One party literally tried a violent coup. The leading contender for said party is openly declaring the intention to overturn the constitution and jail his opponents.
The current party in power explicitly supported groups of protesters who left a trail of broken windows and looted merchandise.
See, it's easy to characterize a political ideology around the worst of them.
The current party in power repeatedly said that rioting != valid protest and nominated an aggressively boring candidate for president instead of a left-wing ideologue. The current party in power is still fundamentally controlled by its centrists; the other got taken over by its fringe.
And nothing that Democrats have done comes close to Republicans failing to impeach Trump, supporting his efforts to overturn election, etc.
I'm insulted you think the rest of us are too stupid to easily spot the differences or something
edit: what does "in power" currently mean anyways? One party controls the executive branch, the other the legislative.
Perhaps we can discuss how this might be avoided, particularly, what can be done by citizens now, while keeping as off topic any discussion of the politics.
Engagement across ideologies seems to be part of the solution but when, where and how does this happen?
Know someone who was just wrong about COVID? to the point you cut them off? see if you can talk to them again.
That person you un-followed because they're so blind about $WAR and totally on the wrong side? Perhaps realize that neither of you are actually involved int hat war, and you share many things that are totally unrelated to it, too. You can still talk about those things.
Basically embrace "we can agree to disagree" and explore all of those areas of dialogue other than the things you find contentious with someone.
It can be done. It doesn't "pollute your mind with both-sideism" or anything like that. People used to consider it a worthy habit, even.
> Know someone who was just wrong about COVID? to the point you cut them off? see if you can talk to them again.
I knew someone like that. I cut him off (just in that conversation, not the whole relationship). Turns out that, as we learned more about COVID, he was not completely wrong like I thought he was.
But I can't talk to him again. He was my father, and he died last year.
No, you'll just be another keyboard warrior of the internet operating in an echo chamber
Do it IRL with people whom you have rapport with
I've been doing something like "If America is to be great again... what did it do when it was great? What would happen if the US slinks away into isolationism? Who would fill that power vacuum? (hint, China)... related arguments for Ukraine, but also it's very cheap comparatively"
My belief, is we can't, because it is ingrained in half the population's mind that violence is indeed an answer to disputes and conflict.
This is why people support the 2nd amendment, to keep government "in check" (although the SCOTUS recently changed their reading to "self defense", too tangent for this discussion). If they feel they aren't getting their way, they have guns to back up their voices. I don't agree with this mentality, but it's the mentality I've seen and experienced.
When you talk with your friends and neighbors, how is the tough part. I've been trying to understand and sway a MAGA friend. It ain't easy, because you have to see their MAGA viewpoint first, then show them how their talking points are counter-productive to their goals, and how what they are against will actually do better. I'm mainly working on their Ukraine | isolationist ideas right now.
The strongman / populism is difficult to deal with, I haven't figured out how, so I don't push on it so much now. Hopefully the orange man digs a hole too deep for himself he cannot crawl out, but it seems to be shaping up for a rerun of 2020...
> Engagement across ideologies seems to be part of the solution
I don't know why people say this, as if such engagement wouldn't cause people to dislike each other more.
If you take two opposed people who are firmly on different ideological sides, they would have to be pretty intelligent and capable of above-average emotional control and awareness to truly or productively engage, and then, in the best case, they realize their normative views about things are fundamentally incompatible and maybe it would be better if they didn't share a country after all.
Take the average progressive Manhattanite and have them talk to an upper middle class businessman from suburban Ohio or something who continues to vote Republican; I think their worldviews would be totally distinct and divergent in a way that no good faith attempt could bridge. And of course one can imagine various pairings who might be even more divergent.
Contemporary America is really testing the kind of normative gap people can have while being part of the same country, and I worry we will find out that you really can't have that.
Core beliefs are the same. Did you see the video about the ballcap wearing woman at a Trump rally? Same Qanon beliefs, but now the Space Force has the evidence and is going to sweep Trump back into power.
The difference is that now Qanon swill/lies are absolutely mainstream Republican beliefs.
Indeed, but this one is more specific, and alarming:
"Americans (23%) agree that "because things have gotten so far off track, true American patriots may have to resort to violence in order to save our country," "
I don't recall that ever being a poll question.
Also note that mass murderous events such as the holocaust or Rwandan genocide were preceded by significant increase in violent rhetoric.
I wonder how slightly different wording of that question, or prompting with examples would alter the numbers. 23% is higher than I'd expect for the question as it was worded, and yet I wouldn't be surprised to see a 50% number if a pollster linked it to a specific hot-button issue.
My personal belief is that we're on a downward trend for political violence. Mainstream media acceptance of violence was very high when it was associated with BLM protests, with violence being "the voice of the unheard" and a valid reaction to an unjust judicial system. Perhaps peaking with California's Maxine Waters pretty clearly calling for violence if the Chauvin trial didn't have her desired outcome.
Fortunately, after Jan 6th, the mainstream media did a hard 180 on their treatment of political violence. Obviously there will always be fringe elements agitating and exaggerating, but it looks like the mainstream narratives now are more about fixing the system and/or working within it, rather than burning the system down or using violence to intimidate the people in the system to appease protestors.
> it looks like the mainstream narratives now are more about fixing the system and/or working within it, rather than burning the system down or using violence to intimidate the people in the system to appease protestors.
for now, but like the examples you mentioned, things can pop off at any moment, esp with an election year ramping up + global conflicts
