TPF : Polarization

[Gnomon]

Political Polarization
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... larization

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.

DYNAMIC BALANCE ( moderation from competition)
Dialectic%2007-14-07.jpg
MULTI-PARTY BALANCE (moderation from homogenization)
3_Phil_System.png
https://plato.stanford.ed

[Gnomon]

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/2022/02/18/10812953 ... ket-newtab

[Gnomon]

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.

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_in ... ted_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
https://www.americantimberandsteel.com/ ... il5Web.jpg

[Gnomon]

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.

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