>> To me, history demonstrates that it's simply idealism to believe that people can, in aggregate, come together on complex, polarizing issues.
Just look at how much the majority opinion on dozens of topics has changed over the past few decades. Marijuana legalization. Gay marriage. Mass incarceration.
Lots and lots of change happens in the hearts and minds of lots and lots of people without force being involved. People often change their views very gradually, over time, as they realize aspects of things which weren't apparent to them before. A big part of this is often empathetic discussions with the people around them.
I think you, and other commenters in this thread, seem to imply that the assumptive goal is to change someone's mind RIGHT NOW, or else just force them to do what you know is right, and ignore their wrongheadedness.
The civil war was a serious net benefit to humanity by outlawing slavery. But the underlying concerns of Southerners, which was the dismantling of their economy, was never addressed. This has led to generational poverty in the south which has never been fully undone, and created a fertile field for the southern strategy and Jim Crow, which are arguably continuing to affect us in the form of the current presidential campaign.
Force may have been necessary, but a deeper understanding might have made the aftermath of force far better.
Since you raise it as an example: in the UK opposition to gay marriage (and a few years earlier, more basic gay issues) didn't melt away through empathetic discussion or addressing their concerns but simply from the government going ahead and doing it (I doubt they'd have gone to war for it if it were necessary, but that underlines the point about might being more significant than right in the debate). Public opinion tended to shift more when decisions were made and the debate stopped.
One of the first things to realise about people's apparently very strong views is that often they're simply echoing what they think is the majority view (but they generally really won't like you pointing that out). A second is that often they change quite swiftly when people stop talking about it. Not only are they not constantly being reminded that X is bad by people and sources they trust, but they also don't feel obliged to keep defending a position they held a couple of years ago when not regularly prompted to justify it.
I think this is right. Societal change makes it feel safer to hold the new opinion than the old one. A lot of people who have "changed their minds" about gay people are actually just making a pragmatic adaptation to the realities of modern life (consciously or subconsciously).
> Just look at how much the majority opinion on dozens of topics has changed over the past few decades
The new majority opinion is held by a largely different set of people than the one from a few decades ago. People born in the 19th century still mostly think what they thought before, they're just too dead for it to matter.
My experience is different. Anecdotally, in New York City, I know dozens of people who used to be uncomfortable with same-sex-marriage who now consider it a great thing and a right.
Nearly everywhere else in the world, slavery ended peacefully. A deeper understanding would have stopped the sad loss of more than 600 thousand lives, nearly half the death toll of all U.S. conflicts.
Just look at how much the majority opinion on dozens of topics has changed over the past few decades. Marijuana legalization. Gay marriage. Mass incarceration.
Joeboy beat me to it, but I'll reiterate: that's not compromise. It's just change. Don't confuse the two.
And for those on the "losing" side of that change, there's an incredible amount of consternation.
> for those on the "losing" side of that change, there's an incredible amount of consternation.
I think that depends very much on the topic. For instance - there was once a point in my life where I was opposed to state-sanctioned same-sex marriage. My reasons for this were complex, and not based on a fear or hatred of homosexuals. Over time I came around on it, and by the time SCOTUS ruled on it I was supportive of it (though not of the legal reasoning they cited).
On the other hand, my views on gun rights have not changed, and I cannot envision a point where they would. If Heller were to be overturned I would not "accepting" of it in even the smallest way.
In other words some issues are core beliefs and some issues are secondary. Peoples views on secondary beliefs change over time, but core beliefs are not something that I have often seen changed.
I think that, had Lincoln lived, Reconstruction would have looked very different. Arguably, Lincoln's assassins destroyed the South for 100+ years by trying to save it.
Just look at how much the majority opinion on dozens of topics has changed over the past few decades. Marijuana legalization. Gay marriage. Mass incarceration.
Lots and lots of change happens in the hearts and minds of lots and lots of people without force being involved. People often change their views very gradually, over time, as they realize aspects of things which weren't apparent to them before. A big part of this is often empathetic discussions with the people around them.
I think you, and other commenters in this thread, seem to imply that the assumptive goal is to change someone's mind RIGHT NOW, or else just force them to do what you know is right, and ignore their wrongheadedness.
The civil war was a serious net benefit to humanity by outlawing slavery. But the underlying concerns of Southerners, which was the dismantling of their economy, was never addressed. This has led to generational poverty in the south which has never been fully undone, and created a fertile field for the southern strategy and Jim Crow, which are arguably continuing to affect us in the form of the current presidential campaign.
Force may have been necessary, but a deeper understanding might have made the aftermath of force far better.