The “exhausted majority”
At Infidel753 blog, author Infidel has a great commentary from February 14th. He discusses an “exhausted majority” making up America which has found the ongoing politics to be unacceptable, having checked out of either side of the battle. Granted, the politics of elections and the thereafter has turned into a mudslinging contest. The news media reporting has helped to bring it to a new low. People do not even want to listen to the 20 of the 30 minutes of reported news after commercials are over.
Infidel753: The “exhausted majority,” Infidel753 Blog
The term “exhausted majority” has come up a few times recently in discussion, and it’s important to be clear about what it means. It is not just another term for “centrist” or “moderate”, and it should not be allowed to degenerate into one. As far as I know, the term originates here, from a study “The hidden tribes of America” which analyzes the political left and right wings:
While the story of the Wings may be one of division and conflict, a very different story is found in the rest of America. In fact, the largest group that we uncovered in our research has so far been largely overlooked. It is a group of Americans we call the Exhausted Majority — our collective term for the four tribes, representing a two-thirds majority of Americans, who aren’t part of the Wings. Although they appear in the middle of our charts and graphs, most members of the Exhausted Majority aren’t political centrists or moderates. On specific issues, their views range across the spectrum. But while they hold a variety of views, the members of the Exhausted Majority are also united in important ways:
They are fed up with the polarization plaguing American government and society….. [they] are so frustrated with the bitter polarization of our politics that many have checked out completely….. they aren’t ideologues who dismiss as evil or ignorant the people who don’t share their exact political views. They want to talk and to find a path forward.
This is a profoundly positive development. It’s horrifically toxic to have politics dominated by two opposing camps which view each other with fear, loathing, and incomprehension, refusing to listen to anything that doesn’t fit their existing narrative. The important message here is that those two camps don’t speak for everyone, or even for the majority. Most of us are sick to death of them. As long-time readers know, I’ve made an effort to cut down the amount of politics on this blog, and at times have completely disengaged from politics for a while, because it’s become so poisonous and stupid.
(If you’re thinking “it’s not that bad”, there are blogs and other sites where I regularly see statements like “there is no such thing as a moderate Republican” or images like this:
….. posted with the apparent full approval of the readership. It’s at least as easy to find similarly insane demonization of the left on some right-wing sites. They call everyone on the left “Marxist” and “communist” the same way the far-left crazies call everyone on the right “fascist” and “racist”. Yes, it is that bad.)
I definitely consider myself a member of the “exhausted majority”, and I don’t really regard myself as a centrist. Politics isn’t a simple left-to-right spectrum, anyway. For example, I believe I’m being logically coherent by being strongly pro-choice on both abortion rights and gun rights, whereas the left and right are incoherent in their inconsistent views on those issues. I view the current Democratic party as far too weak on labor-rights issues — I’d align much more with Bernie Sanders than with Biden in that area. Most of my other views stem more from my anti-religion stance and respect for science than from anything political. But what I share with other “exhausted majority” people of all viewpoints is the desire for the end of the scorched-earth, dead-end polarization and demonization that dominates politics. Part of what I look for in politicians, activist groups, and bloggers is a willingness to at least read viewpoints different from their own, to give credit where due when someone on the “other side” shows moderation, to recognize where common interests can exist, to refrain from tarring everyone on the “other side” with the brush of that side’s worst extremists.
The real radical crazies are irredeemable, but they’re a minority, even if they’re making most of the noise. Ultimately the sane people on both “sides” have to find a way to take the country back from them, instead of allowing ourselves to be herded into the existing opposing camps that view each other with hatred and incomprehension.
Agreed.
Silva:
Why do you agree with Infidel? What most Repubs want and many Dems in positions of authority is a sedate, placid, willing, believing, etc., constituency.
I was talking to the City Council in my small city about corporate HOAs, ungated developments, and how they are allowed to mandate parking, etc. There was no uniformity amongst HOA communities in how they control such. Furthermore, yhe state does not allow such even if the city agrees to it.
I was chastised by the unelected City Manager who was out-of-order by Robert’s rules. City Council just sat there while their hired hand was on the attack. If I answered, I would have been declared out-of-order and escorted out. Not done with this yet.
At a State House Committee meeting, one representative was making false claims about constituents should know what they are getting into. They would only know if the information was presented to them. In most cases concerning this issue it is not. I finally answered him with “I am sorry, that is not true.”
My X-Judge friend put his hand on my arm to silence me. We were there to testify. I was out-of-order in this case. But when do you finally stand up and say “no?” No, this is not correct. He answered, I should be sorry. I cut him short and from then on he was quiet.
Push yourself away from the table and say “No more Jello for me sir or mom.”
You can use that quote either way and check out of society and the politics of it or you can answer like I did without the “I am sorry.”
Why would you not push back?
Your second sentence encapsulates the problem. You assert that what “most” politicians want are docile constituencies. How precise is your knowledge of this “fact” you assert so confidently?
Further, the example of your own advocacy is also illuminating, but is hardly what I would call “extreme” (and I consider it likely that Infidel might agree). You were using the existing political structure to raise your concerns in what sounds to me like a very appropriate way. Yet you assume that I would not support your speaking out. Why? I don’t read Infidel as saying one should never speak out – just that, over the long term, extremism is not an effective way to speak out, because it is simply too exhausting. Eventually, no matter how effective it is in the short term, eventually support erodes and/or the extremists consume their own.
Then you appear to assume that I, by simply agreeing with Infidel’s points, have “checked out of society and the politics of it.” Have we met? Do you have any information whatsoever about my level of engagement in society and politics?
The problem with extremists, IMHO, is that they make too many unwarranted assumptions about those with whom they do not immediately or consistently agree. Further, they are not open to learning where their thinking may not be well-founded. Their minds are closed.
Do not mistake the vocal advocacy of extremists as indicating that they are “checked-in” to society and the politics thereof. I would assert that they are the ones who are truly “checked-out” because they are unwilling to listen to, let alone compromise with, opposing views.
None of us sees or knows the whole truth about anything, and each of us is mistaken far more often than we are correct. Period. That is, I think, a fundamental part of the mindset required for living in a world that has other people in it; as such, extremists (and you are clearly not one), lack that fundamental mindset.
Siva:
Not trying to pick a fight. I am curious. When do you say enough?
Whenever you need to. But always recognizing that 1) you may be wrong in your assumptions; 2) you are more likely than not to fail in the short term; and 3) that your method of saying “enough” will speak volumes to all who observe, and will affect their willingness and/or ability to support or oppose you.
Choose your battles wisely. Is the point that enflames you really sufficient justification for sustained effort? Or is it simply one small part of a much larger cause?
Remember that the NAACP had a decades-long strategy to overcome racial discrimination by using the courts. That strategy won the war in the courts of law, but apparently has not sufficiently prevailed in the courts of public opinion; at least not enough to overcome the political maneuvering of its opponents.
What is the progressive long-term strategy? I see no evidence of it.
“And I always thought
That even the simplest words should be enough:
You’ll go down if you don’t stand up for yourself,
Surely you see that.”
Bertolt Brecht
Siva:
This was in the trash. Things sometimes go there. If you put it there, you can trash it again and I will not retrieve it. I moderate here too. Thank you for your commentary. I wish Infidel had stayed around. He is incredibly sharp.
Siva:
Off topic for a moment. We did lose Barkley a short while ago. Just so you know and are looking for him.
Siva:
If I talk to something and make a stance on the topic, I am going to be correct in the long run. In early 1980-somthing, I was the P&IC manager for a hydraulic and air cylinder mfg division of Parker Hannifin. I went to the plant manager and explained to him we were high on inventory for high demand parts and we were going in a recession. If you are as old as I am, you will remember that recession. I told him I would like to run low volume parts for a while and build inventory on them. Nope, I want the other high volume parts. Told him I would not do this.
I had just got done installing the rest of the MRPII system which allowed me to look out months and balance the shop. We canceled parts orders and gave them orders for the low volume parts. Purchasing canceled orders to the supply base. 14 months into this the Division Controller came by to ask me what I was doing. I was in my early thirties then. I told the Controller, “Planning manufacturing and parts.
It turned out my department kept the division profitable for nine of those months, broke even 3 months, and lost money two months. I laid off one person and wrote a letter of recommendation for her and also said have a new employer call me and I will talk about you. Two months afterwards, they came for me. left the week before Christmas. I had my Masters out of Loyola which the VA paid for mostly. Parker paid for a small portion. I did get another job after Christmas.
I was gone whether I did the right thing or not. They kept me longer for what I was doing. When I could do no more, they laid me off and replaced me with a guy out of sales who wanted to be in manufacturing to gain some experience. Almost five years and it was time to go.
The big thing today is saving builders money. The thought process is to cut back on planning meetings which they are saying slows them down and costs money. They do not want to waste money having to present to a Planning commission and the City Council their plans for new developments and holding public meeting with residents to answer the questions of those nearby. According to the city leaders, there is a shortage of housing in and around Phoenix. It does make sense in a way to speed things up.
I bought a new home from one of those builders. I also sat on a Planning Commision for a number of years and was a Vice Chair for two years. I would walk those properties and talk to the residents around them to find out what they were thinking. My dad was a tuckpointer/bricklayer. I learned from him and still have his tools and another mans fathers tools. I know how to use them and rig rope scaffolds. I was taught house framing in high school and drafting. My drawing won at IIT. Ok, lrts get to the point of this.
Besides a shortage of housing, there is a shortage of water. The states and the Feds still have not figured out what to do. Soon they will and any new development will not be started. Water shortages will cause limits. They need to get these developments approved so they can be grandfathered in. Yes, it does cost them money to dot all the i’s.
Lets go on to what I see. We bought new for the first time in our lives in our seventies. We had the money and also set aside a nice IRA along with other funds.
We closed. Went to our home and notice six panels of the sidewalk were missing including one in front of the driveway. They said they would fix it soon. Soon being three weeks later. We noticed other things needing fixing and the list was 15 items. Construction manager came out and was doing his usual song and dance. He mentioned something that led me to explaining the Uniform Commercial Code to him and Reasonable Man expecting a Reasonable Product. The 15 items were fixed after three months. The other 10 items we found were fixed also. I also told him, you can not inspect quality into a product, you have to build quality into the product.
What could they improve upon?
As I walk through developments, I see dumpsters dropped on sidewalks cracking them. Large tractors driving over sidewalks and busting them too. Pounds of nails scattered around, entire cement block walls torn down, etc. Materials is the biggest cost item in manufacturing. If they improved on their manufacturing practices, costs would go down.
Canceling public meetings etc. to cut costs is just a charade. If they really wanted to cut costs they would build homes properly the first time through so they would not have to come back and please some old crotchety man who knows as much as they do. The real issue is to get the developments approved before the water is cut off.
They are not going to like me anyway because they have to do something they do not want to do. Because I expose their manufacturing practices is not going to gain popularity either. This was my 45+ years in supply chain and manufacturing and a LSS black belt and systems person.
Thanks for the additional replies and insights. I realize that my words above may have seemed a bit combative, and for giving that impression I apologize.
Your background is also helpful. My own is primarily in banking; for most of my career I was responsible for bank’s compliance with consumer protection laws and regulations, both inside banks and as a federal bank examiner. So I understand the concerns you raise.
My point (and IMHO a part of Infidel’s point) is simply that, it is hard work to make change effectively. It is not enough to point out a problem; one must also both substantiate the problem sufficiently and provide a feasible path towards its solution. And a further obstacle is that acting alone is rarely very effective. Opposition should be expected and prepared for.
A huge problem for the progressive movement (which I support financially and emotionally) is that many people here in the US are so privileged that they don’t want to actually do the work needed. Older people like me (and, I suspect, you) are tired of trying (a large section of the exhausted majority Infidel refers to).
Younger people simply weren’t raised to see social and political activism in the same way my generation was. An article I read some time ago pointed out that for people born in the 50’s, the activism that led t0 government actions like the Voting Rights Act and the Great Society showed what government can do; but for people born in and since the 70’s, there are no such examples – in fact, most rhetoric since Reagan has considered government as part of the problem, not as a solution. So they haven’t seen 1) many examples of government really helping at anything, or 2) the extent of the work involved in getting government to do things they want.
My personal sense now is that I need to stop advocating for solutions to things that I see as problems, and start to listen more, and advocate more, for the things that young people in their 30’s and 40’s are concerned about. Because the world in which they, and their children, will live is being created out of all this turmoil. My world is gone, and I need to accept the fact that nothing will be quite what I want it to be; and in many ways my generation is standing in the way of our children getting on with the business of creating their world, their way.
From an elected representative from the party of Lincoln:
“We need a national divorce. We need to separate by red states and blue states and shrink the federal government. Everyone I talk to says this. From the sick and disgusting woke culture issues shoved down our throats to the Democrat’s [sic] traitorous America Last policies, we are done.”
~Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA)
Shame
Marjoreene is one of the worst offenders in promoting polarization and demonization. They’re basically her entire schtick.
Infidel, you must be a member of a well regulated militia.
Nobody’s ever managed to regulate me very much…..
It was Karl Rove who said we’re going to tear this country in two and we’ll wind up with the bigger half, or words to that effect.
Divisiveness has been a deliberate Republican tactic since Gingrich. Under Hastert no legislation was allowed to be introduced unless it had the support of the majority of the Republican side. Legislation was pitched as far to the right as possible to attract the bare minimum of Republican-right votes to pass, frequently with no Dem votes at all.
Their goal is and was to get well-meaning people who dislike conflict to turn off from politics in disgust, leaving them to dominate.
The problem in Rwanda in 1994 wasn’t ‘divisiveness’ between Hutus and Tutsis; it’s that the Hutus wanted to kill all the Tutsis. The problem in Germany 1930-1945 wasn’t ‘divisiveness’ between Nazis and Jews, Slavs, and LGBTQ people; it’s that the Nazis wanted to kill all Jews, Slavs, and LGBTQ people.
The social problem in America in this century is not divisiveness between leftists and Republicans; it’s that Republicans want to disenfranchise, persecute, impoverish, or have the freedom to kill people that they don’t like. Anyone who screams that both sides being divisive is very dangerously missing the point about what is going on in American society.
Anyone who says that the targets of Republican hate should stop resisting in the name of civility is, at best, an accomplice to the creation of an environment that will lead to the kind of atrocities that Americans like to think can’t happen on US soil.
You folks are at the tipping point. Prioritizing unity over human rights will not tip the balance in the right direction.
I agree with you and disagree with those who encourage civility. You can not go into a gun fight— and yes they have guns, guns and more guns— with a calming voice. I am at this moment with one of my daughters who is the mother of 4 of my grandchildren and she is monitoring a school board meeting where a disappointed far right candidate is castigating the school board for attempting to deal with some racist events at the high school. There is no common ground with these people and if you are “ exhausted” you are a loser and do not deserve any freedom.
I rest my case.
Fascinating …
Indeed.
Both Sidesism is unlikely to be the path out of this situation. Given that this approach played a key role in the growing extremism found in the US, it probably isnt the key to getting out. As always, Both Sidesism creates a safe space for squishy moderates to do nothing and for extremists to expand their influence. Both Sidesism is used by both the moderates who want to do nothing and extremists who want to go further.
You cant ever fix a problem if you are too scared to identify it.
If ‘Wokism’ is the notion that tolerance of and promotion of minority rights is all important, in effect, under the guise of ‘first amendment rights’, is it possible to adjust it to mean ‘everyone has a right to believe what they want to believe, but does NOT have the right to deny that same right to others.’
I say that because the sort of atheism I subscribe to is to personally not believe in a Creator as such, but to accept that everyone has a right to believe in one if they so choose, and that entity can be every bit as peculiar as ‘they’ want them to be, as long as they grant the same right to everyone else.
So, ‘Wokism’ in this form should mean to advocate certain beliefs in others, but not to demand them. Somewhat paradoxical perhaps. This must be lived with.
And it should be tolerated in and supported by all.
“…is it possible to adjust it to mean ‘everyone has a right to believe what they want to believe, but does NOT have the right to deny that same right to others.’”
Sure, until it comes time to write those beliefs in to a law that all must follow. Now the two different beliefs have to be observed and accepted as a truth. And the clash begins. Ultimately there is a judgement.
In the end, it is not each allowed to believe as they see fit that keeps life civil. It is each being selfless. Selfishness will not allow everyone the right to believe what they want.
Ultimately there is a judgement that wins out and molds society. The fight, the argument is over the model to be used for judging.
And none of this is as fixed as our laws of physics.
Excerpt from my reply to a comment by Run75441 on the original post, which may help clarify, since I think some people are a bit confused:
I would reiterate that this post is not about being in the “middle” (see first paragraph of post), or which party is objectively more extreme, or how many politicians on one side have views acceptable to people on the other. Of course most people on the other side have some views which are unacceptable to those on your own side — that’s pretty much inherent in the definition of “the other side” in politics. But those are separate issues from what I’m talking about here.
What I’m talking about here is the polarization, the demonization, the insanity of dismissing the entire opposing party and population as “Nazis” or “Marxists”, the rejection of any possibility of coexistence, the determined refusal to even look at any expression of an opposing view, as if doing so posed some kind of risk of contamination. These things are new, or at least until a few years ago they were attitudes found only on the far fringes. My opposition to any effort to ban abortion or same-sex marriage is firm, and I would never compromise on those issues. What I’m not doing is calling the people who want to ban those things Nazis or refusing to even listen to anything they say, nor rejecting the possibility that it might be possible to find common ground with the same people on other issues.
Most democracies have groups of people who hold strongly-opposing beliefs, as here. But most democracies don’t display the kind of extreme polarization and demonization that US politics does.
The fact that the “exhausted majority” includes two-thirds of Americans, including people across most of the spectrum of left and right, shows that it should indeed be achievable to overcome this problem. Two-thirds of Americans, including people with vehemently-opposed political views, “aren’t ideologues who dismiss as evil or ignorant the people who don’t share their exact political views. They want to talk and to find a path forward.” Two-thirds of Americans want to put aside the hysteria and insults and hate rhetoric and see politics return to normal. It’s not only what I want, it’s what two-thirds of us want. The problem is the minority on each “side” which is making most of the noise.
Infidel:
Thank you for reposting here.