Has 2016 radicalized both the left and right?

[Thanatttynia]

I think the liberal meme of 2016 being some sort of freak event that radicalised half the population has run its course. It's probably time for us to face up to the fact that a reckoning for the political order has been overdue for some time. The earliest news stories I can remember being aware of are a) the 2007 financial crisis, b) the MPs expenses scandal, c) the PM of the UK calling an ordinary woman a bigot without realising his microphone was still turned on. I have never not known the people around me to hate, or at the very least distrust, politicians, politics, bankers etc.

This being the case meant that it was only ever a matter of time before populism reared its head. Social media has exacerbated the problem since it's been attended by a politicisation of everything - when everything is political, people will disagree on everything. But these are old problems.

[Bombadil]

I suspect we can go a long way back, if not to the dawn of time when conservatives adhering to what they think is decent society against those who want to change things.

However I think the biggest impact on recent politics is the recession of '08. I think it's also the impact that's brushed into the cupboard in favour of blaming one side or another. That recession had huge and lasting impact and left people feeling that government was not for the people but for maintaining the power structure at all costs. And so people rejected that power structure given the opportunity. '12 was a little too early and people had some forgiveness but by 2016 I there was simply a wholesale rejection of the system.

It's not just the US, it's had political ramifications across the globe as people perceive the choice as two evils, no greater or lesser.

Bailing out the banks may have been the correct economic decision but at huge political cost.

EDIT: I see Thatta.. thatta.. thattawhatsisname has made a similar point just above me.

[Ostroeuropa]

It's also worth noting that the economic collapse in 08 led to a drastic change in the means by which our elites cling to power.

They shifted from; "We bring wealth and prosperity" into "We keep out those with evil social views." in order to justify their continued grip on power, and the latter is by nature (And according to some, by design) far more divisive and necessitates an Us+Them narrative.

[Far Easter Republic]

Yes. There's probably going to be some 3rd party made of the Romneies and the Clintons of the world.

[Thanatttynia]

Bailing out the banks may have been the correct economic decision but at huge political cost.

I can't think of any political decision which inspired more disillusionment and dejection amongst ordinary people. The longer we get away from this the more it seems to have completely destroyed public trust in the political order (compounded of course by not punishing the bankers in its aftermath, which screams 'justice for some')

EDIT: I see Thatta.. thatta.. thattawhatsisname has made a similar point just above me.

Lol I've forgotten why I called myself this so can only assume the name with one or two 't's in the middle were both taken. The 't' key on my old laptop actually jammed often which I'm blaming on this site

[Bombadil]

Bailing out the banks may have been the correct economic decision but at huge political cost.

I can't think of any political decision which inspired more disillusionment and dejection amongst ordinary people. The longer we get away from this the more it seems to have completely destroyed public trust in the political order (compounded of course by not punishing the bankers in its aftermath, which screams 'justice for some')

What I think is remarkable is that it's been practically wiped from public discourse, there was a 10 year anniversary last year and I saw relatively little coverage and analysis of the impact. As Ostro notes the discourse changed from 'we'll make everyone better off' to 'stop the other side at all costs' and so both sides have veered to the left and right leaving the centre dead. The fallout of blame skewed the political landscape to extremes.

[Jolthig]

I can't think of any political decision which inspired more disillusionment and dejection amongst ordinary people. The longer we get away from this the more it seems to have completely destroyed public trust in the political order (compounded of course by not punishing the bankers in its aftermath, which screams 'justice for some')

What I think is remarkable is that it's been practically wiped from public discourse, there was a 10 year anniversary last year and I saw relatively little coverage and analysis of the impact. As Ostro notes the discourse changed from 'we'll make everyone better off' to 'stop the other side at all costs' and so both sides have veered to the left and right leaving the centre dead. The fallout of blame skewed the political landscape to extremes.

Indeed, and this is what I hate about today's politics because if you're on one side, you're automatically viewed as wrong.

What ever happened to compromise? Why not focus on real issues than pointing fingers? Too much red herring among the parties.

[Bombadil]

What I think is remarkable is that it's been practically wiped from public discourse, there was a 10 year anniversary last year and I saw relatively little coverage and analysis of the impact. As Ostro notes the discourse changed from 'we'll make everyone better off' to 'stop the other side at all costs' and so both sides have veered to the left and right leaving the centre dead. The fallout of blame skewed the political landscape to extremes.

Indeed, and this is what I hate about today's politics because if you're on one side, you're automatically viewed as wrong.

What ever happened to compromise? Why not focus on real issues than pointing fingers? Too much red herring among the parties.

The stakes are too high old bean.

[Jolthig]

Indeed, and this is what I hate about today's politics because if you're on one side, you're automatically viewed as wrong.

What ever happened to compromise? Why not focus on real issues than pointing fingers? Too much red herring among the parties.

The stakes are too high old bean.

Sadly.

[Western Vale Confederacy]

Centrist gang is running low on members.

[Jolthig]

Centrist gang is running low on members.

I'm here, bro.

A social democrat.

[Bombadil]

Centrist gang is running low on members.

One outcome of the '08 crisis was the rise of the Tea Party on the right and then Occupy on the left. Someone had to be blamed and neither side was willing to take it. On one side regulation and profligate individuals were to blame, on the other the lack of regulation and the 1% were to blame.

We don't seem to talk about Tea Party or Occupy anymore, everyone's a neo-Nazi or Antifa now.

There's a very tight nexus between government, media, Wall Street and corporate interests that they maintain their position. It's in their interest to make chicken fight chicken and pluck out what they want in the ensuing scrabble.

"One is the wolf, the other is a fox. No matter what, they’ll both eat you.”

[Jolthig]

Centrist gang is running low on members.

One outcome of the '08 crisis was the rise of the Tea Party on the right and then Occupy on the left. Someone had to be blamed and neither side was willing to take it. On one side regulation and profligate individuals were to blame, on the other the lack of regulation and the 1% were to blame.

We don't seem to talk about Tea Party or Occupy anymore, everyone's a neo-Nazi or Antifa now.

There's a very tight nexus between government, media, Wall Street and corporate interests that they maintain their position. It's in their interest to make chicken fight chicken and pluck out what they want in the ensuing scrabble.

"One is the wolf, the other is a fox. No matter what, they’ll both eat you.”

This reminds me of Star Wars. Perhaps we may have a Palpatine on the loose!

[Sicaris]

Yes.

The far left began organized violence, the far-right had some organized violence.

The moderates are slowly becoming more radical. Politics is shit-slinging at this point. If Trump wins 2020, the Far-left is probably going to multiply the volume of their violence.

[Jolthig]

Yes.

The far left began organized violence, the far-right had some organized violence.

The moderates are slowly becoming more radical. Politics is shit-slinging at this point. If Trump wins 2020, the Far-left is probably going to multiply the volume of their violence.

Possibly, and so will the far-right because they feel they won, and as a reaction against the far left.

[Shofercia]

Technically, but there were a lot of issues before 2016, and 2016 was just when the spark lit the fire. But the gasoline was being poured for quite some time.

[Big Jim P]

Yes.

The far left began organized violence, the far-right had some organized violence.

The moderates are slowly becoming more radical. Politics is shit-slinging at this point. If Trump wins 2020, the Far-left is probably going to multiply the volume of their violence.

Possibly, and so will the far-right because they feel they won, and as a reaction against the far left.

No matter which way the election goes we are likely to see a rise in violence. Sad, but true.

[Sicaris]

Technically, but there were a lot of issues before 2016, and 2016 was just when the spark lit the fire. But the gasoline was being poured for quite some time.

cough obama cough

[Jolthig]

Possibly, and so will the far-right because they feel they won, and as a reaction against the far left.

No matter which way the election goes we are likely to see a rise in violence. Sad, but true.

Agreed.

[Big Jim P]

Technically, but there were a lot of issues before 2016, and 2016 was just when the spark lit the fire. But the gasoline was being poured for quite some time.

It's been smoldering at least since Bush 2s presidency. Maybe as far back as Reagan.

[Sicaris]

Yes.

The far left began organized violence, the far-right had some organized violence.

The moderates are slowly becoming more radical. Politics is shit-slinging at this point. If Trump wins 2020, the Far-left is probably going to multiply the volume of their violence.

Possibly, and so will the far-right because they feel they won, and as a reaction against the far left.

I don’t think winning an election is going to make the far-right go on a post-Siege of Jerusalem Crusader-style rampage

[Big Jim P]

Technically, but there were a lot of issues before 2016, and 2016 was just when the spark lit the fire. But the gasoline was being poured for quite some time.

cough obama cough

He certainly poured his share of gasoline.

[Jolthig]

Possibly, and so will the far-right because they feel they won, and as a reaction against the far left.

I don’t think winning an election is going to make the far-right go on a post-Siege of Jerusalem Crusader-style rampage

No, but they are going to threaten Muslims, immigrants, and anyone who doesn't have white skin or is of the their culture.

[Shofercia]

Technically, but there were a lot of issues before 2016, and 2016 was just when the spark lit the fire. But the gasoline was being poured for quite some time.

cough obama cough

Not just Obama, although his economic policies didn't help. NY Post summed it up best: https://nypost.com/2017/09/06/obamacare ... uninsured/

Brace yourself for the next health insurance crisis: The middle class is becoming the new uninsured. The Affordable Care Act added millions of mostly poor people to the insurance rolls. But the law is driving premiums so high that middle-class people can no longer afford insurance. Several million are expected to drop coverage in 2018. Under ObamaCare, poor lives matter. Middle-class lives? Not so much.

[Shofercia]

Technically, but there were a lot of issues before 2016, and 2016 was just when the spark lit the fire. But the gasoline was being poured for quite some time.

It's been smoldering at least since Bush 2s presidency. Maybe as far back as Reagan.

Not sure about Reagan, I'd say Bush 1.