"Polarization" is one of those nice media-friendly buzzwords that gets alot of airtime because it commits publications to nothing whatsoever, politically, while sounding vaguely diagnostic. In the generalized state of system-decay polarization is as expected as the sun is meant to be hot. It is exactly the wrong thing to be bothered with. The only thing 'radical' in such a time of decay is anyone who thinks a bit of 'gently gently' will do the trick.

I agree but I think civil discourse is the only way to deal with issues regarding politics. Trump did fo some positive things with the economy but handled several other things horribly. Biden promises things but seemingly can’t get them done. I’m happy he was the first president to acknowledge the Armenian Genocide as true but this I feel didn’t get enough coverage.

Polarization and division are important. Think of all the one-party or no party states, as uniform as could possibly be. Look at regimes that are unable to suffer dissent. We need more polarization, more division, especially when it comes to power and control. And we should avoid it; we should engage in it.

I agree but I think civil discourse is the only way to deal with issues regarding politics. — Dermot Griffin

I don't. Civil discourse has no value in and of itself. You don't "civil discourse" your way out of fascism. There is a time and place for incivility, and it should be used when necessary. There are people who deserve to be shamed, hounded, and made permanently miserable by all, as a matter of civil good.

If you know anything about Hannah Arendt she called an engagement in politics the vita activa or active life; she subsequently borrowed this term from Scholasticism. If you read the quote above in the initial question the defining part stands out: “The greatest evil perpetrated is the evil committed by nobodies, that is, by human beings who refuse to be persons.” She argued that several of the Nazi’s committed atrocities because they were simply followers, true losers in all honesty. I think we ought to stop being followers and get rid of this herd mentality.

I’m speaking generally but you’re right. You can’t be civil with tyrants. Interestingly of we go back to the study of antiquity not all tyrants were horrible. But sticking with the modern day phenomenon of fascism we cannot be civil with totalitarian regimes.

Polarization was effectively suppressed during those times, though. But in “Eichmann in Jerusalem” she notes of Denmark, which resisted the Nazi program, and even the Gestapo there were destroying orders from Berlin. The “bureaucracy of murder” is only possible in conditions of abject conformity.

I remember a quote from the libertarian radical Albert Jay Nock that was along the lines of the quote you just shared, but from far earlier in the 20th century.

Once, I remember, I ran across the case of a boy who had been sentenced to prison, a poor, scared little brat, who had intended something no worse than mischief, and it turned out to be a crime. The judge said he disliked to sentence the lad; it seemed the wrong thing to do; but the law left him no option. I was struck by this. The judge, then, was doing something as an official that he would not dream of doing as a man; and he could do it without any sense of responsibility, or discomfort, simply because he was acting as an official and not as a man. On this principle of action, it seemed to me that one could commit almost any kind of crime without getting into trouble with one's conscience.

https://mises.org/library/anarchists-progress-0

It’s a combination of herd mentality, or collectivism, allied with statism.

Civil discourse has no value in and of itself. You don't "civil discourse" your way out of fascism. There is a time and place for incivility, and it should be used when necessary. There are people who deserve to be shamed, hounded, and made permanently miserable by all, as a matter of civil good — StreetlightX

I can't help noticing that leaving people 'shamed, hounded and made permanently miserable' is also a favoured strategy of fascism. Perhaps civil discourse does have value in itself. Its value is to restrain us from joining in the shaming, the hounding and the leaving permanently miserable.

Have a look at conflict theory.
Polarisation can be defined as the alignment of conflicting interest groups. The archetypal case is N. Ireland during the 'Troubles'. There was a conflict between Catholics and Protestants. But Catholics were Republicans and Protestants were Loyalists, and Catholics were working-class, and Protestants were middle-class, and Catholics were SDLP and Protestants were DUP.

It is the alignment of these divisions or conflicts that tends to lead to actual physical conflict rather than compromise, whereas when they are not aligned, the individual contains the conflict, being allied with one group on one issue, religion, say, and another group on another issue, politics, say. If your relatives are opposed on some issues, your religious leader is opposed on some issues, your children on some issues, then you are less likely to take an extreme, intolerant, or violent stance. Thus the bubble forming nature of social media can be seen to be a factor tending towards polarisation.

Someone familiar with American society can probably better analyse the alignments there, but they are likely to be broadly the same dimensions of left/right, rich/poor, social/ individual, and perhaps not Protestant /Catholic, but Godly/Godless. Should I add White/non-white? Line them all up, and civil war is the likely outcome.

"system decay" is one of those nice media-friendly buzzwords that gets alot of airtime because it commits publications to nothing whatsoever, politically, while sounding vaguely diagnostic. — StreetlightX

Perhaps civil discourse does have value in itself. Its value is to restrain us from joining in the shaming, the hounding and the leaving permanently miserable. — Cuthbert

It isn't. Because one literally has to live in fantasy land and ignore the entirity of human history to believe this. That what you wrote is patently false is one of the best established facts that we've known since as far back as the Milean dialogue, literally the beginning of history.

Except it isn't, so there's that.

Are we here in the United States more polarized now then we were in the 1960’s? — Dermot Griffin

Probably not. But the poles may be temporarily reversed. In the 60s Liberalism became radicalized, partly in response to the Communist crack-down of the 50s (McCarthyism), and the Black vs White tensions following WWII (Racism). Today, Conservatism has been radicalized largely due to the Fascist ascendancy of the 00s (Trumpism), yet bi-polar racism has been widened & watered-down into a multi-sided array of off-setting -isms. So, we are long overdue for a third or fourth party to dilute our divisions into a less incendiary mixture.

Overall, this bi-polar (Thesis vs Antithesis) push-pull is just a continuation of the political swings that have been going-on since Tribalism became civilized into party Politics. Hegel summarized the dynamics of political discourse as an on-going shouting-match he called "The Dialectic". Just as the Lords vs Commons & Left vs Right polarization of early British parliaments was an over-simplification of a convoluted internal struggle for narrow political interests, the Dialectic diagram is an easy-to-understand model of a complex fermentation of varying opinions on small-scale local issues. Current UK parties : Alliance Party · Conservative Party · Co-operative Party · Democratic Unionist Party · Green Party · Labour Party · Liberal Democrats . . . .

Fortunately for humanity as a whole, this back & forth tug-of-war is usually more-or-less evenly balanced. The Lords have more economic power, but the Commons have more voting numbers. So the overall historical path is a blotchy blend of Black & White into some shade of gray. Unfortunately, it doesn't take much of a spark to push a single-fulcrum balance toward one extreme or the other. For example, the accidental continental conflict we call World War One, set the stage for an even more radically polarized struggle for supremacy of WWII : Right-wing NAZIs on one side, and left-wing Commies on the other.

So, what we see today, especially in the US, is a shifting dialectic balance that could easily be triggered into civil war, as in the 1800s. Meanwhile, internationally, just as the trigger event for WWI was a minor local assassination of a powerful symbolic emperor, the localized attempt by Russia to reunite the Soviet empire (to annex Ukraine bit-by-bit) could again ignite a wider conflict. Yet again, radical nationalism will compete with conservative economic interests and plebeian passions for dominance

Fortunately, the world today is a globalized economy with instant world-wide communication. Therefore, the left/right struggle for power could be fought between Oligarchs vs Oil Companies, or Hackers vs CyberPunks instead of real-world armies. Likewise, the US is no longer easily divided into North & South (industrial & agricultural). Maybe, the US, and the rest of the world, will succeed in holding the historical course, by muddling down the Synthetic middle. Stay tuned. :cool:

DYNAMIC BALANCE ( moderation from competition)

MULTI-PARTY BALANCE (moderation from homogenization)

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hegel-dialectics/

I try not to identify as a progressive or conservative and am not registered as a Democrat or Republican; — Dermot Griffin

Sounds like you are a political moderate, seeking Aristotle's proportionally balanced Golden Mean. But there are always a few people in any group that feel politically marginalized, and may be susceptible to being radicalized by grievance-pandering leaders. Their aim may be to upset the fragile balance of democratic politics in favor of dominance by "our kind of people". Which could result in the oppression of "your kind of people".

I just read an article from NPR (national public radio; which usually tries to maintain a moderate position). The title is : Americans are fleeing to places where political views match. That's one downside of the US interstate & internet mobility,. It allows those on the margins locally to congregate with others of like mind. In some ways this is good. But it could tend to result in pockets of immoderate citizens, who may be motivated to use non-democratic (demagogue) methods to change the whole nation to their way of thinking & feeling.

The recent "insurrection" in Washington is a sign of retro-leaders pointing back to a serene Golden Age (1950s) as a model to "Make America Gibbous Again" (MAGA). Ironically, the original insurrection of 1776 was led primarily by radicalized Liberals, rebelling against colonial Fascism. :chin: :

Gibbous : asymmetrical ; unbalanced :joke:

Americans are fleeing :
https://www.npr.org/2022/02/18/1081295373/the-big-sort-americans-move-to-areas-political-alignment?utm_source=pocket-newtab

Are we here in the United States more polarized now then we were in the 1960’s?
— @Dermot Griffin
Probably not — Gnomon

I think we are much more polarized.

There was some polarization in the 1960s. Vietnam was the principle locus. Also hair length, hippie clothing and lifestyles, "bra burning" (in quotes because very few if any bras were burned) and such cultural issues. On the other hand, congress was much more collaborative; The two "bad guys", Presidents Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon, were not miles apart on many issues. Nixon, for instance, favored treatment as the primary response to drug use. The Watergate scandal did not separate conservatives and liberals -- in congress or the streets. Most people ended up being thoroughly appalled by the Watergate scandal.

Our present state of polarization has been building for quite a long time--way before Donald Trump slithered into office. I'd say it's been building since the last 40 years, ever since Reagan (1980-1988).

One of the theories about polarization says that the leading cause of civil conflict is the rise of marginalized groups, relative to the dominant group. One author put it this way: "white people mind getting poorer less than they mind black people getting richer".

The various minority growth that may tip demographics from white majority to white plurality in 20 years or so, has been accompanied by improvements in income among minorities in many places (certainly not everywhere). Better income, more education, more achievement, etc. It's not a zero sum game. Mexicans going to college doesn't reduce the number of whites in college, and improvement in minority income are not coming out of white people's wages. What is upsetting is the change in relative status.

Racially, the two political parties in the US have become quite different. The Republican Party is mostly white and the Democratic Party is far more open to minorities (latinos, gays, blacks, asians, women, immigrants, etc.).

Economically, the US is mostly working class. The relatively-poor working class and the absolutely-poor working class are sharply divided economically from the 8% to 10% of the population who are either financially comfortable "middle class" or "very wealthy ruling class".

Mass media is a key part of our polarization. Elementary, high school, and even colleges are often less effective in teaching people how to live and think than in the past. Old mass media has largely faded--the three networks, the daily newspapers, and the like. The wild, unregulated internet has taken the place of more "civilized" and centrally controlled institutions.

The Atlanta Constitution, Chicago Tribune, or San Francisco Chronicle were never going to report that a gang of pedophiles was running the US Government. There is nothing to stop QAnon from claiming that there are pedophile orgies on the floor of the senate, or that Hillary Clinton is a reptilian alien.

Conspiracy theories are more compelling than nuts and bolts civics, economics, or public health. So JUST SAY NO! to vaccinations, masks, social distancing, and so on.

The term “moderate” will have to do. As much as I love Aristotle I think his political thought isn’t practical for the world today. Plato’s emphasis on the training of the philosopher-king by bettering his soul, living a life in accordance with arete, with virtue, needs to make a comeback in a modern form. Roman history shows us that we can get people like Cicero, Cato the Younger, Seneca, or Marcus Aurelius. And we can also get a Julius Caesar (I’m about to start reading his Commentaries on the Civil War).

Despite their polar opposite political approaches, they detested the position of a king.

Because one literally has to live in fantasy land and ignore the entirity of human history to believe this. — StreetlightX

I do believe that shaming and hounding are favoured strategies of fascism (examples - passim). I do believe that using these strategies can degrade a person and make them indistinguishable from their opponents (more examples - you can think of them). I think there are examples of non-violent resistance that have been at least partially successful and equally successful as the violent kinds (some examples you can supply). But I do agree with your implication that passivity, civility and non-resistance can seem to be and may sometimes actually be naive. So it's not ignoring all human history. It's drawing attention to some of it. These are the modest fruits of debate.

Milean dialogue — StreetlightX

Melian? Sure, the stronger prevail (examples - passim). Whether might is right is another question.

There was some polarization in the 1960s. Vietnam was the principle locus. — Bitter Crank

Watts 1965, Detroit 1966, M L King 1968..... I think the polarisation of the past can look less serious just because it is in the past.

I think the polarisation of the past can look less serious just because it is in the past. — Cuthbert

"It's not even past" Faulkner said. But yes, past polarization fades over time.

Black-white relations in the US have always been polar, slave and master, 'boy' and 'sir', down and up, urban and suburban, and so forth. I didn't experience the riots of the '60s because I ws living out in the sticks. I have, though, read their history -- before the '60s, and urban riots later on.

I still don't think we were so polarized then (say, 1950 to 1980) as we have been since 1980, and much less so then than we are now. That isn't to say that the conditions that led to the riots were bad -- they were. But immiseration isn't the same as polarization.

We need more polarization, more division, especially when it comes to power and control. And we should avoid it; we should engage in it. — NOS4A2

I don't. Civil discourse has no value in and of itself. You don't "civil discourse" your way out of fascism. There is a time and place for incivility, and it should be used when necessary. There are people who deserve to be shamed, hounded, and made permanently miserable by all, as a matter of civil good. — StreetlightX

Our upholders of democracy and freedom. :snicker:

It's not the Polarization that is critical, it's the Delusion. Fascism requires of its followers their complete faith in the Party Line, however bizarre and completely impossible in return for Political Power. The Racist does not enslave because be believes in the inferiority of his victims; he believes in their inferiority in order to enslave them; and this willingness to bend one's convictions to one's deepest, nastiest desires is the gift and the terror of the Fascist Leader.

The Proletariat, the Mob, the Common People, those whose education forces them to chose their convictions through the people, attitudes, lifestyles and so forth they think of as associated with or belonging to those who hold such convictions; in other words, whose convictions are the result of emotional impulse and not rational inquiry, will always be vulnerable to vicious, hateful Demagoguery, so that one's only protection from Despotism is the honest devotion of the ruling classes of one's society to Universal Rights and Suffrage as their only means of protecting their own rights and the Rule of Law. Once any Leader and group of Quislings decides they'd rather have present Power than the Wondrous Goods of Democracy and Lawful Society preserved for their Descendants, it's easy for them to inflame and enrage the Masses.

So, yeah, we, and worse, global society, is more polarized than anytime since the last time white people went insane (when they called their psychosis the Third Reich), and it is being very deliberately fostered by those who wish to Rule The Earth forever.

Be very afraid.

I do believe that shaming and hounding are favoured strategies of fascism (examples - passim). I do believe that using these strategies can degrade a person and make them indistinguishable from their opponents (more examples - you can think of them). — Cuthbert

This is one of those sweet little liberal talking points that can only get trotted out by someone who has never given a moment's thought to the issue. If you lack the cognitive capacity to recognize the difference between when a fascist is trying to murder your whole family and someone acting decisively - and in some cases violently against that, then consider that the problem is you. That if you seriously cannot 'distinguish' between that, then you lose all rights to make any political judgements - in fact any judgements at all. Your inability to 'distinguish' is a commentary on you, and a complete and utter lack of political principle, not others. Your inability to make distinctions - the fact that your judgement can be so utterly, barbarously compromised - is not something to be proud of. It is shameful.

Seriously, people think politics is like a video game where you pick the right multiple-choice option and the fascist goes away. That's not how the world works. We didn't nicely-nicely the Nazi's away. We burned their cities to the fucking ground and killed them all - they were blown to a thousand blood-soaked meat pieces, in the tens of thousands. This was a universal, unalloyed good. Well, right up until the US put them all into leadership positions after the fact. This being after the West did their best to 'appease' the Germans, for years.

One author put it this way: "white people mind getting poorer less than they mind black people getting richer". — Bitter Crank

That reminds me of a quip my non-racist mother made during the racial tensions of the 60s. In the early 20th century, she grew up in the Black Belt where white people were a tiny minority (maybe 10%), but owned about 90% of the property. (My mother's family was "land poor", and her father was the mule-wagon equivalent of a truck driver). Her remark was probably a common sentiment during post-civil-war reconstruction, when "carpet baggers" (northerners) made sure that black people got a larger share of political power. To former top or middle rail whites, it seemed that "bottom rail's on top", referring to the horizontal rails of a wooden fence.

Of course, blacks never made it to the top in any large numbers, during reconstruction or during the Black Power movement. But, they were becoming more visible in positions of power and wealth. So middle-class whites seemed to feel that they were in danger of becoming the "bottom rail". Ironically. black politicians & money-makers, while doing much better, remain only a token percentage of the wealth & power distribution. At the same time, the middle class of whites & blacks are sliding downward, due to the concentration of wealth at the very top. So, both the "middle rail" and "bottom rail" are far from the "top rail".

Ironically, a billionaire like Trump seems to appeal to middle & lower class whites, because he implies that he will "make America white again". Some people feel that a top vs bottom racial polarization is more natural than an egalitarian society. :cool:

Wealth inequality in the United States :
The gap between the wealth of the top 10% and that of the middle class is over 1,000%; that increases another 1,000% for the top 1%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States

Land Poor :
: In a condition of poverty as a result of inability to meet tax payments or other financial requirements for one's land holdings.

RAIL FENCE

The term “moderate” will have to do. As much as I love Aristotle I think his political thought isn’t practical for the world today. — Dermot Griffin

I suspect that Aristotle's motto of "moderation in all things" was adopted by the Stoics as the best path to happiness. Like the Buddha, they saw that striving for the top is more likely to result in Strife than Harmony.

Ironically, those who are motivated to radically change society, typically end-up flipping the poles, while continuing the polarization. Example, Communism in Russia toppled the upper class, but did little for the lowest classes. They merely replaced the Czarists with party chiefs, who eventually became Oligarchs. And the bottom class remains stuck in serfdom. The same pattern holds for Democratic revolutions, as in France & America, where hereditary aristocracy was replaced -- in theory -- with a meritocracy. So Ari & Siddhartha (both aristocrats) would advise that we be content with the status quo. On the other hand, world history of moderation would be boring without all the striving & strife, heroes & villains. :cool:

Meritocracy : a ruling or influential class of educated or skilled people.

That if you seriously cannot 'distinguish' between that, then you lose all rights to make any political judgements - in fact any judgements at all. — StreetlightX

Finding excuses to deprive others of rights is another favoured strategy of tyrants. . My point is that these things are very tempting. We can all be tyrants or fascists, given the circumstances that allow it. Can we get rid of tyrants by being nice to them? No, you are right. We can't. Civil discourse is of no use when they break your door down and make you disappear. Can we prevent ourselves becoming tyrants? Yes, we can. That's where civil discourse comes in. Am I ashamed? For my sins, certainly, yes.

My point is that these things are very tempting — Cuthbert

Sure, but politics requires risk. There's this liberal impulse to insulate oneself and others from risk entirely, as if following abstract, content-indifferent rules - substituting a bureaucracy for a politics - might create a nice bubble wraped chamber in which everyone can live happily ever after. It becomes a point of pride that one cannot make distinctions - that one effectively gives up on thinking - because making distinctions and actually thinking beyond formalisms and tautologies carries with it even the slightest hint of risk. At best it is thinking for toddlers: fascists do X, and you flirt with X, so therefore you are fascist. This is like playing word-assocation and pretending this is some profound, holier-than-thou point.

But making a virtue out of spinelessness and thoughtlessness and then equivocating between fascists and their opposition is to make oneself an enabler and paver on the road to hell.

equivocating between fascists and their opposition — StreetlightX

The distinction I am making is between people who beat down your door to make you disappear and people who prefer dealing in civil discourse. It's a practical, content-sensitive distinction and the difference is plain to anyone who has or even has not faced that kind of threat. The ease with which the seemingly best-intentioned people can turn from the latter into the former is frightening. Whether they call themselves 'fascists' or anything else is, as you say, not covered by this distinction.

The distinction I am making is between people who beat down your door to make you disappear and people who prefer dealing in civil discourse. — Cuthbert

Certaintly. Because you have made it a point of pride to gauge your eyes out over other distinctions that escape this poorly drawn turnstile. It's a liberal Bushism: either you civil discourse, or you're a fascist. Self-incapacity passing for principle.

--

As to the larger point of the OP: it's as if, trapped in a burning building, walls crushing down on people, pundits cry out: Why is everyone so PoLaRiZed? These people may as well side with the walls and fire.

Ok, but I'm getting a bit lost in the debate. I think your fury and contempt may be getting in the way of you making the point. Of course when the secret police are at your door then no civil discourse will save you, whatever political name they give themselves. Where does my distinction collapse into name-calling? What is self-incapacity? Which Bush? and possibly other questions.

Your response to the idea that there are politics beyond civil discourse was to immediately reach for the alarm bell of fascism, and transplant your inability to make distinctions into a feature of the world itself. I just don't think arrogating personal thoughtlessness into a general principle makes for good politics.

As to the larger point of the OP: it's as if, trapped in a burning building, walls crushing down on people, pundits cry out: Why is everyone so PoLaRiZed? These people may as well side with the walls and fire. — StreetlightX

But you aren't trapped in a burning building with the walls crushing down on you. Australia isn't on the verge of collapse. You're just spending your time debating issues with strangers that likely are on another continent.

There's a time and a moment when civil discourse cannot do anything. But the usual option then is for people to go the guns. And remember who have the guns.