Size Matters

[andrewducker]

[Poll #1752744]

Context for the first question.

Comments

[andrewducker]

You're probably right.

For democracy to work people have to believe that living with a compromise is preferable to doing things their own way (at least in the long term). I worry that this isn't the case for a lot of people in the US, because the cultures are in opposition enough that the compromises aren't tenable.

[arkhamrefugee.livejournal.com]

Which cultures would those be?

[andrewducker]

The ones that believe that people should have the right to live how they want and the ones that believe that certain lifestyles are intrinsically evil and should be prevented at all costs.

[arkhamrefugee.livejournal.com]

Dude, that's EVERYWHERE. Not just in the US. I think the big difference here is that we just bitch, argue, cuss and scream at each other about it. As opposed to taking to the streets with firearms and bombs and blowing the shit out of each other.

Well... as a general rule.

[andrewducker]

The US seems to have it worse than many places. When it comes, for instance, to gay rights, it's taken as a given nowadays in the UK.

US politics also involves religion in ways that the UK doesn't - which makes things worse. When you know that God backs your way of life you tend to be quicker to brand your enemies as evil.

[danieldwilliam.livejournal.com]

I wonder if there is something in here about the electoral system and the size and diversity of states.

There are effectively two political parties in the States, Democrats and Republicans (or to give them their Sunday names Girliemen and Wackjobs). As the US currently mainly uses First Past the Post and Deveurger’s Law applies these parties tend to be large, broad, church but subject to the occasional hijack by the extreme fringes.


I wonder if the drift of the Republicans towards the evangelical Christian social right polarises the politics of each state in a way that re-enforces a cultural polarity that begins to locate differences of opinion on social policy (gay marriage), fundamental rights (the ability or otherwise to impose a world view on others) and incidentally economic thinking (socialised medicine) in tightly defined geographic areas.

As I see US politics at the moment it appears to be difficult to rise to national prominence in the Republicans unless you are at the Tea Party end of their spectrum. If I were a concerned citizen of Oregon I think I’d be a bit worried about electing any Republican in my state, even a moderate or wet one, in case it encourage Sarah Palin to visit. So Oregon becomes a Blue state (like Strathclyde was a Labour council), the only government is provided by people who are slightly to the left of the Oregon average because those slightly to the right have been tarred by their association with more militant Republicans. So Oregon become more left leaning. Differential population movements exacerbate this trend (if you’re gay you emigrate from Bigotsville, Alabama to a particular town in Oregon).

Ditto with the personalities changed for unacceptable Democrat Democrats in, say, Arizona.

Unlike the UK where the political and cultural differences are (or were until recently) all contained within one polity the US has many polities and therefore more opportunity for culture and political norms to become associated with distinct geographies.

I suggest for the sake of argument.

[ami-bender.livejournal.com]

Hmmm. Not sure. I would say a lot of it has to do with public perception. Thinking in black and white, good/bad terms makes you not get along with any of your neighbors. Actually being tought to understand other cultures and think can reduce strife.

Personally, I would say education can increase size before you begin getting too divergent a set of population beleifs.