#Political Polarization

[unsolicited-opinions]

Why does it feel like some people are trying to gaslight you into being a trump supporter all because you said "no matter the political party, the administration has a right to revoke the visas of individuals who espouse their support for designated terrorist groups"?

Probably because some people are, Anon.

There are some MAGA folks in my inbox who are furious with me for being a Jew and despising Trump:

This gentile Trump fan knows so little about Jews that he uses the phrase "final solution" in telling Jews how they should feel.

The same Ask contains this:

"You people."

He thinks that Trump caused Jews to "have [our] holy lands back."

So, yeah. You're right.

But there's a bigger issue here, and that's US political polarization and the rejection of nuance.

Right or left, social media is mostly filled with people arguing from ignorance and treating politics like a team sport where one cheers for one's team loyally.

Let's look at this particular example you mention. Neither the mainstream liberals nor the mainstream conservatives want to acknowledge that these things can be true at the same time:

1. Trump is pushing the US towards autocracy as best he can. He and his administration do not actually care about antisemitism and are using the issue as a political wedge and to punish people they don't like. He's using Mahmoud Khalil's case to expand presidential powers.

2. Any administration can legally ban foreigners based on their support of terrorism.

Example: In February of 2024, President Biden banned anyone who committed and promoted violence in the West Bank from having a US visa for any purpose. This was legal. This was ethical. I supported it, and so did most Americans who noticed it.

That both Dems and Republicans seem to take a side on the issue exclusively based on party and utterly without nuance illustrates something important I'd like to ramble about.

That ramble is below the break, but It's longer than the line at the DMV and probably about as interesting. There's no shame in skipping it.

You're sure?

Okay, you were warned.

When Obama was elected in 2008 and the Democrats took a 70-seat lead in the House, the Republicans lost their @#&*ing minds. They were in the wilderness, out of power, and rejected by the US electorate. (And, as many have observed, there was a wildly racist backlash to the election of the first black President of the United States.)

The Republican plan to change this and get back into power was to make themselves the party of opposing anything Obama did.

They didn't just treat him like the president of the opposition party, they treated him like an assault on the American Way Of Life. This isn't an exaggeration.

If you weren't alive or politically aware at that time, here's some examples of Republicans rejecting their own policy ideas because Obama embraced them:

- The Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare")

The ACA’s individual mandate, which required individuals to obtain health insurance, was based on a policy developed by the conservative Heritage Foundation (yes, the authors of Project 2025) in the 1990s and was implemented in Massachusetts as Romneycare under Republican Governor Mitt Romney. It was a massive gift to the insurance companies.

Despite the plan’s conservative origins, Republicans labeled the ACA as “socialist” and spent years attempting to repeal or dismantle it. The individual mandate, once a free-market solution, became a target of intense criticism.

- Cap-and-Trade for carbon emissions

This was originally a Republican-supported, market-based solution to environmental regulation. It was championed by Republicans like John McCain and even used successfully in reducing acid rain under George H.W. Bush.

When Obama proposed a cap-and-trade system to address climate change, Republicans denounced it as a “job-killing” scheme and labeled it a “tax on energy.” The bill ultimately failed in the Senate due to Republican opposition.

(Guess which president got the Environmental Protection Agency into existence. Republican Richard Nixon. The environment wasn't always a partisan issue and Republicans used to care about the environment before the issue was polarized.)

- The DREAM Act

The concept of providing a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as children had bipartisan support, with some Republican co-sponsors when first introduced in 2001.

By the time Obama advocated for the DREAM Act, Republicans opposed it, citing concerns about "amnesty," and blocked its passage through a Senate filibuster in 2010.

Then there were all the ridiculous personal attacks. This kind of nonsense, which hadn't been normal previously, became the daily norm:

The Republican philosophy became: If Obama and the Democrats are for it? We're against it!

I will abuse this moment to share the brilliant Groucho Marx singing "Whatever it is, I'm against it."

Anyway, this strategy worked for the Republicans and has been increasingly the norm for the Republican Party ever since.

That was bad enough, but a lot of left-leaning criticism of Obama focused on the idea that he was too centrist. That he kept trying to reach across the aisle to the Republicans, despite the way they slapped that hand every time he tried. They were pissed that Obama's administration bailed out the banks in 2009 (when they felt Democrats should be the party to break banks up and let them fail, Obama thought the economy wouldn't recover without a bailout and I think economically Obama was proven right, but politically, it hurt the Democrats). These left-leaning democrats thought it was time that the Democratic Party, originally a Labor party, had a leftist wing again.

(Sidebar: Yes, the internet has also contributed to polarization and the demise of nuance in a big way, but that's a topic for another time.)

I'm not suggesting that the polarization of the US electorate has been symmetrical. It hasn't. The rightward movement of the Republican Party has been much greater than the leftward movement of the Democrats - but we got reactionary far-left Democrats, too.

While the Republican Party is now run entirely by far right ideology (and that's a disaster), the Democrats helped make it happen with their own end of the Horseshoe.

The loudest democrats, the ones with good Q scores in the Democratic base are the likes of AOC/Ilhan Omar/Rashida Tlaib. They married the leftist wing of the Democrats to "global South" and Islamist causes (oversimplification, yes), which helped decrease support to Israel (which the Democrats used to support enthusiastically when it had a lefty government) and caused the Democratic party to completely ignore the rising antisemitism of the left, particularly on college campuses. How could it be wrong, they argued, to support protestors who are advocating for human rights?

This gave Republicans the opportunity to *own* those issues. Elise Stefanik didn't give a single shit about campus antisemitism, but the Republicans owned the issue in the minds of most Americans from this moment on:

Claudine Gay was very badly prepared for this hearing. She spoke like a lawyer, not like a human being. It was obvious Harvard hadn't done anything to protect the civil rights of Jews on campus in acoordance with federal law.

Americans (correctly) saw that liberal institutions, aligned with Democrats, hadn't done anything, nor had congressional Democrats who didn't want to alienate the "Pro-Palestinian" part of their base and didn't want the Republicans to have an excuse to go after colleges. This was a huge mistake. Biden should have had the Department of Education sue these institutions for their failure to protect civil rights. It is tragic that the Democrats did less than nothing, but that helped get us where we are.

So where did this get us?

Now, fighting antisemitism is a partisan issue which the GOP "supports" (for its own reasons, mostly a political wedge) and the Democrats oppose it as a symbol of Republican fascism.

This is why they lionize Mahmoud Khalil.

Now, being a liberal seems to mean believing that claims of antisemitism are wildly exaggerated and being dishonestly used to deflict criticism of Israel.

Now we have liberals saying "criticism of Israel isn't antisemitism" as if that hadn't always been the view of US Jews who love to criticize Israel.

Now we have liberals who are opposed to every sort of religious/ethnic persecution except one- because as David Baddiel said, Jews Don't Count.

Now, the support of the only liberal democracy the MENA region is a partisan issue which the Republican party "supports" (for its own reasons, mostly geopolitical advantage) and which the Democratic party base associates with Trump's autocracy and fascism.

There's seemingly no room for nuance on either side.

So if I express the belief that the law permits Trump to ban foreign nationals who promote violence, despite their support for Biden doing the same, liberals think I'm a fascist.

(Guess which President, by the way, was the biggest deporter of foreign nationals in modern history. Hint: it was Obama.)

If I support declining visas and/or residence to foreigners who promote terrorism (as Biden did in 2024, remember), Democrats see me as a fascist, aligned with Trump, and an enemy of civil liberties. The right sort of Jew, for Democrats, disowns Israel and opposes anything Trump does.

If I criticize Trump's efforts towards autocracy and fascism, I'm the wrong sort of Jew because I don't appreciate his strategic support of Israel or feigned caring about antisemtism. The right sort of Jew, for Republicans, is the Jew who still thinks of politics in the predictable framing of the "is-it-good-for-the-Jews" mindset and isn't concerned about the dismantling of the liberal democracy which made Jews (and everyone else) safer and more prosperous in the US than at any time in history.

If the Dems are for it, the GOP is against it.

If the GOP is for it, the Dems are against it.

These partisan policy positions are, for now, locked.

If you watch the news with this framing in mind, it may make more sense.

If you've actually reached the end of this ramble, I'm shocked and grateful. Have a cookie: 🍪

[alwaysbewoke]

x

[commonsensecommentary]

“Given how often our nation’s elites today use their power and influence to rob us of our freedom of speech and rights to self-determination—because we are apparently not to be trusted to govern ourselves without their malign interference—we cannot continue to allow our current crop of misguided and deeply un-American leaders to remain in control of our nation and its vital institutions.”

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Rob Henderson

Published: Apr 25, 2024

Perhaps counterintuitively, gender equality is leading to greater gender-related differences.

In most wealthy nations, women have been steadily closing the gap with men on several fronts. In the United States, women now earn the majority of the bachelor’s, master’s, and doctoral degrees. Women now receive more than half of STEM college degrees, and the proportion of women in the tech sector has risen in recent years, to 35 percent in 2023 from 31 percent in 2019. Among Americans younger than 30, women’s earnings rival or even surpass men’s in many metropolitan areas, including Boston, New York, Los Angeles, and Washington, D.C.

As these gaps have narrowed, we might have expected men and women to become more alike in other ways, including their cultural values and politics. Yet we are seeing the reverse.

This is especially true when it comes to political orientation. Recent polls have highlighted increasing polarization along gender lines on various political issues. Since 2014, women younger than 30 have become steadily more left-leaning each year, while young men have remained relatively static in their political views. In 2021, 44 percent of young women in the United States identified as liberal compared with just 25 percent of young men — the biggest gender gap in 24 years of polling.

In the Financial Times, John Burn-Murdoch recently articulated this stark contrast in a piece titled “A new global gender divide is emerging.” He observes that while older women and men are similar in their political views, young women have veered sharply to the left of young men.

Burn-Murdoch cites the influence of the #MeToo movement, suggesting it empowered young women to address longstanding injustices.

The Washington Post’s editorial board suggested that such polarization is to be expected in the United States, “a large, unwieldy democracy.” The Guardian proposes that digital spaces and social media influencers are luring young people into disparate online platforms that cultivate more extreme political views. No doubt these all play some role.

However, I’d like to propose an idea from my home discipline of academic psychology: the gender-equality paradox. This emerged as one of the most mind-blowing findings that researchers published while I was pursuing my recent doctoral studies at the University of Cambridge.

The paradox is straightforward: Societies with higher levels of wealth, political equality, and women in the workforce show larger personal, social, and political differences between men and women. In other words, the wealthier and more egalitarian the country, the larger the gender differences.

The pattern exists not just for political ideology but also for things like academic preferences, physical aggression, self-esteem, frequency of crying, interest in casual sex, and personality traits such as extraversion. In all these categories, the differences have been largest in societies that have gone the furthest in attempting to treat women and men the same.

Of course, there is an overlap for all of these attributes — aggression, for example, is a trait that both women and men can exhibit.

But there’s less overlap — meaning greater differences — in more-equal societies. In China, which scores low on gender parity, the overlap between men and women in personality traits such as extraversion and openness to experience is actually very high, 84 percent. In the Netherlands, which is among the most gender-equal societies, the overlap is just 61 percent.

More recently, a study of 67 countries found that although women generally tend to hold stricter moral views, gender differences in verdicts in hypothetical court scenarios are largest in wealthier and more equal societies. Specifically, women view misconduct more unfavorably than men in most places, but this difference in judgment is larger in richer and more equal countries.

This gender gap has also been found for physical differences in things like height, BMI, obesity, and blood pressure. Across societies, men tend to be taller, heavier, and have higher blood pressure than women. But in rich and relatively equal societies, gender differences are particularly large.

The gender-equality paradox might also help to explain why the gender gap in political orientation has grown among young people. One natural explanation is that young women are outpacing men in higher education, with men now making up just 40 percent of college students. Some evidence suggests that college tends to cultivate more liberal attitudes.

However, even among college students, women are more left-leaning than men. A Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression survey of 254 colleges and universities found that 55 percent of female students identify as liberal, compared with only 40 percent of male students. Interestingly, at schools ranked below 200 by US News and World Report, 45 percent of women and 33 percent of men identify as liberal. At top 25 schools, though, the difference is more pronounced, with 71 percent of women and 54 percent of men identifying as liberal.

The gender-equality paradox can help to explain why the gender gap is largest at the most selective US colleges, where family income tends to be higher and sociopolitical equality tends to be especially highly prized.

In an interview in The Times of London, the psychologist Steve Stewart-Williams succinctly summarized the paradox: “Treating men and women the same makes them different, and treating them differently makes them the same.”

There are a variety of possible explanations for the gender-equality paradox, but one prevailing view is that as societies become relatively more prosperous and equal, people more fully express their underlying traits and preferences.

Of course, culture matters in explaining gender differences — just not in the way most people think.

In less affluent and less egalitarian societies, gender differences in physical traits are flattened due to scarcity — that is, the absence of food and other resources stunts growth, especially for men, leading to smaller physical disparities. Moreover, gender differences in psychological traits narrow in response to rigid social expectations.

In the most equal nations of the world, it’s not harsh gender socialization by parents and media, strict societal expectations, or institutional forces that widen the differences between men and women. In the absence of dire poverty and strict social expectations, people are in a position to express their intrinsic attributes and preferences.

The freer people are and the more fairly they are treated, the more differences tend to grow rather than shrink. Thus, we shouldn’t be surprised that Gen Z men and women are diverging along political lines to a greater extent than earlier generations did.

Rob Henderson has a PhD in psychology from the University of Cambridge and is the author of “Troubled: A Memoir of Foster Care, Family, and Social Class.”

[ Via: https://archive.today/zzoqm ]

--

Abstract

Men's and women's personalities appear to differ in several respects. Social role theories of development assume gender differences result primarily from perceived gender roles, gender socialization and sociostructural power differentials. As a consequence, social role theorists expect gender differences in personality to be smaller in cultures with more gender egalitarianism. Several large cross-cultural studies have generated sufficient data for evaluating these global personality predictions. Empirically, evidence suggests gender differences in most aspects of personality-Big Five traits, Dark Triad traits, self-esteem, subjective well-being, depression and values-are conspicuously larger in cultures with more egalitarian gender roles, gender socialization and sociopolitical gender equity. Similar patterns are evident when examining objectively measured attributes such as tested cognitive abilities and physical traits such as height and blood pressure. Social role theory appears inadequate for explaining some of the observed cultural variations in men's and women's personalities. Evolutionary theories regarding ecologically-evoked gender differences are described that may prove more useful in explaining global variation in human personality.

==

For reference, "liberal" is used here in the American sense of "left-wing," rather than the sense of classical liberalism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, right to private property and equality before the law. Liberals espouse various and often mutually warring views depending on their understanding of these principles but generally support private property, market economies, individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), liberal democracy, secularism, rule of law, economic and political freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion, constitutional government and privacy rights. Liberalism is frequently cited as the dominant ideology of modern history.

Much of what constitutes modern day "leftism," such as Critical Theory, modern "color conscious" conceptions of "antiracism," and gender ideology is extraordinarily illiberal.

[ngdrb]

The Political Polarization of Democracy: A Comprehensive Analysis

In contemporary democratic societies, political polarization has emerged as a critical issue influencing governance, public discourse, and societal cohesion. This essay seeks to explore the multifaceted nature of political polarization within democracies, examining its causes, manifestations, and consequences.

Understanding Political Polarization

Political polarization can be defined as the divergence of political attitudes to ideological extremes. Within democratic frameworks, polarization often manifests in heightened partisan conflicts, ideological rigidity, and a breakdown of consensus-building mechanisms. It fundamentally alters the dynamics of democratic governance by exacerbating divisions among citizens, politicians, and institutions.

Causes of Political Polarization

Several factors contribute to political polarization in democracies. Firstly, socio-economic disparities and inequality can amplify political divisions, as differing economic interests lead to contrasting policy preferences. Secondly, media fragmentation and the rise of digital platforms have facilitated echo chambers and filter bubbles, reinforcing pre-existing beliefs and reducing exposure to diverse viewpoints. Thirdly, identity politics, characterized by the mobilization of groups based on shared identities such as race, ethnicity, or religion, has intensified political cleavages.

Manifestations in Democratic Processes

Political polarization manifests prominently in democratic processes. It impedes legislative efficacy as partisan gridlock obstructs consensus on policy-making. Moreover, polarization influences electoral behavior, with voters increasingly aligning along ideological lines rather than evaluating candidates based on policy outcomes or qualifications. This trend erodes trust in democratic institutions and electoral integrity, thereby undermining the legitimacy of elected governments.

Consequences for Governance and Society

The consequences of political polarization are far-reaching. In governance, polarization hinders effective policymaking and compromises the ability of governments to address pressing societal challenges. It fosters a climate of hostility and distrust among political adversaries, limiting opportunities for bipartisan cooperation. Socially, polarization contributes to societal fragmentation, diminishing social cohesion and fostering animosity between different segments of the population. Furthermore, it can lead to the erosion of democratic norms and values, as political actors prioritize partisan interests over democratic principles.

Addressing Political Polarization

Addressing political polarization requires a concerted effort from various stakeholders. Firstly, promoting civic education and media literacy can equip citizens with critical thinking skills necessary to navigate diverse sources of information and engage in constructive dialogue. Secondly, fostering inclusive political discourse that emphasizes shared values and common goals can mitigate divisive rhetoric and promote mutual understanding. Additionally, electoral reforms aimed at reducing the influence of money in politics and enhancing transparency can mitigate polarization's impact on democratic processes.

Conclusion

In conclusion, political polarization poses significant challenges to the health and vitality of democracies worldwide. By understanding its causes, manifestations, and consequences, policymakers and citizens alike can work towards mitigating its adverse effects. Upholding democratic principles of tolerance, inclusivity, and deliberation remains essential in fostering a political climate conducive to consensus-building and effective governance. Ultimately, combating political polarization is integral to safeguarding the democratic ideals of representation, accountability, and the pursuit of the common good.

Polarization and Democracy:

Definition: Political polarization refers to the increasing divergence of political views and attitudes between different groups or individuals within a society.

Effects on Democracy:

Positive Aspects:

Vigorous Debate: Some level of polarization can lead to robust debates, diverse perspectives, and creative problem-solving.

Clear Choices: It helps voters differentiate between parties and candidates, making electoral choices more distinct.

Negative Aspects:

Gridlock: Extreme polarization can lead to legislative gridlock, hindering effective governance.

Erosion of Trust: When parties demonize each other, public trust in institutions declines.

Us vs. Them Mentality: Polarization fosters an “us vs. them” mentality, undermining cooperation.

Threats to Democratic Norms: Extreme polarization can weaken democratic norms, such as respect for the rule of law and peaceful transitions of power.

Mitigation Strategies:

Intergroup Contact: Encourage interactions between opposing groups to reduce prejudice.

Perspective Taking: Foster empathy by encouraging people to see issues from others’ viewpoints.

Superordinate Goals: Emphasize shared goals that transcend partisan divisions.

Ranked Choice Voting: Implement electoral reforms that encourage moderation and positive elections.

Media Literacy: Promote critical thinking and media literacy to combat misinformation.

Social Media Kindness: Encourage respectful online discourse and defuse hateful speech.

Institutional Reforms: Strengthen democratic institutions to withstand polarization12.

Historical Impact:

19th Century: The 19th century witnessed transformative changes in democracy. Industrialization, abolitionism, and women’s suffrage contributed to expanding democratic ideals3.

Renaissance Humanism: The Renaissance shifted focus from monarchs and the Church to individual potential, laying the groundwork for democratic development4.

Recent Examples:

United States: A resurgence of civil society movements impacted democratic attitudes. Even failed movements leave enduring effects on participants and bystanders5.

Global Spread: Polarization affects democracies worldwide, from Brazil and India to Poland and Turkey6.

Long-Term Effects of Social Movements:

Case Study: China’s democracy movement.

Findings: Exposure to the movement during college led to significant attitudinal differences, especially among alumni of universities closely connected to the movement7.

In summary, while polarization can have both positive and negative effects, addressing it through informed strategies is crucial for maintaining healthy democracies.

[melanieaycockdesigns]

Political Polarization is no doubt one of the most wicked design problems plaguing America today. While many are quick to point fingers blaming social media algorithms or the "mainstream media", there unfortunately is no one root cause. The research discussed in this article proves there is no "easy fix." Since I don't have a design solution (yet), I made a poster of the problem instead. Enjoy.

[nagisingnapinoy]

It is a mad world that thinks this is an unreasonable opinion.

[firstoccupier]

A Nation at the Brink: Voices of Dissent Emerge Amid Growing Division

In a time where political fractures threaten the very fabric of American society, a tapestry of voices from a diverse array of protests emerges, capturing the essence of a nation teetering on the edge. From the fervor of youth demanding change to historical reflections on division, these narratives illustrate a profound struggle for justice and identity in an increasingly polarized landscape. On…

[leonvisionchronicles]

Analyzing Speaker Mike Johnson’s Proposed Funding Bill Through the Lens of Raven Leonis Philosophy

By David Leon Dantes In the intricate dance of governance, decisions often reflect deeper philosophical underpinnings. Speaker Mike Johnson’s recently unveiled funding bill, aimed at averting a government shutdown, offers a canvas to explore through the Raven Leonis Philosophy—a framework that challenges individuals to rethink leadership, power, and existence by blending ancient wisdom with…

[commonsensecommentary]

“I believe the 2024 elections boiled down, when all was said and done, to a single, overriding factor: Voters are sick of the incessant nagging and scolding of easily offended and perpetually aggrieved Democrats who sneered at the concerns—and denigrated the values—of those whom they deemed less educated, less worthy, and less enlightened than they.”

[truthwars]

Jaleel White's Twisted Take on the "Reality of the Left"

Jaleel White, known for his role as Steve Urkel on Family Matters, recently made headlines with controversial political comments. In a recent interview, White claimed to expose the “reality of the left” and its alleged threats to society. His statements sparked debate and raised questions about his motives. A Scare Tactic: Jake Hurley and the Call for Violence White’s main argument centers on…

[civicsavvy]

Part 4: The Forgotten Consensus: Shared Values Across Divides

In an era marked by intense polarization, it is easy to overlook the core values that unite individuals across political, social, and cultural divides. Despite the rhetoric that suggests an irreconcilable divide among Americans, many underlying principles remain widely held. These shared values—such as freedom, justice, community, and the pursuit of happiness—form the foundation of American identity and provide a pathway for reconnecting amidst discord.

Highlighting Underlying Values

At the heart of American society lies a commitment to fundamental principles that resonate across political ideologies. These include:

Freedom: The desire for individual liberties is a cornerstone of American life. Whether one leans left or right, the importance of personal freedom—be it freedom of speech, religion, or choice—is a shared value that transcends political affiliation. This commitment to freedom serves as a rallying point for diverse groups, allowing for conversations about rights and responsibilities that foster mutual respect.

Justice: The pursuit of justice is a common aspiration that motivates many social movements and civic actions. While interpretations of justice may vary, the fundamental belief in fairness and equity resonates with people across the political spectrum. Acknowledging this shared commitment can pave the way for constructive discussions about reform and accountability within systems of governance and society.

Community: The value of community and connection is another unifying factor. Regardless of political beliefs, most people yearn for belonging, support, and the ability to contribute to the greater good. Emphasizing community engagement and collective well-being can help bridge divides and encourage collaboration on local initiatives that benefit everyone.

The Pursuit of Happiness: The idea that everyone should have the opportunity to pursue their version of happiness is a fundamental American ideal. This principle can encourage dialogue about social and economic policies, allowing for discussions that focus on creating environments where individuals can thrive.

Evidence of “Deep Agreement” on Key Issues

Research has shown that beneath the surface-level disagreements, there exists a “deep agreement” on many critical issues. Studies by organizations such as the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) and the Pew Research Center reveal that, on several key issues, majorities across political affiliations share similar concerns and aspirations.

Economic Opportunity: Across party lines, there is a consensus that economic opportunity should be accessible to all. Many Americans believe in the importance of providing pathways for upward mobility, supporting education, and creating job opportunities for those struggling to make ends meet.

Healthcare: While specific policy preferences may differ, the overarching belief that access to healthcare is a fundamental right is prevalent among many Americans. This shared concern can drive discussions about how to reform the healthcare system in a way that aligns with shared values.

Environmental Protection: Concerns about environmental degradation and the desire for sustainable practices are common sentiments among diverse groups. The acknowledgment of our shared responsibility to protect the planet can serve as a unifying cause that transcends partisan divides.

Safety and Security: The need for personal and community safety is a universal concern. While approaches to achieving safety may differ, the underlying desire for secure environments is a common ground that can facilitate cooperation on issues like crime reduction and public safety.

Emphasizing Shared Beliefs Amid Disagreements on Specific Policies

While policy disagreements are inevitable in a democratic society, emphasizing shared beliefs can help mitigate polarization and foster a culture of collaboration. Here are some strategies to highlight these common values:

Focus on Common Goals: In discussions around contentious issues, it is essential to frame conversations in terms of shared goals rather than partisan divides. By articulating a collective vision for the future—such as improved healthcare access, economic prosperity, or environmental stewardship—individuals can align their interests toward common objectives.

Encourage Dialogue Over Debate: Shift the focus from adversarial debate to open dialogue. Create spaces where individuals can share their experiences and perspectives without fear of judgment. Encourage active listening and the exploration of underlying motivations, which can reveal shared values even when specific policy preferences differ.

Celebrate Local Initiatives: Highlight local examples of cooperation and community-building that transcend political divides. By showcasing successful collaborative efforts on issues like education, public health, or infrastructure, individuals can see the potential for collective action, inspiring broader movements for unity.

Utilize Storytelling: Personal narratives can be powerful tools for connecting with others. By sharing stories that reflect common struggles, hopes, and aspirations, individuals can humanize issues and foster empathy. Storytelling allows people to relate to one another on a deeper level, moving beyond political labels and fostering understanding.

Engage in Community Activities: Encourage participation in community service projects, town hall meetings, or local events that bring diverse groups together. Engaging in shared activities fosters connections and reinforces a sense of community, reminding individuals of their shared humanity.

Conclusion: Reclaiming the Narrative of Unity

In a time characterized by polarization, reclaiming the narrative of unity requires an active commitment to recognizing and celebrating the shared values that bind us together. By focusing on underlying principles like freedom, justice, and community, and by embracing the evidence of deep agreement on key issues, individuals can transcend divisions and work toward common goals.

In the following part, attention will be given to how universities and educational institutions shape social attitudes and political beliefs, emphasizing the need for balanced discourse and intellectual diversity. This section will discuss the pivotal role of academia in cultivating critical thinking and promoting a broad-minded approach to differing perspectives.

Part 5: The Role of Universities and Education in Shaping Perspectives

In today's polarized landscape, educational institutions wield substantial power in shaping societal attitudes, beliefs, and political perspectives. Universities and colleges have historically been spaces for intellectual exploration, free expression, and rigorous debate. Yet, in recent years, some argue that academia has shifted, increasingly reflecting specific ideologies that may discourage genuine critical thinking and open dialogue. This chapter delves into the role of universities in shaping beliefs, examines the challenges posed by ideological conformity, and considers ways that educational institutions can foster a more balanced, open-minded approach.

Influence of Academia on Social Attitudes and Political Beliefs

Higher education plays a significant role in shaping the values, norms, and ideologies of students. For many, college years are formative, marking the first time they encounter diverse perspectives and engage in deep self-reflection. As such, universities serve as cultural incubators, influencing the trajectory of social and political beliefs in broader society. For instance, studies show that students are more likely to emerge from college with progressive attitudes, especially regarding social issues such as gender equality, racial justice, and environmental concerns.

However, there is ongoing debate over the extent to which this shift reflects a genuine exploration of diverse ideas versus an environment that encourages specific perspectives. Some researchers argue that the ideological leanings of faculty members and the overall culture on many campuses can unintentionally create an "echo chamber" effect, where certain views are amplified while others are marginalized. As a result, students may feel pressured to adopt mainstream opinions or risk social alienation.

Ideological Conformity and Its Consequences

The issue of ideological conformity within academic settings has been widely discussed in recent years, with concerns about "groupthink" emerging in some disciplines. In an environment where a particular ideological framework dominates, students and faculty members may be discouraged—whether directly or subtly—from expressing dissenting opinions. This creates a culture where individuals may avoid questioning widely accepted beliefs, inhibiting the kind of critical thinking that universities aim to foster.

This conformity can have several consequences. First, it undermines the principle of academic freedom, limiting the scope of inquiry and hindering intellectual diversity. When certain perspectives are sidelined or dismissed outright, the result is a partial, and sometimes distorted, view of complex social and political issues. Second, ideological conformity can create a polarized campus environment, where students perceive "acceptable" and "unacceptable" opinions, stifling productive discussion and discouraging genuine curiosity.

Moreover, the consequences of this culture extend beyond the walls of academia. Graduates who have primarily been exposed to a narrow range of views may be less prepared to navigate diverse perspectives in the workforce and society at large. As they enter professional and civic life, they may struggle to engage with others who hold different beliefs, perpetuating the broader polarization we see in society.

Fostering Critical Thinking and Open Dialogue

To counteract these tendencies, universities must prioritize critical thinking and open dialogue, treating them as foundational skills rather than secondary goals. Critical thinking allows students to analyze information, question assumptions, and evaluate arguments, which is essential for developing well-rounded perspectives on complex issues. When students learn to engage critically with diverse ideas, they become better equipped to form their own views, rather than simply adopting prevailing beliefs uncritically.

Open dialogue, meanwhile, ensures that students are exposed to a range of viewpoints, helping to foster empathy and understanding. By facilitating respectful conversations across ideological divides, universities can create an environment where students feel safe expressing different perspectives. This approach not only enriches students' academic experiences but also prepares them to be thoughtful, open-minded citizens.

To achieve this, universities can implement several strategies:

Encourage Ideological Diversity Among Faculty and Guest Speakers: By actively seeking faculty and speakers from diverse ideological backgrounds, universities can expose students to a broader range of perspectives. This helps prevent an echo chamber effect and ensures that students encounter ideas they might not otherwise encounter.

Establish Forums for Structured Debate: Organized debates, panel discussions, and dialogue sessions can provide structured opportunities for students to engage with contrasting viewpoints. When these events are moderated effectively, they can serve as valuable educational experiences, teaching students how to engage in respectful, constructive debate.

Incorporate Critical Thinking into the Curriculum: Critical thinking skills should be explicitly taught and emphasized throughout the curriculum, regardless of discipline. Assignments and assessments that require students to analyze different perspectives, question assumptions, and construct well-reasoned arguments can help cultivate this skill.

Create a Culture of Intellectual Humility: Encouraging intellectual humility—the recognition that one's own views are fallible—can reduce defensiveness and make students more receptive to alternative perspectives. By promoting a mindset of continuous learning, universities can foster a culture where students feel comfortable re-evaluating their beliefs.

Support Freedom of Expression Policies: Clear policies supporting freedom of expression on campus can help create an environment where students feel empowered to express diverse views without fear of retribution. Universities should make it clear that, while hate speech is unacceptable, respectful discussion of controversial ideas is both welcome and encouraged.

Case Studies: Universities That Champion Open Dialogue

Some universities have made strides toward promoting a culture of open dialogue and intellectual diversity. For instance, the University of Chicago is well known for its "Chicago Principles," which affirm the institution's commitment to free expression and open discourse. This policy has become a model for other universities, demonstrating the potential for creating an environment where students are encouraged to explore diverse viewpoints.

Another example is Princeton University's James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions, which hosts lectures, seminars, and fellowships focused on open debate and the study of American principles. Programs like these create spaces where students can engage with a wide array of ideological perspectives, challenging their preconceptions and expanding their understanding.

In both cases, these universities have recognized that fostering open dialogue and critical thinking requires intentional policies and programs. Their commitment to these principles underscores the value of a balanced approach to education that respects intellectual freedom while encouraging thoughtful, inclusive discussions.

Preparing Students for a Polarized World

The role of universities in shaping perspectives extends beyond academic and career preparation; it also includes preparing students to engage constructively in a polarized world. By fostering critical thinking and open dialogue, universities can equip students with the tools they need to approach complex issues thoughtfully and empathetically. Rather than viewing ideological diversity as a threat, they can see it as an asset—a means of broadening their understanding and challenging their assumptions.

Ultimately, educational institutions have a responsibility to create an environment where students are encouraged to think independently and engage with a wide range of ideas. In doing so, they can help bridge the divides that have become so prominent in society, cultivating a generation of graduates who are not only knowledgeable but also open-minded and prepared to build a more unified future.

[firstoccupier]

Scrutiny Surrounds New Executive Order on Education: Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling

In a bold move that has ignited controversy across the educational landscape, President [Name] has issued an Executive Order titled “Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling,” aiming to reshape the content taught in America’s classrooms. The order, announced on January 29, 2025, reflects a concerted effort to address growing concerns over educational practices that some argue undermine…

[briannapuppet]

Why the Alt-Right Pipeline Works

12 Rules for Life didn't work because the rules were good. Rather, it was because Jordan Peterson, in the book as well as especially on his viral YouTube videos, performs a fatherly archetype, tells you uncomfortable truths, and gives you permission to act on your common sense.

That's always going to work. The rules are going to be different all the time because what's obvious or not - what's taboo or not - various by time and place and circumstance.

For me, the one that hit really hard was "Make friends with people who want the best for you."

This lead to me going on a slash-and-burn of my friends list, because I realized that all these people did not want the best for me.

See, I was friends with a lot of Bay Area goth-adjacent liberals. I had built these friendships because in these people and in that scene, there was a current of energy flowing towards queerness and gender non-conformity. As a closeted trans woman, I thought, "If I swim with these currents, I'll get to my authentic gender."

However, the scene seemed to undergo a metamorphosis between 2010 and 2020. I had certainly started out hanging out with polyamorous artists, rope bunnies and theater goths, but by the end of the decade, these people had become heavily-online, corporate-liberal virtue signalers.

I was like, "All right, let's go be carnivillains! Let's wear sexy costumes and put on immersive art shows! Let's take drugs, do yoga, get hot and have orgies! Let's make music, pornography and cartoons!" But all they wanted to do was sit around and talk about how awful Republicans are, and they resented me every time I chose to exercise, play with makeup or do philosophy instead of listen to their pathetic, self-serving prattle.

And they were positively vicious to me whenever I talked about reading empowering self-help books, which they thought would inevitably lead me to the alt right.

But on the other hand, I also don't understand why Jordan Peterson is so caught up with Christian Nationalism. Like, he hides most of that in 12 Rules, but when I tried to read Maps of Meaning, there was so much Conservative Christianity in the front that I couldn't get to the parts I knew were good from his lectures.

I have to admit, I feel like a fish out of water in Blue territory. Atheist goths and pseudo-pagans think I'm insane just because I say things like, "I pay attention to my hunches," "I read a science fiction book that gave me insight into this situation" or "I feel like part of you says 'I love you,' and the other part tries to manipulate me."

So, when I encounter Christian Nationalists, real mythopoeticists like Peterson, I'm happy, because at least they believe. We have in common a belief that if you look down deep into your soul, love yourself, and try to do your best, you'll prosper and so will the world. But when I look down into my soul, I know that I'm a woman, and I know that the heaven they think they want to ascend to would be no paradise for me. And I'm okay with that, but they can't suffer even the most benevolent and caring witch, even if it would be to their benefit. They're all obsessed with purging heretics instead of recognizing our common interests.

Because, if you take out syrupy, dogmatic Christianity part, confronting uncomfortable truths and giving people permission to lower their inhibitions and act from their heart is super positive. It leads people inevitably to personal growth. And I feel like the young men who typically fall into the alt right could instead simply be shown how to set boundaries and be honest - that they have hearts, and they're willing to help, but they don't want to be talked down to or demeaned.