“Oftentimes, the alternative to polarization is suppression,” Klein says
February 27, 2020 2:50 PM Subscribe
Groups that are rising in power want their needs reflected in politics and culture, groups that feel themselves losing power want to protect the status and privileges they've had, and this conflict is sorting itself neatly into two parties.In his new book, "Why We're Polarized," Ezra Klein (Vox founder and political blogger) shows polarization isn't necessarily the problem some claim, and makes the case that Trump's election can be directly linked to the ongoing demographic shifts in the USA.
Why Are We Polarized? Don't Blame Social Media, Says Ezra Klein
The core story of the book is that over the past 50 years, the country’s dominant political coalitions have sorted by ideology, race, religion, geography, psychology, consumer behavior, and cultural preferences. This has, in turn, kicked off a series of feedback loops in which political institutions (the media, Congress) and actors (candidates, individual journalists) adopt more polarized strategies to both respond and appeal to a more polarized audience, which further polarizes the audience, which further polarizes the institutions, which further polarizes the audience, and so on.Lessons on Polarization from Journalist Ezra Klein
In the early 20th century, however, what may have looked to white America like a flourishing democracy was, on another level, a repressive regime stepping on the rights of minorities.Podcast Interview Roundup:
“Oftentimes, the alternative to polarization is suppression,” Klein says.
In 1950, the American Political Science Association advocated for a change. In a 98-page paper, some of the nation’s leading political scientists argued that the country’s two political parties were too similar. Voters couldn’t tell the two groups apart, and it was time for two political parties that were more ideologically sorted. The bipartisan period began falling apart over the next two decades—partly thanks to the Civil Rights acts of 1957 and 1960 and 1964, followed by the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Eventually, the South switched from blue to red.
Although polarization itself was likely inevitable, Klein says, there are several ways polarization could have gone. “I don’t think it’s crazy to even imagine the Republican Party being the party of civil rights, [with] the Democratic Party, given its very powerful Dixiecrat wing in the mid-century period, being the party of racial inequality,” he tells me.
Ta-Nehisi Coates on why political power isn’t enough for the right
Ta-Nehisi CoatesHarvard historian Jill Lepore on what “Why We’re Polarized” gets wrong
I think we don’t always realize the extent to which the culture actually interacts with politics. You say something in the book about how the effects of demographics are not felt in the immediate moment — it happens much later. And I think it’s actually the same way for culture. I think those who perceive a threat symbolically from Barack Obama are kind of correct because kids are going to grow up and they’re going to remember as a great authority figure this guy who was African American. And if it matters that all the other presidents before him were white, then it has to matter that he is black. So if white identity is important to you, then that might be threatening to you.
Ezra Klein
I have a line in the book that culture runs 10 years ahead of demographics and politics runs 10 years behind. Nike makes [Colin] Kaepernick their spokesman because they want to win the future. They want to appeal to young people, and young America is much more diverse. For the same reason, cable news networks only care how many people watch between 18 and 40 years old.
So cultural power is trying to win over the America that is to come. Political power — if you look at who votes and whose power is amplified by American geography — is operating behind. And then economic power is compounding over time. So there’s a deep instability in our politics right now where it is not wrong that this sort of Trump coalition feels itself losing a power it had. But it’s completely wrong to say that it has lost power. That’s disorienting for everybody because they’re reacting to loss, but it’s not like there’s some winner on the other side who can just sort of move forward with the agenda. So we’re in this incredibly clenched moment of very sharp conflict.
Jill LeporeThere are far worse things than polarization
It seemed to me that in a big structural way there’s a quite noticeable absence of villains in the book. Could you talk about that as a narrative choice? Why no villains?
Ezra Klein
I generally understand people as following incentives. I don’t trust people’s stories of why they do things. I am not a huge believer in individual agency in a narrow sense.
Obviously, if Donald Trump had not run for president, American history would have been different. But I don’t think if Mitch McConnell was beaten in Kentucky a couple of years ago that the current Republican leadership would be dramatically different. Given the incentives of the system, I think what happened was going to happen one way or the other.
Jamelle Bouie
Ezra, when I see books with these kinds of titles, my immediate thought is, “Oh, come on.” We’re not that polarized. It’s not that big of a deal. Things have been worse in American history — the 1850s, the 1930s, even the 1960s. So if we are uniquely polarized in the present moment, what makes it unique?
Ezra Klein
You’re completely right — when you use the word polarized, you get an immediate intuition from the audience that what you’re doing is lamenting how bitter everything is today. And, as you say, things have been much, much worse. The thing that I think is very unintuitive here is that polarization is not necessarily a bad thing and it is not necessarily a synonym for disagreement or bitterness or extremism.
I think the fascinating thing about the mid-20th century is it was a time of much more foundational political fracture than what we’re in right now. You had the civil rights movement, the women’s rights movement, the antiwar movement, the indigenous rights movement. You had national guardsmen killing protesters at Kent State. You had urban riots, you had Richard Nixon and Watergate, you had political assassination after political assassination.
What is different now is not faction or fracture. It is the way the different fractures align on top of each other. The way we’ve become polarized by party means that political identity has linked to a lot of other identities and a lot of other fractures in American politics.
The thing about positive feedback loops is that as the amount of feedback increases the whining gets louder and louder, and as the delay gets shorter the squealing gets higher and higher in pitch.
Until eventually the whole thing can't dissipate the power it's channeling and self-destructs with a huge bang and a burst of flame…
posted by Pinback at 3:13 PM on February 27, 2020 [6 favorites]
Until eventually the whole thing can't dissipate the power it's channeling and self-destructs with a huge bang and a burst of flame…
posted by Pinback at 3:13 PM on February 27, 2020 [6 favorites]
"The political media is biased, but not toward the left or right"
How can anyone take this guy seriously.
posted by Julianna Mckannis at 3:33 PM on February 27, 2020 [18 favorites]
How can anyone take this guy seriously.
posted by Julianna Mckannis at 3:33 PM on February 27, 2020 [18 favorites]
How can anyone take this guy seriously.
his main point is well reasoned i think. he says that america had little polarization (as we now understand that word) in the mid 20th century because both major parties shared the interest of disenfranchising african americans. this disgusting undermining of civil rights was the cost of doing business with the dixiecrats, whether you were a northern democrat or a republican. so, ostensibly, politics appeared to be "working" for voters and deals were struck, as long as you were fortunate enough to be white and thus to actually have some political representation. but as the dixiecrat consensus crumbled in the decades after the VRA, and the repub party absorbed most of the most virulent racists while dems got more diverse, the parties naturally got more polarized.
this doesnt explain everything about america, and lepore makes some salient criticisms, but the basic premise sounds more or less correct to me.
posted by wibari at 3:43 PM on February 27, 2020 [31 favorites]
his main point is well reasoned i think. he says that america had little polarization (as we now understand that word) in the mid 20th century because both major parties shared the interest of disenfranchising african americans. this disgusting undermining of civil rights was the cost of doing business with the dixiecrats, whether you were a northern democrat or a republican. so, ostensibly, politics appeared to be "working" for voters and deals were struck, as long as you were fortunate enough to be white and thus to actually have some political representation. but as the dixiecrat consensus crumbled in the decades after the VRA, and the repub party absorbed most of the most virulent racists while dems got more diverse, the parties naturally got more polarized.
this doesnt explain everything about america, and lepore makes some salient criticisms, but the basic premise sounds more or less correct to me.
posted by wibari at 3:43 PM on February 27, 2020 [31 favorites]
I remember Klein from when I called him Wonk Boy. He seemed to really embody the savvy observer, albeit with a generally liberal POV. Nevertheless, I always found something grasping and clawing at the margins of the respectable middle. And I still do.
Vox is OK, I guess. They've built a successful online media outlet that's generally progressive (but at the same time infuriatingly middle-of the road).
I guess my general problem with Wonk Boy and his ilk is whether they want to reform the system or whether they want to pull up their own chairs at the big boys' table. And I still don't know, frankly.
posted by sjswitzer at 3:46 PM on February 27, 2020 [6 favorites]
Vox is OK, I guess. They've built a successful online media outlet that's generally progressive (but at the same time infuriatingly middle-of the road).
I guess my general problem with Wonk Boy and his ilk is whether they want to reform the system or whether they want to pull up their own chairs at the big boys' table. And I still don't know, frankly.
posted by sjswitzer at 3:46 PM on February 27, 2020 [6 favorites]
I subscribe to the podcast but sometimes it's... difficult. There are some interesting people on there, but Klein talks and talks and talks and talks and when you think he's getting to the end of the sentence he adds another secondary clause or whatever they're called and then another one inside that like Russian dolls of pointless verbiage. I think he might be trying to get into the Guinness Book of Records for producing the longest run-on sentence in history, and I can't work out where he breathes. Perhaps he does circular breathing like an oboeist.
Generally one can easily get the gist of the question in the first twenty or thirty words, so I've got into the habit of then pressing the jump forward button until I can't hear his voice any more - five, six, seven or more times at thirty seconds a jump. It can easily halve the running time of the podcast. Can there be any greater love affair in the first half of the Twenty-First Century than that between Ezra Klein and the sound of his own voice?
But he has some very interesting people on there. And some dull ones, but I don't listen to those.
posted by Grangousier at 3:47 PM on February 27, 2020 [7 favorites]
Generally one can easily get the gist of the question in the first twenty or thirty words, so I've got into the habit of then pressing the jump forward button until I can't hear his voice any more - five, six, seven or more times at thirty seconds a jump. It can easily halve the running time of the podcast. Can there be any greater love affair in the first half of the Twenty-First Century than that between Ezra Klein and the sound of his own voice?
But he has some very interesting people on there. And some dull ones, but I don't listen to those.
posted by Grangousier at 3:47 PM on February 27, 2020 [7 favorites]
So many words for "straight white men don't want to share power".
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 3:47 PM on February 27, 2020 [29 favorites]
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 3:47 PM on February 27, 2020 [29 favorites]
I'm so tired of people talking about "left" and "right" as if they were two directions on a single line. We are conditioned by Hollywood and sports and other cultural factors as well as our political system to think of everything in left/right, black/white, one/zero, right/wrong when the real actual world is more complex. There are not two possible political options in this country, there are many. It's not one-dimensional it's two or three or more.
posted by technodelic at 3:55 PM on February 27, 2020 [7 favorites]
posted by technodelic at 3:55 PM on February 27, 2020 [7 favorites]
Left and right aren't political or ideological positions though, they're identities. The lovely thing about identities, versus principles and practices, is that you can strip them down, all the way to "us" and "them."
posted by klanawa at 3:58 PM on February 27, 2020 [7 favorites]
posted by klanawa at 3:58 PM on February 27, 2020 [7 favorites]
Reading this I'm reminded of McLuhan. What Klein's describing is that media used to be colder - Tv and Radio did not require participation and content was pushed passively. The new media landscape is superheated and with sprinkles of actual surveillance of the viewer.
Something weird about the article though. He talks about this thing that is happening, but he's also very clearly a benefactor of it...
posted by mit5urugi at 4:06 PM on February 27, 2020 [7 favorites]
Something weird about the article though. He talks about this thing that is happening, but he's also very clearly a benefactor of it...
posted by mit5urugi at 4:06 PM on February 27, 2020 [7 favorites]
I do like the simpatico timing of Klein's book and Rachel Bitecofer's work showing that current national politics has boiled down to a very concentrated form of us v them. Power your us to maximum effect, at the right time, and you win.
Unless of course your loan officer lives in Moscow.
posted by Harry Caul at 4:19 PM on February 27, 2020 [1 favorite]
Unless of course your loan officer lives in Moscow.
posted by Harry Caul at 4:19 PM on February 27, 2020 [1 favorite]
I heard Klein interviewed on Chris Hayes' podcast, and while I agree that often he's... not great... I did appreciate his explanation of the polarization being a result of alignments of identities.
Lemme see if I can explain it: say you were a fiscally-conservative gun-owning white lesbian environmentalist. Used to be, your decision as to what party you joined would be up to you, weighing which of those associations you felt were most important and best represented by one of the parties. You might end up in a party where one of your beliefs was flatly opposed by other party members, but who shared some of your other affiliations.
Nowadays, for ... reasons... those various identities/affiliations, instead of overlapping and overflowing into other areas, are stacking on top of each other like pancakes. Broadly speaking, if you're a gun-rights person, you're unlikely to be a feminist, or an environmentalist, or a lesbian. There's no room for you in the group where the gun-rights people hang out, even if you agree with them on that issue. Likewise, there's no room in the group that is in favor of protecting the environment for someone who wants to, say, increase defense spending or invade Venezuela.
The various issues/affiliations have sorted themselves into party alignments, in such a way as to prohibit people moving from one party to another without radical changes to their affiliations and beliefs.
Does that make sense?
posted by suelac at 4:23 PM on February 27, 2020 [37 favorites]
Lemme see if I can explain it: say you were a fiscally-conservative gun-owning white lesbian environmentalist. Used to be, your decision as to what party you joined would be up to you, weighing which of those associations you felt were most important and best represented by one of the parties. You might end up in a party where one of your beliefs was flatly opposed by other party members, but who shared some of your other affiliations.
Nowadays, for ... reasons... those various identities/affiliations, instead of overlapping and overflowing into other areas, are stacking on top of each other like pancakes. Broadly speaking, if you're a gun-rights person, you're unlikely to be a feminist, or an environmentalist, or a lesbian. There's no room for you in the group where the gun-rights people hang out, even if you agree with them on that issue. Likewise, there's no room in the group that is in favor of protecting the environment for someone who wants to, say, increase defense spending or invade Venezuela.
The various issues/affiliations have sorted themselves into party alignments, in such a way as to prohibit people moving from one party to another without radical changes to their affiliations and beliefs.
Does that make sense?
posted by suelac at 4:23 PM on February 27, 2020 [37 favorites]
Suelac, that is pretty close to my read of his research as well, but I would add something:
The right wing decided to own certain identities (gasoline, guns, no workers protections) and then, because of racism, expelled every minority group that agreed with them.
So, you have Muslims who might be very anti-abortion, pro-gas, anti-workers-rights.... and who are Democrats.
Ezra uses this to explain why the right wing went so far off the rails, while the left wing has stayed more reasonable. The right wing had nothing to lose by being extreme - they have coalesced around a single identity. The left, however, functions as a coalition of many identities.
This is combined with the power of negative partisanship. If the left is saying "The gun nuts will kill us" and the right is saying "The Muslims will kill us," it makes sense to me that Muslims would prefer to join the left.
posted by rebent at 4:33 PM on February 27, 2020 [20 favorites]
The right wing decided to own certain identities (gasoline, guns, no workers protections) and then, because of racism, expelled every minority group that agreed with them.
So, you have Muslims who might be very anti-abortion, pro-gas, anti-workers-rights.... and who are Democrats.
Ezra uses this to explain why the right wing went so far off the rails, while the left wing has stayed more reasonable. The right wing had nothing to lose by being extreme - they have coalesced around a single identity. The left, however, functions as a coalition of many identities.
This is combined with the power of negative partisanship. If the left is saying "The gun nuts will kill us" and the right is saying "The Muslims will kill us," it makes sense to me that Muslims would prefer to join the left.
posted by rebent at 4:33 PM on February 27, 2020 [20 favorites]
“ while the left wing has stayed more reasonable. ”
Like those very reasonable Bernie campaign workers.
posted by Ideefixe at 4:38 PM on February 27, 2020 [1 favorite]
Like those very reasonable Bernie campaign workers.
posted by Ideefixe at 4:38 PM on February 27, 2020 [1 favorite]
Like those very reasonable Bernie campaign workers.
The argument only applies to "reasonableness" in the sense of having beliefs that aren't influenced by as much of a bias towards conformity and the particular perspective of the individual Republican identity -- it doesn't imply that the left wing is going to contain nicer people.
posted by value of information at 4:52 PM on February 27, 2020 [8 favorites]
The argument only applies to "reasonableness" in the sense of having beliefs that aren't influenced by as much of a bias towards conformity and the particular perspective of the individual Republican identity -- it doesn't imply that the left wing is going to contain nicer people.
posted by value of information at 4:52 PM on February 27, 2020 [8 favorites]
“ while the left wing has stayed more reasonable. ”Because of course political identities are associated with groups of perfectly spherical, frictionless, identical people.
The Berniebros are not typical Democrats, if there is such a thing.
posted by Aardvark Cheeselog at 5:55 PM on February 27, 2020
> Wonk Boy
I have always thought of him as Young Ezra, and it did seem to me that he kind of sold out shortly after moving to the WaPo. He was excellent as a technocratic neutral explainer on the issues that went into the forging of Obamacare though.
posted by Aardvark Cheeselog at 5:59 PM on February 27, 2020
I have always thought of him as Young Ezra, and it did seem to me that he kind of sold out shortly after moving to the WaPo. He was excellent as a technocratic neutral explainer on the issues that went into the forging of Obamacare though.
posted by Aardvark Cheeselog at 5:59 PM on February 27, 2020
this disgusting undermining of civil rights was the cost of doing business with the dixiecrats, whether you were a northern democrat or a republican.I listened to most of the Chris Hayes podcast he did on the book, and thought he had a felicitious take on the Dixiecrats as basically conducting foreign policy with the rest of the States.
posted by Aardvark Cheeselog at 6:03 PM on February 27, 2020 [10 favorites]
He was excellent as a technocratic neutral explainer on the issues that went into the forging of Obamacare though.
But wasn't this the problem exactly? Trying to justify and sell the Republican healthcare plan to Republicans and failing to do so?
I mean, the kid's* got good intentions, probably, but he's terribly misguided most of the time.
* He'll always be that giddy, too eager, too grasping kid to me.
posted by sjswitzer at 6:22 PM on February 27, 2020 [1 favorite]
But wasn't this the problem exactly? Trying to justify and sell the Republican healthcare plan to Republicans and failing to do so?
I mean, the kid's* got good intentions, probably, but he's terribly misguided most of the time.
* He'll always be that giddy, too eager, too grasping kid to me.
posted by sjswitzer at 6:22 PM on February 27, 2020 [1 favorite]
The various issues/affiliations have sorted themselves into party alignments, in such a way as to prohibit people moving from one party to another without radical changes to their affiliations and beliefs.
Right, the parties have been agreeing to divvy up the political landscape like so much market segmentation. The hot-button issues are thrown out by one visible group or another (either the owning party or their antagonist), fought over for a time, then little to nothing happens. During all this time, they're passing tax breaks, creating loopholes, juicing up defense contracts and defense budgets, and basically working for the upper class, keeping things smooth with the interest rates and other financial measures.
All of this last stuff is constant throughout history, and these people comprise the Stock Market Party. The Stock Market Party is itself divided into two factions, and the historically-dominant NYSE wing has been feeling the NASDAQ wing nipping at their heels, which, for one, has had the deleterious effect of vaporizing the traditional news media.
The rich and/or otherwise privileged people are bonded to each other way more than they're bonded to any political party, as evidenced by both Trump and Bloomberg registering for different parties 20 years ago. They just float around up there, collecting money and power, occasionally lowering themselves to advocate for or against something that we little people have to deal with on a persistent basis.
This is why Bloomberg is not a legitimate candidate: he doesn't give a shit because he doesn't have to give a shit. He literally does not have to do a good job for any purpose other than his ego. He could bring about the fourth reich and go "Whoopsy! I'll be in my castle if you want me, just set up a time with my secretary. I apologize if anybody fears for their lives."
posted by rhizome at 6:24 PM on February 27, 2020 [18 favorites]
Right, the parties have been agreeing to divvy up the political landscape like so much market segmentation. The hot-button issues are thrown out by one visible group or another (either the owning party or their antagonist), fought over for a time, then little to nothing happens. During all this time, they're passing tax breaks, creating loopholes, juicing up defense contracts and defense budgets, and basically working for the upper class, keeping things smooth with the interest rates and other financial measures.
All of this last stuff is constant throughout history, and these people comprise the Stock Market Party. The Stock Market Party is itself divided into two factions, and the historically-dominant NYSE wing has been feeling the NASDAQ wing nipping at their heels, which, for one, has had the deleterious effect of vaporizing the traditional news media.
The rich and/or otherwise privileged people are bonded to each other way more than they're bonded to any political party, as evidenced by both Trump and Bloomberg registering for different parties 20 years ago. They just float around up there, collecting money and power, occasionally lowering themselves to advocate for or against something that we little people have to deal with on a persistent basis.
This is why Bloomberg is not a legitimate candidate: he doesn't give a shit because he doesn't have to give a shit. He literally does not have to do a good job for any purpose other than his ego. He could bring about the fourth reich and go "Whoopsy! I'll be in my castle if you want me, just set up a time with my secretary. I apologize if anybody fears for their lives."
posted by rhizome at 6:24 PM on February 27, 2020 [18 favorites]
Just read a piece yesterday from fivethirtyeight that touched on the subject of polarization, focused on the Democratic nomination and centrists splitting the votes. Their take on polariation:
> There is some evidence that Americans are becoming more ideologically divided, but there is still a pretty big gap between rank-and-file voters and elected officials and party leaders.
> In 1956, Americans could identify the party nominees’ positions on an issue and had a position on it themselves only 31 percent of the time. But by 2012 that number had risen to 77 percent.
> As for what’s driving more Americans to think more like ideologues, Wattenberg points partially to increased education levels. The most educated voters have long been the most likely to think about politics in ideological terms and hold consistent policy opinions, and now there are more of them — in 1980, only 17 percent of Americans over the age of 24 had completed four years of college or more; by 2018, it was 35 percent.
posted by pwnguin at 6:39 PM on February 27, 2020 [2 favorites]
> There is some evidence that Americans are becoming more ideologically divided, but there is still a pretty big gap between rank-and-file voters and elected officials and party leaders.
> In 1956, Americans could identify the party nominees’ positions on an issue and had a position on it themselves only 31 percent of the time. But by 2012 that number had risen to 77 percent.
> As for what’s driving more Americans to think more like ideologues, Wattenberg points partially to increased education levels. The most educated voters have long been the most likely to think about politics in ideological terms and hold consistent policy opinions, and now there are more of them — in 1980, only 17 percent of Americans over the age of 24 had completed four years of college or more; by 2018, it was 35 percent.
posted by pwnguin at 6:39 PM on February 27, 2020 [2 favorites]
Nowadays, for ... reasons... those various identities/affiliations, instead of overlapping and overflowing into other areas, are stacking on top of each other like pancakes. Broadly speaking, if you're a gun-rights person, you're unlikely to be a feminist, or an environmentalist, or a lesbian. There's no room for you in the group where the gun-rights people hang out, even if you agree with them on that issue.
But that's just a description of how polarization takes place; it doesn't explain why polarization comes about. Polarization is precisely the elimination of overlap between two sides, and the situation where a person in Group A can't associate with people in Group B because Group A is "liberal" and Group B is "conservative" is an instance of polarization, not one of its causes. It remains to be explained why "liberals" and "conservatives" are presently so odious to each other that they are reluctant to associate with each other even when they happen to have interests or affinities in common.
posted by J.K. Seazer at 6:45 PM on February 27, 2020 [3 favorites]
But that's just a description of how polarization takes place; it doesn't explain why polarization comes about. Polarization is precisely the elimination of overlap between two sides, and the situation where a person in Group A can't associate with people in Group B because Group A is "liberal" and Group B is "conservative" is an instance of polarization, not one of its causes. It remains to be explained why "liberals" and "conservatives" are presently so odious to each other that they are reluctant to associate with each other even when they happen to have interests or affinities in common.
posted by J.K. Seazer at 6:45 PM on February 27, 2020 [3 favorites]
Polarization is precisely the elimination of overlap between two sides, and the situation where a person in Group A can't associate with people in Group B because Group A is "liberal" and Group B is "conservative" is an instance of polarization, not one of its causes.
And there's nothing to be done if one party then secedes from the entire democratic process. I think it requires some kind of battle to bring them back into respectable society, but there aren't too many examples of that succeeding.
posted by rhizome at 6:54 PM on February 27, 2020 [1 favorite]
And there's nothing to be done if one party then secedes from the entire democratic process. I think it requires some kind of battle to bring them back into respectable society, but there aren't too many examples of that succeeding.
posted by rhizome at 6:54 PM on February 27, 2020 [1 favorite]
ezra klein is a dumb person's idea of a smart person
posted by entropicamericana at 7:42 PM on February 27, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by entropicamericana at 7:42 PM on February 27, 2020 [2 favorites]
ezra klein is a dumb person's idea of a smart person
I think he's smarter than I am. Go Team Dumb Person! WOOO!
His ideas about polarization are very much in line with what I've been thinking for a while, but he's taken the ideas further. My thought was that the parties would move around in the space of possible sets of positions, but there may be sets of positions that are harder to move out of. I was thinking in terms of how sets of positions might become aligned with personality variables, especially openness to experience (and I still think that's a big deal). But he's right that there are all sorts of other variables that could enter into feedback loops with ideological positions.
posted by a snickering nuthatch at 8:07 PM on February 27, 2020 [3 favorites]
I think he's smarter than I am. Go Team Dumb Person! WOOO!
His ideas about polarization are very much in line with what I've been thinking for a while, but he's taken the ideas further. My thought was that the parties would move around in the space of possible sets of positions, but there may be sets of positions that are harder to move out of. I was thinking in terms of how sets of positions might become aligned with personality variables, especially openness to experience (and I still think that's a big deal). But he's right that there are all sorts of other variables that could enter into feedback loops with ideological positions.
posted by a snickering nuthatch at 8:07 PM on February 27, 2020 [3 favorites]
I've listened to Klein's book on audiobook, I've listened to his interviews about it, and I'm a regular listener of his podcast. If you're interested in a good counterpoint, I recommend you listen to the episode of his podcast where Jill Lapore picks apart some of his arguments. It's pretty good!
And yeah, I generally like his podcast. I think what I like is that he interviews a lot of intellectual types who you don't generally find on shows much because, outside of academia, our culture doesn't seem to have much of a place for the "public intellectual" anymore. Klein himself gets a little annoying sometimes -- he gets a little too into his own style, is sometimes a bit over-eager to strut his bona-fides and burnish his credentials -- but his viewpoints are usually well-thought out and he asks good questions. I can take him in small doses.
I guess the most damning thing I can say about his book -- which I enjoyed -- is that some of it comes across as a little obvious. And while he doesn't promise to give us solutions, in fact bristles at the very idea of giving us solutions, in the end I am sort of left thinking, "Okay, so now what?" I guess it is all a bit of a downer, and kind of unremitting at that. But I guess that's not his fault, maybe those are just the times we live in.
posted by panama joe at 8:07 PM on February 27, 2020 [4 favorites]
And yeah, I generally like his podcast. I think what I like is that he interviews a lot of intellectual types who you don't generally find on shows much because, outside of academia, our culture doesn't seem to have much of a place for the "public intellectual" anymore. Klein himself gets a little annoying sometimes -- he gets a little too into his own style, is sometimes a bit over-eager to strut his bona-fides and burnish his credentials -- but his viewpoints are usually well-thought out and he asks good questions. I can take him in small doses.
I guess the most damning thing I can say about his book -- which I enjoyed -- is that some of it comes across as a little obvious. And while he doesn't promise to give us solutions, in fact bristles at the very idea of giving us solutions, in the end I am sort of left thinking, "Okay, so now what?" I guess it is all a bit of a downer, and kind of unremitting at that. But I guess that's not his fault, maybe those are just the times we live in.
posted by panama joe at 8:07 PM on February 27, 2020 [4 favorites]
The fight isn’t between conservatives and liberals. Because there are very, very few “conservatives” in America. You have to torture any definition of the term to get it to fit modern Republicans. The GOP is now an extremist rightwing or revanchist white identity movement. The classic conservative stances on fiscal policies are hardly even lip service. In fact I put forth they, in terms of raw government dollars spent, are more socialist than the Democrats They just direct that money to Corporations, the rich, and to the military.
There are more classic conservatives in the Democratic Party than the Republican Party.
Nope. The battle is between fear based culture and solution based culture. Between stasis and change.
Change will win. Eventually. Good or bad. Because the only certainty in life is change.
Life is not a locomotive on one set of tracks heading for a certain destination. It’s more a sailing ship that needs constant course correction.
Some people are inherently uncomfortable with this fact. And they always will be.
posted by Everyone Expects The Spanish Influenza at 8:51 PM on February 27, 2020 [37 favorites]
There are more classic conservatives in the Democratic Party than the Republican Party.
Nope. The battle is between fear based culture and solution based culture. Between stasis and change.
Change will win. Eventually. Good or bad. Because the only certainty in life is change.
Life is not a locomotive on one set of tracks heading for a certain destination. It’s more a sailing ship that needs constant course correction.
Some people are inherently uncomfortable with this fact. And they always will be.
posted by Everyone Expects The Spanish Influenza at 8:51 PM on February 27, 2020 [37 favorites]
Klein’s book is like Mann & Ornstein’s Even Worse Than It Looks/Was without the villains or the recent history.
posted by Harry Caul at 2:54 AM on February 28, 2020
posted by Harry Caul at 2:54 AM on February 28, 2020
ezra klein is a dumb person's idea of a smart person
This comment is a dumb person's idea of a smart comment?
Look, I get the Klein hate--he was really successful at being naive and earnest in a way that tended to benefit the wrong people or just missed the point, particularly if you're on the left. But, sheesh. I enjoy his podcast quite a bit and he does make a good faith effort to critically engage with a bunch of ideas.
One reason polarization at least seems more prevalent is that it's easier than ever to be snarky, as witnessed here and everywhere the internet has democratized mass communication. Plus we consume a far more constant stream of media that plays directly into group identities. I haven't read the book but his podcast discussions of it have not really dug into media and technology as much as I would like. He has talked a bit about incentives for journalists, but not really gotten into the ways that people's entire exposure to and consumption of information has completely shifted.
posted by ropeladder at 5:07 AM on February 28, 2020 [12 favorites]
This comment is a dumb person's idea of a smart comment?
Look, I get the Klein hate--he was really successful at being naive and earnest in a way that tended to benefit the wrong people or just missed the point, particularly if you're on the left. But, sheesh. I enjoy his podcast quite a bit and he does make a good faith effort to critically engage with a bunch of ideas.
One reason polarization at least seems more prevalent is that it's easier than ever to be snarky, as witnessed here and everywhere the internet has democratized mass communication. Plus we consume a far more constant stream of media that plays directly into group identities. I haven't read the book but his podcast discussions of it have not really dug into media and technology as much as I would like. He has talked a bit about incentives for journalists, but not really gotten into the ways that people's entire exposure to and consumption of information has completely shifted.
posted by ropeladder at 5:07 AM on February 28, 2020 [12 favorites]
The problem isn't that we're polarized; it's that our electoral system doesn't have a way to effectively deal with polarization.
posted by kevinbelt at 6:28 AM on February 28, 2020 [7 favorites]
posted by kevinbelt at 6:28 AM on February 28, 2020 [7 favorites]
I agree with kevin above, and it's a completely skewed election system that guarantees a loss to any momentum representing a diverse majority (because it kills the third party by a single election with multiple candidates). Elites are few and only need one father figure candidate and one point of view, and our one vote and done method favors this. The primitive system in the US has even trained us to vote in earnest for the wooden idealist/righteous candidate, never strategically for the best fit, because that's how conservatives ran and won with elitism. Our current cycle is presently a battle over who will control either party for future elections because nobody is running well to win the middle.
posted by Brian B. at 6:46 AM on February 28, 2020
posted by Brian B. at 6:46 AM on February 28, 2020
I have no strong opinions about Klein one way or the other, except to say I listened to a couple of his podcasts and they were Not For Me. I especially dislike his final question (which he seems so pleased about, like a puppy bringing you a shoe), something like "What's one book that changed your thinking about something?" It's a terrible question because it puts the interviewee on the spot to come up with a book title quickly from memory and the answers are usually completely dull and unilluminating. And Klein either doesn't understand or doesn't realize that it's a terrible question.
Contrast it with Vox associate Matthew Yglesias's final question: "What's one thing I didn't ask you that I should have?" That's an interesting question for a subject matter expert because they usually have a list of topics they love to discuss.
That said, I'm not really a fan of either of them--Klein's "aw shucks we're in a constitution crisis, what are ya gonna do?" and Yglesias's mid-internet culture contrarian snark both don't really do it for me.
posted by Automocar at 6:57 AM on February 28, 2020 [3 favorites]
Contrast it with Vox associate Matthew Yglesias's final question: "What's one thing I didn't ask you that I should have?" That's an interesting question for a subject matter expert because they usually have a list of topics they love to discuss.
That said, I'm not really a fan of either of them--Klein's "aw shucks we're in a constitution crisis, what are ya gonna do?" and Yglesias's mid-internet culture contrarian snark both don't really do it for me.
posted by Automocar at 6:57 AM on February 28, 2020 [3 favorites]
That Jill Lepore bit on villains was depressing to me, even in context: it really came across to me as "but why didn't you say what the One Weird Trick Is?"
It has been interesting to me to follow the respective trajectories of Klein and Yglesias. For all the sometime-deserved abuse Yglesias gets, I get the impression that he does indeed understand that large numbers of people are genuinely motivated by spite and a desire to have someone they can abuse with the blessing of society and that you cannot negotiate with that. Klein continues to come off as believing a technocracy is possible and desirable, and as uncomfortable with the reality of power dynamics as to some extent uneradicable.
But ultimately the story I see Klein telling about American politics is basically the same as TNC's, for all the former's attempts to soften it: 1) American politics has always been dedicated to the preservation of white supremacy and 2) most white people approve of that so 3) American politics will most likely continue to be dedicated to the preservation of white supremacy.
posted by PMdixon at 7:06 AM on February 28, 2020 [2 favorites]
It has been interesting to me to follow the respective trajectories of Klein and Yglesias. For all the sometime-deserved abuse Yglesias gets, I get the impression that he does indeed understand that large numbers of people are genuinely motivated by spite and a desire to have someone they can abuse with the blessing of society and that you cannot negotiate with that. Klein continues to come off as believing a technocracy is possible and desirable, and as uncomfortable with the reality of power dynamics as to some extent uneradicable.
But ultimately the story I see Klein telling about American politics is basically the same as TNC's, for all the former's attempts to soften it: 1) American politics has always been dedicated to the preservation of white supremacy and 2) most white people approve of that so 3) American politics will most likely continue to be dedicated to the preservation of white supremacy.
posted by PMdixon at 7:06 AM on February 28, 2020 [2 favorites]
The right wing decided to own certain identities (gasoline, guns, no workers protections) and then, because of racism, expelled every minority group that agreed with them.
So, you have Muslims who might be very anti-abortion, pro-gas, anti-workers-rights.... and who are Democrats.
Compared to Evangelicals, American Muslims tend to be more pro-abortion rights, less opposed to gay marriage, more in favor of government aid to the poor, and more pro-environment. I don't know that I would ever think of American Muslims as particularly pro-gas (?), but there are plenty of other issues where viewpoints have soared leftward in the last 20 years. Republican identities might stack faster -- anyone who has the misfortune to know an older white person who recently started watching Fox News will know how rapidly these people get radicalized -- but the Democratic party has (slower) influence on its coalition, too.
A lot of Jia Tolentino's Trick Mirror is about how the internet has made us aware (and insistently, relentlessly defining) our own identities, to the point that we forget how to think of ourselves as part of a wider community. Sometimes I think sometimes we underestimate how the last 10 years of conservative media has had a huge effect even on conservative elites. Remember when Chuck Grassley was supposed to be an advocate against presidential overreach? Or when William Barr was supposed to be a staid institutionalist? Or when Rudolph Giuliani had the political nous to present himself as a sane person who wasn't constantly butt-dialing reporters embarrassing info? Or, or, or. Yeah, a big part of our current mess is a political structure that over-represents the votes of rural white people, but even then, 46% of the electorate voted for Donald Trump. Why are we polarized? Because when I watch something with a right-wing perspective, it feels absolute gibberish. We're barely speaking the same language. (I keep writing "Republicans are crazy" and then deleting it, because that's not helpful, but also, Republicans are crazy and their white supremacist, end-of-days bunker mentality is what drove them to it.)
(And I like Ezra! Tough crowd.)
posted by grandiloquiet at 7:49 AM on February 28, 2020 [9 favorites]
So, you have Muslims who might be very anti-abortion, pro-gas, anti-workers-rights.... and who are Democrats.
Compared to Evangelicals, American Muslims tend to be more pro-abortion rights, less opposed to gay marriage, more in favor of government aid to the poor, and more pro-environment. I don't know that I would ever think of American Muslims as particularly pro-gas (?), but there are plenty of other issues where viewpoints have soared leftward in the last 20 years. Republican identities might stack faster -- anyone who has the misfortune to know an older white person who recently started watching Fox News will know how rapidly these people get radicalized -- but the Democratic party has (slower) influence on its coalition, too.
A lot of Jia Tolentino's Trick Mirror is about how the internet has made us aware (and insistently, relentlessly defining) our own identities, to the point that we forget how to think of ourselves as part of a wider community. Sometimes I think sometimes we underestimate how the last 10 years of conservative media has had a huge effect even on conservative elites. Remember when Chuck Grassley was supposed to be an advocate against presidential overreach? Or when William Barr was supposed to be a staid institutionalist? Or when Rudolph Giuliani had the political nous to present himself as a sane person who wasn't constantly butt-dialing reporters embarrassing info? Or, or, or. Yeah, a big part of our current mess is a political structure that over-represents the votes of rural white people, but even then, 46% of the electorate voted for Donald Trump. Why are we polarized? Because when I watch something with a right-wing perspective, it feels absolute gibberish. We're barely speaking the same language. (I keep writing "Republicans are crazy" and then deleting it, because that's not helpful, but also, Republicans are crazy and their white supremacist, end-of-days bunker mentality is what drove them to it.)
(And I like Ezra! Tough crowd.)
posted by grandiloquiet at 7:49 AM on February 28, 2020 [9 favorites]
The problem isn't that we're polarized; it's that our electoral system doesn't have a way to effectively deal with polarization.
Our electoral system deals with polarization just fine. The thing our electoral and more broadly political system is having serious problems with right now isn't polarization, it's that one of the two major parties has gone off the deep end.
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 8:01 AM on February 28, 2020 [2 favorites]
Our electoral system deals with polarization just fine. The thing our electoral and more broadly political system is having serious problems with right now isn't polarization, it's that one of the two major parties has gone off the deep end.
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 8:01 AM on February 28, 2020 [2 favorites]
Our electoral system deals with polarization just fine.
One party controls the executive. One party controls the legislature. Polarization means they do not really have shared goals. Why is it in either party's interest to compromise? Why is it not the expected outcome of such an arrangement permanent gridlock and accrual of power to the executive?
posted by PMdixon at 8:27 AM on February 28, 2020 [2 favorites]
One party controls the executive. One party controls the legislature. Polarization means they do not really have shared goals. Why is it in either party's interest to compromise? Why is it not the expected outcome of such an arrangement permanent gridlock and accrual of power to the executive?
posted by PMdixon at 8:27 AM on February 28, 2020 [2 favorites]
Ezra Klein's podcast is one of the best interview podcasts available. I saw a few bland and predictable comments above dismissing Klein, but didn't see a great justification for them. Very boring to see people chime in on a post about Ezra Klein that they don't like Ezra Klein.
He can definitely be long winded and overly self reflective but he delves deeply and unapologetically into important ideas that are not being covered elsewhere. I think Vox as a whole is populated by young journalists with too little perspective and a very narrow interpretation of leftism/progressivism. I think that Klein has outgrown a lot of clickbaity, Buzzfeed-with-graphs-style journalism that is typical of too many Vox takes. I generally ignore Vox, but try to listen to most of Klein's episodes. His podcast seems to be a coherent project to tackle some big ideas and I think he usually pulls some of the best interviews out of figures I'm already familiar with.
I'd honestly like to know of a better longform interview podcast that reaches out to so many different, influential thinkers. I'm not asking for an interview show that is more closely aligned with your politics, but who is doing this better than Ezra Klein?
As to the book, I think it adds a useful lens to our current debate about polarization. He's definitely bent over backwards inviting people to criticize his thesis on the show.
Regarding the comment about him loving his own voice, it's interesting because he's often spoken about how uncomfortable he is with his own voice. He had/has a slight lisp that he was self conscious of in middle/high school. I think it took him awhile to gain the confidence to break away from exclusively writing. I think it's more a case of that quote attributed to Robert Frost, "A liberal is a man too broadminded to take his own side in a quarrel". He can't help but hedge his own comments with counterfactuals and self doubt. I think that makes him very good at extracting thoughtful responses out of people. He sees many sides of an argument.
Also final point, guests are told ahead of time about the 'name 3 books question' so they do have time to prepare. I've poached a lot of my current books from those recommendations. I agree that Yglesias' final question is better though.
posted by Telf at 8:29 AM on February 28, 2020 [5 favorites]
He can definitely be long winded and overly self reflective but he delves deeply and unapologetically into important ideas that are not being covered elsewhere. I think Vox as a whole is populated by young journalists with too little perspective and a very narrow interpretation of leftism/progressivism. I think that Klein has outgrown a lot of clickbaity, Buzzfeed-with-graphs-style journalism that is typical of too many Vox takes. I generally ignore Vox, but try to listen to most of Klein's episodes. His podcast seems to be a coherent project to tackle some big ideas and I think he usually pulls some of the best interviews out of figures I'm already familiar with.
I'd honestly like to know of a better longform interview podcast that reaches out to so many different, influential thinkers. I'm not asking for an interview show that is more closely aligned with your politics, but who is doing this better than Ezra Klein?
As to the book, I think it adds a useful lens to our current debate about polarization. He's definitely bent over backwards inviting people to criticize his thesis on the show.
Regarding the comment about him loving his own voice, it's interesting because he's often spoken about how uncomfortable he is with his own voice. He had/has a slight lisp that he was self conscious of in middle/high school. I think it took him awhile to gain the confidence to break away from exclusively writing. I think it's more a case of that quote attributed to Robert Frost, "A liberal is a man too broadminded to take his own side in a quarrel". He can't help but hedge his own comments with counterfactuals and self doubt. I think that makes him very good at extracting thoughtful responses out of people. He sees many sides of an argument.
Also final point, guests are told ahead of time about the 'name 3 books question' so they do have time to prepare. I've poached a lot of my current books from those recommendations. I agree that Yglesias' final question is better though.
posted by Telf at 8:29 AM on February 28, 2020 [5 favorites]
Yes, there is nothing any set of institutions can do if a large faction decides not to participate, but they can make it more or less likely that a faction sees such a decision as self interested.
posted by PMdixon at 8:29 AM on February 28, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by PMdixon at 8:29 AM on February 28, 2020 [1 favorite]
Compared to Evangelicals, American Muslims tend to be...I fear you are making a category error. The correct comparison to "Evangelicals" would be "Taliban". The correct comparison to "American Muslims" would be, IDK, probably not "mainline Protestants" but something a good deal more reality-based than American Evangelicals.
posted by Aardvark Cheeselog at 8:31 AM on February 28, 2020 [5 favorites]
One party controls the executive. One party controls the legislature. Polarization means they do not really have shared goals. Why is it in either party's interest to compromise? Why is it not the expected outcome of such an arrangement permanent gridlock and accrual of power to the executive?
Agree with PMDixon on this one. Our government has structural problems that disincentivize compromise and reward the anti government party. It just took 220ish for the Republicans to figure this out. As Ezra argues, this has a lot to do with the parties finally sorting themselves efficiently.
There is no reason for Republicans to act in good faith because they are rewarded for doing the opposite. Until the Democrats are ready to bring guns to a gunfight, they will continue to lose. The game is rigged and the cheaters will win everytime. Time to flip over the table and start playing the metagame. Pack courts, change filibuster rules, add new states etc. Stop apologizing, stop trying to meet opponents "halfway". There is no reaching across the aisle in this context. We have to change the infrastructure of the entire political system. We're running out of time and this country is being led by a death cult.
posted by Telf at 8:36 AM on February 28, 2020 [5 favorites]
Agree with PMDixon on this one. Our government has structural problems that disincentivize compromise and reward the anti government party. It just took 220ish for the Republicans to figure this out. As Ezra argues, this has a lot to do with the parties finally sorting themselves efficiently.
There is no reason for Republicans to act in good faith because they are rewarded for doing the opposite. Until the Democrats are ready to bring guns to a gunfight, they will continue to lose. The game is rigged and the cheaters will win everytime. Time to flip over the table and start playing the metagame. Pack courts, change filibuster rules, add new states etc. Stop apologizing, stop trying to meet opponents "halfway". There is no reaching across the aisle in this context. We have to change the infrastructure of the entire political system. We're running out of time and this country is being led by a death cult.
posted by Telf at 8:36 AM on February 28, 2020 [5 favorites]
I think it's our two-party system that's screwing us over. I'm living in the Netherlands now and they have a bunch of parties, so you can pretty much vote your conscience and not be afraid that you're throwing away your vote. The skills a politician needs here is the ability to compromise within a coalition, not shut everything down. Your choices for parties include a green-left party, an animal rights party that's also pretty green-left, christian democrats and a free enterprise party that are fairly centrist (would still be pretty left in the states), a workers' party, two effectively white supremacist parties that are, luckily, both a mess, a socialist party with a socialist-democratic platform, another Christian party that's fairly socially conservative, a lightly libertarian-esque party that's pro-EU and anti discrimination, there's even a pensioners' party. Here's a nice graphic of how the seats in House are allocated at the moment, so you can see there's a pretty colorful mix, there aren't just two hogging all the seats.
I hope it stays this way, since I intend to stay here. I find myself constantly wondering if a two-party system is some perverse stabile state that once you get into you can't get out of, because I don't see any path for the US to get to a multi-party system from where it is.
posted by antinomia at 8:47 AM on February 28, 2020 [4 favorites]
#/media/File:Tweede_Kamer_2017.svg){kind=link}
I hope it stays this way, since I intend to stay here. I find myself constantly wondering if a two-party system is some perverse stabile state that once you get into you can't get out of, because I don't see any path for the US to get to a multi-party system from where it is.
posted by antinomia at 8:47 AM on February 28, 2020 [4 favorites]
I'd honestly like to know of a better longform interview podcast that reaches out to so many different, influential thinkers. I'm not asking for an interview show that is more closely aligned with your politics, but who is doing this better than Ezra Klein?
Chris Hayes.
posted by Automocar at 8:48 AM on February 28, 2020
Chris Hayes.
posted by Automocar at 8:48 AM on February 28, 2020
Agree with PMDixon on this one. Our government has structural problems that disincentivize compromise and reward the anti government party. It just took 220ish for the Republicans to figure this out. As Ezra argues, this has a lot to do with the parties finally sorting themselves efficiently.
Yeah, it's well-established by this point that presidential systems like the United States's are inherently unstable and (I'm pretty sure) that every country that adopted it has had a military coup at some point. Because a divided executive and legislature is a recipe for gridlock and there's literally no structural way to relieve the pressure, so you get military coups and civil wars.
One thing I wish we taught more widely is that the writers of the Constitutions (I refuse to call them the "Founding Fathers" because ugh) is that they designed the Constitution to work with no political parties, and then... they immediately founded political parties.
The system worked in recent memory because we actually had like 6 parties--they just sorted themselves into 2, which led to a high degree of interparty consensus because the pressure within each party was to come to the middle. Now we have 3--the progressive wing of the Democratic party, the neoliberal wing of the Democratic party, and whatever the hell the Republicans are--autocratic strongman white grievance, I guess--so basically, Dixiecrats.
posted by Automocar at 8:54 AM on February 28, 2020 [7 favorites]
Yeah, it's well-established by this point that presidential systems like the United States's are inherently unstable and (I'm pretty sure) that every country that adopted it has had a military coup at some point. Because a divided executive and legislature is a recipe for gridlock and there's literally no structural way to relieve the pressure, so you get military coups and civil wars.
One thing I wish we taught more widely is that the writers of the Constitutions (I refuse to call them the "Founding Fathers" because ugh) is that they designed the Constitution to work with no political parties, and then... they immediately founded political parties.
The system worked in recent memory because we actually had like 6 parties--they just sorted themselves into 2, which led to a high degree of interparty consensus because the pressure within each party was to come to the middle. Now we have 3--the progressive wing of the Democratic party, the neoliberal wing of the Democratic party, and whatever the hell the Republicans are--autocratic strongman white grievance, I guess--so basically, Dixiecrats.
posted by Automocar at 8:54 AM on February 28, 2020 [7 favorites]
Chris Hayes.
Chris Hayes is good and often in conversation with Klein. I think Klein casts a broader net though and gets a wider variety of guests. I'd say they're similar shows, no surprise that they're friends. Maybe Hayes is more confident in his style.
posted by Telf at 9:04 AM on February 28, 2020 [1 favorite]
Chris Hayes is good and often in conversation with Klein. I think Klein casts a broader net though and gets a wider variety of guests. I'd say they're similar shows, no surprise that they're friends. Maybe Hayes is more confident in his style.
posted by Telf at 9:04 AM on February 28, 2020 [1 favorite]
I especially dislike his final question (which he seems so pleased about, like a puppy bringing you a shoe), something like "What's one book that changed your thinking about something?" It's a terrible question because it puts the interviewee on the spot to come up with a book title quickly from memory and the answers are usually completely dull and unilluminating. And Klein either doesn't understand or doesn't realize that it's a terrible question.
This is such a weird criticism. If Klein is a dumb person's idea of a smart person (not the words of the above-quoted) then I'm a clueless Canadian who has yet to reach the bar for 'dumb,' I am completely unfamiliar with Klein beyond what I'm reading here. I just don't understand the above criticism, it's not reasonable.. What is so terrible about that question? And if it's always the final question, then surely the interviewee would come prepared with a title or two?
Sometimes we seem to go out of our way to find fault and couch things in very disparaging terms online, and it's not our best quality.
posted by elkevelvet at 9:20 AM on February 28, 2020 [2 favorites]
This is such a weird criticism. If Klein is a dumb person's idea of a smart person (not the words of the above-quoted) then I'm a clueless Canadian who has yet to reach the bar for 'dumb,' I am completely unfamiliar with Klein beyond what I'm reading here. I just don't understand the above criticism, it's not reasonable.. What is so terrible about that question? And if it's always the final question, then surely the interviewee would come prepared with a title or two?
Sometimes we seem to go out of our way to find fault and couch things in very disparaging terms online, and it's not our best quality.
posted by elkevelvet at 9:20 AM on February 28, 2020 [2 favorites]
I fear you are making a category error. The correct comparison to "Evangelicals" would be "Taliban". The correct comparison to "American Muslims" would be, IDK, probably not "mainline Protestants" but something a good deal more reality-based than American Evangelicals.
I'm saying that Muslims have been drifting left since fleeing the Republican party en masse a decade ago, just as Evangelicals started drifting right in the 80s. Group polarization will never be as strong for Democrats as long as the Democratic party is a coalition party instead of a cult, but it's still happening fast enough that Muslims (a group that includes recent transplants from countries with restricted rights for women and gay persecution, as well as a bunch of higher-income voters that traditionally veered Republican) hold more "modern" views than Evangelicals (America's largest religious group).
posted by grandiloquiet at 9:23 AM on February 28, 2020
I'm saying that Muslims have been drifting left since fleeing the Republican party en masse a decade ago, just as Evangelicals started drifting right in the 80s. Group polarization will never be as strong for Democrats as long as the Democratic party is a coalition party instead of a cult, but it's still happening fast enough that Muslims (a group that includes recent transplants from countries with restricted rights for women and gay persecution, as well as a bunch of higher-income voters that traditionally veered Republican) hold more "modern" views than Evangelicals (America's largest religious group).
posted by grandiloquiet at 9:23 AM on February 28, 2020
RE: Ezra's book question, I find it more useful as biographical info than as a straightforward book rec. A book that changed my life at 14, in 2001, is probably not going to change anyone's life today...but it would say something about what was shaping my thoughts then, and what I value now. It's just a quick, final question! He throws it in at the end, I think, because it has nothing/everything to do with what the interviewee spent an hour talking about.
posted by grandiloquiet at 9:31 AM on February 28, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by grandiloquiet at 9:31 AM on February 28, 2020 [1 favorite]
I was just listening to good ol' Ezra interview Lilliana Mason[twitter] on social sorting, identity threat, and winning and losing: The Age Of Mega-Identity Politics and her book Uncivil Agreement
posted by the man of twists and turns at 9:33 AM on February 28, 2020
posted by the man of twists and turns at 9:33 AM on February 28, 2020
What is so terrible about that question? And if it's always the final question, then surely the interviewee would come prepared with a title or two?
It's a dumb question because a) most of his guests are not going to spend the time to listen to his show, so they won't know the question is coming and b) it's a trivia question. Could you answer it off the top of your head in 5 seconds? I couldn't. It's the type of question someone flails around for an answer and then 3 hours later go "shit I should have said X instead!" It's a gotcha question.
posted by Automocar at 9:59 AM on February 28, 2020
It's a dumb question because a) most of his guests are not going to spend the time to listen to his show, so they won't know the question is coming and b) it's a trivia question. Could you answer it off the top of your head in 5 seconds? I couldn't. It's the type of question someone flails around for an answer and then 3 hours later go "shit I should have said X instead!" It's a gotcha question.
posted by Automocar at 9:59 AM on February 28, 2020
Again, I think he provides the question in advance. Guests are told that it will be a question.
posted by Telf at 10:29 AM on February 28, 2020
posted by Telf at 10:29 AM on February 28, 2020
Whether it's a good question or not, always ending his interview with the same question is very on brand for Vox. They place a lot of emphasis on style and format so that you pretty much know you're reading a Vox article. Before I knew they were branching out into television, I saw a short segment on some streaming channel and thought, huh, this is exactly like a Vox piece. And sure enough it was. Not meant as a criticism, just an observation. In fact I think it's mostly a good thing.
posted by sjswitzer at 10:43 AM on February 28, 2020
posted by sjswitzer at 10:43 AM on February 28, 2020
Sorry about the conservative Muslim derail. I didn't meant to speak about all Muslims, just to give an example of a real (sub) demographic expelled from the republican party because of racism, and who form coalitions with democrats, bringing their conservative viewpoints into the democratic tent.
posted by rebent at 10:44 AM on February 28, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by rebent at 10:44 AM on February 28, 2020 [1 favorite]
Years back, I heard people complaining about how polarized the US had become, and the proof offered was that (approximately) half of the voters were Republicans and half were Democrats.
Like if half the men are over 5'9" and half are under 5'9" that the country is polarized between short guys and tall guys.
My feeling at the time was that (if it were possible to characterize left to right as a single number, which it is not) the distribution would be Normal, and that over the decades, the mean would move left or right slightly, but enough to create years when the Democrats had power and years when the Republicans had power, and instead of 'polarization', this was just a time when the mean split the parties evenly, but most voters were in the 1σ middle.
I still think most people are in the middle, but I think the distribution has become more bimodal, especially among the politically active.
posted by MtDewd at 10:58 AM on February 28, 2020
Like if half the men are over 5'9" and half are under 5'9" that the country is polarized between short guys and tall guys.
My feeling at the time was that (if it were possible to characterize left to right as a single number, which it is not) the distribution would be Normal, and that over the decades, the mean would move left or right slightly, but enough to create years when the Democrats had power and years when the Republicans had power, and instead of 'polarization', this was just a time when the mean split the parties evenly, but most voters were in the 1σ middle.
I still think most people are in the middle, but I think the distribution has become more bimodal, especially among the politically active.
posted by MtDewd at 10:58 AM on February 28, 2020
"Polarize" is a verb, so the fact that a line can be drawn to divide a group based on some attribute is not polarization. Polarization is just one thing the people on either side of the line can do with it. For instance, the line can also be blurred, which is what I think was the state of affairs in the past.
posted by rhizome at 11:15 AM on February 28, 2020
posted by rhizome at 11:15 AM on February 28, 2020
It's a dumb question because a) most of his guests are not going to spend the time to listen to his show, so they won't know the question is coming and b) it's a trivia question. Could you answer it off the top of your head in 5 seconds? I couldn't.
I mean, I don't think that's necessarily true for everyone. For example, having read that question only a few minutes ago, I already have an answer I feel pretty comfortable with: The Mars Trilogy changed my thinking about space exploration and the role of corporations in society. When I was a teenager I saw things like the colonization and terraforming of Mars as a technological and industrial problem, probably informed by years of reading Popular Science magazines with F-22s on the cover. The Mars trilogy suggested that the great challenges of living on Mars would almost certainly be political, social and economic ones; before you can figure out how to terraform the planet you have to decide that it's worth doing at all. It also introduced me to the concept of transnational and metanational corporations, which sounded really far-fetched when I read the books in high school but feel practically like foregone conclusions now. All we're really missing is corporations literally buying seats on international governance bodies by brokering deals with small nations and using them as flags of convenience.
And yeah, I got some time to type that out and a few minutes to think about it beforehand. But I'm also not a genius who's used to interviews. It doesn't strike me as a gotcha question, unless you're talking to someone who hasn't read a lot or doesn't find inspiration from books ever.
posted by chrominance at 1:27 PM on February 28, 2020 [2 favorites]
I mean, I don't think that's necessarily true for everyone. For example, having read that question only a few minutes ago, I already have an answer I feel pretty comfortable with: The Mars Trilogy changed my thinking about space exploration and the role of corporations in society. When I was a teenager I saw things like the colonization and terraforming of Mars as a technological and industrial problem, probably informed by years of reading Popular Science magazines with F-22s on the cover. The Mars trilogy suggested that the great challenges of living on Mars would almost certainly be political, social and economic ones; before you can figure out how to terraform the planet you have to decide that it's worth doing at all. It also introduced me to the concept of transnational and metanational corporations, which sounded really far-fetched when I read the books in high school but feel practically like foregone conclusions now. All we're really missing is corporations literally buying seats on international governance bodies by brokering deals with small nations and using them as flags of convenience.
And yeah, I got some time to type that out and a few minutes to think about it beforehand. But I'm also not a genius who's used to interviews. It doesn't strike me as a gotcha question, unless you're talking to someone who hasn't read a lot or doesn't find inspiration from books ever.
posted by chrominance at 1:27 PM on February 28, 2020 [2 favorites]
I don't think complaining about him not offering answers is a valid criticism, though. The first step to addressing an issue is knowing what the problem is.
The research that's been done on the intersection of opinion-forming, identity threat, mega-identities, that kind of thing is really interesting an goes a long way towards explaining how people split themselves into groups (and Klein addresses these things himself). I wish more people knew about this stuff and engaged with it critically because the only way out of getting trapped into little tribes is to become aware when it's happening and consciously fight against it.
posted by Anonymous at 10:39 AM on February 29, 2020
The research that's been done on the intersection of opinion-forming, identity threat, mega-identities, that kind of thing is really interesting an goes a long way towards explaining how people split themselves into groups (and Klein addresses these things himself). I wish more people knew about this stuff and engaged with it critically because the only way out of getting trapped into little tribes is to become aware when it's happening and consciously fight against it.
posted by Anonymous at 10:39 AM on February 29, 2020
Mod note: string of comments removed - if you're not talking directly about TFA, you should probably indicate why you're bringing in editorial pieces about other topics in your actual comment. Carry on.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 11:01 AM on March 1, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 11:01 AM on March 1, 2020 [1 favorite]
« Older Macavity routinely breaks local noise ordinances! | Forgive me he started it Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
In his new book, Ezra Klein builds a persuasive account of the rise of polarization. But the master explainer can offer no explanation for where we go from here.(Dissent)
posted by The Whelk at 3:02 PM on February 27, 2020 [2 favorites]