4 Americas

IUCrazy2

Hall of Famer
Mar 7, 2004
14,084
5,277
113

I think the author has an obvious bias and I also think he gets some things wrong (particularly around some of the descriptions of "conservatives"), however, this is a long article that does take a "balanced" view of the 4 Americas and attempts to provide a critique of what they get wrong along with what they get right.

Anyways, thought it might be interesting. I tend to listen to critiques that are coming from those within the group they are criticizing more, so I found more value in his views centered on the left. Not to say some of his points about the right are completely wrong, I have just found better criticism from people actually of the right. That is to say that it is easier to assume the worst intentions of your political opponents, which is the trap I think this author fell into.
 

twenty02

Hall of Famer
Jan 28, 2011
18,169
18,191
113
Thanks for posting. Interesting piece that in many ways mirrors the discussions we've long had here. I may pickup the book.

I didn't much disagree with any of his characterizations..... would be interested in what you disagreed with.
 

IUCrazy2

Hall of Famer
Mar 7, 2004
14,084
5,277
113
Thanks for posting. Interesting piece that in many ways mirrors the discussions we've long had here. I may pickup the book.

I didn't much disagree with any of his characterizations..... would be interested in what you disagreed with.
I think on the right side that he places too much emphasis on race. I don't think the majority of righty voters are sitting around thinking some of the stuff he had from a racial sense. It was kind of like I was saying, when you tend to describe the bad side of the opposition, you tend to be more inclined to attribute the worst intentions to them. I think he hit on some points but I don't think the race issue is as big as he seemed to indicate. In my experience, most of the righties I come across at worst don't give a crap about the plight of blacks because they are more interested in what is happening to them. Most people are driven by things that impact them...whether they get an endorphin push out of "helping others" or they are just somewhat self centered focused on "this helps me and that doesn't impact my life so I am more interested in that over this".

So I felt he was more willing to assume good intentions for bad behavior for the two groups he thought were on his side and the opposite for those not. Which, whatever, it was written by someone who leans to the left so I go into those expecting a certain amount of bias.
 

Univee2

Hall of Famer
Aug 7, 2002
14,117
4,531
113

I think the author has an obvious bias and I also think he gets some things wrong (particularly around some of the descriptions of "conservatives"), however, this is a long article that does take a "balanced" view of the 4 Americas and attempts to provide a critique of what they get wrong along with what they get right.

Anyways, thought it might be interesting. I tend to listen to critiques that are coming from those within the group they are criticizing more, so I found more value in his views centered on the left. Not to say some of his points about the right are completely wrong, I have just found better criticism from people actually of the right. That is to say that it is easier to assume the worst intentions of your political opponents, which is the trap I think this author fell into.

"Just America." Wow. Not sure what to think about the future with this group's inevitable slide into Maoism.

Free, Real and Smart can overlap and interact enough to at least co-exist to some extent. Just America will just destroy.
 

Marvin the Martian

Hall of Famer
Sep 4, 2001
29,983
13,644
113
I think on the right side that he places too much emphasis on race. I don't think the majority of righty voters are sitting around thinking some of the stuff he had from a racial sense. It was kind of like I was saying, when you tend to describe the bad side of the opposition, you tend to be more inclined to attribute the worst intentions to them. I think he hit on some points but I don't think the race issue is as big as he seemed to indicate. In my experience, most of the righties I come across at worst don't give a crap about the plight of blacks because they are more interested in what is happening to them. Most people are driven by things that impact them...whether they get an endorphin push out of "helping others" or they are just somewhat self centered focused on "this helps me and that doesn't impact my life so I am more interested in that over this".

So I felt he was more willing to assume good intentions for bad behavior for the two groups he thought were on his side and the opposite for those not. Which, whatever, it was written by someone who leans to the left so I go into those expecting a certain amount of bias.

I would say the author has two "right sides". One he ascribes a lot of race to, the Real America. But race is barely mentioned in the Free America side. The populist America, the "Real America" has long had a racial thread in it. I don't know how that could be ignored. The traditional side, the William F Buckley Republicans, seem to fall much more into the "Free America" camp.

I like it because it agrees with me :). The "Free America" side has, at least for now, lost out in the GOP to the "Real America" side which is the John Birch Society/Know Nothing populism.
 

IUCrazy2

Hall of Famer
Mar 7, 2004
14,084
5,277
113
I would say the author has two "right sides". One he ascribes a lot of race to, the Real America. But race is barely mentioned in the Free America side. The populist America, the "Real America" has long had a racial thread in it. I don't know how that could be ignored. The traditional side, the William F Buckley Republicans, seem to fall much more into the "Free America" camp.

I like it because it agrees with me :). The "Free America" side has, at least for now, lost out in the GOP to the "Real America" side which is the John Birch Society/Know Nothing populism.
I think that is too dismissive of the "Real America" position though. Which gets to what I think the point of the article was at the end. Obviously I don't think we all fit into easy to identify groups like this, I think that I would fit into 3 of the 4 groups listed based on some of the characteristics there. However, that was not my main takeaway.

To me the summation at the end is where you need to exist to learn to come to agreement. There are things in each group that if focused on could be used to build consensus towards a common culture again. As it is, we are moving in different directions. From my perspective, the group that is least likely to be able to build on is the "Just" group. I think that is a misnomer, but I think most of them are misnamed so whatever. They seem like the wrecking ball to me. But there are some things in each of those to work with. The problem is finding enough pragmatic people to lead in that direction.
 

mushroomgod_1

All-American
Apr 9, 2012
5,626
5,567
113
I would say the author has two "right sides". One he ascribes a lot of race to, the Real America. But race is barely mentioned in the Free America side. The populist America, the "Real America" has long had a racial thread in it. I don't know how that could be ignored. The traditional side, the William F Buckley Republicans, seem to fall much more into the "Free America" camp.

I like it because it agrees with me :). The "Free America" side has, at least for now, lost out in the GOP to the "Real America" side which is the John Birch Society/Know Nothing populism.

Pompous much?
 

TheOriginalHappyGoat

Moderator
Moderator
Oct 4, 2010
57,994
31,170
113
Margaritaville

I think the author has an obvious bias and I also think he gets some things wrong (particularly around some of the descriptions of "conservatives"), however, this is a long article that does take a "balanced" view of the 4 Americas and attempts to provide a critique of what they get wrong along with what they get right.

Anyways, thought it might be interesting. I tend to listen to critiques that are coming from those within the group they are criticizing more, so I found more value in his views centered on the left. Not to say some of his points about the right are completely wrong, I have just found better criticism from people actually of the right. That is to say that it is easier to assume the worst intentions of your political opponents, which is the trap I think this author fell into.
That's a good read. I'll be mulling this one over for a while. I got a kick out of his description of Palin: "John the Baptist to the coming of Trump." I also thought the Just-Smart divide was a much better description of the modern left than the standard progressive-moderate model. Good share.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IUCrazy2