It does not surprise me was drafted months ago; no matter who won, it was going to be bitter and divisive. I think this sentiment is crucial to remember, and offers up a lot of historical parallels. If you accept the premise that "Wokeness" was a religious movement - as several commentators in the "grey tribe" do - then MAGA is something like a counter-reformation. But instead of fighting over souls, people are fighting over status within America's civil religion. Instead of ecclesiastical and secular courts, we have HR inquiries and the Court of Public Opinion. I think this framing allows a pithy explanation of the last decade of politics.
Wokeness was the expansion of a particular "critique" of American civil religion into the organs of American government. This was led primarily from universities, and achieved power in proportion to how much university graduates dominated the culture or institution. Because Wokeness is nominally secular, it was able to evade certain anti-theocratic laws and norms that Americans are used to. This expansion was opposed by evangelicals and believers in the old style of American civic religion. Trump, for all his flaws, is good at identifying the motivations of people who like him. This allowed him to merge the pro-Christian and pro-America strands of anti-Wokeness. Of course, being a narcissist, his main goal was to substitute a religion where no one is above the law to one where he personally is above the law. But, ironically, I think this shows how powerful American civic religion is. If someone like Trump can take power by never apologizing for being American, then that demonstrates being pro-America is much more powerful than being pro-Christian. Hopefully, both sides realize this and come up with more ways to channel American optimism rather than pessimism as their guiding lights.
I'd quibble about two things but largely agree. First is just that the wokeness as religion line is kinda really unwieldy -- not because it's wrong but because there are so many aspects of religion that one could be suggesting it shares that make it hard to be sure which you are referring to in any situation. So I think I understand what you mean there, I assume you mean it's role as changing our public expression of morality and something like piety?
But regarding Trump and wokeness, I think it goes beyond that. For instance, gun control is a long running point of friction and not particularly woke but I feel that the tone of the debate has changed substantially since the 90s in that the left started expressing the idea more that wanting to own guns and seeing guns as appealing made you a bad person (see my reply in other comment thread for a detailed account). And that's always been there to a limited extent but we reached a point of sorting that the attitudes and morals of people on the left became emotionally disrespectful of those held by many on the right. Sure, wokeness was an element but I think it happened across a broader range of things than just DEI and racial/gender/etc stuff.
I see Trump as less creating or even capitalizing on some alternative account of American civic religion and more just capturing the frustration of the half of Americans who feel they kept being disrespected. And the choice of Trump is because they kept electing 'reasonable' people and it felt like they got swallowed by elite urban culture because traditional journalism and institutions code that way.
Unfortunately, that makes the problem much harder. On your model we just build atop a slightly different civic religion no problem. On mine the problem is that half the country feels deeply disrespected and ignored by the other and that our institutions are not seen (because they aren't) as nuetral in that dispute which seems harder to fix. Especially because the issue isn't a particular set of policies -- even DEI -- but the sense that they aren't being consulted or treated like the matter in the choice of our values going forward but culture is damn fucking hard to influence top down.
Some beliefs imping on other people more than other beliefs. It's no real skin on my back in my next door neighbor thinks he needs a gun in his house for protection. If he objects to guns being made tracible from manufacturer to carjacker, it does.
It is also important if we think the politics of others are based on difference in values or difference in the size and values of the socioeconomic model of how the world works. Does your uncle think that the deadweight loss of corporate taxes are so high as to diminish economic growth or does he just want to his own net wroth to increase? [YMMD, but I think the overwhelming portion of political disagreement is differences in socioeconomic models. That's the reason God created Substack. :)]
Also regarding political disagreement coming from socioeconomic models. Yes and no. I agree that when asked to give justification that's what comes up but I don't think the direction of causation is really evidence -> socioeconomic model -> policy. I think values or at least what feels common and familiar tends to come first and most people build up the intellectual superstructure they need to support that.
Though for some of us those values are really just being a smartass and getting to be pedantic which -- for all it's social faults -- at least aligns with saying what's true.
--
Rather, people are really facile at finding justifications for what they want to believe. Since we are on the topic consider gun control. It's not that people who support gun ownership are moved by evidence about how their risk profile changes if they can't own a gun for defense but criminals have fewer guns nor is it coming from evidence about the ability of an armed populace to resist tyranny. What comes first is just growing up with a gun and feeling it is a grave violation for someone to take it away.
Similarly, as I hope I illustrated re: assault rifles on the left all the gloss about studies and etc is downstream of their revulsion at the idea of guns and violence (listen to liberals trying guns for the first time and being shocked it's fun and they don't feel dirty..it's amusing).
--
unfortunately in the current situation many positions people wouldn't otherwise take are being driven by a sense of being emotionally hurt or disrespected by the other side. It's the point in a marital fight where you don't care anymore about whether it was a correct point you sure as fuck won't give them the satisfaction.
To get into the gun thing. Yes, there are things some of us value that impose real costs on others and compromise is required. But to reach that compromise you need to start by accepting that it really is something important and valuable to them.
We accept quite large risks imposed on us by driving cars -- many of which aren't completely necessary. We could, for instance, demand electronic speed limiters (perhaps even gps based) to substantially reduce deaths. We accept quite a large health and death burden from alcohol. I'm not saying we should change these things but my point is we don't treat it as an outrage to accept substantial risks because we like certain freedoms or lifestyles.
Whether or not the social meaning of guns is sufficently important to justify the costs is a tough question -- but at a minimum the left needs to acknowledge that they are asking people to give up something of value and that they aren't monsters for treating guns the way you do liquor or fast cars.
And I suspect if gun owners believed that the left saw their freedom to own guns as a legitimate cost which should be minimized it would be possible to find solutions everyone would be, if not happy, at least willing to live with. But that's not really possible when you (correctly) think the other side sees your value as itself evil and is going to use any crack in you coalition not to reach a compromise which minimizes harm while impinging on your rights as little as possible. Personally, I'd like to see much more restrictive gun ownership but I want to approach that by acknowledging and valuing the extent to which that would represent a tragic loss to many and minimizing that to the extent possible (and I don't just mean minimizing the harm to interests I see as legit like hunting which isn't the same).
---
And I kinda think assault weapon bans are the ultimate expression of this. [Note automatic weapons are already illegal assault weapons are just semi-auto rifles with a certain look and rail systems for optics]. Truth is when you look at the FBI data 95% of gun homicides are with handguns, if you include farm/hunting weapons it is something like 99%. So assault rifles contribute to a vanishingly small fraction of killings but have outsized symbolic meaning to many people. If the goal is to reduce gun deaths while imposing the least on people who value that sort of things assault weapons would be literally the last thing one should legislate about (large magazines esp for handguns aren't bad).
Do they get used in some mass shootings. Of course they do, and I bet camo is overrepresented atire for mass shooters too, doesn't create a causal link. Indeed, the vast majority of mass shootings are conducted at close enough range that semi-auto handguns would probably be more effective than assault weapons.
The point is to express disapproval of the value system held by a large fraction of the population. Its refusing to accept their preferences as they are and trying to insist that it's only ok to want to own a gun for reasons we approve of and that's a problem for living together.
--
It really is like a relationship. You don't need to like what the other person likes, you can even dislike some of it but you do need to respect the fact they do like it and not treat it as something you need to stamp out in them (whatever you secretly wish).
For the record most of this has been a saved draft for months it just felt appropriate to post now.
It does not surprise me was drafted months ago; no matter who won, it was going to be bitter and divisive. I think this sentiment is crucial to remember, and offers up a lot of historical parallels. If you accept the premise that "Wokeness" was a religious movement - as several commentators in the "grey tribe" do - then MAGA is something like a counter-reformation. But instead of fighting over souls, people are fighting over status within America's civil religion. Instead of ecclesiastical and secular courts, we have HR inquiries and the Court of Public Opinion. I think this framing allows a pithy explanation of the last decade of politics.
Wokeness was the expansion of a particular "critique" of American civil religion into the organs of American government. This was led primarily from universities, and achieved power in proportion to how much university graduates dominated the culture or institution. Because Wokeness is nominally secular, it was able to evade certain anti-theocratic laws and norms that Americans are used to. This expansion was opposed by evangelicals and believers in the old style of American civic religion. Trump, for all his flaws, is good at identifying the motivations of people who like him. This allowed him to merge the pro-Christian and pro-America strands of anti-Wokeness. Of course, being a narcissist, his main goal was to substitute a religion where no one is above the law to one where he personally is above the law. But, ironically, I think this shows how powerful American civic religion is. If someone like Trump can take power by never apologizing for being American, then that demonstrates being pro-America is much more powerful than being pro-Christian. Hopefully, both sides realize this and come up with more ways to channel American optimism rather than pessimism as their guiding lights.
I'd quibble about two things but largely agree. First is just that the wokeness as religion line is kinda really unwieldy -- not because it's wrong but because there are so many aspects of religion that one could be suggesting it shares that make it hard to be sure which you are referring to in any situation. So I think I understand what you mean there, I assume you mean it's role as changing our public expression of morality and something like piety?
But regarding Trump and wokeness, I think it goes beyond that. For instance, gun control is a long running point of friction and not particularly woke but I feel that the tone of the debate has changed substantially since the 90s in that the left started expressing the idea more that wanting to own guns and seeing guns as appealing made you a bad person (see my reply in other comment thread for a detailed account). And that's always been there to a limited extent but we reached a point of sorting that the attitudes and morals of people on the left became emotionally disrespectful of those held by many on the right. Sure, wokeness was an element but I think it happened across a broader range of things than just DEI and racial/gender/etc stuff.
I see Trump as less creating or even capitalizing on some alternative account of American civic religion and more just capturing the frustration of the half of Americans who feel they kept being disrespected. And the choice of Trump is because they kept electing 'reasonable' people and it felt like they got swallowed by elite urban culture because traditional journalism and institutions code that way.
Unfortunately, that makes the problem much harder. On your model we just build atop a slightly different civic religion no problem. On mine the problem is that half the country feels deeply disrespected and ignored by the other and that our institutions are not seen (because they aren't) as nuetral in that dispute which seems harder to fix. Especially because the issue isn't a particular set of policies -- even DEI -- but the sense that they aren't being consulted or treated like the matter in the choice of our values going forward but culture is damn fucking hard to influence top down.
Observations:
Some beliefs imping on other people more than other beliefs. It's no real skin on my back in my next door neighbor thinks he needs a gun in his house for protection. If he objects to guns being made tracible from manufacturer to carjacker, it does.
It is also important if we think the politics of others are based on difference in values or difference in the size and values of the socioeconomic model of how the world works. Does your uncle think that the deadweight loss of corporate taxes are so high as to diminish economic growth or does he just want to his own net wroth to increase? [YMMD, but I think the overwhelming portion of political disagreement is differences in socioeconomic models. That's the reason God created Substack. :)]
Also regarding political disagreement coming from socioeconomic models. Yes and no. I agree that when asked to give justification that's what comes up but I don't think the direction of causation is really evidence -> socioeconomic model -> policy. I think values or at least what feels common and familiar tends to come first and most people build up the intellectual superstructure they need to support that.
Though for some of us those values are really just being a smartass and getting to be pedantic which -- for all it's social faults -- at least aligns with saying what's true.
--
Rather, people are really facile at finding justifications for what they want to believe. Since we are on the topic consider gun control. It's not that people who support gun ownership are moved by evidence about how their risk profile changes if they can't own a gun for defense but criminals have fewer guns nor is it coming from evidence about the ability of an armed populace to resist tyranny. What comes first is just growing up with a gun and feeling it is a grave violation for someone to take it away.
Similarly, as I hope I illustrated re: assault rifles on the left all the gloss about studies and etc is downstream of their revulsion at the idea of guns and violence (listen to liberals trying guns for the first time and being shocked it's fun and they don't feel dirty..it's amusing).
--
unfortunately in the current situation many positions people wouldn't otherwise take are being driven by a sense of being emotionally hurt or disrespected by the other side. It's the point in a marital fight where you don't care anymore about whether it was a correct point you sure as fuck won't give them the satisfaction.
To get into the gun thing. Yes, there are things some of us value that impose real costs on others and compromise is required. But to reach that compromise you need to start by accepting that it really is something important and valuable to them.
We accept quite large risks imposed on us by driving cars -- many of which aren't completely necessary. We could, for instance, demand electronic speed limiters (perhaps even gps based) to substantially reduce deaths. We accept quite a large health and death burden from alcohol. I'm not saying we should change these things but my point is we don't treat it as an outrage to accept substantial risks because we like certain freedoms or lifestyles.
Whether or not the social meaning of guns is sufficently important to justify the costs is a tough question -- but at a minimum the left needs to acknowledge that they are asking people to give up something of value and that they aren't monsters for treating guns the way you do liquor or fast cars.
And I suspect if gun owners believed that the left saw their freedom to own guns as a legitimate cost which should be minimized it would be possible to find solutions everyone would be, if not happy, at least willing to live with. But that's not really possible when you (correctly) think the other side sees your value as itself evil and is going to use any crack in you coalition not to reach a compromise which minimizes harm while impinging on your rights as little as possible. Personally, I'd like to see much more restrictive gun ownership but I want to approach that by acknowledging and valuing the extent to which that would represent a tragic loss to many and minimizing that to the extent possible (and I don't just mean minimizing the harm to interests I see as legit like hunting which isn't the same).
---
And I kinda think assault weapon bans are the ultimate expression of this. [Note automatic weapons are already illegal assault weapons are just semi-auto rifles with a certain look and rail systems for optics]. Truth is when you look at the FBI data 95% of gun homicides are with handguns, if you include farm/hunting weapons it is something like 99%. So assault rifles contribute to a vanishingly small fraction of killings but have outsized symbolic meaning to many people. If the goal is to reduce gun deaths while imposing the least on people who value that sort of things assault weapons would be literally the last thing one should legislate about (large magazines esp for handguns aren't bad).
Do they get used in some mass shootings. Of course they do, and I bet camo is overrepresented atire for mass shooters too, doesn't create a causal link. Indeed, the vast majority of mass shootings are conducted at close enough range that semi-auto handguns would probably be more effective than assault weapons.
The point is to express disapproval of the value system held by a large fraction of the population. Its refusing to accept their preferences as they are and trying to insist that it's only ok to want to own a gun for reasons we approve of and that's a problem for living together.
--
It really is like a relationship. You don't need to like what the other person likes, you can even dislike some of it but you do need to respect the fact they do like it and not treat it as something you need to stamp out in them (whatever you secretly wish).