[DeathArrow]

We are past the point when preventing polarization was possible. Now we are near the end of the path one political side brought us, with the other fighting against that.

One side will win and will establish the rules the society will follow for the next decades.

[s1artibartfast]

What would such a win look like from your perspective? Everything I have observed indicates the federal government operates as a pendulum. Voters for the party in power disappoint their base, while the opposition becomes more mobilized.

[DeathArrow]

It's not just about parties and voters. It's about two sides of society who became radicalized, leaving critical thinking for fundamentalism. The clashes within those two sides will grow in number and intensity. The conflict is fueling itself. There's nothing the politicians can do or will to defuse the situation.

And the world is much bigger than US. The fight is not only fought in US.

[throwawaygal7]

I think there is a pendulum effect, but it's dominated by a leftward cultural trajectory.

The republican party really just takes democrat positions from a few years ago on social issues, adds some murmering about trying to reign in the debt, occasionally cuts taxes , and continues the progression of the dominant culture.

My theory is the increasing polarization is due to one side clearly seeing their dominance in the culture and wanting to crush all opposition; and some reactionaries on the right noticing this state of affairs and calling for more aggressive means to try to change the situation.

[denton-scratch]

> the federal government operates as a pendulum.

That seems like wishful thinking, to me. Also, I think the federal government (I take it you mean the government of the USA) is rather weak; state governments seem to have a lot more power. Not saying whether I think that is good or bad.

[x86_64Ubuntu]

Probably like the US after the end of Reconstruction.

[atoav]

Maybe counting actual people instead of representatives would be a start? While I get the whole idea behind giving the rural parts sith less population more of a say, when I first heard about it I intuitively felt that this was undemocratic. Where I grew up I learned that it is most important that everybody's vote counts the same. I was shocked when I learned this is not the case in the US and even more shocked when I learned to which degree of misrepresentation between rural and urban voters this lead.

[jerkstate]

The United States is a Republic and not a Direct Democracy

[atoav]

I am aware of that. Yet I had my adolescence during a time where "bringing democracy" was cited as the goal of multiple US-led wars.

So understandably I was surprised when I realized the degree of misrepresentation going on in the US.

[jerkstate]

Republics are a form of democracy, but I think that "bringing democracy" was always just an excuse to invade countries for natural resources and to fight proxy wars to contain other world powers.

If you're complaining that i.e. a k-12 education misrepresented the government in the USA and didn't adequately explain the reasons behind it, this is a common gripe among conservatives/republicans, that kids get educated to believe that the republic system is unfair due to states electing presidents and congresspeople instead of direct democracy, and that the system would be better if it was a direct democracy. In particular, the Federalist Papers #10 discusses why representative democracy is more anti-fragile (to use a modern term) than direct democracy.

[zhoujianfu]

Nationalpopularvote.com would be a great start!

[colordrops]

Both sides contributed significantly to the polarization and brought us down this path. The believe otherwise is to have been fooled by one of the sides.