, but are overwhelmingly libertarian.

        My views on ending the drug war, police reform, prison reform, combating poverty, etc. in addition to my lack of religious belief/practice, are not really compatible with a lot of mainstream conservatives. BUT, I’ve never had the kinds of problems interacting and working with them that I’ve had with mainstream progressives.

        It’s far less common for people on the right to call me a bleeding heart or repeatedly insult me for even large disagreements than it is for progressives to insult me for even the tiniest disagreements.

        1. I’ve been called an anti-white racist, repeatedly, by certain people around here because I support liberal immigration laws and even something as generally non-controversial as legalizing the status of “dreamers”.

          Maybe two years ago I would have said that progressives are less tolerant. That is no longer the case.
          The alt-right are doing their best to prove that the right can be just as intolerant, if not more so.

          1. Intolerant of socialists trying to undermine the constitution and the very freedom that makes America a great place to live?

            You might find that a lot on here.

          2. You delude yourself if you think rewarding illegal aliens is non-controversial, regardless of how they came to be in violation of our laws.
            Don’t rely on “polls” that always include a bunch of hoops they will impose, when anyone, with half a brain, knows they will never be enforced, and people don’t want to be thought cruel.
            If the same people were polled with a simple “do you want our laws enforced?” you will get a completely different response.

  19. It’s somewhat ironic that the alt-right likes to cite research showing that ethnic diversity has negatives effects on social cohesion, so as to argue in favor of maintaining an ethnically homogenous (white) nation-state and favoring immigration from white European countries. Yet, it appears that America’s majority-white population is totally capable of destroying social cohesion via political tribalism, regardless of race. I’m honestly not sure which tribal division is more important right now – racial and ethnic division or left/right political division. Do people hate people of other races, or of other political persuasions more? To me it seems like the latter. Maybe the research showing that diversity lowers social trust needs to be applied to ideological division more than to racial diversity. And if helping D’s and R’s bridge their differences can be done, then maybe we can do the same for race and religion and ethnicicty.

    1. It’s not about race or party affiliation or sexism. It’s about money. Period. End of story. The fat lady is warming up. Have a nice day.

      As long as the poor stay poor and the middle class keeps on producing, the ruling class will keep on making stupid amounts of profits and throwing distraction after distraction at us. Their children will take over both team red and team blue and the next generation will go through the same “revolutions” as the previous. Guess what? The same families will be wealthy and powerful.

      How do i know it’s not about racism and sexism? The heads of those ruling families are all different colors and genders.

      If you really want to change the world; stop asking other people to give away their fish and start teaching ‘target victim group’ how to fish.

      Teach personal responsibility, not finger pointing. Teach freedom, not socially acceptable tyranny.

      1. I have no idea what you’re talking about. You sound like a Marxist.
        Who are these ruling families, and how do you know what colors and genders their heads are?

        I see a world in which nobody is really in control. The invisible hand bends us all to it’s will, rich and poor alike.
        Those who think it is controlled also believe it is controllable, which leads us to places like Venezuela.

        1. A lefty like you needs to know what color skin people have to sort them according to make sure they have the correct firing squad shooting at them.

          1. Enough with “the leftists” finger pointing. We get that everyone who doesn’t think exactly like you is a leftist.

            Also, you do realize that you have no fucking clue what a leftist is right? I get that you think you do, but you don’t. No, really…You don’t.

    2. Do people hate people of other races, or of other political persuasions more?

      There was a study I read sometime in the past six months which found that conservatives largely show a distaste for minorities because of their overwhelming liberalism, and liberals largely have antipathy for conservatives because they think they’re racists for voicing opposition to policies advocated by and largely for the benefit of minorities.

      There was more to it then that, of course, but that was the most interesting takeaway for me. Wish I remembered the location. It was a very good read.

      1. conservatives largely show a distaste for minorities because of their overwhelming liberalism

        I’ll take that one with a grain of salt.
        Given that the “liberalism” of minorites is sorta driven by conservatives distaste for them, one wonders which is the chicken and which the egg. I have distinct experiences of witnessing “conservatives” expressing distaste for minorities for reasons entirely unrelated to their voting patterns.

      2. Well, that “study” was wrong.
        Conservatives don’t have a distaste for minorities.
        What they have a distaste for, is policies that give minorities, or anyone else, preferential treatment over others.
        This is incorrectly correlated with a distaste for the beneficiaries of said policies.
        Conservatives believe in the individual and that each person should be judged on their own merits.
        That has been claimed to be a racist idea.
        That’s the basis for conservatives to be called racists and it is ludicrous.

    3. So a couple things. First off, white Americans MOSTLY aren’t that divided.

      Second, you need to look into the facts of a lot of what the Alt Right is saying if you’re going to try to comment from a high horse, since you’re clearly getting it all second hand from people spinning it and leaving out the meaty bits. I’ve known of some of the issues those guys are talking about for years, but I’ve been scoping some stuff just to see what’s going on with that bunch. In short, a LOT of what they say is absolutely true. It’s not all NICE, but there are facts to back up many of their arguments. Facts do not decide how we should react to any given situation, but they are mostly correct on their facts, their conclusions on actions are just a little rough on most issues.

      Look up voting patterns by ethnicity. There was an awesome map that showed the country with a bunch of different versions of “If Only X Voted” , but I have no idea where to find it. Basically minorities and women vote left. Whites (including majority of women) and men (including some ethnic) vote conservative/right. If only whites voted nobody to the left of Ronald Reagan would have ever won an election in this country, and he too would have been too left wing to be elected in a country of all white male voters. Demographics and consistent group patterns DO make a real difference, anyone who says otherwise is a fool. They’re just pointing out reality.

      1. I think it’s largely due to nurture and ingrained American culture that whites have here, with women it is largely biological, they’re more empathetic etc… But what kind of a moron wants to throw the country under the bus for the next 100 years while these new immigrants HOPEFULLY change their minds and stop becoming commies SOMEDAY? At least we should meter people in slowly given the obvious real world observed patterns EVERY ethnic group (but Cubans!) has shown.

        To realize the real world implication that every single new immigrant (and I would in fact add from Europe as well because they’re all brainwashed socialists) is guaranteed to drive the country farther to the left does not make one a madman or evil. It’s just the truth as observed in objective reality. This country has only shifted this far to the left because of demographic changes. Statistics bear this out 110%.

        Also, I have come to the conclusion that multiculturalism is a failed utopian experiment, much like communism. It’s a nice sounding idea, and I used to buy into it to a degree… But there is too much racism spewing from non whites now to ignore the fact that they will NEVER stop trying to stick it to us, even after we’ve basically been bending over backwards for half a century to kiss their asses. It’s already failed due to in group preference that THEY show more than whites do anymore. It’s biology that we thought could be overcome, but it can’t be apparently.

  20. Yes, divide the country. Secession Now. Choose your historic model – it’s either India-Pakistan or the Russian Civil War.

    1. American Civil War. Make America Great Again.

      This time, let them fucking secede

  21. We elected Trump for the lolz.

  22. Yes, separate but equal.

  23. Some people, God bless ’em, do try to make a living as a Team Blue trooper in a sea of Team Red (or vice versa).

    http://theunderemployedlife.com/liberal-red-state/

    1. I had the occasional run-in with a Republican co-worker, but overall it wasn’t terrible.

      “At least twice a week someone at work would be asking me why I didn’t have my daughter in Sunday school. She needed to be learning about Jesus.”

      The hospitals were large, busy places and no one usually had time to stop and chat politics.

      I’m sure it’s her liberal persuasion that sets people off. It’s probably go nothing to do with the fact that she’s pointedly quoting herself in her own piece or that she does it repeatedly.

  24. Yeah. More magic thinking. What planet are you from? Because people. I have no desire to live in tribes like Afghanistan, where you get killed if you are the wrong kind and go to the wrong place. A light handed government that makes people behave is the best we can do.

    1. I have no desire to live in tribes like Afghanistan, where you get killed if you are the wrong kind and go to the wrong place.

      As opposed to the US, where you can get killed if you get off of the wrong freeway exit.

  25. Very good piece. But Tuccille neglected to mention one of the most important facts, which is that the so-called “mainstream” media, which everyone knows good and well is dominated by somewhere between 80% and 90% by left-liberals, is one of the biggest driving forces in the country behind all this distrust, anger, and division and thus bears a lot of the responsibility for the situation.

    1. It takes two to tango, and I don’t see conservatives sitting quietly minding there own business. They’ve erected an entire outrage apparatus to rival the one on the left.

      1. You can’t possibly, or honestly, compare the few conservative news outlets with the vast number that lean, heavily, left.

  26. Pew also reports that “a declining share of Americans hold a mix of liberal and conservative views,”

    Libertarian. Moment. /sarc

    1. You mean Nick Gillespie lied? Say it ain’t so!

  27. “Which is to say, teams red and blue increasingly disagree with each other, feel growing antipathy for one another, and avoid each other’s company.”

    Yeah, and what does that do to the very few of us on team purple?

  28. “If I remember right, that was called “federalism” when the Constitution was first adopted for a diverse country in which people disagreed on a variety of issues and didn’t relish the prospect of a lot of one-size-fits-all policy-making. The solution then was to let people disagree and generally govern themselves without dominating one another. It was an imperfect system, for sure, but it averted a lot of conflict.”

    It averted a lot of conflict up until the point that there was one big ass issue where people couldn’t agree to disagree. Then, there was a war. And since that war, federalism has pretty much been crapped on in favor of a strong central government. And there’s simply no way that we’re closing pandora’s box on that issue. There will always be people who refuse to agree to disagree. Because they know that if they keep pushing, they can ultimately force their opinion on others.

    1. I think you’re missing the underlying issue. Namely, in 1786 it was relatively easy to ignore what a neighboring state did. By 1864 it was much more difficult. By 1964, it was damn-near impossible. Today? Even if you claim ignorance, the laws, policies and culture of the rest of the US affects your state, whichever state that is.

      The more interconnected we are, the harder it is to ignore each other.

    2. It averted a lot of conflict up until the point that there was one big ass issue where people couldn’t agree to disagree.

      You mean slavery, right?
      You’re saying that the North should have just “agreed to disagree” with the South about the morality of slavery?
      Maybe the slaves should have had some say in that discussion.

  29. The problem is the government is allowed to initiate force and that’s all there is to it.

  30. I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.
    This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.
    The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.
    – George Washington

  31. this article is pushing destruction……………

    Tolerance-Gateway to Hell..
    “Tolerance and apathy are the last virtues of a dying society,” -French historian-philosopher Voltaire.
    A great man once said, “That which we tolerate today we will embrace tomorrow”. G. K. Chesterton once said,

    “Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.” I would add that tolerance and compromise is the creed of a coward. There seems to be very little most will not endure (tolerate and compromise with) to preserve their paycheck or keep “peace” in their lives.

    How To Destroy the USA-Eight Ways: Revisited..
    If you look around you, our president and this Congress are dismantling America by design.
    “First, turn America into a bilingual or multi lingual and bicultural country. History shows that no nation can survive the tension, conflict and antagonism of two or more competing languages and cultures.

    1. 2 – “Invent ‘multiculturalism’ and encourage immigrants to maintain their own culture.
      3 – “I would encourage all immigrants to keep their own language and culture. I would replace the melting pot metaphor with the salad bowl metaphor.
      “Fourth, I would make our fastest growing demographic group the least educated. I would add a second underclass, unassimilated, undereducated and antagonistic to our population.
      5 – Get big foundations and business to give these efforts lots of money. I would invest in ethnic identity, and I would establish the cult of ‘Victimology’.”
      My sixth plan for America’s downfall would include dual citizenship and promote divided loyalties. I would celebrate diversity over unity. I would stress differences rather than similarities.
      “Next to last, I would place all subjects off limits?make it taboo to talk about anything against the cult of ‘diversity’. I would find a word similar to ‘heretic’ in the 16th century?that stopped discussion and paralyzed thinking. Words like ‘racist’ or ‘xenophobe’ halt discussion and debate.”
      “I would next make it impossible to enforce our immigration laws. I would develop a mantra: “That because immigration has been good for America, it must ALWAYS be good. I would make every individual immigrant sympatric and ignore the cumulative impact of millions of them.”

      http://www.newswithviews.com/W…..ty1152.htm

  32. After much consideration I have come to the conclusion that secession is the only good way to deal with our current situation. We would need a MAJOR swing in centrist/center left opinions back towards libertarian/conservative ideas to avoid it, and I just don’t see that happening, especially with demographic changes. Everybody gets what they want in a secession, and I don’t know why people are so opposed. Historically when countries have split it has often been for the best. It’s the very opposite of imperialism and oppression, and as such should be lauded IMO.

    The thing is we have half the country (mostly all white middle class folks) that still believes in (roughly) the general ideas the country was founded on. They disagree with each other on plenty, but they’re for limited government generally speaking and having a pretty free society. The other half of the country wants a socialist technocracy to run everything, with no limits on what the government can do other than the limitations of the feelz of the day.

    Those two opinions cannot be reconciled. If progressivism isn’t shunned by the center en masse, the only alternative will be civil war IMO. One which the left will lose in this country I might add, since they’re all pansies.

    1. The whole progressive experiment is crumbling, and I think it is largely due to human nature. Communism ignored important aspects of human nature, and it was unsustainable because of that. Progressives ignore the same parts as communism (self interest), but have stacked others on top of to add insult to injury. It’s not JUST your money they want, they want to take away your culture and your history too! But definitely your money as well.

      Multiculturalism was a nice idea, very warm and fuzzy, and while I had my doubts because of my knowledge of history, I thought it MIGHT work out… But it hasn’t. The truth is that humans need to have “their” people, and “their” people can’t be people that speak a different language, practice a different religion, and look too much different than them. Multiethnic/religious empires throughout history have ALWAYS had HUGE issues with infighting, and today has ended up no different.

      We basically threw away having a peaceful and cohesive society for a bullshit prog-tard utopian idea that common sense said would never work. Japan has never allowed large scale immigration, and they devote ZERO time to worrying about if a policy is racist or not, they don’t get called Nazis (LOL) for not supporting the latest leftist program etc. We could have had that, but threw it away for the feelz in the 60s. I think many in the west are beginning to realize this great mistake.

      1. The truth is that humans need to have “their” people, and “their” people can’t be people that speak a different language, practice a different religion, and look too much different than them.

        Actually their people can speak a different language, have a different faith, look vastly unlike themselves and be as different as different can be–as long as they’re freely chosen.

        That’s the crux of things–freedom.

        People blend and merge all the time, and families and societies grow and become stronger–AS LONG AS IT ISN’T MANDATED BY THE STATE.

        The second it becomes people forced together and given victim caste status by the state every different group hates every other group because the state is keeping them at each others throats.

        E Pluribus Unum gets you America.

        The Progressive Stack gets you endless genocide.

        1. I mean yes, it’s not a 100% thing that people have to share all traits to get along. Individuals make all kinds of decisions for all kinds of reasons. I’ve never been racist in choosing the people I befriend, and as such I’ve liked or disliked people of all kinds of variety. I grew up in a majority minority city, and had lots of black/Mexican/Asian friends growing up.

          I agree that the state forcing it is a big part of the problem, and giving special victim status and such. I think if we had zero welfare/preferential treatment most of the animosity would go away with blacks for instance.

          That said, you’re still looking at it through a libertarian lens, which is not how most people operate. You’re seeing the individuals acting, not the group dynamics. The problem is that even when people get along or don’t get along on an individual basis, you still end up with group dynamics playing out.

          In my lifetime I’ve seen this really crop of with Mexicans, and being part Mexican it’s crazy to me. When they were a small minority they were chill, and whites in Cali where I grew up mostly returned the favor. Now that they have the ability to vote their interests they are. And it’s against white interests/preferences in many cases. Whites don’t like this. Conflict! Yay! Cue Trump who has the balls to say what many are thinking. I don’t think there is any way around this type of behavior due to human nature.

        2. And as far as forced, the population in the USA has been saying at the ballot box for decades now they don’t want illegal immigration, and they want different types of legal immigration too… Like people who speak proper English and shit. I largely agree. It’s just fucking annoying to put up with that shit, and with a whole world of people who are interested in coming here there’s no reason to not only accept better qualified people.

          But their voting has been ignored repeatedly by both parties. So most people HAVE chosen if they want to interact or not, and their will has been openly defied. And NOW that a problem that never would have existed had their will been followed has become a huge deal, they’re being told they’re horrible people and racists for not liking the outcome they already said they didn’t desire in the first place. Hence they’re pissed.

          I prefer keeping America more American, and by that I mean maintaining our culture. I don’t think that is possible with open borders or large scale immigration since our views on many issues are singular in their outlook, like the absolutism we have on the 1st and 2nd amendments. Those are my practical reason why I don’t want immigrants in large numbers. I don’t think we owe anybody anything, and if most people don’t want something and we have no obligation to do it, I say go with the will of the people.

    2. America will never be America again without a white majority, and Germany will never be Germany without an ethnic German majority, just as Japan could not be Japan without the Japanese. It’s not that it has to be 100% pure or any nonsense, but there’s a point beyond which it begins to create instability in the nation. Religious and racial division will make a country perpetually in chaos, or so says all of human history.

      For me, it’s not so much that any particular country/people is better or worse, it’s just that for ANY country to be cohesive it HAS to have a dominant majority that sets the tone. Whatever minorities are there have to put up with some stuff they don’t agree with, but if they’re smallish numbers it all works out fine. I think 80-90% is probably a good number for a country to function well, it gives you a little diversity of opinion etc, but beyond that you start getting voting blocks of groups fighting the majority etc and it gets nasty.

      You can see this in the fact that all of the minorities in the USA and Europe in themselves being horribly racist/racialist in their actions. It’s not all white people’s fault, they’re doing the same shit, and in fact far more so than whites since we’ve been brainwashed into ignoring our own groups interests for so long. They’re not gonna stop, but they will step it up as there’s more of them.

      1. America will never be great again until we stop dividing people by race and ethnicity. The problem today is many of these “oppressed groups” want to become the oppressors rather than seek real equality. I read an article about a dustup at a music festival in Canada. Apparently, the performer who took the stage demands all the white audience move to back of the arena and give up their seats to people of color. The fact they paid for the seats is irrelevant to her. A photographer refused to move and huge incident followed. The problem is the promoters of the festival supported the performer, not the photographer. Clearly, this performer’s intent was to put all the white people in the audience into a position of being second class citizens. She sought to punish all of them for crimes based on nothing more than their skin color. Like another person here, I am of Mexican heritage, but my skin color is white. To force me to move to the back of the arena because of my skin color an deny by ethnicity is in itself racist. These social justice warriors are not seeking justice or equality, they are seeking segregation and the power to punish those they do not like or think are worthy of consideration.

        1. All true. But that’s kind of my point. They don’t want equality, they want to stick it to us. We offered them equality and they turned their nose up at it and demand “blood” from us for things we never did. My family never owned slaves, let alone ME!

          I guess the thing is that I have come to the conclusion that it’s inevitable. Humans are naturally tribal, this is usually ethnic or religious based tribalism. I used to have a higher opinion of humans than I do now, but have lowered the bar after more life experience and watching things progress. I just don’t think that these people will ever be happy until they piss all over us, which is exactly what they’re trying to do.

          The problem is that white people are only going to put up with so much before they say “Ya know, we gave you people generations to get your shit together and just be cool… But you can’t/won’t. So we’re done.” And that’s when shit could get nasty. Keep in mind that is the NORM throughout history, so it won’t be odd at all. NOW is historically abnormal, not having ethno-religious states.

        2. Everybody BUT white people has never lost their racialist outlook on things, and white people it’s only barely suppressed by endless indoctrination. If that indoctrination breaks and we become racial in our actions, which many people are, then IMO these minorities are fucked. Let’s be honest, white people hold most of the degrees, skills, money, power, guns, etc in the country… Even if it didn’t spill over until we were an actual minority in a couple decades we’d fuck everybody elses shit up. It’s not going to end well for non whites, which is why I’ve been hoping for years that minorities would chill the fuck out, but they never do, it just keeps getting more and more extreme.

          I hope I’m wrong on this stuff, but I don’t think I am. Like I said NOW is the odd one out in history. People have shown in 100% of cases that they can’t get along with others that are TOO different. This great experiment of mixing everybody together has shown to be a cluster fuck from the get go, and now that we’re losing have an ethnic majority that is de facto in charge it’s just ratcheting up by the day.

        3. Even if multiculturalism can not explode into outright violence I have come to the conclusion that it’s a piss poor way to run a country. Japan doesn’t deal with any of the related hassled we have here because they’re all Japanese. How nice would life be without all these added troubled thrown on top??? It would be friggin’ awesome. History goes in waves, and I think the wave of utopian multiculturalism is coming crashing down before us just like communism did a couple decades back. Keep in mind it’s not that we need to hate anybody else, I sure don’t, it’s just from a pragmatic point of view it’s more trouble than it’s worth. 10-15% minority population between all different types is fine in a country I think, but there must be A MAJORITY of whatever nationality for unity and cohesion of society.

    3. As we’re finally tipping demographically whites are realizing that they’re being treated like shit in the country their ancestors built, while they’re becoming a minority, and getting targeted specifically to be screwed by taxes/policies, the form of government they like is being voted away by people who weren’t even born here in many cases, and thinking about just how shit it’s going to be in another 10 or 20 years. It’s no wonder they’re pissed.

      If secession doesn’t happen shit is gonna get real yo. That’s my predication. This all isn’t what I would pick if I could wave a magic wand, but I think it was inevitable. Human nature makes it unavoidable IMO. You don’t have to like something to accept that it’s real. I don’t like that I can’t fly like Superman, but I’d be a fool if I didn’t accept that reality and tried jumping off the top of a skyscraper.

      I realize this doesn’t sit well with a lot of progressives, or certain types of libertarians, but it’s true by my reckoning. I don’t like it myself, especially being part Mexican I always thought they could be “converted” but it’s a pipedream if they’re more than a small minority of the population. My family assimilated, the ones nowadays aren’t losing their identity the way my family did. You can’t have any country function well without a majority ethnic group in charge, period. You can have a cluster fuck, sure, but not a well run country.

      1. It is not so much whites realizing they are being treated poorly as much as it is the entire center of the country is being dismissed, ignored and marginalized. The best statement I ever heard was on MSNBC (I was shocked as well) by Zbigniew Bzezinski. He said, ” you cannot have a civil, political discourse when one side sees themselves as morally superior, more educated, more entitled and more civilized.” To his daughter horror, he was not talking about the GOP. His comment was clearly directed at the left whom he saw as the main problem and reason for the ever expanding political and cultural divide in this country. All you have to do is look at the insanity on college campuses to realize what is wrong. On Vox yesterday, a reporter was actually arguing you do not have a right of free speech on a college campus. He insisted colleges have a duty to only permit speakers who “expand civil discourse”. You cannot find common ground when you are dealing with people who refuse to accept theirs are not the only opinions and their views are not necessarily always correct or the best option.

        1. You’re completely correct. That’s all true. But what you’re missing is that it’s 95% white people they’re railing against, and everybody knows it. And the left in this country is now 110% dependent on race baiting to win elections. No democratic presidential nominee would have won election for the last several decades without a highly disproportionate percentage of minority votes, and it’s only getting even more that way.

          White self flagellating leftists are half the problem of course, but now the environment they created is starting to eat them alive. Pelosi getting shouted down at her press conference because she wasn’t pandering hard enough to Hispanics for instance. I’ve seen several other videos where white dems were getting shouted down by minorities specifically because they were white. One person outright yelled “Get off the stage, you’re white!” or something to that effect.

          This stuff has always been racial, the fact that it was kept to a minimum recently was a fluke. I don’t like it, but I think it’s swinging back the “normal” way it has always worked hard.

  33. What’s with the chick?

  34. “The solution then was to let people disagree and generally govern themselves without dominating one another. It was an imperfect system, for sure, but it averted a lot of conflict.” Pee in a bottle, jail for possesion, the Reaganista’s, Lee Atwater theory of national leadership. The historians will use 10/1980 as the formal end of this Republic.

    Nancy, boy how is “Just Say Do Blow”, doing? Opps sorry, “Just say 80 bil annually to even the score from the ’60’s and ’70’s”. doing? 80 bil annually. I for one am very glad the gipper was such a fiscal conservative instead of a talentless hack actor and with his idiot barbie wife. Are we all glad?

  35. Now I know how Poland felt when the Nazis and the Communists were fighting over who got to conquer them.

    I don’t want to be “dominated” by either Blue America or Red America. The only good thing about Team Blue and Team Red is the way they manage to deadlock each other. And that’s only good in the sense that living on a battlefield is better than living under tyranny.

  36. From a business prospective there is no question that the NFL owners should have fired players for the protests. The contracts the players have signed allow it, and the protests have certainly hurt the business. From a personal rights stance, the players should be tolerated. I suspect Trump looks at it from both the protesters are wrong about why they are protesting, and that the owners are ignoring the business aspects and the bad effects on all the other employees when businesses start losing money.

  37. The issue is not blue vs red, but more urban vs non-urban. To live in a large urban area, such as NYC, intrusive government control is mandatory. Millions of people cannot exist in confined spaces without very strict, inflexible rules. For this reason, urbanites tend to look to the government to solve all problems because it is the only reality they have never known. In addition, as people we all fear change. It is much harder for an urban dweller to adapt to the freedom and self reliance required to live in rural America than it is for a rural person to live in a large city. Following rules is much easier than learning to live without them when you never have. This divide is driven by a media that no longer is content to just report the news, because they too are immersed in this urban mindset and see anyone outside their world as less civilized and therefore less deserving of respect or attention. Look how many networks immediately began to brand entire sections of the country as racists right after the election. They did not look to find the real reasons for Trump winning, but instead created their own, self-serving narrative based on perceived bigotry. Never before has a President been accused daily of being a white supremacist until now. The concept before would have never been tolerated but today, anything is acceptable as long as it is from the mouth of a progressive or a least a self identified Democrat.

  38. Impossible to find a unifying politics between people who think they are entitled to defend their stuff and those who think they are entitled to steal their stuff.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.