“not Americans in any meaningful sense of the term.” E.g., voters for Biden were the equivalent of Clinton’s know-nothing “deplorables” that stumped for Trump.

Both sides split America into Us versus Them, but the electoral duopoly leaves no third choice for those who might otherwise resist that division. The President will always be the Warlord for the tribe that brought them to the ball, and the Other tribe would always resist providing succor in the form of productive success.

The profound problem is that neither side has evil intent (or at least is only minimally nefarious). Both see themselves as champions of what is moral.

How the Constitution was "being shredded" isn't explained here, but that same phrase would be used ceaselessly to attack what these people were doing, too.

Ah, I see he got to this.

Still, most of those political figures were inserted at the top of an existing hierarchy they had to work with. I still think Castro is a better example.

Perhaps MacArthur in Japan after WW2 is the best instance of a successful superhero — he knew he was term-limited, so focused more effort on institutions than autocratic dictates.

Fidel Castro is a clay-footed example. If he had the wisdom and foresight, with possibly could have gradually ceded power to a set of constitutionally authorized institutions.

I wonder if the embargo and U.S. hostility forced him too close to the U.S.S.R. and totalitarian mindset? He didn't have complete autonomy for long.

No.

Those who don't want reform won't have any problem stopping it: changes to the Supreme Court would require a change to the Constitution itself.

Ironically, what brought China strength was cooperating (mostly) with international commerce. When liberal countries collapse or become authoritarian, they'll lose that.

Authoritarian countries don't cooperate; they're intrinsically mercantilist. So China won't survive the collapse, either.

… and will lead, along with the related Authoritarian Trend and climate change, and the feedback loops connecting these, to a collapse of modern "civilization" and the global economy it permits.

Maybe this is naive, or because of my restricted definition of "media", but I don't see the journalism I consume become stupid.

And now people "don't trust" these institutions.

So, simple tribalism, right?

Back when "everyone" listened to Walter Cronkite, pretty much "no one" listened to the John Birch Society.

Elites (in some form) had heretofore always controlled society's shared narrative; that ended roughly in the '70s, but then became critical “gradually, then suddenly”.

Check out at least the report's "Top Ten Findings". The number one finding:

Distrust is now society’s default emotion Nearly 6 in 10 say their default tendency is to distrust something until they see evidence it is trustworthy. Another 64% say it’s now to a point where people are incapable of having constructive and civil debates about issues they disagree on. When distrust is the default – we lack the ability to debate or collaborate.

But that's an endless loop: without trust, we don't perceive honest evidence that something is trustworthy.

So those who don't trust "the media" — what on earth would ever make them change their minds?

The essay at the link is worth reading.

If you're old enough to recall Talk Radio and the career of Rush Limbaugh, you know there were already "platforms" that attracted those with an unreflective appetite for moral outrage. Social media didn't create this; it is inherent in an us-vs-them social dynamic.

What Wright missed is that non-zero interactions only work when actors can use reputational information. Even the basic tit-for-tat strategy Prisoner's Dilemma requires a player to remember what others did 'last time'. In an anonymous society, this breaks down. Wright's book had a critical flaw.

Critical thinking can provoke people into "divisive" considerations. Such a tip line makes it pretty easy to disrupt any attempt to 'teach kids to think [critically]'

Just one or two such efforts aren't too worrisome, but this might portend a broad change in the mission of education, from humanistic flourishing to the production of a compliant populace.

No Wikipedia entry. Can it really be so widely read?

Charles Murray in his "Coming Apart" somewhat harkens to this idea. But Murray seems to have an elitist point of view, never questioning whether power and status is earned, and whether "leadership" from those with unearned privilege should be respected.

This essay's concept of justification via service is problematic. Service to who or what? If leadership keeps the led in their places, that is service to the status quo, not the broader populace.

Two officers? Who besides Brian Sicknick of the Capitol PD?

Consider how a person's local community is an overwhelming factor in what religion (or lack of one) they follow.

Well, correct in the broad sense, but once someone enters adolescence they tend to look to their peers, not families.

It is common to hear people derisively describe those on the Other Side as ignorant or stupid. This paragraph is key to why that's wrong. The response is also bad because the scorn further alienates the groups.

The Dunning-Kruger effect is undoubtedly important, but since stupidity has always existed, this doesn't explain why the problem has become worse in recent years.

I think David Riesman hinted at it in his 1959 The Lonely Crowed. Specifically, the transition from a production-oriented economy to a consumption-oriented one has increased the distance between personal experience and expertise that has consequences.

Once there were many workers whose jobs involved listening to and excepting expert guidance. An auto mechanic knew the wrong kind of oil would ruin an engine; a railroad worker knew some steels work better as rails in difference circumstances; a seamstress knew there were important differences between different thread materials. They received expert advice, and saw what happened when it was ignored.

The vast majority of expertise can be denied without any consequence at all to the individual. Even when there are consequences -- such as with the brain-surgeon example from the article -- the denying individual isn't likely to learn any lesson. Honestly, how often can a patient actually see the consequence of that doctor's advice, when alternative narratives are pervasive?

This is a large part of a more general trend towards individualized epistemology, based on each individual's tribal affiliations and social identification.

Education could overcome it, but that requires winning the coordination game that has always crippled education.