I’d be very surprised if the number of people with overtly racist attitudes is really that low. Some of this depends on how you define “overt racism,” but I would say you don’t have to be in the KKK to qualify. People who say things like “Black Lives Matter is a terrorist group,” should be counted in the overtly racist crowd.
You’re using a substantially broader definition of “overtly racist” than I. The definition I am most accustomed to is an individual who believes that it is justifiable to discriminate against another individual based on race. Someone may agree that “BLM is a terrorist group” and at the same time believe that discrimination based on race is immoral.
Regarding whether trends of racism are more highly correlated to age than political affiliation, that’s may be true, but Republicans are older than Democrats, too, so it’s hard to parse that data and know whether age or party affiliation is really the stronger predictor of racism:
True, but we have history as our guide as well. If you are in your 70’s and from the South, racism was a socially acceptable belief during your formative years. If you’re in your 40’s and 50’s from the same location……not true.
Liberalism isn’t seeking to uproot social structures or value systems in the same fundamental ways as radicalism. As an example, a liberal might say the Senate should be less corrupt, while a radical might say the Senate shouldn’t even exist.
Hence my comment about the cure being worse that the disease. To use this example, if the Senate were not to exist, that means that the Constitution is no longer in effect; if the Constitution is no longer in effect, that means that the rule of law was upset by revolutionary activity; and if revolutionary activity of that scale were to occur, the economy of the US would be fucked up for a generation, with a crashing standard of living.
That said, on a broad level, radicalism has probably subsided compared to the Civil Rights era, but there are still radicals around, trying to make a difference.
In a nation the economic and bureaucratic size of the US, overall radical political change is impossible, and if it WERE to occur, the medicine could very well be worse than the disease.
Radicalism serves to change the discourse. It could be that not even incremental change is possible without radical voices talking about things the mainstream would rather ignore.
Sure. And that sort of activism, in my view, acts as a “conscience” on the traditional liberals and conservatives, reminding them that the Dollar isn’t everything, eh?
That is not remotely how things have worked during the American slide rightward in the Fox News and Citizens United era. The right is also diverse in its priorities. A given Republican may prefer a stronger military, while another prefers smaller government. No two are going to have the same list of priorities.
Hm. I mentioned issues of policy; you mentioned issues of governmental philosophy. Not sure you’ve created good analogy there. The former is what you want to happen, the latter is what we want the nation to be.
As you have noted, this trend, itself, is changing. Household formation doesn’t mean at all what it used to. Seeing as how America’s birthrate has been dropping, and is basically at an all-time low, those soccer games aren’t going to be such a distraction anymore.
When stock investors get together and discuss investment philosophies, when one really wants to ding another person that he disagrees with, he says “Oh, you think this time it’s different, eh?”
What you’re arguing is “this time it’s different”. I’ll have to disagree. This has all happened before and will all happen again.
Trump. The most reprehensible candidate in modern history, *especially* on millenial issues, and he pulled as many millenial voters as Romney did. Good God, if this was Rubio instead of Trump, the columns would be matched.
I’ll have to take the other side of the trade. Political choices are made to a large extent according to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs.
When you’re a young single urban individual, especially a professional, you don’t need much $$$, in relation to your income, to meet your Basic Needs. Then you marry; household formation occurs. The amount of $$$ you need to cover your basic needs jumps; your income doesn’t jump nearly as quickly. You start scrutinizing your deductions to see where all the money you thought you had is now going. That deduction for federal income tax looks mighty large, and mighty annoying.
A substantial percentage of millenials who today consider themselves “liberals” will end up voting conservative in future elections. You may disagree, but I can think of no surer bet in the world.
I’m not sure how you can believe it is a pendulum when it used to be that women could not vote, but now women can vote, and it used to be that black Americans were enslaved by white slavers, and now are not.
You already agreed with me above when you said That is not remotely how things have worked during the American slide rightward in the Fox News and Citizens United era.
When there is a “slide leftward”, in the examples you give and in more contemporary matters such as Social Security and Medicaid, what occurs is that those new institutions become generally accepted as part of the societal fabric. But if such change occurs too quickly, or the change is not fiscally sustainable (the ACA may well fall into that category) the pendulum shifts backwards again to clean up the excesses.
I think a problem with the analogy to pendulums, progressions, and poles is that there are a lot of processes and poles in play, and the poles themselves are not static. We can simultaneously progress toward a conservative pole on one metric and a progressive pole on another.
Oh, I agree completely. I’m a huge believer in this sort of view as superior to the simplistic “right-left” pablum that the politicos try to feed us (I don’t necessarily agree with the placements of the individuals nor the ideologies on this grid, but I do agree that political ideologies don’t line up neatly on an X axis.)