 |
| Amazon |
«Americans are constantly told we are hopelessly divided, and it’s easy to see why many of us could believe it: our politicians relentlessly accuse the other side of undermining democracy and endangering the vulnerable, while our legacy media, which no longer even pretends to be objective, consistently portrays its side’s enemies in the starkest of terms.
People on the right are “racist,” says the left. People on the left are “groomers,” says the right. And so on.
But what if I told you that the people in the political and media classes are the ones who are polarized—in fact, they are the only ones who are so polarized?
This is obvious to most Americans, even—perhaps especially—to those who have neighbors or friends or colleagues who vote differently than they do. Regular Americans know we are more united than divided on the issues that are supposedly tearing us apart.
Democrats portray conservatives as characters out of The Handmaid’s Tale, and Republicans portray liberals as “baby killers.” Yet two-thirds of Americans agree that abortion should be rare and also legal.
Democrats like to tell us that Republicans are gung ho on school shootings, and Republicans are fond of saying Democrats want to steal our guns. Yet 61 percent of us believe that the Second Amendment should stand, but it’s too easy to get a gun.
Democrats tell us Republicans hate gays and Republicans tell us that Democrats want every child to be queer. Yet average Americans believe that sex is determined at birth and that trans people should be protected from discrimination, though when it comes to sports, trans people should compete on teams that match the sex they were born with. This is how six in ten of us feel.
The partisan claims of a polarized America ring especially false to working-class Americans. This is because—unlike the college-educated elites who run the country—they don’t identify with the full list of policy proposals produced by either party.
I spent one year interviewing working-class Americans across the country from every political persuasion for my new book, Second Class: How the Elites Betrayed America’s Working Men and Women, and what I found was a remarkable consensus on the issues.»
Batya Ungar-Sargon (The Free Press)
«what I found was a remarkable consensus on the issues.»
ResponderEliminarO que acaba por ser COMPLETAMENTE irrelevante. É fácil encontrar consensos quando apenas se fazem as perguntas que não dividem.
Por exemplo, pegando nesta passagem:
«Democrats like to tell us that Republicans are gung ho on school shootings, and Republicans are fond of saying Democrats want to steal our guns. Yet 61 percent of us believe that the Second Amendment should stand, but it’s too easy to get a gun.»
O problema não se resume aos norte-americanos concordarem ou não com a Segunda Emenda, mas sobretudo em determinar onde é que ela começa e termina exactamente. Mais concretamente: a Segunda Emenda aplica-se a todas as armas de fogo que existem, ou apenas aos revólveres e pistolas? E quantas armas pode uma pessoa possuir? Em que condições, exactamente?... Nestas questões, deixa de haver o “consenso” que o autor reclama e que resulta única e exclusivamente de ele fazer perguntas demasiado genéricas e imprecisas.
Da mesma forma, uma coisa é concordar que o acesso às armas é demasiado fácil, outra coisa é definir até onde deve ir a forma como esse acesso será condicionado.
O autor deste texto recorre à falácia da generalização abusiva em praticamente todo os parágrafos transcritos, com a intenção de dar a entender que não há diferenças de maior entre democratas e republicanos quando nada podia estar mais longe da verdade.
Isto é como ter duas pessoas, uma que só compra Toyotas, e outra que só compra Volvos, e dizer que ambas gostam de carros e que, por conseguinte, não há diferenças de maior ente elas. Absurdo! Completamente absurdo!!!