Conversation

Replying to
Of course, there *was* some partisan polarization, but I see this as secondary to the divisive national situation, disagreements over which were reflected in party affiliation, since people self-selected into the parties. And, of course, Dems preferred to be the party in power.
1
I will have to read before commenting more, but I don't think Civil War-era partisanship translates well to today's kind. The behaviors were *tribal,* not *partisan.* The issues were less arbitrary. Men were Democrats because they didn't support the war/its aims, not vice versa.
1
"Kalmoe shows that partisan identities motivated mass violence by ordinary citizens, not extremists, when activated by leaders and legitimated by the state." Important. Extremists play little role in the history of American violence. Ordinary citizens play a big role.
1
Excited to read the book, though I worry it will be twisted to fit current and misleading political narratives. The role of partisan identities and the state, while not totally absent, has always seemed overrated to me.
1
American violence has usually been localized outbreaks by ordinary citizens, on their own initiative. It's not usually about a partisan identity, but about an event related to contested issue. One's feelings on that issue may correlate with partisan identity.
1
Usually, there is little direction from "the state," if that means the party in control of the federal government. Maybe some support from officials in their own state or town. Community leaders are indeed usually instigators. But they're not always gov. officials or partisans.
1
I keep trying to emphasize the degree to which Lincoln was focused on this, and how it explains many of his other decisions. These were real fears; it wasn't just an excuse for self-interested crack-downs.
Image
1
Excited to read it, though I'm wary it will be twisted to fit the present narratives. IMO, the Civil War shows that, historically, the danger does not come mainly from ideology, partisan identity or polarization, "activation" leaders, or "state legitimation."
1
It comes from ordinary people having sincere disputes over concrete issues, which cause them to divide into parties, appoint leaders, and take actions to further their interests. Bursts of tribal behavior and violence often follow.
1
For the last few decades, our conflicts have been contrived or misdirected by our leaders (recently, real conflicts have returned). Artificial conflicts produce a different kind of partisan polarization, one more based on identity/affect, & tribalism manifests a bit differently.
2
3
Replying to
True, but I don't think most people are actually involved in global conflicts, so I see such controversies as contrived for political purposes. Many people *are* involved in a conflict over globalization-related policies, but that often gets misdirected into something artificial.