Can the polarization between Democrats and Republicans in the U.S. be reversed?

[Dmitry1983]

Just move liberals to Sweden. Problem solved.

[GUBU]

I found myself on the other side when we elected Bush Lite twice. He wasn't particularly far to the right - just such a fucking dumb-ass.

Actually Shrub was very much hard right. That's how far the political discourse has swung to the right in rcent years, that people are now able to espouse social and economic policies that the likes of Thatcher and Reagan were afraid of implementing (because it was political suicide back then) and the likes of Heath and Nixon (remember outside of the racism and criminality Nixon was to the left of today's mainstream) wouldn't even dream of.

Jeremy Corbyn is in political theory terms a middle of the road Social-Democrat espousing economic and social policies which have been shown by history to be the best way to run a country. Yet he's portrayed in the media as further left than Trotsky. That's what allows the likes of Shrub and Dumbfuck and the rest of the conservatives to swing ever closer to the far right every year without outcry

[downbeatplumb]

Just move liberals to Sweden. Problem solved.

But that would leave a nuclear armed nation in the hands of imbecilic nutcases.

I know we started it by sending all the imbeciles over there in the first place, but that was a long time ago. We thought they'd grow out of it.

---

I found myself on the other side when we elected Bush Lite twice. He wasn't particularly far to the right - just such a fucking dumb-ass.

Actually Shrub was very much hard right.  That's how far the political discourse has swung to the right in rcent years, that people are now able to espouse social and economic policies that the likes of Thatcher and Reagan were afraid of implementing (because it was political suicide back then) and the likes of Heath and Nixon (remember outside of the racism and criminality Nixon was to the left of today's mainstream) wouldn't even dream of.

Jeremy Corbyn is in political theory terms a middle of the road Social-Democrat espousing economic and social policies which have been shown by history to be the best way to run a country.  Yet  he's portrayed in the media as  further left than Trotsky.  That's what allows the likes of Shrub and Dumbfuck and the rest of the conservatives to swing ever closer to the far right every year without outcry

Yes the whole world seems to have lunged to the far right. Strangely people seem to think that the left is a danger when its the right who are doing all the damage. 
The right is linked to all the stupid and hateful things. Racism, climate change denial, oppression of all minorities, religious intolerance (they only tolerate their own brand), nationalism and above all they always ALWAYS wreck economies by creating bubbles, deregulation and cutting taxes for the wealthy.

[Cherub786]

The Right has been weakened socially since they lost the "culture war".
The Republicans are hanging on by their nails to power. The demographics are extremely skewed against them.
How long can they be the party of rural, White, less educated baby boomers?

They haven't won the popular vote in a presidential election since 2004 (which itself was because of all the patriotic hype in the aftermath of 9/11 still fresh in public's mind)
Before that they didn't win the popular vote since 1988.

The Democrats should just continue to be a cosmopolitan political party and they will soon end up dominating the country. Not that I like all their policies (I'm more of a libertarian), but the Republicans are just too racial and too rural for my taste.

[Amarok]

Just move liberals to Sweden. Problem solved.

Just move all the Conservatives to Saudi Arabia and Russia . Problem Solved .

[Brian37]

I'm reading the book "How Democracies Die," and it points out that laws and constitutions by themselves are not sufficient to safeguard democracy and rule of law, that these institutions depend upon the adherence to certain unwritten laws that help keep things running smoothly and orderly.  One of these unwritten laws is that it's okay for the other guy to win, that our opponents on the other side of the aisle are not a life or death threat to our existence, that life will go on if they get their way, and that we eventually will get ours, and that is just fine.  The polarization of politics in this country appears to be undermining that unwritten rule.  The more we view the other side as a threat to democracy and the country, the more we are likely to view winning at all costs as acceptable.  Viewing things in this way, we engage in unfair ways of achieving our victories.  A common example is gerrymandering.  It's frequently reported that Republicans have engaged in gerrymandering, but it's overlooked that Democrats do the same thing.  The only reason Republican gerrymandering draws so much attention is because far more state legislatures lie in the hands of Republicans than Democrats, so Republicans have more opportunities to engage in it.  But once both sides have committed to unfair means of winning, defeating the opponent by equally unfair means becomes justifiable and the abandonment of fair and proper means of political action becomes more common.  When that becomes more common, each side begins to see each other as more of a threat because of their norm-breaking behavior, leading to even less fair behavior to prevent their achieving power.  Thus an abandonment of tolerance for the opposing parties views becomes a death spiral in which more and more extremes of opposing them are justified because they are using more and more extreme methods of gaining power.

Polarization leads to intolerance.  Intolerance leads to defections from the norm.  Defection from the norm leads to more polarization.

How can the death spiral that occurs when polarization and intolerance become the norm be averted?  Can it be averted?

"Polarization leads to intolerance"....

I agree, but there is a huge difference between the antagonist who starts it, and those who respond to it.

"Conservative" is a global human attitude, and it exists in every nation to greater or lesser degrees. It amounts to our species fear of change. These are the groups of religions and or political sects that buy and sell fear of others. 

It can destroy an open society but that destruction isn't caused by those who value pluralism, but is destroyed when the politicians, especially at the top sell fear to keep power.

Be careful in allowing the wrong side of history to hide behind the fallacy of equivocation. 

When you look at where the west was 200 or 300 years ago, even in the west, we were far more conservative than we are now. Closed one party states and theocracies are examples of extreme conservatives. It is a myth that liberals are for closed authoritarian states. "Liberal" does not denote limitations, but denotes being open. Communist China is a conservative country, not a liberal one. It values only one party and try migrating there. Same with Saudi Arabia and Iran. Those are not liberal states. 

Yes it is possible to stop a backslide into fear. But that is not done through silence or political correctness. 

You have to stand up to politicians who sell fear. Participation is the only insurance to keep a open society open.

[brewer]

The answer is easy, take religion out of politics. The sooner the republican party gets rid of the far religious right the sooner we depolarize.

This message brought to you by a republican rural educated baby boomer.

[Chad32]

Just move liberals to Sweden. Problem solved.

Just move all the Conservatives to Saudi Arabia and Russia . Problem Solved .

We can send Trump to North Korea. He seems to love the place.

[Angrboda]

I must say that I'm not totally surprised by the responses to my OP. The replies have, for the most part, been expressions of anger directed toward Republicans, and attempts to assign blame for the mess we're in. Reacting with outrage and denials of responsibility is escalation, it makes the problem worse, not better. The question is whether we can de-escalate and how, if it's even possible. To respond to Brian specifically, yes, it's possible that they started it, but that answer doesn't resolve anything, whether it's in the back seat of the family car or on the world stage. As it has been said, an eye for an eye simply leaves the whole world blind. In Muslim areas of the world they have a similar problem, leading to repeated 'retaliatory' killings for things that the other side is presumed to have started. It doesn't stop the killing, it simply justifies its continuation. Assigning blame will not de-escalate the crisis and will not lead to less polarization rather than more.

I'm as fascinated as anyone else about the history and how we got to where we are and being mad at Republicans, but none of this addresses the problem. If polarization is bad and leads to a crisis through escalation and synergistic processes, how do we reverse that polarization and end that spiral? Can we even do so? I like to think that we can because people have done it in the past, but they were not necessarily acting with the intention of reversing the polarization and intolerance. So, perhaps, the question becomes, what consciously engaged strategies can lead to less polarization? Assigning blame and tarring and feathering Republicans isn't it. Well, if not, then what is?

As a matter of information, the book gives the example of the polarization between northern Republicans and formerly slave holding southern Democrats in the era of reconstruction after the civil war. That polarization and escalation was resolved by northern Republicans backing off of demands that society and government in the south take positive steps to recognize and protect the rights of the newly freed blacks in the south, effectively perpetuating the status quo of racism in the south. It was this "Devil's pact" which lead to reconciliation between northern Republicans and southern Democrats and resolved the ongoing crisis of incivility and intolerance between the two parties. Is such a "Devil's pact" possible in today's society? Would we be wrong in embracing such a deal? Would we be even capable of setting aside liberal values and demands for absolute and unqualified recognition of them, and accede to the interests of the right? One obvious area where this reconciliation could occur is if Democrats and liberals were more accommodating of Republican aims regarding immigration. If building that wall, literally or figuratively, will lead to peace, democracy, and prosperity inside the U.S., is that not a sufficiently valuable goal to justify setting aside, or, at least, compromising on liberal values and beliefs about the rights and interests of immigrants and refugees?

[Minimalist]

You are making one seriously flawed assumption, Jorm.  Namely that the problem can "be solved."

Sometimes there is no going back.