[P]eople follow incentives given the information at their disposal.
The problem for all people when faced with sensory instrumentation insufficient to provide them with decidability in maters of complexity at hand, they rely purely on incentives.
In the case of politicians they follow the incentives we have given them.
Monopoly (majoritarian) democracy is a fine means of choosing the commons to purchase given the scarcity of resources for people with homogenous interests.
When people have heterogeneous interests, or when they are outright competitors, and especially if they have become enemies, then monopoly (majority) rule is merely a proxy for warfare, rather than a means of choosing commons.
The solution for people with dissimilar interests (classes and genders) who are competitors (Religions and races), or who are outright enemies (urban low opportunity cost, vs rural high opportunity cost), and who NEED customized social orders in order to compete (different median IQ/impulsivity/aggression), is to create a market for commons for the exchange of commons – OR – to secede so that they can conduct these exchanges using politicians between states as ‘trade policy’. (How Europe did).
The enlightenment visions of man were wrong. The Anglo experiment of an aristocracy of everyone has been a demonstrated failure – because meritocracy is against the interests of the majority.
People (empirically) do not vote for policy, they vote for the ‘generals’ that reflect their reproductive strategy: gender, creed, race, clan. (sorry, that’s just how it is.)
We are not seeing a conflict. We are seeing the results and end of a century of experimentation with the wealth effect of selling off the Louisiana purchase and the westward expansion to immigrants during a period of european civil war. That temporary luxury was assumed to result in an infinite growth – linear intergenerational expansion. We replaced a benevolent god with the theory of infinite productivity expansion.
Meanwhile, in 1963, the left, understanding that they could not achieve conquest through persuasion, adopted the Russian method of conquering territories by exporting Russians to eastern Europe, and instead immigrated third worlders to the united states in an attempt to destabilize the high trust society and create demand for the socialist state.
These experiments have ended along with western economic and military superiority.
So no. This isn’t a difference of opinion any longer.
Welcome to the start of civil war.
But unlike other nations who lack our traditions, anglos have a long history of settling civil wars through return of rights to the middle class.
It’s common to say that america has the oldest government in the west. But this is not really true. We simply have this thing called the english common law, a majority germanic people, and a tradition of using that law to come to compromise.
I am no longer confident this is a solvable problem.