One narrative I hear a lot is that diversity is destabilizing to society and will cause the downfall or disintegration of America, but if this is true, why would the elite push for something that jeopardizes their power? The elite have more power now than ever before, and want to keep it that way if they can. They are not going to knowingly advocate policy that weakens their position. The data shows that America is more economically successful and stable than ever, and compared to much of the rest of the world, in spite of 200+ years of increasing diversity. For example, falling crime rates and fewer major wars, as cited by Pinker. A common thread of these protests is they are ethnically and racially homogeneous. But all this diversity in America has a sort of anesthetizing, demoralizing effect, that makes Americans too divided for enough individuals to coalesce into an effective resistance movement.
The remarkably geopolitical stability of the US and its strong economy , compared to the unrest everywhere else (such as Hong Kong, Lebanon, Turkey, Italy, Spain, Chile, etc.), yet again torpedoes the media narrative in 2016-2017 that Trump would usher in an era social unrest and economic instability in the US…the opposite has happened, with America being even more stable and economically successful relative to much of the rest of the world. The media got it all wrong, predicting collapse and instability in the US, when the instability and high inflation occurred elsewhere instead.
Another factor is complacency, due to good economic conditions and abundance, and possibly also America’s Protestant cultural bedrock (much of the unrest seems to be in Catholic or Muslim countries). Much like how the earth is in a sort of cosmic ‘sweet spot’ to support life in an otherwise lifeless universe, the U.S is also in a sort of privileged position that makes it impervious in unrest and economic collapse and an island of stability, in a world that otherwise has a lot of unrest, from Brazil, To Spain, to Italy, Turkey, France, Chile, Hong Kong, etc. America’s non-Anglican Protestant bedrock provides social stability, but also high-IQ regions of dense capital concentration and wealth such as New York, Silicon Valley, and Seattle help provide economic stability. So both bases are covered. And then add diversity, high standards of living, and sedentary lifestyles to the mix, too.
Henry Ford is quoted as saying, “it is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.” But there is more transparency than ever, and as stated above, in spite of this, unrest is at historic lows. Although there isn’t total transparency (I don’t think this would be possible nor desirable), the trend fro the past 100 years has been towards more transparency and less unrest. With all the information on the internet and by bloggers and investigative journalists, but also data supplied by the fed and other agencies, more is known about the U.S. monetary system than ever before. These bureaus releases massive troves of information to the public, such as the composition of the fed balance sheet and employment rates broken down by even region and occupation.
Trump is the most scrutinized president in U.S. history. Probably more is known about Trump, such as minute details of his life and day-to-day coverage presidency, than any earlier president in US history. Even an unplanned visit to Walter Reed center last month made national headlines and called to doubt Trump’s health even though nothing was wrong, and is an example of how there is more transparency regarding the day-to-day affairs of Trump than any earlier administration, or any leader in the world. The impeachment investigation and Mueller Report , even if on the flimsiest of pretenses, are examples of the transparency unique to US politics that wouldn’t be expected of the leaders of any other country. Yet the democrats are still unhappy in spite of all this transparency, suggesting what they want is transparency if it leads to desired outcomes, and that outcomes that run counter to the narrative are indicative insufficiency transparency. People are inundated with so much information that maybe they cannot make sense of what is useful or not, but also people care not about the pursuit of truth but rather about having their beliefs confirmed.