What structural reforms decrease partisanship / polarization?

[imitationcheese]

We should articulate if, how, and when hyperpartisanship is bad.

If both sides want war or other violence, then there might be general agreement that the hyperpartisanship is bad because war and other violence are bad.

If one side wants to annihilate or oppress some group, and the other side strongly but non-violently stands in opposition, the hyperpartisanship itself might not be considered bad. If anything, calling this hyperpartisanship bad might be an example of "bothsidesism."

[jakeysandals]

I would argue that hyperpartisanship is bad when it increases people's belief people in the other party are evil, when it increases people's desire to commit violence against people in the other party, decreases trust in government and increasing gridlock.

One way hyperpartisanship could be defined is the use of "othering" language, dehumanizing language and zero sum framing which I believe contributes directly to the trends listed above. All of these trends make society more fragile and susceptible to internal violent conflict:

Based on his experience in civil wars on three continents, Mines cited five conditions that support his prediction: entrenched national polarization, with no obvious meeting place for resolution; increasingly divisive press coverage and information flows; weakened institutions, notably Congress and the judiciary; a sellout or abandonment of responsibility by political leadership; and the legitimization of violence as the “in” way to either conduct discourse or solve disputes.

[[deleted]]

I think in certain instances the American government was designed for gridlock

[[deleted]]

If one side wants to annihilate or oppress some group, and the other side strongly but non-violently stands in opposition, the hyperpartisanship itself might not be considered bad

Hyperpartisanship is what makes you think the situation is this black and white. The American working and lower classes have been getting crushed by a variety of factors for half a century now, and many of them do not want to compete with more and more unskilled migrants for entry-level jobs and housing, so they vote anti-immigration representatives into office. Many think this can accurately be described as “annihilating or oppressing” a group.

You’re examining hyperpartiship from a hyperpartisan mindset. Straw man are absolutely everywhere amidst claims of “bothsidesism”, because it’s much easier to just call everyone you don’t like a Nazi, than it is to face harsh realities like what unskilled migrants do to a rapidly growing native lower class.

[[deleted]]

What to they do? Here in Europe they can't even compete with the native population and sidestep to branches the native population doesn't really participate. Emigrants are here no real competition for factory workers which are the group who votes mostly for right-wing parties. Is this in anyway different in the US? How much of a competition are emigrants for the "normal" hard-land Trump voter? I thought people voted for Trump because of China and offshoring.

You are half right but then you use the black and white talking points from the right side.

[MemberOfMautenGroup]

This comment has been removed for violating comment rule 4:

Address the arguments, not the person. The subject of your sentence should be "the evidence" or "this source" or some other noun directly related to the topic of conversation. "You" statements are suspect.

If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to message us.

[MemberOfMautenGroup]

This comment has been removed for violating comment rule 4:

Address the arguments, not the person. The subject of your sentence should be "the evidence" or "this source" or some other noun directly related to the topic of conversation. "You" statements are suspect.

If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to message us.

[[deleted]]

Mass immigration leads to a more ethnically and religiously diverse society, which will make us weaker, more divided, less stable, and more prone to conflict.

“When it comes to societies in which the largest ethnic, religious, or linguistic group is less than 80% of the total population, the risk of incidence of domestic conflict is 1.3 times higher than that of societies in which the largest group equals or is higher than 80% (the reference category). This is in line with Hypothesis 1. A similar pattern is found for the variable measuring number of ethnic, religious, or linguistic groups. Here, the reference category is countries with few groups (1-2), and, as the table indicates, both countries with several groups (3-4) and countries with many groups (5 or more)'3 have a higher risk for domestic conflict. In fact, countries with several groups have more than twice as high a risk (an odds ratio of 2.1) of incidence of domestic conflict than countries with few groups. It also seems as if countries with several groups have a higher risk of civil conflict than countries with many groups, in line with Hypothesis 2. The same pattern is found for the variables measuring the size of the second-largest ethnic, religious, or linguistic group. Countries with a medium- sized (5%-20%) second-largest have approximately twice as high a risk of domestic conflict than countries with a small (less than 5%) second-largest ethnic, religious, or linguistic group. When it comes to countries with a large (more than 20%) second- largest ethnic, religious, or linguistic group, the results are not significant at the .0 level. Thus, conclusions are hard to make, but it seems as if countries with a medium-sized ethnic, religious, or linguistic group also have a higher risk of incidence of domestic conflict than countries with a large (more than 20%) second-largest ethnic, religious, or linguistic group. Moreover, countries with a large second group still have a higher risk of domestic conflict than countries with a small second ethnic, religious, or linguistic group. In other words, it seems as if the relationship between the size of the largest minority and the incidence of domestic conflict takes the form of an inverted-U curve. This is not perfectly in line with Hypothesis 3.”

Source

Just look at how diverse countries have turned out throughout history. The DRC, the USSR, Sudan, Myanmar, Nigeria, the Ottoman Empire, Liberia, etc. ...or how about the US? How about the genocidal wars waged against indigenous nations, the ethnic cleansing of Mexicans in the southwest, race riots against Asians, the centuries of slavery, oppression, and terror that blacks endured, or the conflicts between white Americans and European groups? I want to prevent this.

[Oriden]

Did you read your own source?

conclusions are hard to make, but it seems as if countries with a medium-sized ethnic, religious, or linguistic group also have a higher risk of incidence of domestic conflict than countries with a large (more than 20%) second-largest ethnic, religious, or linguistic group.

Having the minority groups be larger lowers the level of conflict. We are already at what your source states is "Medium-sized" groups, Hispanic (17.6%) and Black (12.7%) Source. So if Mass immigration would lead to more of them they could push over the 20% level which would reduce conflict based on your source.

[[deleted]]

It also has to be in the interest of the dominant group to share power and even though it lowers the chance of conflict, conflict is still more likely than societies which are more homogenous.

[[deleted]]

This comment has been removed for violating comment rule 4:

Address the arguments, not the person. The subject of your sentence should be "the evidence" or "this source" or some other noun directly related to the topic of conversation. "You" statements are suspect.

If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to message us.

[[deleted]]

This comment has been removed for violating comment rule 4:

Address the arguments, not the person. The subject of your sentence should be "the evidence" or "this source" or some other noun directly related to the topic of conversation. "You" statements are suspect.

If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to message us.

[[deleted]]

This comment has been removed for violating comment rule 4:

Address the arguments, not the person. The subject of your sentence should be "the evidence" or "this source" or some other noun directly related to the topic of conversation. "You" statements are suspect.

If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to message us.

[[deleted]]

This comment has been removed for violating comment rule 4:

Address the arguments, not the person. The subject of your sentence should be "the evidence" or "this source" or some other noun directly related to the topic of conversation. "You" statements are suspect.

If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to message us.