23rd October 2012, 11:32 AM
Yeah, etoven seems to be very confused, both in facts and in who is who...
But anyway, as I've always been a liberal Democrat, I don't have quite the same perspective as you describe in this thread, GR; I've always voted for the Democrat in every race where party labels are on the ballot, for instance, never watched Fox News for more than a few minutes, etc. I grew up with my parents talking about how they couldn't understand why people had ever liked Reagan, for instance. Quite a different environment.
But yes, on the facts, you're quite right, GR and DJ both. It is true that political polarization is worse now than it has been since the 19th century. It's not as bad as it was in the mid 19th century, of course, but it's worse than it was at any point in the 20th, particuarly because of how crazy-intransigent the Republican party has become. The extreme excesses of irresponsibility and insane stupidity that they've gone to really are somewhat baffling in some ways... how can they think that what they're proposing actually is good government, or might work? Why do they always ignore the historical prescedents; like, never mind that this plan failed the previous times when it was tried, just try again and it'll work this time! Really, it's crazy.
And they won't allow bipartisanship, either. Obama entered office as a centrist very willing to compromise -- too willing, I would definitely say, as he often started negotiations by compromising away half of his position before he even started, as if he thought that starting from a reasonable, centrist position of often old Republican position-derived policies would somehow actually get today's insane Republican party to support him, which of course he should have known it would not -- but that's who he is (and part of why I supported Hillary over Obama...). Of course somehow in Republican minds this translates to our most liberal socialist president ever. It's unbelievably delusional, particularly when so much of what he's actually doing are old Republican ideas.
As for elections though, unfortunately, I think that while Obama will probably win this year, and the Democrats are almost certain to hold the Senate and gain in the House, it'll be very, VERY hard for the Democrats to hold the Senate in 2014 -- they've got candidates up for re-election in Alaska, Louisiana, and more, and they're probably going to lose. Sure, this year has gone well (that the Democrats are so likely to hold Missouri's Senate seat is a nice surprise, for instance), but still, 2014 is not looking good, just based on the map... So yeah, the Republicans have a good chance of holding all of Congress then, unless the Democrats can manage to retake the House... that needs to happen. It can, but it'll be tough.
But you're right, it won't stop. Today's Republican party and conservative movement have driven themselves into such a crazy position that only more and more crazy will satisfy their base... it's made actually legislating nearly impossible -- look at how almost nothing has happened in congress these last two years thanks to the Republican majority in the house -- but they don't seem to care much about that, they only care about absolute purity to their incredibly extreme agenda.
And on that note, yeah, the US political system has been changing over the past 50 years. Essentially, what has happened is a long, slow re-alignment of American politics. The old system, in place up until the mid 20th century and slowly changing since then, had two parties, both with strong divisions within them. Neither party was a European-style party which all voted the same way on everything; the American political system was distinguished with two parties which both had liberal and conservative wings. Conservative, racist Democrats held the South, and liberal Republicans were popular up North.
But, thanks to the Civil Rights bills of the 1960s (during the Johnson administration, particularly; his foreign policy was horrible, but his domestic policy was good...), and after that Nixon's "Southern Strategy", American politics began to shift, as racist Southerners abandoned the Democratic Party that now was in favor of civil rights for minorities in favor of a Republican Party that reversed its old positions on those issues in order to get Southern votes. It was a pretty corrupt bargain Nixon struck, but it's held ever since, and has led the Republicans to a strong position of power, after some struggles with that for a while (remember, between 1932 and 1964, only Eisenhower got elected as a Republican for President)... based on racism and opposing minorities. Great.
That shift now is nearly complete. Now the Republican party is so dominant among Southern whites that the whole region is pretty much a one-party state, federally. Sure, there are black and hispanic minorities that vote for Democrats and thanks to Civil Rights laws they have a seat or two in each area, but conservative Republicans have everything else. Some state-level offices are still held by Democrats, but even there, in the South, the shift towards Republican-only governance is well underway. Of course this has exposed some splits in the Republican party, most notably between the business wing and the religious wing, but there is only one party that wins.
And federally, at least, today's Republican Party holds a close rein on its members -- Republicans usually vote as a block, period. Republicans vote as they are told. As I said earlier, it's more European-style stuff than American (in Europe, parties always vote as a block; members can't really vote as they want.).
In the North, on the other hand, the switch went the other way, from a long period of Republican dominance, to the current Democratic dominance. And while the Democratic party is MUCH, MUCH more diverse and open to dissention than the Republicans are, there is at least a degree of unity among the Democrats too. The Democrats do still have several wings which do not agree on things, and the Democratic Party today is a more classically American party than the Republicans are in that respect, but still, there are efforts on the Democratic side too to replace people who are too centrist with people who are more ideological. I think we need this -- the US today essentially has a far-right party and a centrist party, with nobody really representing the left, and I don't like that fact -- but it is true, and when combined with the rightward turn of the Republican party, it combines to make governing hard. Democrats do keep trying to negotiate, though, but the Republican party has just gone so far that they won't even accept '90s Republican ideas anymore, if the words are coming out of the mouth of a Democrat... and we thought in the '90s that things had gotten too partisan! Well, they were very bad then, but it's only gotten worse since.
In conclusion, if only the Republicans could act like a responsible party, we would not be in this mess. But they won't.
But anyway, as I've always been a liberal Democrat, I don't have quite the same perspective as you describe in this thread, GR; I've always voted for the Democrat in every race where party labels are on the ballot, for instance, never watched Fox News for more than a few minutes, etc. I grew up with my parents talking about how they couldn't understand why people had ever liked Reagan, for instance. Quite a different environment.
But yes, on the facts, you're quite right, GR and DJ both. It is true that political polarization is worse now than it has been since the 19th century. It's not as bad as it was in the mid 19th century, of course, but it's worse than it was at any point in the 20th, particuarly because of how crazy-intransigent the Republican party has become. The extreme excesses of irresponsibility and insane stupidity that they've gone to really are somewhat baffling in some ways... how can they think that what they're proposing actually is good government, or might work? Why do they always ignore the historical prescedents; like, never mind that this plan failed the previous times when it was tried, just try again and it'll work this time! Really, it's crazy.
And they won't allow bipartisanship, either. Obama entered office as a centrist very willing to compromise -- too willing, I would definitely say, as he often started negotiations by compromising away half of his position before he even started, as if he thought that starting from a reasonable, centrist position of often old Republican position-derived policies would somehow actually get today's insane Republican party to support him, which of course he should have known it would not -- but that's who he is (and part of why I supported Hillary over Obama...). Of course somehow in Republican minds this translates to our most liberal socialist president ever. It's unbelievably delusional, particularly when so much of what he's actually doing are old Republican ideas.
Dark Jaguar Wrote:Well said! I first will say that for the good things he's done, Obama DOES have a lot to answer for. In a different time, some of the things he's done would disgust a lot more people, but here's the thing, NONE of those things have touched republican lips. Not one republican has called out Obama on drones killing US citizens on foreign soil. Not one has called him out on expanding warrentless observation of US citizens, or his failure to close certain torture camps. There was a short period where they called him out on starting a war with Libya without going through congress, but they've swept their complaints under the rug now and the public consciousness has forgotten it happened.Republicans may be very skilled liars, but even they would have a hard time running on a program like that, when they're supposed to be the strong-national-defense party... no, I can't see it.
Quote: Look at the recent debates. Put aside the fact that these debates are pretty useless to begin with, with "winning" them being determined in rather arbitrary ways like "eyeball time" and other pointless metrics. The first one was moderated with a series of questions that amounted to "I just want to make sure we know there are two people, and I can't tell what the difference between you two is" (that guy apparently should be checked to be sure he isn't putting socks on his hands every morning). The next one was actually fact checked, shocking me completely, and BOTH parties sent what amounted to a cease and desist warning for the 3rd debate that the moderator should just be a "traffic cop" (maybe traffic cone). Third debate comes along and again, to my utter shock, some fact checking actually occurred with the moderator correcting false statements. Fox is all over it saying that the moderator should "be furniture". With that statement, it becomes clear. We've reached a point where checking to make sure the people running for most powerful position in the entire country are telling the truth is seen as a problem, where narrative should be allowed to be spun freely and checking people on that is the wrong move.Yeah, I was on the debate team for two years in high school. Clothing, looks, and style did matter, but your actual positions and facts mattered more. The win or loss in each debate would be primarily based on what the judge thought of the actual debate content. Yet somehow in presidential debates, facts are peripheral, and those style elements are the only ones that a lot of people care about. It's pretty sad.
Great Rumbler Wrote:I hate the Republican party, the Tea Party, Fox News and right-wing radio for what they've reduced members of my family to. And I won't vote for a Republican in a national election until it finally stops. But it won't stop, and thinking that quietly weathering the 2012 storm, will finally put an end to this madness is foolish. It won't stop, it'll only be that much more shrill the next time. Think 2012 is bad? Just wait until 2014 if the Democrats win in Congress or the Presidency. I want it to go away, I desperately want a return to at least some manner of decorum, at the very least, but I don't really believe it will. So having said that, I'm stocking up on Pepto Bismol, because it looks like I'm going to be feeling sick for quite a while.Today's Republican party has well earned this, I think...
As for elections though, unfortunately, I think that while Obama will probably win this year, and the Democrats are almost certain to hold the Senate and gain in the House, it'll be very, VERY hard for the Democrats to hold the Senate in 2014 -- they've got candidates up for re-election in Alaska, Louisiana, and more, and they're probably going to lose. Sure, this year has gone well (that the Democrats are so likely to hold Missouri's Senate seat is a nice surprise, for instance), but still, 2014 is not looking good, just based on the map... So yeah, the Republicans have a good chance of holding all of Congress then, unless the Democrats can manage to retake the House... that needs to happen. It can, but it'll be tough.
But you're right, it won't stop. Today's Republican party and conservative movement have driven themselves into such a crazy position that only more and more crazy will satisfy their base... it's made actually legislating nearly impossible -- look at how almost nothing has happened in congress these last two years thanks to the Republican majority in the house -- but they don't seem to care much about that, they only care about absolute purity to their incredibly extreme agenda.
And on that note, yeah, the US political system has been changing over the past 50 years. Essentially, what has happened is a long, slow re-alignment of American politics. The old system, in place up until the mid 20th century and slowly changing since then, had two parties, both with strong divisions within them. Neither party was a European-style party which all voted the same way on everything; the American political system was distinguished with two parties which both had liberal and conservative wings. Conservative, racist Democrats held the South, and liberal Republicans were popular up North.
But, thanks to the Civil Rights bills of the 1960s (during the Johnson administration, particularly; his foreign policy was horrible, but his domestic policy was good...), and after that Nixon's "Southern Strategy", American politics began to shift, as racist Southerners abandoned the Democratic Party that now was in favor of civil rights for minorities in favor of a Republican Party that reversed its old positions on those issues in order to get Southern votes. It was a pretty corrupt bargain Nixon struck, but it's held ever since, and has led the Republicans to a strong position of power, after some struggles with that for a while (remember, between 1932 and 1964, only Eisenhower got elected as a Republican for President)... based on racism and opposing minorities. Great.
That shift now is nearly complete. Now the Republican party is so dominant among Southern whites that the whole region is pretty much a one-party state, federally. Sure, there are black and hispanic minorities that vote for Democrats and thanks to Civil Rights laws they have a seat or two in each area, but conservative Republicans have everything else. Some state-level offices are still held by Democrats, but even there, in the South, the shift towards Republican-only governance is well underway. Of course this has exposed some splits in the Republican party, most notably between the business wing and the religious wing, but there is only one party that wins.
And federally, at least, today's Republican Party holds a close rein on its members -- Republicans usually vote as a block, period. Republicans vote as they are told. As I said earlier, it's more European-style stuff than American (in Europe, parties always vote as a block; members can't really vote as they want.).
In the North, on the other hand, the switch went the other way, from a long period of Republican dominance, to the current Democratic dominance. And while the Democratic party is MUCH, MUCH more diverse and open to dissention than the Republicans are, there is at least a degree of unity among the Democrats too. The Democrats do still have several wings which do not agree on things, and the Democratic Party today is a more classically American party than the Republicans are in that respect, but still, there are efforts on the Democratic side too to replace people who are too centrist with people who are more ideological. I think we need this -- the US today essentially has a far-right party and a centrist party, with nobody really representing the left, and I don't like that fact -- but it is true, and when combined with the rightward turn of the Republican party, it combines to make governing hard. Democrats do keep trying to negotiate, though, but the Republican party has just gone so far that they won't even accept '90s Republican ideas anymore, if the words are coming out of the mouth of a Democrat... and we thought in the '90s that things had gotten too partisan! Well, they were very bad then, but it's only gotten worse since.
In conclusion, if only the Republicans could act like a responsible party, we would not be in this mess. But they won't.