"We're at a point in history in which it's not so much about politics. It's about our hatred of the

[smirkymonkey]

other side".

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-berler-friendship-in-the-trump-era-20180218-story.html

Can social psychologists explain why Trump is ruining my friendship?

"You know a friendship is in trouble when you consult a social psychologist to help figure it out. Two days after President Trump reportedly made his remarks about immigrants from "shithole countries," and one day after we learned that one of his lawyers paid a porn star $130,000 in hush money to keep secret an alleged, consensual tryst she'd had with Trump, my wife and I dined with an old, dear friend.

We hadn't seen him in a while. Our friendship has frayed these last 18 months, over Trump, and his policies and style. The evening didn't go well. We had agreed to lay off politics, which, pre-Trump, had never been a focus for us. But then I opened my mouth. I just couldn't help it. What is the value of a friendship, after all, if so much is off limits, all the way down to Colin Kaepernick and the NFL?

I steered clear of Trump's legislative agenda. But what about Trump the man? "Can we at least agree on that?" I asked. "That the things he's said and done — the race-baiting, the name-calling, the womanizing, the divisive attacks on immigrants and refugees and everyone who opposes him — doesn't that make you question his character?" Our friend, a retired attorney, responded as if he were a hostile witness and I was challenging his testimony. "I don't judge people," he said firmly....[more]

[samnsara]

1. my 92 yr old father with mild dementia stated a YEAR AGO...

...that we are in the midst of another civil war

[Funtatlaguy]

2. Yes, but just fought with words.

The broadcasting professions takeover of am talk radio by nut job far right liars and propagandists opened the door for Fox News which changed America.

[yurbud]

10. Right wing talk radio is a half-step above the Hutu incitement before Rwanda genocide

when they referred to the Tutsis as cockroaches who must be exterminated.

The difference here: conservatives are a minority of roughly a third of the voting population.

Barring some event on the level of 9/11 or worse, they have little chance of getting more than that hardcore third behind them.

And even when they had it during the Bush years, they didn't pull the trigger on full-blown fascism.

That's likely because enough Republican politicians knew what the cost to them personally would be high if it failed or came unravelled further down the road.

I think that's what the Tea Party was about. The politicians they elected weren't substantively difference on policy, but they were meaner and stupider, therefore less likely to consider how things could go wrong and more likely to pull the trigger.

[smirkymonkey]

3. It's scary. Considering how many people out there who are armed and all too willing

to kill those who disagree with their views.

[Hortensis]

4. Good piece, though I don't really agree with the point in your title.

That's true only for some people. Sure for a lot of people, but our nation would never have gotten this far if partisan spite always controlled the wheel.

Very notably, that particular researcher quoted is also an example of the false equalization most of the academic community is hiding behind for protection (against mostly the right). Sure, good and bad traits are shared across the political spectrum. But check on what those studies really reveal, and you'll find different types of people vary in type and degree of responses, sometimes very greatly.

I've lived my entire adult life in conservative communities, and their political behaviors have finally overwhelmed my appreciation for the good facets of their personalities, but it's about being afraid for my nation, the planet, the futures of our grandchildren. I'm very angry at them right now for what they're doing because I'm afraid, but it's still all about issues and principles, actions taken, opportunities lost, and the consequences of destructive choices. I've known a lot of people who feel that way.

What I liked best about this article is the larger view. Perspective is always helpful.

Federico cautioned me not to look upon Trump's election as a tipping point of national disjunction. "If you look at the longer sweep of history, a lot of political scientists would say we're just returning to a state of polarization that was common in the 19th century," he said. He pointed to the Civil War, but could have added battles over women's suffrage and decades of labor and racial strife.

Then he warned me not to get my hopes up. "Your friend's group affiliations are not going to change. In general, we find that partisanship — the party you identify with — is incredibly stable over a lifetime. It gets set between ages 18 and 25 for most people, and doesn't change."

Federico offered one sliver of hope. "Norms are set by party leaders," he said. "If Republican leaders dial things back, then we might see people in the general public dial back, as well."

"What are the chances?" I asked, sensing I already knew the answer. "I don't personally see anything that is going to cause that to happen anytime soon," he said.

He could have explained that personalities are partially genetically linked, liberal or conservative in various degrees, with environment then affecting, which is why our political orientation is "incredibly stable."

He could also have explained that authoritarians are far more likely to be affected by party leaders than nonauthoritarians, and that by far authoritarianism is seen most on the right. A change of leadership in the Republican Party could have truly dramatic effects on their electorate -- if the electorate accepted the new leaders.

In any case, this is actually a big part of my hope for the future. Those who raged before never succeeded in ending social, economic and moral progressivism in our government. Because, for all their passion and high voting number, they were outnumbered more often than not.

[smirkymonkey]

11. Good point.

I completely agree with you. I do think what is going on now is a result of party leadership and unfortunately republican party leadership is more toxic than it has ever been. They depend and thrive upon hatred of the other side.

[Hortensis]

13. Yes! And no foreseeable end while the new toxic ultrawealthy

classes are using hatred to obtain and hold power. Only continued anger and volatility.

After all, both the tea party and Trump were populist attempts to break free of the Republican leadership fronting for the real powers, while remaining fiercely committed to fighting the left. Their fierce opposition to the left is the harness that allows toxic hidden leaders to keep them at least somewhat in control.

[aikoaiko]

5. Yes, someone coined the phrase 'reverse partisanship' and it fits.

And it's incredibly difficult to counteract.

[ladjf]

6. I believe that America is producing an exceptionally high number

of sociopathic individuals. A statistical study of a big sample of the population could either prove or disprove my assertion. If my opinion were to be supported by good statistical data, then we should try to ascertain the cause. If we can find the cause, then we might be able to find the remedy .

That's a lot of "ifs". But, at this time, no one seems to be looking that deep into the horrible human actions that are taking place in America. There is an answer. But, at the rate we going, we may never know what it is. If fact, unless we make some drastic changes soon,
uncontrollable chaos is going to devour our Country.

[Squinch]

7. There is a "both sides do it" fallacy in this, though. Democrats do NOT live to make

Republicans crazy. Republicans keep proving that their motivation is nothing more than that of an out of control three year old: "if it bothers you, I'll do it." That's what they are after. There is no thought beyond that.

Democrats want to govern. They want to make things better for Americans.

Republicans, on the other hand, fall into two camps: first are those who are so aware of their own inferiority that their only goal is to enrage Democrats. They are terrified of what they see as Democratic "elitism." This "elitism" is nothing more than being decently educated and rightfully derisive of the idiocy of these republicans.

The other group of republicans are those at the top of the party, who know enough to take the ignorance and hatred of the first group and monetize it, so they can line their own pockets by stealing from their country.

So I strongly disagree with the title and the gist of the message: it is not about Democrats' hatred of republicans. It's about republicans' hatred of Democrats.

[smirkymonkey]

8. I absolutely agree with you.

I really do think you are right. Any hatred on our part has to do with years of abuse and un-cooperation on theirs.

[Squinch]

12. Well there's that. At this point, I think "deplorable" is a kinder descriptor than they deserve.

[dalton99a]

9. Polarization is a necessary condition for authoritarian rule.

And polarization is best done by brainwashing and spreading lies