Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Is America splitting apart?


Recommended Posts

And where is it going to end? I've considered this for some time as I watch the increasing levels of invective and distrust among American politicians and media. I'm quite certain that regardless of who wins the election there's going to be a major increase in political violence. Both sides, and I'm not talking about the nobodies, but the political leaders, are saying the others are cheating. There seems to be a shrinking any ability to work together. And no, it's not all Trump, not be a long shot. I've seen no American political figure in the news that impresses me as anything but an ignorant, self-serving political whore.

But I think Douglas Murray, one of my favorite writers and authors, put it quite concisely in his column today.

Is America splitting apart? Just a few years ago it would have seemed an absurd idea. Today the signs from the outside do not look good.A people with no shared narrative or history will find it very hard to keep a lid on disorder and violence

In Murray's belief, that shared narrative is fading. The left increasingly sees Americans founding, history and traditions as nothing but an example of shameful brutality and wants to tear up its own history, tear down the statues of their own founders, and completely change America. The other side is still proud of America's history, accomplishments and traditions.

It is becoming harder to communicate across the gulf, as, increasingly, the two Americas cannot consort or discuss with each other. And if there is one reason above all why that should be the case it is because they no longer have a shared story.

A portion of the American people still revere their history, the Founding Fathers, the constitution, flag, anthem and much more. They see it as symbols of a glorious past, a country which has fought for its own and others’ liberty, and the once-admired idea of American exceptionalism.

Another portion believe that America is exceptional only in being exceptionally bad. Rather than thinking well of their country or their forebears they see the whole American experiment as unusually unfair and uncommonly unequal.

Nor is it unusual for a population to be ignorant about large chunks of its own history. What is unusual, and odd and unhealthy, is for a large portion of a country to only have one set of ideas about their country’s past, and for all of those ideas to be negative.

Between these two positions, it is exceptionally hard to see how any consensus can be achieved. People like to pretend that if their candidate wins the election in November, the divisions in American society will stop. But they will not, because the divide now lies at the most fundamental, tectonic levels of the republic, about who the country is.

Historically speaking, such a divide will inevitably escalate into increasing violence and even civil war, unless stopped by some great unifying force that goes beyond party politics or identity. But there is no sign of such a thing on the horizon.

https://unherd.com/2020/09/can-america-hold-apart/

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The superpower-status is the only glue which keeps America together. Without it its entirely different parts would start pulling into different directions. Now it just seems that even the superpower-status isn't helping any longer.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

*sighing*.  So, this looked intriguing to me, and the first part was interesting and I agreed with much of it, though I hope that there won't be any violence, regardless of who wins the election. 

But then, of course, the true agenda comes out - demonize the left.

If it's "both sides", Argus, then why do you and your article only talk about how the left is at fault because it wants to tear up its own history, tear down the statues of their own founders, and completely change America?  Does the right have no responsibility in this lack of ability to communicate across the gulf?  Somehow, I very much doubt that if you asked any random left-leaning person, they'd say "yeah, I want to destroy America and everything it stands for!".   

Could it be that while some people think removing overt symbols of the worst of America's past, America will be made better, while other people believe that part of honoring America includes keeping those symbols of history?  Could not both sides love their country, want to keep it strong, and want to improve it where needed? 

Wouldn't it be nice if we could have  a conversation without hysterical accusations of "racist assholes" from the left and "assholes destroying America" from the right.  

Sheesh.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, dialamah said:

*sighing*.  So, this looked intriguing to me, and the first part was interesting and I agreed with much of it, though I hope that there won't be any violence, regardless of who wins the election. 

But then, of course, the true agenda comes out - demonize the left.

If it's "both sides", Argus, then why do you and your article only talk about how the left is at fault because it wants to tear up its own history, tear down the statues of their own founders, and completely change America?  Does the right have no responsibility in this lack of ability to communicate across the gulf?  Somehow, I very much doubt that if you asked any random left-leaning person, they'd say "yeah, I want to destroy America and everything it stands for!".   

Because as Jonathan Haidt said, if you don't have a shared sense of identity you don't have a nation. We are instinctively tribal. We see the world as  'us' and 'them'. If you're not a part of our tribe then you're an outsider. The people of influence on the Left seem to have broken from that shared sense of identity because they're wallowing in an endless flood of guilt and self-loathing.  They don't like their country any more. They don't even like each other. As a previous poll showed, one on 'in group loyalty' which is that sense of tribalism I mentioned, white liberals in the US were the only group to ever demonstrate NO in-group loyalty. In fact, they demonstrated out-group loyalty!

Quote

Could it be that while some people think removing overt symbols of the worst of America's past, America will be made better, while other people believe that part of honoring America includes keeping those symbols of history? 

The statues being torn down started with Confederate leaders. But that has spread now to the founding fathers, to Washington, Jefferson and others. They've repudiated the American founding (see the NY times 1619 project) condemning the origin of America as nothing more than an orgy of brutality towards natives built on slave trading. All their founding fathers had social views which,  while normal for their time, outrage todays liberals. We see the same in Canada with tearing down statues of Sir John A Macdonald and taking his name off buildings, and that of others of the fathers of confederation, too.

And of course, their view of history is ludicrous, wrong in almost every respect, both here and in the US. The actual details and reality are being warped to cater to the liberal orgy of self-loathing.

So the Left have rejected that sense of shared national identity. They began doing so years ago, as they embraced this religion of 'anti racism'. Then they began to disdain those who refused to worship with them, sneering at those ignorant, unwoke folks, especially the rural ones, the ones from smaller cities, the 'uneducated', ie, those who didn't go to liberal arts colleges. That's a major part of the reason why Trump was able to win last time around. As one of the commentators, perhaps David Frum pointed out, the Democrats used to be the home of blue collar "lunch bucket' union members. They've utterly rejected such people now because, well, they're too uncouth. They have 'deplorable' views! And those people have, by default, gravitated towards the Republicans.

So in the last election Clinton didn't even bother to visit some of those states with the unwoke people, and lost them all. And the Democrats are in the process of doing the same again with their embrace of BLM and all the other identity politics crap.

Edited by Argus
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Argus said:

Because as Jonathan Haidt said, if you don't have a shared sense of identity you don't have a nation. We are instinctively tribal. We see the world as  'us' and 'them'. If you're not a part of our tribe then you're an outsider. The people of influence on the Left seem to have broken from that shared sense of identity because they're wallowing in an endless flood of guilt and self-loathing.  They don't like their country any more. They don't even like each other. As a previous poll showed, one on 'in group loyalty' which is that sense of tribalism I mentioned, white liberals in the US were the only group to ever demonstrate NO in-group loyalty. In fact, they demonstrated out-group loyalty!

The statues being torn down started with Confederate leaders. But that has spread now to the founding fathers, to Washington, Jefferson and others. They've repudiated the American founding (see the NY times 1619 project) condemning the origin of America as nothing more than an orgy of brutality towards natives built on slave trading. All their founding fathers had social views which,  while normal for their time, outrage todays liberals. We see the same in Canada with tearing down statues of Sir John A Macdonald and taking his name off buildings, and that of others of the fathers of confederation, too.

And of course, their view of history is ludicrous, wrong in almost every respect, both here and in the US. The actual details and reality are being warped to cater to the liberal orgy of self-loathing.

 

Sex is a natural human instinct, but that doesn't make rape ok.  Tribalism, taken to extremes, results in people removing heads of "the others".

Civilized people do not just blindly follow their instincts - whether its raping or killing.   Civilized people recognize that while tribalism may have served a useful purpose in a prehistoric society, in today's modern world it is destructive.

Edited by dialamah
Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Sex is a natural human instinct, but that doesn't make rape ok.  Tribalism, taken to extremes, results in people removing heads of "the others".

Civilized people do not just blindly follow their instincts - whether its raping or killing.   Civilized people recognize that while tribalism may have served a useful purpose in a prehistoric society, in today's modern world it is destructive.

Uh huhhh. Here's the thing. You can wish an instinct away all you want. It isn't going to have much impact. Yes, tribalism taken to extremes can be bad. But without the instinctive sense of community that draws people together it's hard to have a unified nation. It's hard to get people to agree to paying taxes that benefit others when they don't have that sense of brotherhood/nationhood/belonging. It's hard to get one part of society to compromise or sacrifice in favour of another if they don't even think that other is part of their society.

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Argus said:

But without the instinctive sense of community that draws people together it's hard to have a unified nation. It's hard to get people to agree to paying taxes that benefit others when they don't have that sense of brotherhood/nationhood/belonging. It's hard to get one part of society to compromise or sacrifice in favour of another if they don't even think that other is part of their society.

And that destructive form of tribalism will only increase as long as there are people like you hammering away on how unacceptable certain groups are - be it Muslims, brown immigrants, leftists or women in power.  Especially when your "information" is misleading at best, and outright wrong at worst.  You group people under some umbrella and then you  condemn all of them based on their most extreme members.  That's destructive to communication, discussion, problem solving  and eventually even our society.

Luckily, you and yours are still a tiny minority in Canada, so I can hope we won't be following in America's heels.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dialamah said:

And that destructive form of tribalism will only increase as long as there are people like you hammering away on how unacceptable certain groups are - be it Muslims, brown immigrants, leftists or women in power.  Especially when your "information" is misleading at best, and outright wrong at worst.  You group people under some umbrella and then you  condemn all of them based on their most extreme members.  That's destructive to communication, discussion, problem solving  and eventually even our society.

Luckily, you and yours are still a tiny minority in Canada, so I can hope we won't be following in America's heels.

Sigh.

It always turns out this way with you. It doesn't matter what the subject is. Somehow you have to bring it back to me wanting immigration lowered. The  very thought of it drives you into a frothing rage and every time you see me post something on almost any subject you have to start sniveling about it and insinuating racism. As Jonathan Haidt said, if anti-racism is your new religion, then anyone who opposes immigration is a RACIST! They're a heretic and must be silenced.

And the sad part is you're not even the slightest bit unique among your kind. It's this sort of attitude on the part of so many on the Left in the US (and Canada), this demonization and hatred for anyone who doesn't share their woke views on immigration, diversity, transgenderism, etc. This is the kind of attitude that got Donald Trump elected. This is what's driven so many Americans into the arms of Trump and FOX news. This complete intolerance of any opinion or view which goes against the sacred creed of diversity and anti-racism. This is the kind of attitude which will cause violence in the US as it divides Americans.

And by the way, just because you don't hear about any views like mine on the CBC or in the rest of mainstream media doesn't mean I'm a tiny minority. I remind you that multiple polls in the last year have shown the majority of Canadians are becoming upset with and want immigration lowered.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

No, America is not "splitting apart"....America is busy doing the things it has always done, and that includes lots of conflict, even in the best of times.

Was America "splitting apart" in 1968 ?

 

Heck...things looked pretty rosy in 1866.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Argus said:

Sigh.

It always turns out this way with you. It doesn't matter what the subject is. Somehow you have to bring it back to me wanting immigration lowered. The  very thought of it drives you into a frothing rage and every time you see me post something on almost any subject you have to start sniveling about it and insinuating racism. As Jonathan Haidt said, if anti-racism is your new religion, then anyone who opposes immigration is a RACIST! They're a heretic and must be silenced.

And the sad part is you're not even the slightest bit unique among your kind. It's this sort of attitude on the part of so many on the Left in the US (and Canada), this demonization and hatred for anyone who doesn't share their woke views on immigration, diversity, transgenderism, etc. This is the kind of attitude that got Donald Trump elected. This is what's driven so many Americans into the arms of Trump and FOX news. This complete intolerance of any opinion or view which goes against the sacred creed of diversity and anti-racism. This is the kind of attitude which will cause violence in the US as it divides Americans.

And by the way, just because you don't hear about any views like mine on the CBC or in the rest of mainstream media doesn't mean I'm a tiny minority. I remind you that multiple polls in the last year have shown the majority of Canadians are becoming upset with and want immigration lowered.

Yes, you are correct that polls indicated strong support for slowing immigration.

My objection to, in particular, is the way in which you make claims that immigrants from certain countries/religions, are given priority status, declarations about how useless our immigration system is, claims about the laziness and criminality of certain immigrants. 

You make these declarations without a shred of proof, and if anyone with actual knowledge, experience or expert information says anything contrary, you accuse them of lying or too stupid to doubt what the government, media, or "leftist" studies are saying - because as far as you are concerned, all these institutions have an "agenda."  Fortunately, Canadians like you are a minority.  

Anyway, you're right - I should just ignore you.   :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Yes, you are correct that polls indicated strong support for slowing immigration.

My objection to, in particular, is the way in which you make claims that immigrants from certain countries/religions, are given priority status, declarations about how useless our immigration system is, claims about the laziness and criminality of certain immigrants. 

I only made that claim today, so no, that's not w hat bothers you. You've been raging about me and immigration for years. It sticks in your craw that not everyone feels your love of other cultures filling the streets.

As for the criminality of certain immigrants. I've already offered up plenty of evidence.

3 minutes ago, dialamah said:

 Fortunately, Canadians like you are a minority. 

Nope. Wrong again. Most Canadians aren't as rabidly intolerant of other views as you are. Just the progressives.

Link to post
Share on other sites

At First Bull Run/Manassas in 1861, residents of Washington DC were encouraged to come down and view the battle from the 'safety' of bleachers constructed for the purpose. Make a day of it...bring a picnic basket. 

Almost a festive atmosphere developed in the hours before the battle opened. Politicians shook hands and greeted the 'battle-goers'. Women in fancy dress promenaded about...etc. Children were there...

Well...the Rebs had the temerity to win the battle...quite soundly. The Federal/Union troops fled the battlefield in disarray...leaving the civilian onlookers to fend for themselves...chaos & rout ensued.  All the way back to Washington DC the rabble fled...imagining the Confederates hot on their tails. The Rebels, however, were just as beaten on the tactical level, having taken heavy casualties...too busy tending to the vast piles of dead and wounded on the battlefield...such is victory.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Every virtue, when taken to an extreme, becomes a vice.

Some nationalism and national unity is good.  Too much is bad.  Too little is bad too.

Jonathan Haidt says exactly the same about diversity and anti-racism.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, DogOnPorch said:

At First Bull Run/Manassas in 1861, residents of Washington DC were encouraged to come down and view the battle from the 'safety' of bleachers constructed for the purpose. Make a day of it...bring a picnic basket. 

Almost a festive atmosphere developed in the hours before the battle opened. Politicians shook hands and greeted the 'battle-goers'. Women in fancy dress promenaded about...etc. Children were there...

Well...the Rebs had the temerity to win the battle...quite soundly. The Federal/Union troops fled the battlefield in disarray...leaving the civilian onlookers to fend for themselves...chaos & rout ensued.  All the way back to Washington DC the rabble fled...imagining the Confederates hot on their tails. The Rebels, however, were just as beaten on the tactical level, having taken heavy casualties...too busy tending to the vast piles of dead and wounded on the battlefield...such is victory.

And your point is? I don't think anyone is figuring this is going to turn into a civil war. I'm guessing a lot of terrorism, though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Argus said:

And your point is? I don't think anyone is figuring this is going to turn into a civil war. I'm guessing a lot of terrorism, though.

 

The Civil War started by the Trump of the day getting elected....it seemed like a surreal party and a chance to play soldier...at first.

Edited by DogOnPorch
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

The Civil War started by the Trump of the day getting elected....it seemed like a surreal party and a chance to play soldier...at first.

There is just something so wrong about American politics. I watched that parade of morons and cretins at the Republican primaries four years ago and could only shake my head that any of them (except Bush) would even be considered as a possible presidential candidate except by idiots and lunatics.

Then I watched another parade of enfeebled losers at the Democratic primaries this year and couldn't believe any of them (with the possible exception of Biden) would even be considered as a possible presidential candidate except by idiots and lunatics. Bloomberg might be another exception, but he waited way too long to get in. By the time he realized the whole field was made up of people of no substance and lunatics and jumped in it was too late for him.

I look at the American politicians showing up on my TV and internet news feed every day and I rarely see anyone that strikes me as anything but a brainless moron (AOC, Trump) or self-serving political whore (Pelosi, McConnell).

I now well-understand Tom Clancy's feelings about American national politics, which he gave vent to in a book which had someone crashing a 747 into congress during the state of the union address and killing the whole of the senate, congress and supreme court.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Argus said:

There is just something so wrong about American politics.

 

Meh...you should read-up a bit on the 1860 election and its surrounding conventions...(technically four parties back then). Talk about crazy wrong...lol.

Bruce Catton has a great description in his first book on the conflict.

https://archive.org/details/TheComingFury/page/n1/mode/2up

1748.thumb.jpg.98be073bbc03f26b8649a22860e01bbc.jpg

Edited by DogOnPorch
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

Meh...you should read-up a bit on the 1860 election and its surrounding conventions...(technically four parties back then). Talk about crazy wrong...lol.

Bruce Catton has a great description in his first book on the conflict.

https://archive.org/details/TheComingFury/page/n1/mode/2up

 

Not very encouraging given the civil war started the next year...

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Argus said:

Not very encouraging given the civil war started the next year...

 

Yup...thus my Bull Run & Antietam references. 

One of those will change most folk's minds re: war...they were worse than most WW2 battles.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Argus said:

Bloomberg might be another exception, but he waited way too long to get in. By the time he realized the whole field was made up of people of no substance and lunatics and jumped in it was too late for him.

I know you like Mike, but today’s come out he donated 16M of his hard-earned dollars, to pay the restitution for convicted felons in the state of Florida to allow them to vote.

Here’s a CNN link for ya:

Link

Just wondering how much you liken Mike now?

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

I know you like Mike, but today’s come out he donated 16M of his hard-earned dollars, to pay the restitution for convicted felons in the state of Florida to allow them to vote.

Here’s a CNN link for ya:

Link

Just wondering how much you liken Mike now?

(shrug). I like what he did with New  York City (as opposed to what the current moron is doing). I like what he says. In Canada, those people are allowed to vote even while still in prison. It strikes me as odd they're legally able to ban people from voting even after they get out, so I'm not all that concerned. 

Edited by Argus
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Argus said:

(shrug). I like what he did with New  York City (as opposed to what the current moron is doing). I like what he says. In Canada, those people are allowed to vote even while still in prison. It strikes me as odd they're legally able to ban people from voting even after they get out, so I'm not all that concerned. 

It's arguably fair to allow ex-cons to vote, but we know why he's doing it. For political advantage, not because it's the right thing to do. Sounds like more Black Lives Matter baloney to me. Defund the cops, refund the criminals.

And this money does not include the $100M he still intends to donate from his personal stash, to bolster Joe Biden's campaign in Florida.

I say that man has no integrity, but lots of money.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements



×
×
  • Create New...