Modern Political Polarization and what to do about it.

While there is some truth to what you say, by and large it's baloney.

To the common man, the parties are the same and his/her vote truly does not matter.

 

Yeah, uh right. Liberals never said anything bad about George W Bush, George HW Bush, or Ronald Reagan. That just didn't happen.

 

I am sorry but the bolded part is simply not true right now, nor has it been in a long time. There is a very important distinction and difference between the two parties now and their approach to governing.

One party has chosen, by virtue of its leadership, to begin each discussion with meaningful compromise. He comes to the table having already sacrificed in ideological and very real ways and seems always and almost inherently prepared to sacrifice further. That party's base feels alienated and rightly so. But this is a leadership that has chosen to make compromise even when difficult the gold standard, the official strategy, in the service of getting things done. It is reason and pragmatism over ideology as a rule and is often a bridge way too far for its ideologically driven base.

The other party has chosen, by virtue of its base which now controls the party sufficiently to pre-empt the preferences of leadership, to begin each discussion with a hard line, with what they have started calling "common ground" as a rule in order not to use the word "compromise," a word that has been determined to be dirty and anathema to the idea of "standing up for principle." In fact, there is direct evidence that this party is extremely resistant even to the word compromise. This party's leadership comes to the table with a weak hand, because a gigantic faction of his party, one large enough to kill any compromise, is deeply committed to an ideologically and pledge driven take-no-prisoners course. They take it as a matter of principle to never give up anything in negotiations, and intransigence in this is at the core of their belief system.

I'm sure you can tell which party is which. I often wish, as a member of the extreme ideological wing of the first party, that it would follow the strategy of the second. But since it doesn't, since it is adamantly committed to compromise while the other party is adamantly opposed to it, I'm getting a little sick of reading stories and comments that say both parties are resistant to compromise.

That is flatly untrue and has been since Obama took office.

Say what you want about either party's ideology but ideology has been virtually ignored by one party in favor of getting things done. The other party is, conversely, absolutely committed to ideology over getting things done, as a matter of principle.

I don't personally like compromising my own beliefs and I don't like my party or party leadership doing it either, but when the American people are calling for compromise, it is beyond irresponsible that the media and others keep repeating this lie that both sides share an out of touch policy. One party has proven to be all about compromise and if that's what the public wants they should at least be informed that one party is offering that again and again and again, a right-center, more-than-meet-in-the-middle approach. That party doesn't deserve to be lumped with the other as resisting compromise. It is just a lie.

 

Are you suggesting that Democrats didn't work with all three of those presidents to get things done or that they meaningfully obstructed those presidents agendas? Because, if so, you are woefully misinformed. Democrats went out of their way to find agreement with each of these presidents with very few notable exceptions. Leaving out the prior Republican presidents, with whom compromise was constant and reliable, let's just look at W: Bipartisan majorities passed the unprecedented tax cuts for the rich even in a time of war. They allowed two wars to occur without meaningful resistance or filibuster, without requiring a super-majority of 60 for closure. The only major legislation Bush was defeated by Democrats on, in fact the only major one in which he encountered meaningful resistance, was the privatization of Social Security. Pretty good call there especially in hindsight. If citizens had been allowed to withdraw SS funds early to gamble on the market, they would be in even worse shape than they are now.

But it is silly to say that the Democrats obstructed any of these presidents. They all got the lion's share of what they wanted with very little resistance from the opposition party.

As we all know, the opposite is now true. Obama is the first president in history to need 60 votes in the Senate to pass virtually anything, from a judicial nominee to raising the damn debt ceiling (a thing that has been routinely done for decades with no debate or resistance, a tradition that has changed only due to politics and more to the point only to do with the politics of the opposition party).

We all know that the parties approach governing differently. Simply put, Democrats are p*****s and Republicans are dicks. True in so many ways, but they all lead to the same conclusion: Republicans are in constant search of their next conquest and Democrats are repeatedly getting ****ed.

Unfortunately, when the Democrats get ****ed so do the middle class and the poor. And when the Republicans do the ****ing it is only the rich that get to come.

 

Yeah, liberals never called Bush Hitler or Reagan a crazy cowboy. No sirree!

 

This is a BS way of debating. It is a paper tiger and it is not even in the ballpark of what's being discussed. Both parties regularly talk **** about each other.

The distinction is that one will walk with the other and that other refuses.

Please try to act like a grown-up for just a minute and respond to the post I made above about the Democratic party's record on compromise in legislation and policy, not something superficial, irrelevant and petty like name-calling.

Our economy is on the brink of an unprecedented and catastrophic collapse, due to the willingness and insistence of one party to do what has never been done - to drive our economy to the brink of utter disaster, holding the nation hostage to get what they want and only what they want, even rejecting what they wanted a week ago to hold out for a better deal.

These last few posts are beneath even you.

 

Why don't we ask Supreme Court Justice Robert Bork about Democrats compromising?

 

Shorter version - STFU and agree with my liberal ass already.

 

You can't really be this incapable of honest debate.

 

More effective if Republicans didn't quash 6 out of 10 Obama federal appointees for the sound ideological reason of "GRRRRR OBAMA BAD!"

 

I said there were some notable exceptions. Clarence Thomas too. But they were very rare, at least in cases that reached filibuster before reaching agreement. This almost never happened when D's were in the opposition.

This stands in clear contrast to the current oppo party obstructing virtually everything. You have no leg to stand on here.

 

Awesome. Repped.

 

Translation: damn these republicans for getting in the way of Obama's agenda. If only there was a way to bypass democracy.

Polarization is nothing to be feared. Well defined differences are a sign of a healthy democracy. You never heard these lamentations when the left had total power.

There's nothing more insufferable than pundits posturing as neutral observers. Zakaria is a leftist ideologue. Nothing wrong with that, he just shouldn't hide it.

 

No, more like "Goddamnit, we're taking this country off a cliff for the sake of the rich for the sake of our libertarian fantasies."

And Jesus, gyawne, all you can pull is the "The Dems are just as bad" card. WE'RE the ones who were supposed to be the party of intellectuals and reason, the ones who exposed that the dialogue of leftist professors in the 50s and 60s were vapid and filled with nonsense, and combating ignorant students across campuses filled with guilt. That's what Buckley wanted, what Will wanted, those who took America away from a land where the word "conservative" was a dirty word. We're supposed to be the party that doesn't devolve into an ugly demagogue mess like the GOP has done today, filled with ludicrous ignorant populism by those who couldn't get their asses out of a lawn chair.
Our message is that if you get to ******* infatuated with a principle and an ideal, it can lead to terrible ****. Like Burke said about the French Revolution, or what Kirk said about the Communists. To moderate, to reason, to quell the passions of the populace. Not to fan them up like Fox News or Palin has, or hell the Internet has.

If the Republican Party wants to drive itself off a cliff because it has been infected with Paultards and Tea Party scum, and hold to their idiotic libertarian principles, fine. But don't destroy the ****ing country while you're at it in the name of ideals.

And yes, I'm angry. I'm angry at seeing MY party being infected with mouth breathers, and I'll continue to support Obama until the party regains its ****ing mind.

 

What libertarian fantasies are taking the country off a cliff?

Don't confuse having ideals with imposing them.

Moderation in the defense of liberty is no virtue.

What libertarian principles are destroying the country?

This is a poor attempt at concern trolling. If you want to make a living at it like Brooks or Frum, you need less rage, more hand-wringing and worry.

 

Clearly you don't remember gwayneco before he went on his hiatus.

 

Please...don't play dumb. The nonsensical mantra of "everything government does = bad" and the associated push to privatize is a major culprit for much of this goofy drama and it's at the heart of American libertarianism.

 

Payback.

 

You are an idiot.

 

This country is going to stay screwed up until both conservatives and liberals admit that both the corporations and the govt are screwing us every which way till Sunday. You can lay most of the blame on corporations if you like because they've bought the government. You can blame the government more if you like since they sold out to the corporations.