ADVERTISEMENT

How America Fractured into Four Parts

Which Group Described in the Article Best Describes You?

  • Free America

    Votes: 2 5.1%
  • Smart America

    Votes: 34 87.2%
  • Real America

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Just America

    Votes: 3 7.7%

  • Total voters
    39

JRHawk2003

HB King
Jul 9, 2003
53,951
27,282
113
From the Atlantic

Which group do you belong to?

This is somewhat interesting as I saw others note that we have four political parties now; 1) Trumpers, 2) Old School Traditional Republicans, 3) Traditional Centrist Dems, 4) Bernie, AOC Types.

This article frames it a bit differently. Sorry if this is Pepsi. I don't come around here much at this point.
 
That is the best article I've read so far in 2021. Very thoughtful and well-researched.

I thought this excerpt was chilling:

While the sunny narrative of Free America shone on, its policies eroded the way of life of many of its adherents. The disappearance of secure employment and small businesses destroyed communities. The civic associations that Tocqueville identified as the antidote to individualism died with the jobs. When towns lost their Main Street drugstores and restaurants to Walgreens and Wendy’s in the mall out on the highway, they also lost their Rotary Club and newspaper—the local institutions of self-government. This hollowing-out exposed them to an epidemic of aloneness, physical and psychological. Isolation bred distrust in the old sources of authority—school, church, union, bank, media.

Government, which did so little for ordinary Americans, was still the enemy, along with “governing elites.” But for the sinking working class, freedom lost whatever economic meaning it had once had. It was a matter of personal dignity, identity. Members of this class began to see trespassers everywhere and embraced the slogan of a defiant and armed loneliness: Get the **** off my property. Take this mask and shove it. It was the threatening image of a coiled rattlesnake: “Don’t tread on me.” It achieved its ultimate expression on January 6, in all those yellow Gadsden flags waving around the Capitol—a mob of freedom-loving Americans taking back their constitutional rights by shitting on the floors of Congress and hunting down elected representatives to kidnap and kill. That was their freedom in its pure and reduced form.

A character in Jonathan Franzen’s 2010 novel, Freedom, puts it this way: “If you don’t have money, you cling to your freedoms all the more angrily. Even if smoking kills you, even if you can’t afford to feed your kids, even if your kids are getting shot down by maniacs with assault rifles. You may be poor, but the one thing nobody can take away from you is the freedom to **** up your life.” The character is almost paraphrasing Barack Obama’s notorious statement at a San Francisco fundraiser about the way working-class white Americans “cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them, or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment, as a way to explain their frustrations.” The thought wasn’t mistaken, but the condescension was self-incriminating. It showed why Democrats couldn’t fathom that people might “vote against their interests.” Guns and religion were the authentic interests of millions of Americans. Trade and immigration had left some of them worse off. And if the Democratic Party wasn’t on their side—if government failed to improve their lives—why not vote for the party that at least took them seriously?
 
I'll definitely give it a read. I'm thinking more and more that our political divisions exist partially as a means to organize around something meaningful. That's because we're leading less and less meaningful lives -- meaning around group politics is a fill-in for something else. (the rise of the information age -- the internet in all its instantiations -- plays a prominent role in both)
 
And in case you think Liberals and Democrats get a free pass, read the whole thing. This made me uncomfortable, because it really hits close to home:

The winners in Smart America have withdrawn from national life. They spend inordinate amounts of time working (even in bed), researching their children’s schools and planning their activities, shopping for the right kind of food, learning to make sushi or play the mandolin, staying in shape, and following the news. None of this brings them in contact with fellow citizens outside their way of life. School, once the most universal and influential of our democratic institutions, now walls them off. The working class is terra incognita.

The pursuit of success is not new. The Smart American is a descendant of the self-made man of the early 19th century, who raised work ethic to the highest personal virtue, and of the urban Progressive of the early 20th, who revered expertise. But there’s a difference: The path now is narrower, it leads to institutions with higher walls, and the gate is harder to open.


Under the watchful eye of their parents, the children of Smart America devote exhausting amounts of energy to extracurricular activities and carefully constructed personal essays that can navigate between boasting and humility. The goal of all this effort is a higher education that offers questionable learning, dubious fulfillment, likely indebtedness, but certain status. Graduation from an exclusive school marks the entry into a successful life. A rite endowed with so much importance and involving so little of real value resembles the brittle decadence of an aristocracy that’s reached the stage when people begin to lose faith that it reflects the natural order of things. In our case, a system intended to expand equality has become an enforcer of inequality. Americans are now meritocrats by birth. We know this, but because it violates our fundamental beliefs, we go to a lot of trouble not to know it.
 
Last edited:
From the Atlantic

Which group do you belong to?

This is somewhat interesting as I saw others note that we have four political parties now; 1) Trumpers, 2) Old School Traditional Republicans, 3) Traditional Centrist Dems, 4) Bernie, AOC Types.

This article frames it a bit differently. Sorry if this is Pepsi. I don't come around here much at this point.
That's a good article - thanks for that!

I'd certainly say I'm in the "Smart America" group, but that all of my other relatives are in the "Real America" group.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BC Hawk
And in you case you think Liberals and Democrats get a free pass, read the whole thing. This made me uncomfortable, because it really hits close to home:

The winners in Smart America have withdrawn from national life. They spend inordinate amounts of time working (even in bed), researching their children’s schools and planning their activities, shopping for the right kind of food, learning to make sushi or play the mandolin, staying in shape, and following the news. None of this brings them in contact with fellow citizens outside their way of life. School, once the most universal and influential of our democratic institutions, now walls them off. The working class is terra incognita.

The pursuit of success is not new. The Smart American is a descendant of the self-made man of the early 19th century, who raised work ethic to the highest personal virtue, and of the urban Progressive of the early 20th, who revered expertise. But there’s a difference: The path now is narrower, it leads to institutions with higher walls, and the gate is harder to open.


Under the watchful eye of their parents, the children of Smart America devote exhausting amounts of energy to extracurricular activities and carefully constructed personal essays that can navigate between boasting and humility. The goal of all this effort is a higher education that offers questionable learning, dubious fulfillment, likely indebtedness, but certain status. Graduation from an exclusive school marks the entry into a successful life. A rite endowed with so much importance and involving so little of real value resembles the brittle decadence of an aristocracy that’s reached the stage when people begin to lose faith that it reflects the natural order of things. In our case, a system intended to expand equality has become an enforcer of inequality. Americans are now meritocrats by birth. We know this, but because it violates our fundamental beliefs, we go to a lot of trouble not to know it.

Charles Murray has argued as much. I think his book "Coming apart" hits on it. (I listened to an interview about the book, didn't read it)
 
Ouch! (especially the last two sentences):

I once heard a woman in her 60s, a retired municipal employee in Tampa, Florida, who had made and then lost money in real estate, describe herself as a member of “the formerly middle class.” She meant that she no longer lived with any security. Her term could apply to a nonunion electrician making $52,000 a year and to a home health aide making $12 an hour. The first still belongs financially to the middle class, while the second is working-class—in fact, working-poor. What they share is a high-school degree and a precarious prospect. Neither of them can look with confidence on their future, less still on their children’s. The dream of leaving their children better educated and better off has lost its conviction, and therefore its inspiration. They can’t possibly attain the shiny, well-ordered lives they see in the houses of the elite professionals for whom they work. The espresso maker on the quartz countertop, the expensive art hanging on the living-room walls, the shelves of books lining the children’s bedrooms are glimpses of a foreign culture. What professionals actually do to earn the large incomes that pay for their nice things is a mystery. All those hours spent sitting at a computer screen—do they contribute something to society, to the family of an electrician or a home health aide (whose contributions are obvious)?
 
Charles Murray has argued as much. I think his book "Coming apart" hits on it. (I listened to an interview about the book, didn't read it)
One of the things Murray argues, that underlies all this... is that we've effectively done a good job sorting people. (and really, I think just sort of happens with time and information)

For example... we discover people with book-smarts and push them through our education system towards profession that make best use of their skills. Throughout that process they associate with like minded people. And they want to live where the like minded people go, and they want to marry like minded people. Especially since other like minded people are already doing this. It filters out types of people. I think this is a big reason reason we end up with hyper educated and weathly enclaves across the US. And of course this gets perpetuated with time.

He made the point that back, say, at the turn of the century there just wasn't the level of filtration or the impetus for filtration. Even, say, if you were math whiz, there just wasn't that much use for your talents. (not so anymore) You probably stuck around the community you grew up in. You contribued to that melting pot. You probably worked on the farm. Married locally. That has all changed in a major way. Now you end up at some elite University out east and the jobs and people you meet out there become your bubble.

At one point in our developmental history you might've had the lawyer and plumber eating elbow to elbow at the local diner over lunch hour. That's all been blown away.

This isn't an easy problem to solve.
 
  • Like
Reactions: torbee
yeah, i think that's part of it... to an extent... online dynamics have become real world dynamics.

Good point. Its one reason I stepped away from a lot of it. Its exhausting. I also realized I am not capable of using it well for very long.

I make a point of living life off of it, even if its just my fantasy made up world of sports and 70's TV
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rudolph
Can't read the article without paying for it.
Try opening in a private (or incognito) window. Get a few free per month. So if you have multiple browsers installed, you can try them. (edge, chrome, firefox etc)
 
I think a large part of it as well is that many have a lost sense of community with others. Most adults don't seek out other people that aren't like them, it's outside their comfort zones to do so. So we continue to insulate ourselves more and more and look at each other as enemies instead of friends.

On top of this, what little interaction we do get from strangers are typically cold, quick glances in grocery stores, events, etc. Add to that everyone is attached to their phones only connecting with a select group of friends and families on social media while feeling like the rest of the world has gone crazy as we're fed 24/7 Tik Tok, Karen Videos, etc.

People also want to be heard so many of them feel the only way to do that is to yell at others online through things like HROT and other message boards, myself included.

Bottom line, so many of us have lost connection to others and what being a human is all about.

I've always loved the 80s country song by Chris LeDoux called "This Cowboy's Hat." At the beginning he has a little commentary as follows = "Well, there's always been groups of people that never could see eye to eye
And I always thought if they ever had a chance to sit down and talk face to face they might realize they got a lot in common."

In a perfect world I'd rather sit at a bar and have a few cold ones with "most" of you to see you as humans that have families, passions, hobbies, and some great life stories to share.

However, for now all I have are preconceived notions of some random person on the web that I can feel superior to because I don't know them as a person. I don't like it anymore than most of you probably don't either.
 
Our evolutionary history says we were basically designed to hang out in packs of 20-30 people, and to care chiefly about our groups matters, IIRC. But they were real people local to you that you saw on the regular. You helped fulfill their needs, and they helped you. That's where most of your focus went.

But it's become so abstract now. You're sort of thrust into isolation and you get to pick and choose your groups. And there is an endless ever evolving database of groups to choose from. And you get to know all of their follies. So a lot of people choose on the basis of ideology that best satisfies their own personality and opinion.

And sure, that doesn't preclude somebody from living in a way that's ideal for them. But it's really *not* clear that people are going to choose the right path here. The problem is that we've created a multitude of options and destroyed our fishbowl.

Which is interesting to think about... some people might argue that the fishbowl needs to return. I'm not sure about that.

At some point, if society is smart enough to produce all these options, it ought to also be smart enough to be self aware of the problems it has created and then to deciminate -- through consciousness raising? -- that information widely enough so that we might self correct. So to me, that's sort of the million dollar question. Are we in this transitory phase where the problem is being discovered but not yet the corrective measures? Maybe we'll slide past it. Maybe we'll implode. I don't know.

IIRC, Brooks' article here bangs on some of it. (but really, I think it's just a step back in time to get a better idea -- how did we used to live back before the industrial revolution? That seems to be when things really got rolling)

 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: mattymoknows
I suspect most of this forum falls under that.
We have a larger amount of Number 3s than I think most would like to admit, I would purport.

Finally, Real America has a strong nationalist character. Its attitude toward the rest of the world is isolationist, hostile to humanitarianism and international engagement, but ready to respond aggressively to any incursion against national interests. The purity and strength of Americanism are always threatened by contamination from outside and betrayal from within. The narrative of Real America is white Christian nationalism.

Real America isn’t a shining city on a hill with its gates open to freedom-loving people everywhere. Nor is it a cosmopolitan club to which the right talents and credentials will get you admitted no matter who you are or where you’re from. It’s a provincial village where everyone knows everyone’s business, no one has much more money than anyone else, and only a few misfits ever move away. The villagers can fix their own boilers, and they go out of their way to help a neighbor in a jam. A new face on the street will draw immediate attention and suspicion.

Mitt Romney told donors at the infamous fundraiser that the country was divided into makers and takers, and those 47 percent of Americans who took would never vote for him. In fact, the takers included plenty of Republicans, but the disorganization of life in the decaying countryside was barely noticed by politicians and journalists. Christians who didn’t attend church; workers without a regular schedule, let alone a union; renters who didn’t trust their neighbors; adults who got their information from chain emails and fringe websites; voters who believed both parties to be corrupt—what was the news story? Real America, the bedrock of popular democracy, had no way to participate in self-government. It turned out to be disposable. Its rage and despair needed a target and a voice.


When Trump ran for president, the party of Free America collapsed into its own hollowness. The mass of Republicans were not free-traders who wanted corporate taxes zeroed out. They wanted government to do things that benefited them—not the undeserving classes below and above them. Party elites were too remote from Trump’s supporters and lulled by their own stale rhetoric to grasp what was happening. Media elites were just as stupefied. They were entertained and appalled by Trump, whom they dismissed as a racist, a sexist, a xenophobe, an authoritarian, and a vulgar, orange-haired celebrity. He was all of these. But he had a reptilian genius for intuiting the emotions of Real America—a foreign country to elites on the right and left. They were helpless to understand Trump and therefore to stop him.
 
Last edited:
While it's not monolithic, Smart America is where I fit the most.
 
Damn - this is pretty scathing about SJWs (and pretty accurate, IMO):

There are too many things that Just America can’t talk about for the narrative to get at the hardest problems. It can’t talk about the complex causes of poverty. Structural racism—ongoing disadvantages that Black people suffer as a result of policies and institutions over the centuries—is real. But so is individual agency, and in the Just America narrative, it doesn’t exist. The narrative can’t talk about the main source of violence in Black neighborhoods, which is young Black men, not police. The push to “defund the police” during the protests over George Floyd’s murder was resisted by many local Black citizens, who wanted better, not less, policing. Just America can’t deal with the stubborn divide between Black and white students in academic assessments. The mild phrase achievement gap has been banished, not only because it implies that Black parents and children have some responsibility, but also because, according to anti-racist ideology, any disparity is by definition racist. Get rid of assessments, and you’ll end the racism along with the gap.

I’m exaggerating the suddenness of this new narrative, but not by much. Things changed astonishingly quickly after 2014, when Just America escaped campuses and pervaded the wider culture. First, the “softer” professions gave way. Book publishers released a torrent of titles on race and identity, which year after year won the most prestigious prizes. Newspapers and magazines known for aspiring to reportorial objectivity shifted toward an activist model of journalism, adopting new values and assumptions along with a brand-new language: systemic racism, white supremacy, white privilege, anti-Blackness, marginalized communities, decolonization, toxic masculinity. Similar changes came to arts organizations, philanthropies, scientific institutions, technology monopolies, and finally corporate America and the Democratic Party. The incontestable principle of inclusion drove the changes, which smuggled in more threatening features that have come to characterize identity politics and social justice: monolithic group thought, hostility to open debate, and a taste for moral coercion.

Just America has dramatically changed the way Americans think, talk, and act, but not the conditions in which they live. It reflects the fracturing distrust that defines our culture: Something is deeply wrong; our society is unjust; our institutions are corrupt. If the narrative helps to create a more humane criminal-justice system and bring Black Americans into the conditions of full equality, it will live up to its promise. But the grand systemic analysis usually ends in small symbolic politics. In some ways, Just America resembles Real America and has entered the same dubious conflict from the other side. The disillusionment with liberal capitalism that gave rise to identity politics has also produced a new authoritarianism among many young white men. Just and Real America share a skepticism, from opposing points of view, about the universal ideas of the founding documents and the promise of America as a multi-everything democracy.
 
It's interesting reading stuff like this. The pieces that take swipes at the big macro level overarching conceptual problem(s) we face. You read enough of these pieces and you start to realize they're all basically working with the same ingredients. Like I've already read about just about everything he cites. But anyway, with the ingredients we get a bunch of different possible permutations. And over time a little more of this or that sprinkled in. This guys conceptual framing is the big 4.

In a way think it's all a little silly. I'm not sure these conceptual frames are actually useful but for our inadequacy in speaking about complex interactions.

Like, we don't *naturally* think in terms of disgustingly large multi-variate problems with embedded feedback loops and all kinds of other complex interactions.

So we have to speak in terms of the 'big 4' or something like that. (not that this effort isn't useful... just an observation)
 
  • Like
Reactions: torbee
It's interesting reading stuff like this. The pieces that take swipes at the big macro level overarching conceptual problem(s) we face. You read enough of these pieces and you start to realize they're all basically working with the same ingredients. Like I've already read about just about everything he cites. But anyway, with the ingredients we get a bunch of different possible permutations. And over time a little more of this or that sprinkled in. This guys conceptual framing is the big 4.

In a way think it's all a little silly. I'm not sure these conceptual frames are actually useful but for our inadequacy in speaking about complex interactions.

Like, we don't *naturally* think in terms of disgusting large multi-variate problems with embedded feedback loops and all kinds of other complex interactions.

So we have to speak in terms of the 'big 4' or something like that. (not that this effort isn't useful... just an observation)
I disagree. I think breaking it down makes people look in the mirror a bit. I know I did after reading it, and maybe "getting" what the other people are thinking - even if you disagree with a lot.

I liked these paragraphs near the end:

All four narratives are also driven by a competition for status that generates fierce anxiety and resentment. They all anoint winners and losers. In Free America, the winners are the makers, and the losers are the takers who want to drag the rest down in perpetual dependency on a smothering government. In Smart America, the winners are the credentialed meritocrats, and the losers are the poorly educated who want to resist inevitable progress. In Real America, the winners are the hardworking folk of the white Christian heartland, and the losers are treacherous elites and contaminating others who want to destroy the country. In Just America, the winners are the marginalized groups, and the losers are the dominant groups that want to go on dominating.

I don’t much want to live in the republic of any of them.

Knowing who we are lets us see what kinds of change are possible. Countries are not social-science experiments. They have organic qualities, some positive, some destructive, that can’t be wished away. Our passion for equality, the individualism it produces, the hustle for money, the love of novelty, the attachment to democracy, the distrust of authority and intellect—these won’t disappear. A way forward that tries to evade or crush them on the road to some free, smart, real, or just utopia will never arrive and instead will run into a strong reaction. But a way forward that tries to make us Equal Americans, all with the same rights and opportunities—the only basis for shared citizenship and self-government—is a road that connects our past and our future.
 
One of the things Murray argues, that underlies all this... is that we've effectively done a good job sorting people. (and really, I think just sort of happens with time and information)

For example... we discover people with book-smarts and push them through our education system towards profession that make best use of their skills. Throughout that process they associate with like minded people. And they want to live where the like minded people go, and they want to marry like minded people. Especially since other like minded people are already doing this. It filters out types of people. I think this is a big reason reason we end up with hyper educated and weathly enclaves across the US. And of course this gets perpetuated with time.

He made the point that back, say, at the turn of the century there just wasn't the level of filtration or the impetus for filtration. Even, say, if you were math whiz, there just wasn't that much use for your talents. (not so anymore) You probably stuck around the community you grew up in. You contribued to that melting pot. You probably worked on the farm. Married locally. That has all changed in a major way. Now you end up at some elite University out east and the jobs and people you meet out there become your bubble.

At one point in our developmental history you might've had the lawyer and plumber eating elbow to elbow at the local diner over lunch hour. That's all been blown away.

This isn't an easy problem to solve.
Now with more of the white collar labor force working from home this will only get worse. It's resembling a Hindu caste system
 
  • Like
Reactions: z_ape
I disagree. I think breaking it down makes people look in the mirror a bit. I know I did after reading it, and maybe "getting" what the other people are thinking - even if you disagree with a lot.

I liked these paragraphs near the end:

All four narratives are also driven by a competition for status that generates fierce anxiety and resentment. They all anoint winners and losers. In Free America, the winners are the makers, and the losers are the takers who want to drag the rest down in perpetual dependency on a smothering government. In Smart America, the winners are the credentialed meritocrats, and the losers are the poorly educated who want to resist inevitable progress. In Real America, the winners are the hardworking folk of the white Christian heartland, and the losers are treacherous elites and contaminating others who want to destroy the country. In Just America, the winners are the marginalized groups, and the losers are the dominant groups that want to go on dominating.

I don’t much want to live in the republic of any of them.


Knowing who we are lets us see what kinds of change are possible. Countries are not social-science experiments. They have organic qualities, some positive, some destructive, that can’t be wished away. Our passion for equality, the individualism it produces, the hustle for money, the love of novelty, the attachment to democracy, the distrust of authority and intellect—these won’t disappear. A way forward that tries to evade or crush them on the road to some free, smart, real, or just utopia will never arrive and instead will run into a strong reaction. But a way forward that tries to make us Equal Americans, all with the same rights and opportunities—the only basis for shared citizenship and self-government—is a road that connects our past and our future.

After reading your posts I think I'm maybe somewhere between the Smart America and Real America???

I don't know because I don't really fit neatly into either one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: torbee
Now with more of the white collar labor force working from home this will only get worse. It's resembling a Hindu caste system
I've had the same thought at times. America, apparently, used to pride itself on being classless. We were young, and naive.
 
Is it well established that all four categories contain significant numbers or are one (or more) categories significantly (order of magnitude) bigger/smaller than the others? That would help further understand what's going on.
Also it's interesting to note that "Real America" and "Just America" appear to line up in a manner as to describe the White and Black underclass respectively. Each is dissatisfied similarly but diagnoses their problems very differently and will apparently continue to view each other as the other.
That said, my observations are based on Torbee's excerpts, i haven't read the original article.
 
  • Like
Reactions: torbee
I think a large part of it as well is that many have a lost sense of community with others. Most adults don't seek out other people that aren't like them, it's outside their comfort zones to do so. So we continue to insulate ourselves more and more and look at each other as enemies instead of friends.

On top of this, what little interaction we do get from strangers are typically cold, quick glances in grocery stores, events, etc. Add to that everyone is attached to their phones only connecting with a select group of friends and families on social media while feeling like the rest of the world has gone crazy as we're fed 24/7 Tik Tok, Karen Videos, etc.

People also want to be heard so many of them feel the only way to do that is to yell at others online through things like HROT and other message boards, myself included.

Bottom line, so many of us have lost connection to others and what being a human is all about.

I've always loved the 80s country song by Chris LeDoux called "This Cowboy's Hat." At the beginning he has a little commentary as follows = "Well, there's always been groups of people that never could see eye to eye
And I always thought if they ever had a chance to sit down and talk face to face they might realize they got a lot in common."

In a perfect world I'd rather sit at a bar and have a few cold ones with "most" of you to see you as humans that have families, passions, hobbies, and some great life stories to share.

However, for now all I have are preconceived notions of some random person on the web that I can feel superior to because I don't know them as a person. I don't like it anymore than most of you probably don't either.

Great song.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mattymoknows
From the Atlantic

Which group do you belong to?

This is somewhat interesting as I saw others note that we have four political parties now; 1) Trumpers, 2) Old School Traditional Republicans, 3) Traditional Centrist Dems, 4) Bernie, AOC Types.

This article frames it a bit differently. Sorry if this is Pepsi. I don't come around here much at this point.
None of the above. The article is nonsense.

Long decline in public investment? Starving social programs?

Show me where these things have actually been consistently cut over the past 40 years.
 
Last edited:
Definitely parts of smart America and Free America for me, but I chose Free America.
 
I’m in smart America as far as that article describes it. Most of the left here will claim I’m lying, of course.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT