Something is breaking American politics, but it's not social media

[ABX]

Here’s something everyone knows: Social media is driving American politics into a ditch of partisanship. Political junkies log on and cocoon themselves in a bubble of friendly punditry, appealing fake news, and outrageous acts from the other side. Every retweet and every like is another moment of identity confirmation, another high five to our friends, another reminder that we’re right and they’re wrong.

The result is, well, this ugly mess — President Donald Trump, red and blue Americas, polls showing we fear and hate the other party more than ever before, conspiracy theories growing like weeds, a polity where agreement is impossible and everyone is angry. Damn you, Facebook! Curse you, Twitter! (Instagram, you’re cool.)....

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/4/12/15259438/social-media-political-polarization

[skeeter]

Of course this article completely ignores the possibility that politically and culturally things aren't really hunky dory, and the dreaded 'polarization' might be a result of the human capacity for critical thought.

No, its gotta be that talk radio.

[Sanguine]

Their approach is simple. Using data from the American National Election Survey, they compare the most web-savvy voters (the young, where 80 percent used social media in 2012) and the least web-savvy voters (the old, where fewer than 20 percent used social media in 2012) on nine different tests of political polarization. The measures cover everything from feelings about political parties to ideological consistency to straight-ticket voting, and the data shows how polarization changed among these groups between 1996 and 2012.

The results? On fully eight of the nine measures, “polarization increases more for the old than the young.” If Facebook is the problem, then how come the problem is worst among those who don’t use Facebook?

To be thorough, Boxell, Gentzkow, and Shapiro also construct panels based on internet access and find much the same thing — polarization is accelerating fastest among those using the internet the least:...

Perhaps those who use the internet least are not as brainwashed as those who do.  In this case "polarized" may mean having values and opinions that differ from the socially accepted "mainstream".

[Free Vulcan]

To put it simply, the country is breaking apart.

[Frank Cannon]

To put it simply, the country is breaking apart.

So what's new. I can't remember a Presidency when protests and rancor were not the order of the day.

[truth_seeker]

So what's new. I can't remember a Presidency when protests and rancor were not the order of the day.

And before your memory, too. The 1930s were pretty "divided," as were the 1960s/70s too.

When I read some naïve crap, I have to remind myself they simply are ignorant. Ignorant about how pissed off some people were about the draft, the death in Vietnam, etc.

I lived right through the middle of that. Was drafted. Saw riots. Was overseas in uniform, when four were shot by National Guard troops at Kent State.

That is a stage of unrest, we have yet to witness. Those two groups at Berkeley last week, were pretty mild for the most part.

More guys died during stateside training for Vietnam, than have died recently in domestic unrest.

[jmyrlefuller]

I think the author has it backward.

Social media has in fact led to group-think as the most social media savvy, the young, give in to peer pressure (something that social media amplifies many times over) and embrace popular dogmas to be with the cool kids. It's actually far more unifying than divisive, but not in a good way. Propaganda from special interest groups gets tossed around like a hot potato.

People don't like to fight on social media. They go along to get along, so any thought process that gets challenged gets treated with scorn, and no one dares do it again.

[geronl]

It happens on both sides. You should see some of the pro-Trump fake news being spread around.

[goodwithagun]

And before your memory, too. The 1930s were pretty "divided," as were the 1960s/70s too.

When I read some naïve crap, I have to remind myself they simply are ignorant. Ignorant about how pissed off some people were about the draft, the death in Vietnam, etc.

I lived right through the middle of that. Was drafted. Saw riots. Was overseas in uniform, when four were shot by National Guard troops at Kent State.

That is a stage of unrest, we have yet to witness. Those two groups at Berkeley last week, were pretty mild for the most part.

More guys died during stateside training for Vietnam, than have died recently in domestic unrest.

When my students think they're so modern and original I quickly remind them that Shakespeare knocked up his girlfriend, their grandmas wore the original miniskirt, and Elvis couldn't be shown on TV from the waist down. They're reaction: Who's Elvis?

[Free Vulcan]

So what's new. I can't remember a Presidency when protests and rancor were not the order of the day.

That's just the bread and circuses. What's going on is much deeper and we too far gone to reverse it. We are too balkanized, our financial position is too far gone, as is the culture, and the American people are no longer up to the task to make the sacrifices to fix it either.

[kevindavis007]

I think the author has it backward.

Social media has in fact led to group-think as the most social media savvy, the young, give in to peer pressure (something that social media amplifies many times over) and embrace popular dogmas to be with the cool kids. It's actually far more unifying than divisive, but not in a good way. Propaganda from special interest groups gets tossed around like a hot potato.

People don't like to fight on social media. They go along to get along, so any thought process that gets challenged gets treated with scorn, and no one dares do it again.

 

[Cripplecreek]

I think the author has it backward.

Social media has in fact led to group-think as the most social media savvy, the young, give in to peer pressure (something that social media amplifies many times over) and embrace popular dogmas to be with the cool kids. It's actually far more unifying than divisive, but not in a good way. Propaganda from special interest groups gets tossed around like a hot potato.

People don't like to fight on social media. They go along to get along, so any thought process that gets challenged gets treated with scorn, and no one dares do it again.

Its not just the young. When I talk to my liberal sister its like she's reading from a script and plenty of people on the right sound the same way.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

I had a bad realization the other day (well, a few months back).

When there isn't a common enemy there really isn't a reason for a union. Remember that originally the states wanted to all be separate countries. Then the founders said we need to be a union because as a union we can survive and be strong. And there weren't many republics in those days. And in the civil war Lincoln argued for a union. And then we had the 20th century and two world wars, the cold war, and then terrorism.

America is on top. The idea that we need to be a union just isn't as compelling to most people. We have nukes up to ying yang. America can project it's power anywhere in the world.

Without a common enemy there's more reasons to splinter apart than trend towards unity. There's no real compelling external reason for liberals and conservatives to set aside their differences.