Your world is so neat.

Thanks?

Oh, I thought I was pointing out a flaw...

I wasn’t sure.

In any case, I’m not painting the entire left-right divide as exactly like what I just described, but rather noticing that symmetrical deviations from that nice neat philosophy closely match two extant ideological groups. All the people in those groups are going to vary a lot. A general pattern isn’t a strict law

Do we have two populations, left and right, that would show up as significant in a T-test?

I doubt it. More like the two sides of a normal distribution.

Sure, and I’m not saying anything contrary to that.

Can you explain to me what do you think is in the air these days that induces a bright, ambitious young woman to get herself into Harvard and then, after graduating and nailing a high status job at a big time accounting firm, posts a TikTok video that immediately renders her unsuitable for employment anywhere?
[...]
What is in the air? And why is it happening? The answer is that these ideas have been percolating by design in academia for decades; and this woman is a product of forces far beyond her understanding. Forces from the top, and not from the bottom. — fishfry

Kinda, sorta. It's from the top, but not as far up as you think. This trend has been happening literally forever. Democracy = progressivism. The only way to go is left, and left means breaking up any concentrations of (official) power.

Have kids been brainwashed? Yes. Did that all originate from some powerful, globalist cabal? No.

"Public opinion" is the well of power that has been drilled by the universities and the press, the rest is human nature. How do you insulate the once noble institutions from the corruption of power? You get rid of the middleman.

There is a culture war going on now in the United States, because a culture war has been going on here since the getgo, 1620, or there about.

How could that be?

The American colonies were set up for the benefit of the ruling class of England, and required the suppression of both aboriginal culture (yea, their very existence) and the cultures of those brought here to labor--to do the hard work for others making the money. White indentured workers and black slaves both got bad deals, though the blacks got a considerably worse deal.

The on-going exploitation of white labor, black slaves, and later black and white labor (never mind the genocide of the aboriginals) has been de-emphasized in favor of the story of triumphant bourgeoisie progress up to and including the present moment.

Resistance to the oppression of workers crops up regularly; so far, the working class has been unable to gain the upper-hand over the ruling class. Black Lives Matter is one more chapter in the efforts of working people (this time primarily blacks) to get out from under the heavy hand of the bourgeois capitalists.

This will not be the last chapter, rest assured.

There is utterly a culture war. I place the blame squarely at the feet of the DEMOCRATIC PARTY.

At some point, some democratic strategist had a bright idea. It made so much sense! If the party moved to the left, what would that gain them? They were already the party of the left, and all votes to that side of the spectrum were effectively won. But what if they moved to the right? The left had nowhere else to go, the logic of winner takes all makes the emergence of a third party challenger unlikely. But suddenly, a whole universe of "reasonable republicans" would become accessible to their ballot boxes. They could only win!

The Republicans might have responded by moving to meet them in the center. But they were cannier than that, they understood their side better: the right is not really about ideals, unless a tribal fealty to power is an ideal. So then, they moved to the right, and took their whole party with them. The democrats didn't gain shit. But, being morons, they chased after the republicans, left their whole base behind them, and became the party of nothing. The republicans, happy to oblige, moved themselves ever further right, straight into the abyss.

Now we have a left which is abandoned, incohate, powerless, bewildered, and despairing, and a right, still delirious with their monumental upset in 2016, which has evolved into a full blown fascist clown cult. Media algorithms have further segregated the two sides to the point where they don't share a common frame of reference, they both walk the earth, but live in entirely separate worlds. They are entirely separate cultures, and entirely opposed. In such a situation, the "culture" war may plausibly be a prelude to plain, war.

Black Lives Matter is one more chapter in the efforts of working people (this time primarily blacks) to get out from under the heavy hand of the bourgeois capitalists. — Bitter Crank

LOL BLM represents the working class. That's funny. The working class's number 1 priority has always been Trans Rights, so I guess it makes sense.

I think we’re past the culture wars. One side didn’t show up. Thus most institutions lean in a certain direction. Nowadays it’s closer to a cultural revolution than war. Year-zero stuff—struggle sessions, class conflict, iconoclasm, and a taste for ideological purges. What isn’t certain is whether this consolidation of power will last or whether it is merely the death throes of a failing ideology.

Unfortunately I think it will stay, the foundations are too strong (academia churns out new brainwashed minions every year), to firmly entrenched in the minds of the general populace. It will fail, its designed to suicide itself, but not before their pound of flesh becomes a ton. Not before we repeat modern histories worst.

I think we’re past the culture wars. One side didn’t show up. Thus most institutions lean in a certain direction. — NOS4A2

The war is not for culture, though. It's for power. One side doesn't want it, they just want to stop the power grab. They're too concerned with culture, because "politics is downstream of culture." Well, that depends on the power structure.

So they did actually show up to the culture war, with their culture of conserving the system.

Really? I am quite sure democracy is about empowering the people and the first formal democracy is at least as old as Athens when citizens with nothing to loose because they were not property owners fled when Athens was invaded leaving only the top 1% to defend Athens with their private armies. When the Perians began invading, a serious defense was needed so the top 1% made a deal with the people who didn't own land. In turn for military service, they would get a say in government. The left and right is that simple. How do we justify the peasants having a say in anything?


Here is another to understand the left and right...

"Polanyi, who fled fascist Europe in 1933 and eventually taught at Columbia University, wrote that a self-regulating market turned human beings and the natural environment into commodities, a situation that ensures the destruction of both society and the natural environment. He decried the free market's assumption that nature and humans are objects whose worth is determined by the market. He reminded us that a society that no longer recognizes that nature and human life have a sacred dimension, an intrinsic worth beyond monetary value, unltimately commits collective suicide. Such societies cannibalize themselves unto they die. Speculative exesses and growing inequality, he wrote, always destroy the foundation for a continued prosperity." Empire of Illusion ny Chris Hedges

It is odd that Christians tend be on the right, while those with no god to care for them, tend to be on the left.

Our democracy is open to change by reason and consensus. We do not need to change that. We need to read and talk and realize what has gone wrong and how to right that wrong. — Athena

Some people hate here the idea of consensus changing the democracy. Too bourgeois, I guess.

The war is not for culture, though. It's for power. One side doesn't want it, they just want to stop the power grab. They're too concerned with culture, because "politics is downstream of culture." Well, that depends on the power structure.

So they did actually show up to the culture war, with their culture of conserving the system.

I think the current political hegemony in culture—academia, the press, Hollywood, Silicon Valley, corporate America—is quite a bit more powerful than the winning of elections. Even the most conservative of politicians is forced to play catch-up to it. Even to mention what the Chief Justice of the United States said 30 years ago would be to render oneself unfit for office in the public eye.

I see it. A world that is too neat is just no world at all.

There is utterly a culture war. I place the blame squarely at the feet of the DEMOCRATIC PARTY. — hypericin

Clever, but would you care to try to root that in any reality? Maybe some historical details? Maybe some names? Because the history since before Eisenhower has been - mostly - Democrats being the good guys and Republicans back in the alleys and dark corners stealing what they could. Scorecard:
Eisenhower, good guy.
Kennedy, good guy.
Johnson, good guy.
Nixon, bad guy, but merely a crook, not really an ideological bead guy.
Ford, good guy.
Carter, good guy.
Reagan, dumb guy, ultimately a bad guy.
Bush I, bad and good, but here comes the likes of Karl Rove, an absolute weasel and scoundrel.
Clinton. Can you say, "the economy"? Good guy.
Bush II, who because of Trump, and maybe Warren Harding is not the worst. Bad guy.
Obama, good guy. And because he's African-American, he had to be at least twice as good, and he was.
Trump, Adolf Beauregard Trump. Corruption and incompetence that imo will secure for him for all time the bottom of the barrel. An atrociously bad guy.

And the rats that always seem to ride the Republican lines. Newt Gingrich, for example, but now we have hoards of horrors. Name for me Republicans with any integrity, honour, decency, or even an understanding of basic American values. Anyone?

BLM is legitimately described as a working class group, pretty much, in terms of their demographics and many of their aspirations. Their espousal of "trans rights" is hard to square with anything. "Trans rights" has, for some reason beyond me, become a major cultural enterprise. Bizarro world.

Because the history since before Eisenhower has been - mostly - Democrats being the good guys — tim wood

Before Eisenhower?

Weren't Democrats the one's that came up with the great idea of the Confederacy?

Or how about quotes from Democrat President Woodrow Wilson:

Segregation is not humiliating, but a benefit, and ought to be so regarded by you gentlemen.

In the matter of Chinese and Japanese coolie immigration, I stand for the national policy of exclusion. We cannot make a homogenous population out of people who do not blend with the Caucasian race… Oriental Coolieism will give us another race problem to solve and surely we have had our lesson.

There's your democrats! Better than Trump? Great guy. :roll:

Quite a lengthy reply from someone who didn't trouble to read past my first sentence!

Because the history since before Eisenhower has been - mostly - Democrats being the good guys
— tim wood
Before Eisenhower? — ssu

Point. I was thinking Roosevelt and Truman.

Your thesis does not square with the reality of an absence of army barracks full of peace loving tie-died hippies.

It is odd that Christians tend be on the right, while those with no god to care for them, tend to be on the left. — Athena

Not odd at all. I define the right as a "Tribalistic fealty to power". A spiritual hierarchy of Immigrants < Unbelievers < Believers < Wealthy Believers < Priests & Anointed Politicians < J-Man & G-Man holds appeal for those with this kind of disposition.

Quite a lengthy reply from someone who didn't trouble to read past my first sentence! — hypericin

Oh, but I did.
My two cents worth is that mainstream Eisenhower-Republicans were forced out by the direction the Republican party was being taken in, and now are in - vote the - Democrat party. And that the Republican party since Nixon has been behind the scenes a criminal enterprise. No doubt there are links to pre-WW2 history, but imo they're by now remote.

The US doesn't have a representative democracy because it works with plurality. People are becoming aware the political system doesn't work for their benefit and the minority that benefitted from it thinks there's a culture war going on. Lol.

The US doesn't have a representative democracy because it works with plurality. People are becoming aware the political system doesn't work for their benefit and the minority that benefitted from it thinks there's a culture war going on. Lol. — Benkei

What people want and what works for them are two different things.

I think we’re past the culture wars. One side didn’t show up. Thus most institutions lean in a certain direction. Nowadays it’s closer to a cultural revolution than war. — NOS4A2

Good point!
It is possible to frame the current situation differently.

The war is not for culture, though. It's for power. One side doesn't want it, they just want to stop the power grab. They're too concerned with culture, because "politics is downstream of culture." Well, that depends on the power structure. — Kev

The culture, the culture war is just one dimension of the unfolding conflict. There are a few active agents,
parties, or institutions that shape and articulate its meaning. May be, in general, they do not care about culture at all. But in this particular moment, some significant symbols can acquire the primary importance. A while ago, Trump probably was not interested in culture or history. Nevertheless, after the Mount Rushmore speech, he can make his 'defence' of American heritage (and Mount Rushmore monuments) the main message of his campaign. Therefore, the culture war may escalate.

Even the most conservative of politicians is forced to play catch-up to it. — NOS4A2

This has always been the case. Things either progress, or progress slowly; those are the options. Specific policies are irrelevant, the general constitution of the power structure is what progresses. Public opinion becomes more and more powerful, and more and more people try to get ahead of it for their own little piece of power. And there is no cost to the public that can be directly linked to having the wrong opinion, so there is no self-correction.

A while ago, Trump probably was not interested in culture or history. Nevertheless, after the Mount Rushmore speech, he can make his 'defence' of American heritage (and Mount Rushmore sculptures) the main message of his campaign. Therefore, the culture war may escalate. — Number2018

And then what? There is no winning option on the right. The culture will continue to change in the direction it always has. Like I said above, there are two options: progress, or slower progress.

There is no winning option on the right. The culture will continue to change in the direction it always has — Kev

May be. In today's political environment, predictions do not matter. What matters is the instant alignment of active forces. To articulate the most powerful and clear message, to control the current agenda - right now.