Jump to content

Got Political Apathy? I do!


Guest El Chalupacabra
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest El Chalupacabra

A few months old...

http://billmoyers.com/2014/07/23/will-americans-set-a-new-record-for-political-apathy-in-2014/

 

Will Americans Set a New Record for Political Apathy in 2014?

It’s a paradox: The United States is supposed to be a beacon of democracy, yet Americans have one of the lowest levels of electoral participation in the world. In fact, a 2012 study found that the US ranked “120th of the 169 countries for which data exists on voter turnout, falling between the Dominican Republic and Benin.”

Our turnout rate has been consistently declining since the 1970s.

In Monday’s Washington Post, Aaron Blake highlighted a new study that suggests that trend is likely to continue in November’s midterm elections.

Blake finds it ironic that so few vote at a time when Congress is less popular than colonoscopies, root canal or Nickelback. “Americans,” he writes, “appear prepared to deal with their historic unhappiness using perhaps the least-productive response: Staying home.” But this gets the causal relationship backwards — electoral apathy is in large part a result of government dysfunction. After logistical problems like having a disability, the number one reason why people don’t vote is that they feel their ballot won’t change anything.

A new study shows that Americans are on-track to set a new low for turnout in a midterm election, and a record number of states could set their own new records for lowest percentage of eligible citizens casting ballots.

The study, from the Center for the Study of the American Electorate, shows turnout in the 25 states that have held statewide primaries for both parties is down by nearly one-fifth from the last midterm, in 2010. While 18.3 percent of eligible voters cast ballots back then, it has been just 14.8 percent so far this year. Similarly, 15 of the 25 states that have held statewide primaries so far have recorded record-low turnout.

Of course, we’re not all equally turned off by politics. Whites are more likely to vote than other groups, and older people are more likely to go to the polls than younger people. This is a source of endless consternation for Democrats. As Blake notes, “Republican primary turnout overtook Democratic turnout for the first time in 2010, and that difference is even bigger this primary season.”

So, this article more or less articulates what I have felt since the 2012 presidential election. While I like watching the horse race of certain elections, especially presidential ones and trying to guess who will win, I have found myself becoming increasingly apathetic about politics in general, and pessimistic of government, regardless of who is in office.

 

I've always been more of a political centrist, but n my younger days, I was politically right leaning on more issues than left. This was mostly because I felt since I was in the military at the time, I needed to vote GOP. After I got out, I gradually found myself agreeing with democrats more and more, and currently I tick left when it comes to social issues, almost down the middle on domestic economic issues, and still tick right of center on foreign policy issues. But the thing is, I don't see either the GOP or RNC as representing my issues. the issues of the day always end up being either of the race-baiting or social class envy variety, but nothing ever gets truly solved. Just hot button issues bandied about to energize the mindless minions that are the political bases. And often times, the hot button issues are topics I couldn't care less about. I am solidly middle class and I work in higher education, so I don't identify with much of what concerns many republicans; which is shrinking government jobs, cutting spending on education, and cutting taxes. Voting republican just goes against my self interest on those issues. Not to mention, I am irritated with the focus on abortion (I could give a F*** one way or the other), opposing gay marriage (as if the world is coming to an end because gay marriage is now legal in most states that tried to outlaw it), or banning illegals (as if it is ever going to stop).

 

Conversely, it seems that the DNC also doesn't represent my interests because each and every group has been classified and labeled, and taught to think their group alone has been the most maligned and in need of social justice. Being a white guy approaching middle age, I don't feel like I am in need of social justice, nor have I been oppressed by the man...hell, to a lot of people I look like the man, except I don't have a fat wallet to match. Ironically, I also see grassroots movements, like the Tea Party, and the Occupy Wall Street as largely made up of radical nut balls and malcontents. I don't identify with them, either.

 

I haven't seen any leader on any side of the political spectrum that has been very inspirational in my lifetime. The only presidents I see that even come close to being inspirational were Reagan and Obama. I didn't buy in to the Obama hype at all, and I was a minor during the Reagan years, so it doesn't matter what I thought back then. I often wonder what happened to the colorful, inspirational leaders of yesterday, like TR, FDR, Churchill, and Eisenhower. Are we looking back with rose colored glasses, or have leaders of today just become lesser?

 

Honestly, since 2004, I have found myself mostly just mechanically voting against the incumbent, the incumbent party, or the random libertarian geek, if neither choice seems viable. What further compounds this is I live in a solidly red state, but a state that doesn't have many electoral votes, so regardless how I vote, it won't actually matter one way or the other. For example, in the 2004 election, I hated Kerry. Just couldn't stand him. But I voted for him. Why? Because Bush was the incumbent, and I wasn't a fan of him either. But statistically speaking, it wouldn't have mattered if I had stayed home because my state went red anyway, and Bush of course, won.

 

I feel like I SHOULD care, but I just can't bring myself TO care. I am just wondering if I am the only one out there that feels this way? Is there a fix for this? Or am I justified in simply not caring any more? I am honestly trying to find a reason NOT to sit out the 2014 and 2016 elections, but so help me, I can't find a reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right with you.

 

I've become apolitical. Politicians think apathy has something to do with trying to entice groups that do not vote to get out to do so-- as if there is education needed. They can't comprehend it's not apathy so much as it is dissatisfaction.

 

With every passing year red and blue become so partisan... we've reached the point where one side just blocks or refutes what the other does out just because.

 

Until there is a legit third party option, all the old rich white dudes die, or something else happens to seriously reprogram our system, I don't see things getting better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I certainly still care about issues and lean left in my views, but I mostly internalize them these days. The kind of partisan bullcrap that Seth talks about is what has made that to be the case for the most part.

I simply can't offer any opposing viewpoint to anyone else that I actually know offline without being immediately branded and dismissed as some commie-liberal in bed with Obama. It's just not worth the hassle and headache anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awesome post, Chalupa.

I feel the same way. When it comes to national politics, neither of the big parties represent "me" in any way. While both parties are not "exactly the same" (untrue) or merely "different sides of the same coin" (less untrue) as has been stated by many a frustrated citizen, the shame and utter disconnect I feel when being represented by a typical Democrat or Republican certainly is equal and the same.

The stalwarts of both parties are so painfully inflexible and conservative in their mindsets, too, it makes dealing with them nearly as unbearable. Are you people capable of talking without sounding like a tore up bumper sticker?

Knowing our "choices" of politician and the legion of mouthbreathers who will be voting for them regardless of what they say or do is disheartening, to say the least.

-----

To be a little less negative:

Local and state politics are different; there are a handful of sensible, intelligent people (from either or neither big party) who will answer their own emails and actually do things that are in the interests of the people they represent -- without consulting or checking poll numbers first! I can think of several state/local politicians during my lifetime whose work I can appreciate, even admire (most of whom are out of office now because politics wasn't their career). Granted, most small-time politicians are useless too, but at least they are ****ing things up on a smaller scale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not buying that any of you are politically apathetic. I think really what you're trying to say, is some combination of a) that you're pessimistic; b) disillusioned with the current party system; or c) frustrated with partisans of the 'other side' (or both sides). But that doesn't equate to apathy. I know this because I've seen all of you, on this board, express very strong feelings about certain issues. Additionally, I know for a fact that all of you support some politicians, and don't support others. Just because your support may be luke warm, that is not the same as being apathetic. I've known people in my life that are truly politically apathetic, and none of you share their characteristics. When you say, Tank, that "we've reached the point where one side just blocks or refutes what the other does out just because," well.. I'm thinking, I've seen all of you do this, on certain issues that are your hot button ones. Apathetic people wouldn't.

 

I'll give an example of someone who could be described as apathetic (albeit a fictional person)- the Dude from The Big Lebowski. Now that guy is apathetic. He literally couldn't care less on probably most issues and is pretty much the last person you'd ever see supporting (either financially or in person) any cause or politician whatsoever. All he really cares about are White Russians, bowling, and the fact that he hates The Eagles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the thing that bugs me the most is that at their cores, you can find several good ideas in both the party of Coke and Pepsi that have become twisted beyond reason and recognition. Whether it's due to partisan ****ery, sneaky legalese, laziness, and/or efforts to placate their noisier and more active, extreme elements, once all the ingredients have been thrown in, the stew just ain't no good anymore.

 

While I can't imagine every agreeing entirely with any national-level American politician, "left" or "right," if I could at least respect them for the competence and/or implementation of their ideas, I'd feel a lot less hopeless at the end of the day. But I honestly don't think America can be saved from itself at this point. I just don't think competence is possible at the national level, even from people with intelligence and integrity, due to the nation being essentially several different mini-countries, each with their own mini-cultures and values, needs, resources, industry, etc...

 

I'm not buying that any of you are politically apathetic. I think really what you're trying to say, is some combination of a) that you're pessimistic; b) disillusioned with the current party system; or c) frustrated with partisans of the 'other side' (or both sides). But that doesn't equate to apathy. I know this because I've seen all of you, on this board, express very strong feelings about certain issues. Additionally, I know for a fact that all of you support some politicians, and don't support others. Just because your support may be luke warm, that is not the same as being apathetic. I've known people in my life that are truly politically apathetic, and none of you share their characteristics. When you say, Tank, that "we've reached the point where one side just blocks or refutes what the other does out just because," well.. I'm thinking, I've seen all of you do this, on certain issues that are your hot button ones. Apathetic people wouldn't.

 

I'll give an example of someone who could be described as apathetic (albeit a fictional person)- the Dude from The Big Lebowski. Now that guy is apathetic. He literally couldn't care less on probably most issues and is pretty much the last person you'd ever see supporting (either financially or in person) any cause or politician whatsoever. All he really cares about are White Russians, bowling, and the fact that he hates The Eagles.

ya I agree
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The decay and disintegration of this culture is astonishingly amusing if you are emotionally detached from it. I have always viewed it from a safe distance, knowing I don't belong; it doesn't include me, and it never has. No matter how you care to define it, I do not identify with the local group. Planet, species, race, nation, state, religion, party, union, club, association, neighborhood, improvement committee; I have no interest in any of it. I love and treasure individuals as I meet them, I loathe and despise the groups they identify with and belong to. So, if you read something in this book that sounds like advocacy of a particular political point of view, please reject the notion. My interest in 'issues' is merely to point out how badly we're doing, not to suggest a way we might do better.

 

Don't confuse me with those who cling to hope. I enjoy describing how things are, I have no interest in how they 'ought to be.' And I certainly have no interest in fixing them. I sincerely believe that if you think there's a solution, you're part of the problem. My motto: **** Hope!

 

P.S. Lest you wonder, personally, I am a joyful individual with a long, happy marriage and a close and loving family. My career has turned out better than I ever dreamed, and continues to expand. I am a personal optimist but skeptic about all else. What may sound to some like anger is really nothing more than sympathetic contempt. I view my species with a combination of wonder and pity, and I root for its destruction. And please don't confuse my point of view with cynicism; the real cynics are the ones who tell you everything's gonna be all right.

 

P.P.S. By the way, if, by chance, you folks do manage to straighten things out and make everything better, I still don't wish to be included.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just don't think competence is possible at the national level, even from people with intelligence and integrity, due to the nation being essentially several different mini-countries, each with their own mini-cultures and values, needs, resources, industry, etc...

Pong, that was an interesting post and I largely agree, but I have one quibble- the above. Not sure that this is the reason. The US has always been, even from its founding, a very geographically large, culturally diverse country. There have been periods of much higher polarization in the past, and likewise, much more characteristic of fragmented "mini-countries," and I'm not sure that either lack of competence (or levels of accompanying disillusionment) were any higher in those times. For example, over 100 years ago (not to mention, more than 100 years ago), you could travel to say, New York and Mississippi, and it would literally be like visiting two different countries.

 

Arguably we're at our lowest level of fragmentation in history right now- people from completely different areas of the country will likely dress the same, talk the same, buy the same stuff, etc. This would not have been true 100 years ago. You can go almost anywhere in the US and find the same stuff- Chipotle, yuppies shopping at Whole Foods, radio stations playing the same top 40, Wal-Marts, people driving Honda Civics, sports bars with ESPN sportscenter and the obligatory irish-pub-playlist. And so on. I would wager that you could take your average upper middle class family from a conservative-leaning metro (say Houston) and a liberal-leaning one (say the Bay Area), and they would be wearing the same clothes, eating the same food, likely having the same type of jobs.. really the only major difference may be what network they repeat canned talking points from (MSNBC, or Fox). Again, this would've not been true 100 years ago.

 

Paradoxically though, I think it's exactly the growing homogenous nature of US culture that has made it more hostile. Increased trans-nationalism, decreased shipping, production, and telecommunication prices, and above all- the internet, have spawned creatures like the 24/7 news cycle with dedicated political channels, blog culture, political talk radio, etc. Take the Tea Party (or Occupy Wall St). 30 years ago, how would someone hear about this? Maybe 15 seconds of footage on NBC Nightly News of some protesters and a story in the Sunday newspaper. It's just not enough to get people riled up; but compare that to now- hours upon hours of journalistic coverage with an axe to grind, websites where one is bombarded with blog editorials, links to YouTube where you can watch hours of footage, and so on.

 

And then, on top of that, party operatives have noticed this and exploited it. They've seen how the decreasing size of the US has led to races becoming national; money pouring in from all over. And due to way our electoral college system is set up (swing states with first-past-the-post voting), certain counties and a 1% change in voters here and there become nationally critical, etc., party operatives know they have to capture every possible vote- and they do, feeding the problem I described above (i.e. blog culture, 24/7 news cycle, and so on), and exploiting every possible minute issue.. issues that 30 years ago, no one would have even noticed or been paying attention to. But every little thing is now a possibility to become a scandal on O'Reilly or a Rachel Maddow headliner, and maybe, just maybe, you can play on one more person's prejudices.. in a swing county, in Ohio, in a presidential race.. well, you see where I'm going with this. And if one party plays nice, well, the other one sure as hell ain't. It's play for keeps.

 

That's the problem, pong. Not really the US being a bunch of mini-countries.. because, it just sorta isn't anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have quicker, easier travel and means of communication and access to the same goods, clothing, etc., but I disagree about the little nation thing. One particular image I've seen reposted dozens of times always makes me laugh for this reason:

15570828716_78bcaed326_o.jpg

 

I laugh cause it's true. Just a few minutes of driving from a major Western U.S. city, and you can literally feel like you're in a different country.... a few hours, and it's like you're on a different planet. And lemme tell you, they do not walk the same, talk the same, or wear the same clothes. There is no real hostility between Western and Eastern Oregon, of course, but there is a distinct culture, different voting patterns and values, different needs from their elected officials, and to some extents, efforts to set apart and retain "their" culture by each group. Washington is similar in this regard, and California has at least three distinct cultures. Idaho -- well I don't know about Idaho. I try to avoid Idaho. I do subscribe to the "big sort" theory to an extent (self-segregation is real, but some of the predictions and theories around it questionable), and (more strongly) the rural urban divide.

 

I do totally agree with you on the 24/7 media and exploitation angle, tho. Here's a depressing article I just read that agrees with you, too:

 

What’s changed? Well, the two parties in Congress are more ideologically and geographically polarized than at any time in our recent history. But we’ve had deep divisions in our politics before. And yes, the Wingnuts seem to have an outsize influence on our politics debates. But we’ve had extremists in our politics before.

 

What’s different is the proliferation of partisan media via cable news and the Internet. Amid unprecedented access to information, our fellow citizens are self-segregating themselves into separate political realities.

 

That’s the conclusion of a compelling, if depressing, new study by the Pew Research Center on political polarization and media habits.

 

[...]

All this makes the pluralism of the modern world a scary, unwelcoming place. And so the reaction seems to be to corral oneself off from disagreement. Sixty-six percent of “consistent conservatives” say most of their close friends share their views on government and politics, and nearly half say they mostly see Facebook posts that match their politics.

 

On the other side of the spectrum, while liberals are more likely to consume a broader diet of news sites, just over half say their close friends share their views, and 24 percent of “consistent liberals” say they stopped being friends—or stopped talking to—someone because of politics. For these self-righteous and thin-skinned folks, there are apparently limits to the liberal virtue of tolerance.

 

:eek:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh come on, Pong, everyone thinks that about Portland, it's not just Eastern Oregon. (And Portland thinks that about everyone else, too.)

 

I do agree that the rural/urban divide is pretty strong. Growing up in Chicago and now Seattle and visiting my family in rural Nebraska has always been a hoot. Once when we went to my parents hometown for a visit, a man in a F150 made a snide comment to us about our Kia rental car not being " 'Murican". Just last week, I had an absolutely hilarious conversation with my mom on the phone about how "weird" my state is, because she's talking about moving here eventually.

Mom: I didn't realize that your state allows legal euthanasia.

Me: Yep, that passed a few years ago.

Mom: And you allow gay marriage. And marijuana, too.

Me: Yes, mom, it's pretty liberal out here.

Mom: I don't know how I feel about living out there.

Me: (silent sigh of relief)

 

But Carrie is right that it's not as large as you think, for the reasons she mentioned above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not buying that any of you are politically apathetic. I think really what you're trying to say, is some combination of a) that you're pessimistic; b) disillusioned with the current party system; or c) frustrated with partisans of the 'other side' (or both sides). But that doesn't equate to apathy. I know this because I've seen all of you, on this board, express very strong feelings about certain issues. Additionally, I know for a fact that all of you support some politicians, and don't support others. Just because your support may be luke warm, that is not the same as being apathetic. I've known people in my life that are truly politically apathetic, and none of you share their characteristics. When you say, Tank, that "we've reached the point where one side just blocks or refutes what the other does out just because," well.. I'm thinking, I've seen all of you do this, on certain issues that are your hot button ones. Apathetic people wouldn't.

 

I'll give an example of someone who could be described as apathetic (albeit a fictional person)- the Dude from The Big Lebowski. Now that guy is apathetic. He literally couldn't care less on probably most issues and is pretty much the last person you'd ever see supporting (either financially or in person) any cause or politician whatsoever. All he really cares about are White Russians, bowling, and the fact that he hates The Eagles.

I wouldn't say my feelings on issues are apathetic, I'm still quite passionate about what I believe to be right. My desire to vote or play a part in the political machine-- that's what's been crushed by apathy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But Carrie is right that it's not as large as you think, for the reasons she mentioned above.

Carrie's not a dummy, so I take her post seriously. But I honestly don't think the same food chains, clothes, cars, etc... are as important as "the culture" you believe you belong to, and if it is reconcilable with "the other" you live next to. Terrorists love KFC, too! I'm not sayin' we're going to have another Civil War anytime soon, but I do truly doubt the Federal Government is capable serving all the different people (with their different needs, problems, and beliefs) adequately except at the most basic of levels.

 

That being said, I concede that I often fly from Portland (progressive outlier city) to places with a more agricultural outlook (rural outliers), so I experience culture shock on a fairly regular basis; this could be affecting my outlook. Living in Eugene, Oregon for years definitely gave me a skewed view of what "typical" liberal behavior and beliefs were :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do believe culturally, we are more homogeneous than in the past, thanks to globalization. But politically, I have seen a number of studies that establish the conclusion that we haven't been this polarized since the Civil War. I can't link to them, because unlike Carrie, I don't bookmark every single thing I read on the internet. But just for a contrast of opinion, I'm sure if you're dedicated you could Google them and find them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Her point is that you can drop yourself into almost any town in the US and it really is the same old s***. People live their lives in very similar fashion. Honestly, I'd never heard so much secession talk until I moved out here (or became friends with you lol).

 

I think the polarization is just more apparent because it's easier to communicate our beliefs instantaneously and widely thanks to modern communication (internet, email, social media, texting, etc). Now whether that's CAUSING us to be more polarized is certainly an interesting thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Her point is that you can drop yourself into almost any town in the US and it really is the same old s***. People live their lives in very similar fashion.

Ah. Yeah, on a superficial level, I can dig that. If you crop the sky from the photo, a strip mall in North Dakota will probably look a lot like a strip mall in Tacoma.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The lack of interest in mid-term and local elections has always been a point of great amusement to me. People truly don't give a **** and I find it highly encouraging that this sentiment is only growing stronger.

 

For the last month I have been working on a voter outreach campaign for the GOP in one of the states with a close US senate race. My entire job has been to hire canvassers to go door to door using walking lists of registered Republican voters to remind them that an election is coming up and tell them when early voting starts. The impression I have gotten from the people out in the field is that most people are indifferent. The complete lack of substance in the campaign is beyond pathetic - I just love it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Polarization need not be based on actual differences, but rather perceived differences. The less real and polarizing the actual differences, the more important become the perceived ones. VAST differences have a way of not phasing people all that much, usually because matters of basic sustenance don't actually divide people all that much. Dirt farmers, factory workers and stock traders may not relate to one another and have no reason to associate, but what animosity would really exist there? But in any of those three groups, things like whether or not one or the other goes to church on Sunday is a matter of life or death. Kind of like a butter battle book for real life.

 

Another source of frustration that I think is often overlooked is the actual mechanics of government, especially in the U.S. You've also got much larger and more cumbersome bureaucracies and so forth. Party machines, mass media, policy institutes, various groups and factions within the parties that need to be appeased based on their relative strengths. And of course the donors. It gets to the point where even the best and brightest, once they get to positions of real influence or power, are so bought and paid for and required to tap-dance around so many entrenched interests that they're pretty much marionettes. Even a third party, were one to emerge, would find itself facing the same realities. So long as the economy is sufficient to sustain this byzantine apparatus, it's not going to change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pong, I think you misunderstood what I was arguing. I was not saying that different cultures don't exist. What I was saying, is that the US- to the extent it is fragmented into mini-countries, is not the reason for polarization or increased disillusionment. The reason is because the degree to which the US is fragmented has been decreasing, while discontent is increasing, so the two are obviously not causally related.. in fact, they are not even correlated.

 

I understand your point that there are distinct US cultures. And yes, obviously there are times that culture shock can exist. Take a guy that's lived in rural Georgia his whole life and drop him in Los Angeles, and he might be pretty surprised to find out that locals are not familiar with, nor have ever eaten, at a Waffle House. But I think a lot of these differences are fairly superficial, at least relatively speaking in terms of US history, and this is true, even in Western v. Eastern Oregon.

 

This is something that's always been fairly apparent to me, but even more so now that I don't live in the US, which has given me a lot of perspective about how many Americans are pretty much the same in many ways. But historically it was not always so- in the 19th century, heck, even in the 20th century before WW2, life was extremely different between different areas of the country. Different regions had entirely different industries, available jobs, style of architecture and housing stock, accents, cuisine, and so on. There were no chains back then, and heavy manufacturing was mostly centered around non-consumer goods, so your average person in two different areas of the country may have two completely different sets of possessions. If you went to a rural house in Mississippi vs. Massachusetts and looked in their wardrobe.. in an era before central heating and A/C, you'd see two completely different wardrobes, with garments in one that may very well be something that the other person has never actually seen in their life.

 

In contrast, the US is significantly more homogenous now and is only accelerating in this fashion. If you took an average middle class person from any given two states, their lives would look remarkably similar. Probably driving a Corolla or Civic or something similar. Probably buying clothes from the same 5-6 different chains (hell, they may even both own literally the same shirt). Probably employed by a similar job- likely some type of low-level service industry position requiring a Bachelor's. Probably both picking up food after work from the same half dozen assorted chains. Probably doing the same exact thing on the weekend.. NFL Red Zone or lazying around on Netflix or what have you. Their accents would probably be remarkably similar. Which is another striking example of how homogenous the US has become in culture- the younger generations especially, have seen a fading of the traditional regional accents to a sorta-universal generic mid-western tone. I've seen studies that suggest that TV has had a large part to do with this (which, again, is one of the factors I listed above as shrinking the 'size' of the US). Even in the past 20 years a lot has changed.. take the film probably most famous for poking fun at cultural differences, My Cousin Vinny, in 1993. One of the biggest jokes is in the accent differences, but today, you'd be hard pressed to find anyone under the age of 35 with that severe a difference, even in two places as different as rural Alabama and Brooklyn.

 

I'm not saying cultural identifiers don't still come out here and there. They obviously do. But I think you are wildly exaggerating them. I remember when I went to college, I went to a school with a strong national ranking that drew people from all 50 states. Those 4 years were probably when I met the most people from the most diverse places, and quite honestly- one thing I noticed even way back then was how similar most people were. Yeah there were obviously different things you'd notice, and I'm not saying a person from Arkansas had the same mannerisms as someone from Detroit. But regional differences, outside of a few curious quibbles here and there (e.g. "You don't know what a Waffle House is!?"), were way less significant than I assumed they would be. People identified less with regional upbringing, and more with what 'clique' they identified with (goth, nerd, jock, prep, etc).

 

Which brings me to my last point- if there are mini-countries in the US, I don't think they have anything to do with region or state borders, but probably more with something like race. The difference between say, Black and White culture is still pretty stark, especially the lower you go on the income scale. But even accounting for that, the US is still becoming more homogenous over time, at an increased rate, and especially in the last 20 years thanks to certain factors that I've already talked about. The fact that you seem to exaggerate the difference actually sorta proves my point about how people are manipulated and exploited by politicos across the spectrum to gnaw at really superficial types of things and non-issues that probably wouldn't have been on the radar 50 years ago, and from those perceived differences they begin to conjure up their own fictitious imagery about "us" and "them," making one ripe for political shenanigans and thus, discontent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People identified less with regional upbringing, and more with what 'clique' they identified with (goth, nerd, jock, prep, etc).

LMAO! Is this ever true. I went back to college as a 'mature student' - meaning NOT a late teen/early 20s party animal type and STILL found myself, despite almost conscious efforts to the contrary, hanging out with the metal heads on my spare time.

 

Which brings me to my last point- if there are mini-countries in the US, I don't think they have anything to do with region or state borders, but probably more with something like race. The difference between say, Black and White culture is still pretty stark, especially the lower you go on the income scale. But even accounting for that, the US is still becoming more homogenous over time, at an increased rate, and especially in the last 20 years thanks to certain factors that I've already talked about. The fact that you seem to exaggerate the difference actually sorta proves my point about how people are manipulated and exploited by politicos across the spectrum to gnaw at really superficial types of things and non-issues that probably wouldn't have been on the radar 50 years ago, and from those perceived differences they begin to conjure up their own fictitious imagery about "us" and "them," making one ripe for political shenanigans and thus, discontent.

The divisions are different, but I don't think they're less relevant. Sure, more of the country may be shopping in the same box stores, driving the same hondas, drinking the same Starbucks coffee, eating the same McDonalds and the like. But in other ways, I think fragmentation is increasing. Among all these "same" people, one might get their news of the world from Redstate or Free Republic, another from Democratic Underground or Salon, another from Jezebel, another from Reason, another from Infowars, and many from whatever's circulating in the chatrooms or discussion forums of whatever porn hub or MMORPG they happen to lounge around on. Furthermore, the presentation of whichever world view the above represent has become more caustic and hostile towards outsiders and dissidents, with every strand of thought becoming increasingly "if you're not with us, you're against us" in their tone.

 

Cable news has become much more decidedly partisan, as Fox and MSNBC exemplify. Plus, stalwart old rags like The Nation and National Review and their ilk carry on, both in print and online. Higher education - where the nation's leaders and opinion makers are fashioned, has become increasingly politicized, with some forms of linguistic "deconstruction" asserting that words, even facts have no real meaning outside the emotional impact they have on their audiences, which are usually some tribalist racial or sexual enclave or another. Observe the rapidity with which pro/anti religion, pro/anti feminism, pro/anti free market and other prevalent debates quickly descend to the level of grade school insults. It's becoming increasingly easy for people whose accents do sound increasingly the same and who listen to the same downloaded pop tunes on their iphones to view the world through lenses that have never been more different and hard to reconcile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.