The American Divide: Cultural? Class? Real or Imagined?

[Zomby Woof]

A couple of years ago I read Daniel Lazare's The Frozen Republic, a provocative treatise on the Constitution and how it often works against democracy or real reform. I will not go into that here, but the book brought up an interesting analysis of 18th century pre-Revolutionary France, how it applied to America back then in some ways, and to me, how it may apply to America now.

Garry Wills also touched upon American divisions in A Necessary Evil: A History of American Distrust of Government. The common thread in both books is that there have long been divisions in countries with great disparities in class (wealth), education, skilled and unskilled labor, and the relative influence of rural versus urban populations.

According to Lazare, the divide in France was along "country" and "court" lines. "Country" being akin to modern rural America, where "traditional values", "authenticity", working the land, local control, and kinships (family or like-people) are highly valued; whereas the "court" are the highly educated urban classes, with greater concentrations of wealth, seats of regional control are held, "sophisticated", technological, and where reform is valued over tradition. The tensions leading to the French Revolution were not only rooted in class and wealth distribution as we all know, but rooted in the differences in the accompanying value systems of rich and poor, or urban and rural. Sometimes a cross-pollination of values occurred as clarified by Lazare, for he includes the urban poor and rural wealthy in the analysis by stating that "country" and "court" have less to do than where one lives, then where one's state of mind resides. Same goes in my comparison of rural and urban America. We progressives know all too well the divisions of class or values do not respect the terrain. But the opposing value cross-pollination sometimes create contradictions jarring to us at first glance. This often comes up on DU when we collectively scratch our heads at why poor people could ever vote for Bush or the Republicans.

Insert your favorite red state/blue state analogy here. "Red state/blue state" has become a form of shorthand acknowledging this seemingly intractable divide, has it not?

Much has been made about how divided America was during the 2000 election and the subsequent debacle. Much is being made now of polls, and the MOE essentailly confirming that well after 9-11, Americans have reverted to these country/court divides right down the middle, and we wonder which way the scales will tip, if the economy or the war in Iraq does not tip them for us.

Since the American divide seems real to me, as in no time in our history since the 1960's, or even the 1860's, I wonder if it is simply values-based, class-based, or a bit of both? How can we reconcile these differences? How can we win the votes of people who would favor our progressive labor and economic goals but shun us because of our differences in cultural values? Is this reconciliation possible if principle must triumph over practicality on both sides? Is all compromise bad, since it has been an art form in our history since the nation's founding? Some compromises delay solutions, some create them. What should we compromise? Democracy is messy, and these are rhetorical questions which illustrate that quite well, but feel free to take a shot regardless.

Politics has co-opted culture, they are too intertwined for a clean break. We cannot separate policy preferences from cultural preferences. Culture is tied to survival. But we do not elect sociologists to office, we elect lawyers and businessmen, which could be the root of the problem right there.

America is divided, and it goes deeper than whether we should stay in Iraq, leave Iraq, favor more tax cuts, repeal all tax cuts, or whether or not human beings have the right to marry other human beings of their choice. When I say "divide", I don't mean just an honest difference of opinion which demcracy requires to be vital. I am talking a toxic, win-at-all-costs mentality that has poisoned our discourse, turned news into propaganda, and made Americans distrustful and even hateful of others who do not share their views.

Is America's divide permanent and irreconciable? Must it take cataclysm (9-11 in our time, the Civil War in another) to heal this divide? Can we not have civil, honest differences in the way we see the world without relying on trauma to jar us into realizing we are all in this together?

A house divided against itself cannot stand. This goes for all of us supposedly on the same side of the issues too. But more importantly, it goes for the world.

Your thoughts are appreciated in advance. Peace.

[placton]

1. Nice Post - I disagree with one part, though

"we elect lawyers and businessmen, which could be the root of the problem right there"

I'm a lawyer. ALL the progress in this country has been facilitated or directly caused by laywers.
Declaration of Independence? written by lawyers
Constitution? ditto
Gettysburg Address, Lincoln's other speeches? ditto

Brown v Board, Miranda v Arizona, Roe v Wade? lawyers

Lawyers have done crappy things, too. Roy Cohn was not the first to use his lawyer-ality for evil.

BUT, the problem is there are not enough lawyers, with their ability to be pragmatic and fact (not ideology) driven. Look at your local legislature, and actually find out how FEW lawyers are there.

We need more good lawyers in public life - like we had for generations.

[Bread and Circus]

4. We need more good, principled lawyers everywhere....

and less bad, greedy, and unscrupulous ones.

I think you'd agree with that.

[Zomby Woof]

10. I am sorry

If I could edit, I would have changed that. I have NO problem with lawyers, and since we are electing lawmakers, I want lawyers in there. Kind of like having a mechanic fix your car and not a chef.

The businessperson part I would probably leave intact. Thanks for bringing that to my attention.

[Desertrose]

2. excellent post...and question....

"America is divided....<snip>... I am talking a toxic, win-at-all-costs mentality that has poisoned our discourse, turned news into propaganda, and made Americans distrustful and even hateful of others who do not share their views.

Is America's divide permanent and irreconciable? Must it take cataclysm (9-11 in our time, the Civil War in another) to heal this divide? Can we not have civil, honest differences in the way we see the world without relying on trauma to jar us into realizing we are all in this together?"

I fervently hope that there is a way to reconcile such disparate views, but they are being played on constantly by both sides and it is very sad...have Crossfire right now and it is so obvious how we are being manipulated to hate the *other*side....

I don't know Zomby...I really really don't know....I just know that it evokes such a visceral anger in me to have such a twisting of truth to benefit the few.....and I wonder what it WILL take to get us back to the things we value and have in common...or is the divide too great?

Like you, I seem to have more questions than answers...

Peace & :hug:
DR

[BlueEyedSon]

3. The red/blue thing is a red herring.

the divide is the rich & corporate interests vs everyone else. The rest is manufactured.

[Bread and Circus]

5. Excellent post, and sometimes I wonder if we are "better" than...

what we despise.

[Wright Patman]

6. The Confederacy

should have been allowed to secede. Its states would now comprise a Third World backwater with no ability to project a "new American century" overseas from the barrel of a gun. The Deliverance types would have to amuse themselves trying to take over Cuba or something. Oh wait. That's already been tried.

It would have delayed freedom for the blacks, but as a practical matter, their freedom was delayed until the Civil Rights Movement anyhow.

The remaining advanced states of the industrial North and West would be conducting a more enlightened foreign policy and would still be on good terms with Canada and "Old Europe."

"Superpowers" are dangerous to world stability. Let's hope this one doesn't last much longer. For one thing, all of us outside the crony capitalism web of BFEE crime connections will be bankrupt soon.

[sweetheart]

14. very much agree...

The civil war accomplished nothing but a reverse takeover, that we
today are ruled by the confederacy *WE* defeated... and they are
set on turning the world over to the plantation owners and the
militarists.

They are already bankrupt. Hmmmm... they spend billions more than
they earn... in any other place, it is called "insolvency." In america, it is called deficit spending.

I've long argued the civil war was wrong, and lincoln was wrong to
fight, as he did not end slavery. There are more slaves in the world
today than ever before in human history.

All the civil war really did was create an overly concentrated
federal that has been the bane of humanity ever since. The
propaganda view from that war is that right and justice cannot
be achieved without war and mass murder, and we've lived by those
tenents ever since... what a bunch of sick bastards.

In the end, it will be bankruptcy... just like chalmers johnson
so aptly puts in his "sorrows of empire" book
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0805070044/ref=sib_rdr_ex/102-1359518-1781748?%5Fencoding=UTF8&p=S00U#reader-link

PS. Welcome to DU, Wright Patman, looking forward to more from yourself.
regards, -s

[Leilani]

7. I think most people are moderates

but the Repub & Dem party activists come from their most ideological wings.

Therefore as nominees, we get to choose from very liberal or very conservative candidates.

The so-called moderates are despised by many people, but I truly believe this is where the voters are.

If we had an Independent Party comprised of moderates, I think it would win, however the 2 party system will not allow this.

[tom_paine]

9. It doesn't matter. As in Civil War I, the extremists will drag the

moderates into it.

[tom_paine]

8. Most likely, it can only be resolved by a catclysmic Civil War 2

Unfortunately, with VERY FEW exceptions, most revolutions have merely exchanged Tyrants and particular form of Tyranny, nothing more.

But if you look at the Nazi-style propaganda used by the Busheviks, purposefully creating people unable to think or even consider information from outside the Party-Approved Arena, demonizing foes, utilizing Nazi-like absolutist language, and so much more, it is really impossible to see a non-catacylsmic event returning America to Liberty and the Old Republic.

The Bushevik Infrastructure of Lies and Propaganda, the most powerful and well-funded in hman history, isn't going anywhere. The growing numbers of Brownshirts aren't going anywhere and they will do without question or remorse, whatever their Bushevik masters ask of them.

The Lifetime Appoitments for Nazi-style "Federalist" judges with the same regard for the law as a rapist has for his victim and the same toadying desire to please their Bushevik Masters that a whore has for a pimp (no disresepct to pimp-less sex-workers).

Even IF we elect Kerry by winning by 10% (which translates into a 0.01% squeaker on Corporate TV Pravda) none of these Monsters are going ANYWHERE.

And that's if we "win".

I'm afraid I place the chance of Civil War 2 withing the next 100 years at 99.999999%. The Busheviks have already laid the groundwork. The harder Free America fights, poltiically speaking, the more ruthelss and brutal the Busheviks will become.

Something will have to give. Either the Imperial Subjects of Amerika will knuckle under and accept their Imperial Overlords, or something else...

[Zomby Woof]

11. do we have too many people like Winston?

The protagonist loved to learn Big Brother, with a tear in his eye.

Are people learning to love their tyranny? If so, we're in deep trouble, when 2+2=5 with nary a shot fired in protest.

Always appreciate your responses, T-P.

[Egalitarian]

18. Yep

whoever wins in November, we're still heading towards civil war 2 and perhaps WWIII has already started. Hopefully when it (they) come(s) it will will not bring mere "reform".

Inquire Within.

[tom_paine]

19. If you're talking wholsale structural change, I disagree

And only the crazy :silly: want Civil War 2 to happen.

We have a good thing here going in this Great Country (not perfect, sometimes bad, but mostly good and even still mostly free) and it pisses me off that the Busheviks are trying to steal it and rig it and silence more than half the populace.

If the Democrats, in some alternate universe, were behaving like that, I would be as zealous an opponent of THEIRS as I am of the Busheviks now.

Did I surprise you, Geia? Did you think I was an extremely partisan ultra-Lefty Democrat?

Democratic? Yes. Ultra-Lefty? Hell no!

[IrateCitizen]

21. Restoration of democracy unfortunately requires wholesale change

We've slipped that far over the past several decades. While Bush and his gang of thugs have jammed the accelerator into hyperdrive, the decline and disintegration was ongoing, especially since the end of WWII.

Would you not agree that a rolling back of the military-industrial-congressional-complex (MICC) would be necessary for the achievement of true democratic reform? If not, I would suggest you read the book Fortress America by William Greider (not to mention the works of Chalmers Johnson) to gain a good idea of what we're up against. In all, such an endeavor seems to me to be a pretty damned big change from what we've been doing.

You said, "We have a good thing here going in this Great Country...." In many ways, I wholeheartedly agree. However, much of this "great thing" we have had going has depended on the maintenance and expansion of the American Empire over the years, maintaining control over natural resources and now even cheap labor through military hegemony. If that hegemony were removed and we were instead forced to deal with the developing world as equal partners rather than through the current "neocolonial" relationship, I would predict that our "standards of living" would change drastically. For this reason, most people would fight tooth and nail against such measures -- even if it meant trading their freedom for dictatorship. Once again, in addressing a reality such as this, you're making a pretty damned big change -- one that might be considered by some as "wholesale".

This isn't an ultra-left vs. moderate issue as you make it out to be, Tom. It's an issue about acting morally or immorally with regards to what kind of society we want to live in. I'm not talking about "morals" in the sense that the religious right talks about them -- rather, I'm talking about the most basic values and norms that should form the basis of our society.

[tom_paine]

26. Words to consider

I do agree that this particular issue isn't ultra-left vs. moderate, but that the changes required (small vs. large, economic vs. social, etc.) Do DIFFER GREATLY between the Ultra-Left and the Moderates.

So, whereas I want to strengthen and restore the current system's checks and balances, some might want to end or diminish capitalism.

Not me. I like capitalism when it's well-regulated and not shot through with cronyism (fully eliminating cronyism will happen about the same time murder is eliminated, but there should always be strong deterrents to both).

And on and on and on, I won't reiterate the philosphical differences between the Left-Center and the Hard Left because we both know them.

Let us first throw off the Bushevik Vampires from our collective neck, then we will deal with how to settle our differences within the Constitutional System.

And if the Hard Left wants to do what the Busheviks have done and short-circuit the system for persoanl and political game then I will stand against them as strongly as I stand against the Busheviks today!

[ieoeja]

27. Restoration not Reformation (n/t)

[Egalitarian]

24. I don't really want

Civil war 2, but I do think we need a "wholesale" revolution in our thinking before we'll have any substantive change in the form of government that we embrace, and likewise the relationship we have with the world.

Yes, we have a good thing here, but don't be afraid to ask for a great thing.

[Nikia]

12. There are many American cultures

Many more than many people would think. We are a multi ethnic, religiously diverse, regionally diverse, stratified society with more subcultures than most people would care to acknowledge. That is the great accomplishment of America, that many different peoples live in relative peace together. The thing that holds us together is the ideal of America a place where we have life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness where the radical words "We hold these truths to be self evident that all men (which we take to be gender inclusive) were created equal." Even as we thought that we approaching this ideal, we are now moving away from it. In this time, we have begun to question what these things mean and if this ideal can possibly stand.

[Zomby Woof]

13. true

No doubt we have such a rich mosaic, and it would not be America to me without it. But why, with all of these cultures present, do we persist with this roughly 50-50 divide? Why is the 2004 race shaping up to be a near-replay of 2004, statistically? That is really what I am getting at. It is not a mild split either. It's not just the war, or the economy, but seemingly across the board, issues-wise.

[dpibel]

17. Diversion and Deception

Edited for errant punctuation.

The current maxim for party identification (moreso amongst repubs, who actively punish dissent) is "in for a penny, in for a pound." If you support one plank of the party platform, you're deemed to buy the whole thing.

The starkest illustration I know of is Newt Gingrich's Contract on America. Anyone who took the time to read that whole "Ten Commandments for Modern America" noticed that there were aspects of it which were, if not mutually exclusive, at least mutually unlikely. E.g., cut gubmint spending and increase defense spending.

But the beauty of the "Contract" was this: It gathered together a splendid collection of hot topics for single-issue voters. Since it is now almost forbidden to engage in any but the most superficial thinking, voters were supposed to (and did) scan down the list of grand promises until they found their favorite, stop reading, and sign on.

I think the bulk of single-issue voters really thought they were endorsing only their special truth. But the document was used to represent a great wave of support for the entire package. Hence, Gingrich and his successors can lump together the gun righters, the anti-choicers, the small-gubminters, and whatever other splinters had representation on the list, and present them as supporting the whole.

The gang of loons now occupying the executive branch use this technique with mind-boggling effect. There seems to be no problem at all with shamelessly pandering to one group one day and the next day pandering to another group which may well despise the first. Between the press blackout and the public embargo on consciousness, the only thing the members of one group hear is the endorsement of their particular stalking horse; the endorsement of an opposing viewpoint fades into the white noise.

I think there actually was a halcyon time when the country was not so divided. But that was, in part, because there were a whole bunch of things which are divisive issues today that were not issues at all. Fifty years ago, civil rights were were a mere flicker, gays were closeted, abortion took place in back alleys (for the masses) or Europe (for the Bushes), and nobody thought a thing about CO2, insecticide, or deforestation.

All those things are now available to use as wedges. IMHO, the real divide in America is class/wealth. But all those handy hot buttons are pressed by virtuosos to divide people who are, on most issues, natural allies. The existence or not of legal abortion has only a hypothetical effect on those who oppose it; the issue of outsourcing jobs affects both pro- and anti-choicers. As long as they remain ardently divided by a moral issue, the plutocrats are safe from a unified public demanding a tad more fairness in the distribution of wealth.

It's a classic divide and conquer imperial strategy. But as long as Americans refuse to see themselves as the subjects of an empire, they'll keep dithering over secondary issues.

(Notes designed to keep this post from being the starting point for a threadjacking: (1) When I say that abortion has a hypothetical effect on anti-choicers, I mean only that those who don't like them ought not get them. I fully realize that anti-choicers are morally offended by the procedure and that it hurts their hearts. (2) When I say "secondary issues," I do not intend to bring out pro-choicers who want me to understand that it is a very important issue. I know that it is.

What I mean, grossly, is this: You will not find yourself mining dumpsters if someone else has an abortion. You may, however, find yourself in that situation if we don't get our economic house in order.

Self-critical note: If I weren't so damned lazy, I'd use a different hot-button issue. But this one fits my thesis awfully well and, gosh, I am so damned lazy.)

[IrateCitizen]

20. Hey dpibel, ever read "The Politics of Meaning"?

It addresses many of the things that you talked about here, re: the use of single-issues to divide natural allies among the electorate.

One quote I always try to keep in mind is, "The average family is three missed paychecks away from homelessness." If that doesn't sum up who REALLY has more in common with each other (the poor and middle class, as opposed to the middle class and moneyed class), I don't know what does.

Personally, I think that the great majority of people have just become so disaffected and cynical with the failure of our political system to help create a "more perfect union", that they either drop out entirely or devote themselves to these single issues. Furthermore, the 2-party dichotomy helps only to reinforce this problem, as you accurately pointed out in your "in for a penny, in for a pound" observation.

Americans will never see themselves as citizens of an empire, because to do so would be to openly acknowledge how our standards of living are intimately tied to the maintenance of that empire. Americans have, by and large, become slaves and captives to that standard of living -- most would readily sacrifice their most basic freedoms and endorse authoritarian dictatorship in order to hold onto it. That's why I'm convinced that if we really did have an economic crash in this country, many people would actually WELCOME martial law -- if for no other reason that to be able to "hold on to what they have".

We live in a compartementalized culture that champions the individual not only over all, but literally at the EXPENSE of others. Therefore, it's no shock as to how stratified our culture has become in many regards.

[Desertrose]

15. kick up for a good post

:kick:

:hi:

:loveya:
Dmom

[The Lone Liberal]

16. This country has always been divided along class lines.

Those who believe otherwise are either naive or fools.

[buddhamama]

22. the country is divided

for the most part, along class lines.

Who sows the division and the Why and Where can be pointed to, how to go about fixing the divisions, i honestly do not know.

Propaganda and the generating of inequality is so ingrained; the culture, our society has been built upon these divisions and is furthered daily.

Can a rational person look to the differences and say,
Hey the classes are all getting screwed by the elite few?
sure but, to speak of such things creates fear in the listener-
that is my honest opinion, it is not stated to belittle anyone.

Why the fear?
ahhh, now we are getting to the crux of the matter.
We are taught the principals the ideals on which our country was founded from early childhood.
To all of sudden have the veil lifted,
that the Powers that Be have essentially used the 'good' we see
against us. To come to the realization that all Men are not created equal, that if you follow the rules and work hard you'll do OK is a lie etc etc, leaves a void so deep, the fear of losing our collective reality; we cannot comprehend it. It is akin to someone who goes into shock after witnessing/experiencing a trauma, the brain shuts down to save the psyche.

Always the optimist it can be overcome.
Again, it is the how, i do not know.

Good thought provoking post,ZW.
sorry i had nothing to add.

[Zomby Woof]

28. says you

You said plenty, and the 'trauma' angle gives me a new perspective on the matter. Your humility floors me, as always. :-)

[wadestock]

23. It is very much imaginary......

I'm 51 now....have great memories of times when the media wasn't controlled the way it is today by the right wing....and when Americans were much more closely bound together by the real promise of what free enterprise could bring to the nation and what real gains were being experienced in the middle class.

This great divide which exists today has been brought to a dangerous level by those right wingers that became enchanted with Ronald Reagan and his bid to end "tax unfairness". After Ronald Reagan, the real seeds for the great divide were sown....and these people began coming out of the woodwork like a bunch of cockroaches.

Unleashing the theory that taxing "penalized" one's quest for success was the ultimate elicir for right wing scum bags like Rush Limbaugh that rose to the pulpit and saw how people would google into submission when presented with a false choice between being rewarded for one's efforts or being penalized by irresponsible liberals.

But Limbaugh went one important step farther to really solidify this great divide. He very cleverly introduced the concept of how to "intellectually" hate liberals. Since this has gone on now for over 10 years, you may not appreciate the overall effect this has had on the public, but Limbaughism is deeply entrenched now in the media and has become a way of live for many republicans.

Now why is this imaginary?
Because it is all based on lies and is total BS.
Capitalism only works when it works for the people.
Limbaugh and the right wing have successfully manipulated people for their own self interests.
The great divide is exactly as a result of what Mr. Marx warned us....when capitalism caves in on itself because of greed.

Hillary was exactly on the money when she said there was a great right wing conspiracy. It has taken shape and it is an overwhelming force in America today. Those who have risen out of this great belief in a self-destructive "for me only" capitalism have quite effectively pooled together and put together specific political plans to divide the country. You simply don't see them attempting to find any middle ground like many of the democrats do.

And you can read any number of informed sources that will explain specifically how they went after certain states and with the strategy to win elections based on swinging certain votes. Confusing and lying about issues like gun control, gays, or abortion has been shown as sufficiently effective to maintain certain key base support.

Don't over intellectualize what is happening to Americans because they are burned out and not really thinking this through. Anyone of any intellectual prowness would realize the right wing is completely lying in regards to trickle down and it is a historical fact that our capitalistic system works just fine when the upper tier tax rate is somewhere in the 40 to 50% range.

The only way I can see truly breaking down the walls which are there are through education. I have won more people over with these 2 simple issues....

#1 - Examine historic trends on ASSETS of the middle class and it will show they have significantly shrunk since 1975...and the only period in which they increased was through the end of the Clinton years.

#2 - Examine how Reagan's national debt and Bush's new addition to this debt REALLY affected you. Dig up some old 1040 forms and find out the interest YOU paid on the debt in your taxes from the mid 80s through the present. They have gone up to 15 cents on the dollar down to 7 cents after Clinton cut the debt in half....and are now once again going up to easily exceed 15 cents on the dollar again. Add up this money over the years. You'll find the average middle class person has paid 10s of thousands of dollars on INTEREST on the debt.

In other words....don't fall for the BS that the COUNTRY can grow itself out of debt....when you are the one's footing a HUGE part of the debt year after year that could have potentially sent your kids to college or paid for health care costs.

[Az]

25. Absolutely divided

The divide is very real and very serious. There are those that have embraced our diverse culture and those that cannot tolerate any system that is not close to their own. These are the remnants of a struggle started over 500 years ago. One between absolute moral authority and the will of the people.

During the centuries of the dark ages moral authority held sway. Certain structures had gained control of both moral definitions and the powers of state. These combined gave them control of life and death. They defined what was good or evil. They defined who was acceptable or not. It was the age of enlightenment that broke their grip on the control of the state.

These institutions did not disappear over night with the loss of their control. They had only lost control of enforcing their moral dictations. They still held the pulpits. They still poured their claims of moral authority into the people.

The initial freedom of the people gave birth to a new wave of social direction. People once freed of the moral direction provided by the institutions began to explore right and wrong on their own. New ways of thinking arose. It was a time of exploration.

Eventually though this newness wore off. People began to take for granted certain learned aspects of morality (freedom, rights, etc). The institutions incorporated some of these ideas but continued to press the idea that they were still the origin of these newly found ideas. They continued to claim the right to dictate morality. And because people's beliefs were tied into these institutions their words took hold in some.

We now live in a time where those that defend these no longer new rights have forgotten why they were necissary to fight for in the first place. The defenders are asleep. They only know that they must defend these rights but are not so aware of why. Their conviction has been eroded. They do not have institutions standing behind them whispering in their ear that what they do is right. That they are on a certain path of righteousness. They have only their own fortitude and whatever desire for progress that remains inherantly part of them.

Meanwhile on the other side there are vast institutions dedicated to supporting their defenders. Centuries of social evolution focused on maintaining a rigid hold on their position. Platitudes about glory and holy purpose bolster those that might falter. A message of certainty about their actions.

The institutions never stopped plying the people with the message that they were the arbiters of right and wrong. That they alone defined truth. Over time and unchallenged by any competition these ideas begin to take hold in minds dulled to the necissity for reistance. Over time we are being dragged back into an age we called Dark.

[Zomby Woof]

29. thank you Az

I tend to agree that we are in the New Dark Ages already, for the reasons you cited, and more.