Polarization of America
 

Folks in this forum often like to accuse the Tea Party of pulling the Repubs to the right, while suggesting that most Americans - and themselves - are more centrist or center-left. That's never rung true from my perspective.

I believe both parties, and those that support them, are moving further away from the center resulting in more political polarization. I think that's what accounts for the political gridlock, as representatives of both parties and their constituents have less incentive to proactively seek common ground.

Now comes a Pew study which seems to lend credence to the view that Americans are increasingly polarized. It impacts who everything from who they socialize with to where they choose to live. To me, if this is true, it explains a lot: from our increasing political polarization to our increasing intolerance of individuals and institutions that may not reflect our points of view.

Food for thought.

http://news.yahoo.com/growing-partis...lTxE0Amk3QtDMD

My personal experiences are that if going over core beliefs most will agree on 80% it's the other 20% where the continual divide exists. Taxes, guns and abortion the big three.




Barney

The Tea Baggers were the ones who first oppose everything on the other side
and used their organizational skill, especially at the primary level, to reinforce this opposition.

However the President lack luster leadership has lost him support from
people in the middle.

Didn't read the article?

Not surprisingly, the report also says that “the rise of ideological uniformity has been much more pronounced among” political activists on the left and right. “Today, almost four-in-ten (38 percent) politically engaged Democrats are consistent liberals, up from just eight percent in 1994…” Meanwhile, 33 percent of consistent conservatives almost always voice conservative opinions, “up from 23 percent in the midst of the 1994 ‘Republican Revolution,’” said Pew.

In other words, you can continue to play the "blame the other guys" game, but the data suggests that while polarization on the right is a more recent phenomenon, the right still hasn't caught up with the level of polarization that exists on the left.

I guess we don't fit his study as the only thing that protects Democrats where we live in Western Howard County are the game laws.:)

Makes sense to me. The more we argue and fight, the further apart we get. However, I still blame politicians and sycophant media organizations who deliberately stoke the fire.

It has become a game. A game that I fear may turn deadly. And, you could accurately say this is me showing my bias, but I only see one side arming themselves and openly brandishing their weapons to any significant degree.

And, it aint PETA or the LGBT community.

Dave

One could also suggest that if a bunch of gun-hating, gun-grabbing liberals decided to arm themselves, they'd probably end up shooting themselves by accident. ;)

I'd also suggest that leftist violence isn't uncommon. We don't need to debate that issue again, but both the left and the right have had their violent outbursts in our past.

Yes, absolutely.

Just stating my point of view as it relates to current affairs.

Leftists with pipe bombs acting up in the 1970s are much less of a concern to me than rightist ammosexual weirdoes parading around with their Bushmasters at Chipotle' last week.

However, I agree. Let's not get into that again. It's distracting.

Resorting to violence is a stupid and often counterproductive way to address issues.

Dave

Polarization of America
 

Have to agree with you, Whell, both the left and the right have had their violent outbursts.

I think what frightens me about the most recent batch of extremists is how technology fuels their agendas.

With a couple clicks of a mouse one can find whatever ideology that fits their needs. And, the hype is instant.

I was morbidly intrigued with the extent this recent killer couple used social media and how they used it (according to a couple of articles I read).

Who will read their Facebook and be inspired to take their fight to the next level?

I hope it's not the teenager who lives next door.

It's said that people tend to believe what they see in print. Now with the advent of social media and blogs, way too easy to put extremist ideas in a print format.

And Whell, 38% die-hard liberals vs. 33% hard right conservatives is not a lot of difference;probably very near the polling error. Your point is very well taken.

What a load of complete unmitigated CRAPOLA.

The Republicans have been moving farther and farther to the right for my entire lifetime. They are now a wild eyed, foaming at the mouth, right wing extremist party, And the damned Democrats have been following them to the point that they are now a center right party. Today's Democrats are to the right of where Eisenhower was in the 50's. There is no left in America, and that is the problem.

Several years back a friend of mine said; "It's like the GOP has turned into a seething lunatic asylum and the Dems haven't noticed yet. They're still playing the same old dull tune as the people on the other side of the aisle look back at them and see the legions of the Satan."

Dave

You are, as usual, far from correct. Mainstream Dems are correct that the political climate in the US has been moving to the left for some time now. Consider:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...5f6_story.html

The country is getting more diverse, and as the proportion of white voters shrinks, so, too, does the conservative base. As demographics shift, so do political preferences — in this case, toward the left. A close examination of U.S. attitudes in the past decade-plus reveals that the United States is steadily becoming more progressive.

Now, speaking as we are in this thread of polarization, even Obama observed a polarizing approach that Dems have taken to dealng with their political opposition in this "new progressive era":

In order to beat them, it is necessary for Democrats to get some backbone, give as good as they get, brook no compromise, drive out Democrats who are interested in "appeasing" the right wing, and enforce a more clearly progressive agenda. The country, finally knowing what we stand for and seeing a sharp contrast, will rally to our side and thereby usher in a new progressive era.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/0...ocratic-Party#

Does that sound like an approach for exploring common ground and compromise? For his part, Obama's response to it isn't suggesting that they compromise. Obama is simply suggesting that they be nicer about not compromising.

How can Obama compromise with the GOP and their attitude "It's our way or the highway". He actually did try it once and got mugged.

Obama has taken the same strong position with the GOP.

Rep. Eric Cantor presents a recovery draft that doesn't meet the demands of Obama and Democrats. Obama responds, “I can go it alone but I want to come together. Look at the polls. The polls are pretty good for me right now. … Elections have consequences and Eric, I won.”

Also:

Cantor and Obama had their differences, too. In one meeting, Woodward writes, Cantor told the president the two parties were truly diverging on taxes and spending cuts — and Obama replied, “I promise you, Eric, don’t call my bluff on this. It may bring my presidency down, but I will not yield on this.” The president then immediately left the room, according to the account.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/80809.html

In other words, Obama's definition of bi-partisanship would seem to be: "I want my political opponents to agree with me."

After being mugged who would not tell the muggers to bugger off.

Sorry, but the events described in my post above happened before anyone was even talking about a "tea party."

9/5/12 is before the tea party?

Well, one way to 'win' an argument (and be impervious to all counter-argument) is to make up your own reality...

That's may be your territory, but it's not mine. The "I won" exchange took place in January 2009. Try again.

Maybe Mike's just a little bit confused in his conflation? IIRC, it was a certain Kentucky snappin' turtle that proclaimed that the 'pubbies sole purpose was to ensure that Obama was a one term president in '08.

Who said anything about the tea party? The event I am talking about was when he agreed to let those dumbass Bush tax cuts stand.

Ah, then they weren't both 'before the Tea party,' but one was. Still, you said 'events described in my post.' Events, plural, referring to both of them. So you're only half making up your own reality?

That was a bi- partisan agenda item that passed in late 2010, when the Dems still had control of congress and the WH.

Whatever Nancy.

You bet, dipshit.

This country, since it inception has been polarized. Between the rascals radicals my way or the highway take this or else, and the rest of the citizens. The only thing to change is the cause to inflame the radicals.



Barney

I am as always right on the money, and you are as always, completely divorced from reality, and ranting away like the wild eyed, foaming at the mouth, batshit crazy psychobagger that you are.

That's Whell. ;) Hell, I'd need a chest waders to go through this convoluted load of crap that he's advancing here.

It was the neocons that have been dragging your party to the right. The 'baggers are simply convenient idiots dreamt up by those maniacs over at the Heritage Foundation. Your whole premise is flawed Mike.

Well there's your problem right there. Got yourself a flawed premise. Makin' your whole rig pull to the right.
I'm sure one of these boys got a perfectly good used premise they'll sell ya that pulls hard to the left, right into oncoming traffic.

Well, that was cute. :rolleyes:

I'm not "advancing" anything. I'm posting the results of a Pew study. You're apparently rejecting Pew's findings and data out of hand so you can conveniently cling to a flawed narrative.

While the ’baggers may be a relatively recent influence on the direction of the GOP, do you deny Pew's findings that the hard left has been influencing the Dems for quite some time?

Hard left relative to what? The soi disent left here is at best middle of the road elsewhere in the world.

From post 4 in this thread, pulled from the Pew study:

Not surprisingly, the report also says that “the rise of ideological uniformity has been much more pronounced among” political activists on the left and right. “Today, almost four-in-ten (38 percent) politically engaged Democrats are consistent liberals, up from just eight percent in 1994…” Meanwhile, 33 percent of consistent conservatives almost always voice conservative opinions, “up from 23 percent in the midst of the 1994 ‘Republican Revolution,’” said Pew.

In other words, you can continue to play the "blame the other guys" game, but the data suggests that while polarization on the right is a more recent phenomenon, the right still hasn't caught up with the level of polarization that exists on the left.

Seems to me that could easily be attributed to the fact that there is a lot more room to move left than right.

Exactly.

That's why we are the only first world country that doesn't have universal single payer health care. Until we do, this nation is a far right hellhole as far as I am concerned.

You're extrapolating from an artificial cut off in '94. I wonder how those numbers would look pushed back to say 1980? ;)

I'm not extrapolating anything. It's a quote from the Pew study, and their data only goes back that far.

Here's an interesting interactive showing how the divide has increased over the years. It appears, again, that the extreme polarization for both sides is a relatively recent phenomenon.

http://www.people-press.org/2014/06/...y/#interactive

As far as 1980, the year of the Reagan Democrat, could have been fueled as much by a reaction to the failure of Carter as the appeal of Reagan. But that shift was happening in the political middle, not at the political extremes.

Except that's not what Pew is finding.

I was replying to your comment:

The political "center" is not a true center. It is farther "right" in this country. The right will never catch up to the left in polarization. There isn't room. The right leaning centrist can only go so far before becoming a conservative. The left leaning centrist can go a long way before being considered liberal. I think PEW probably cuts their definition of liberal way before soshulist or communist.