Of course this is true. If anyone is naive enough to believe America is a hellish wasteland of terrible politics, and that that transfers to overall Quality of Life metrics for society as a whole, they might be surprised by this. Any honest look at data on employment, QoL, services available for free or very cheaply in the lives of the average citizen, there are many reasons for optimism.
Personally, I try to cut from my media diet any purely speculative or fear-driven content. Instead of telling us what might happen in the future if this policy comes down the pipe, maybe tell us about what's already happened recently, what the data shows us about the most important issues. To me, these are issues like the opioid epidemic, not what a politician wrote on Twitter recently. Another example would be focusing extensively on negative coverage, like opioids, and ignoring positive trends made in science, technology, and culture - who wants to read about the daily incremental improvements in life?
I look at the opioid epidemic as a symptom, not the problem itself. The broader problem is globalization and the local inequalities it's producing. The Heartland of the United States is being hollowed out and turned into a desolate wasteland, economically speaking. The steady advances in economic productivity are accruing to an ever-shrinking proportion of the population.
The media-political circus should also be taken seriously as a problem because it distracts people from focusing on the real issues. The recent focus on privacy on Facebook is a good example of that. The real problem with Facebook is that it's designed to be addictive, that it's making people depressed and angry, and that it's politically polarizing people who ought to have common interests.
>What explains the gulf between most Americans’ hopeful outlook on areas and institutions they know directly and their despair about the country they know only through the news?
You pretty much summed up what I was thinking the entire time I was reading the article. The average person will say, "Oh yeah... WE'RE doing a GREAT job! We're doing what we need to do to make progress, and things are improving for us."
And then they'll say, "It's all those OTHER people and places that are being jerks!"
I wish people could better see where other people are coming from so to speak.
> What explains the gulf between most Americans’ hopeful outlook on areas and institutions they know directly and their despair about the country they know only through the news?
In their anthropological foray, they notice that people generally get along with local people in local contexts. That's certainly true.
A lot of the acrimony, tribalism, and fear comes from the growing divisiveness of American culture at large.
The fact that The Atlantic needs to don some pith helmets and mix with the locals is itself indicative of the problem. Kudos to the authors for actually doing so, but these aren't migrants trying to learn how to be American. These are people born and raised in America who are somehow on the outside of what The Atlantic considers to be America.
> There is of course evidence that this has happened, in the form of the bigotry that has been unleashed since 2017.
And, ironically, The Atlantic ignores the bigotry [1] it contributes to the situation. The Kevin Williamson incident [2] is very recent and is literally a failed attempt to actually include different kinds of perspectives in The Atlantic. And it seems the institutes of journalism aren't exactly interested, in general, in doing the journalism to accurately represent Williamson's views on the matter [3]. By the way, Kevin Williamson is from these places and writes with a unique take on how these places are and how they could be better.
So when you live in these places and you see hatred for people like you, how are you supposed to be optimistic and excited about the prospects for your children and grandchildren?
[1] "stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own"
"...So when you live in these places and you see hatred for people like you, how are you supposed to be optimistic and excited about the prospects for your children and grandchildren?..."
Yeah... but that's been going on forever. You see that with Muslims recently. We've seen that with hispanics. Further back, of course, we've been seeing it with blacks and native americans for a long time. That will ALWAYS happen.
The trick is to work out a way to keep moving forward even in the face of tribalism. Because I'm not entirely certain that we can eliminate tribalism. I'd love to be proven wrong, but I'm not sure that I will be.
This post engages in the myth that there exists an America homogenous enough that all of it can suitably be represented by a single media outlet...and when it isn't something nefarious (in this case leftist elitism) is at work.
The problem isn't The Atlantic or the National Review providing specific, sometimes narrow views. The problem is the lack of intellectual curiosity, confirmation bias, and tribalism engaged in by many political consumers.
No idea what he has to say for himself in the wsj since it's behind a paywall, but I did google him. I wasn't familiar with any of this but if this is accurate:
It was Mr. Williamson’s hard-line stance on abortion — namely, that it should be treated as premeditated homicide and punished accordingly, perhaps by hanging — that generated the initial controversy over his hiring.
Well, you know, his time at The Atlantic wasn't destined to end well. Their readers aren't going to allow them to turn into Newsmax.
It's mostly distressing that a lunatic like that can get the time of day, let alone a paying job as an opinion writer. Speaking of "tribalism," I don't think his views are likely representative of his own "tribe." It's just that the discourse has degraded to the point where plenty of people get off on hearing something they think will offend the right people.
I think Americans are totally done with identity politics based on race, gender, religion, sexuality, etc. We’ve had those arguments and the battle lines were drawn, but at the end of the day we all just live our lives. There seems to have developed somewhat of a “gentleman’s agreement” in most public spaces (explicitly political forums like protests notwithstanding) along be lines of “don’t provoke me for my religious beliefs and I won’t provoke you for your homosexuality”.
I do still think we have a long way towards navigating those differences as they play out on an interpersonal level. A classic example is sexual harassment in the workplace: women are justifiably upset by it, but men are also upset at the blowback. Fact is, it’s pretty easy for a man to be threatening to a woman without realizing he is — most men don’t understand how much the sheer size/strength difference intimidates most women when emotions get heated. Navigating this environment takes empathy from both sides and is something that has to be established on a person-to-person basis.
IMO this is just the new normal. There was a time when people could hide their differences, but with social media and such I’m not sure that’s reasonable. So we actually have to learn to navigate the differences rather than pretending they don’t exist.
>I think Americans are totally done with identity politics based on race, gender, religion, sexuality
I don't see that happening at all, that would be nice, but that's not the general direction. I think things are getting worse as far as that's concerned. Society is polarizing and separating into different groups. At this point it is almost impossible to talk to the "other side" about certain issues. There is MASSIVE distrust of the government and authority that is getting increasing day by day. I think America is becoming a polarized, low-trust society with no common interests and the future looks like regional secession to me. Sub-state entities seceding from other states, states seceding from the greater US etc.
> I think Americans are totally done with identity politics based on race, gender, religion, sexuality, etc.
As someone who's living in New York I'd have to say you couldn't be further from the truth. But then again I guess it depends what part of the country you are in.
> A classic example is sexual harassment in the workplace: women are justifiably upset by it, but men are also upset at the blowback. Fact is, it’s pretty easy for a man to be threatening to a woman without realizing he is — most men don’t understand how much the sheer size/strength difference intimidates most women when emotions get heated. Navigating this environment takes empathy from both sides and is something that has to be established on a person-to-person basis.
That might be true in some edge/fringe cases, but your characterization as an equal push-pull here is wildly misleading. There is a change happening, very much for the better, but that is clearly in one direction, and not rooted in "both sides".
> There seems to have developed somewhat of a “gentleman’s agreement” in most public spaces (explicitly political forums like protests notwithstanding) along be lines of “don’t provoke me for my religious beliefs and I won’t provoke you for your homosexuality”.
Given the previous quote, are the "religious beliefs" in this case relating to sexuality? In that case, one thing is not like the other.
You can (and I personally have) grow out of judging people based on their sexuality, grounded in your inherited religion. You can however not grow out of your sexuality. One has to be accepted, religious prejudices (IMHO) don't.
"Meeting in the middle" doesn't work, if the middle is way off to the side of where rationality lives. I don't think we can judge thinks purely objectively, but trying on different optics at least helps to inform our argument, whatever that is. This is the goal I hope we reach.
I found it hard to read this article as having grounds to draw the positive conclusion from it's own premises: the inherently racist views of communities with low real immigration despite obvious dependencies on the immigration present bodes very badly, as does the underlying false optimism of a new wave of political consciousness.
I suspect the new America is an isolationist America
Why would immigrants move to where they're not wanted?
Also, how is the desire to maintain a common identity in your small town racist?
Many of our country's rural trends are a pushback against multiculturalism, which pushes the idea that there is no right or wrong way to live as long as you don't hurt other people. Common languages, religions, norms, customs, and beliefs simply don't matter. But how can a sense of community form when you can't even talk to your neighbors? Why is this pushback being met with cries of racism?
Its refreshing to read a hopeful and positive piece about the future of America. So much has been written of the state of the great divide between races, conservatives and liberals, heartland America and the coastal liberal cities, republican vs democrats. At least out of all this turmoil there is a sense of activism and involvement in politics I have not seen in years.
>“If you want to create a great community, you move someplace that needs your help,”
[+] [-] WhompingWindows|8 years ago|reply
Personally, I try to cut from my media diet any purely speculative or fear-driven content. Instead of telling us what might happen in the future if this policy comes down the pipe, maybe tell us about what's already happened recently, what the data shows us about the most important issues. To me, these are issues like the opioid epidemic, not what a politician wrote on Twitter recently. Another example would be focusing extensively on negative coverage, like opioids, and ignoring positive trends made in science, technology, and culture - who wants to read about the daily incremental improvements in life?
[+] [-] chongli|8 years ago|reply
The media-political circus should also be taken seriously as a problem because it distracts people from focusing on the real issues. The recent focus on privacy on Facebook is a good example of that. The real problem with Facebook is that it's designed to be addictive, that it's making people depressed and angry, and that it's politically polarizing people who ought to have common interests.
[+] [-] gerbilly|8 years ago|reply
The fundamental attribution error[1]
[1] http://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/fundamental-attri...
[+] [-] bilbo0s|8 years ago|reply
And then they'll say, "It's all those OTHER people and places that are being jerks!"
I wish people could better see where other people are coming from so to speak.
[+] [-] humanrebar|8 years ago|reply
In their anthropological foray, they notice that people generally get along with local people in local contexts. That's certainly true.
A lot of the acrimony, tribalism, and fear comes from the growing divisiveness of American culture at large.
The fact that The Atlantic needs to don some pith helmets and mix with the locals is itself indicative of the problem. Kudos to the authors for actually doing so, but these aren't migrants trying to learn how to be American. These are people born and raised in America who are somehow on the outside of what The Atlantic considers to be America.
> There is of course evidence that this has happened, in the form of the bigotry that has been unleashed since 2017.
And, ironically, The Atlantic ignores the bigotry [1] it contributes to the situation. The Kevin Williamson incident [2] is very recent and is literally a failed attempt to actually include different kinds of perspectives in The Atlantic. And it seems the institutes of journalism aren't exactly interested, in general, in doing the journalism to accurately represent Williamson's views on the matter [3]. By the way, Kevin Williamson is from these places and writes with a unique take on how these places are and how they could be better.
So when you live in these places and you see hatred for people like you, how are you supposed to be optimistic and excited about the prospects for your children and grandchildren?
[1] "stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own"
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/bigotry
[2] https://www.wsj.com/articles/when-the-twitter-mob-came-for-m...
[3] https://www.weeklystandard.com/kevin-williamson/what-new-yor...
[+] [-] bilbo0s|8 years ago|reply
Yeah... but that's been going on forever. You see that with Muslims recently. We've seen that with hispanics. Further back, of course, we've been seeing it with blacks and native americans for a long time. That will ALWAYS happen.
The trick is to work out a way to keep moving forward even in the face of tribalism. Because I'm not entirely certain that we can eliminate tribalism. I'd love to be proven wrong, but I'm not sure that I will be.
[+] [-] akhilcacharya|8 years ago|reply
Both myself and the leadership of The Atlantic listened to what Kevin Williamson said. I think it speaks for itself.
[+] [-] dandersh|8 years ago|reply
The problem isn't The Atlantic or the National Review providing specific, sometimes narrow views. The problem is the lack of intellectual curiosity, confirmation bias, and tribalism engaged in by many political consumers.
[+] [-] brandonmenc|8 years ago|reply
The general population seems to confuse "bigot" only with "racist" or "sexist," for some reason.
[+] [-] justin66|8 years ago|reply
It was Mr. Williamson’s hard-line stance on abortion — namely, that it should be treated as premeditated homicide and punished accordingly, perhaps by hanging — that generated the initial controversy over his hiring.
Well, you know, his time at The Atlantic wasn't destined to end well. Their readers aren't going to allow them to turn into Newsmax.
It's mostly distressing that a lunatic like that can get the time of day, let alone a paying job as an opinion writer. Speaking of "tribalism," I don't think his views are likely representative of his own "tribe." It's just that the discourse has degraded to the point where plenty of people get off on hearing something they think will offend the right people.
[+] [-] specialist|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] spodek|8 years ago|reply
Except for all the problems, this place is great!
That's the way it's been since the start and likely will be as far as we can tell.
Now let me tell you about how I traveled all over the place and talked to people who are the salt of the earth.
[+] [-] exelius|8 years ago|reply
I think Americans are totally done with identity politics based on race, gender, religion, sexuality, etc. We’ve had those arguments and the battle lines were drawn, but at the end of the day we all just live our lives. There seems to have developed somewhat of a “gentleman’s agreement” in most public spaces (explicitly political forums like protests notwithstanding) along be lines of “don’t provoke me for my religious beliefs and I won’t provoke you for your homosexuality”.
I do still think we have a long way towards navigating those differences as they play out on an interpersonal level. A classic example is sexual harassment in the workplace: women are justifiably upset by it, but men are also upset at the blowback. Fact is, it’s pretty easy for a man to be threatening to a woman without realizing he is — most men don’t understand how much the sheer size/strength difference intimidates most women when emotions get heated. Navigating this environment takes empathy from both sides and is something that has to be established on a person-to-person basis.
IMO this is just the new normal. There was a time when people could hide their differences, but with social media and such I’m not sure that’s reasonable. So we actually have to learn to navigate the differences rather than pretending they don’t exist.
That, in my mind, is progress.
[+] [-] ManFromUranus|8 years ago|reply
I don't see that happening at all, that would be nice, but that's not the general direction. I think things are getting worse as far as that's concerned. Society is polarizing and separating into different groups. At this point it is almost impossible to talk to the "other side" about certain issues. There is MASSIVE distrust of the government and authority that is getting increasing day by day. I think America is becoming a polarized, low-trust society with no common interests and the future looks like regional secession to me. Sub-state entities seceding from other states, states seceding from the greater US etc.
[+] [-] virtuexru|8 years ago|reply
As someone who's living in New York I'd have to say you couldn't be further from the truth. But then again I guess it depends what part of the country you are in.
[+] [-] croon|8 years ago|reply
That might be true in some edge/fringe cases, but your characterization as an equal push-pull here is wildly misleading. There is a change happening, very much for the better, but that is clearly in one direction, and not rooted in "both sides".
> There seems to have developed somewhat of a “gentleman’s agreement” in most public spaces (explicitly political forums like protests notwithstanding) along be lines of “don’t provoke me for my religious beliefs and I won’t provoke you for your homosexuality”.
Given the previous quote, are the "religious beliefs" in this case relating to sexuality? In that case, one thing is not like the other.
You can (and I personally have) grow out of judging people based on their sexuality, grounded in your inherited religion. You can however not grow out of your sexuality. One has to be accepted, religious prejudices (IMHO) don't.
"Meeting in the middle" doesn't work, if the middle is way off to the side of where rationality lives. I don't think we can judge thinks purely objectively, but trying on different optics at least helps to inform our argument, whatever that is. This is the goal I hope we reach.
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] ggm|8 years ago|reply
I suspect the new America is an isolationist America
[+] [-] TheAdamAndChe|8 years ago|reply
Also, how is the desire to maintain a common identity in your small town racist?
Many of our country's rural trends are a pushback against multiculturalism, which pushes the idea that there is no right or wrong way to live as long as you don't hurt other people. Common languages, religions, norms, customs, and beliefs simply don't matter. But how can a sense of community form when you can't even talk to your neighbors? Why is this pushback being met with cries of racism?
[+] [-] ShadowFaxSam|8 years ago|reply
>“If you want to create a great community, you move someplace that needs your help,”
[+] [-] whatever_dude|8 years ago|reply