The Fundamental Polarization of Society

[paigetheoracle]

Society and our perception of it seems to have so much less gray area these days. Large numbers of folks are at a very extreme end of whatever spectrum is being viewed, and deaf to arguments made from opposing viewpoints.

 

We're all skewed. That's a given.

 

Why do you think the ideological divisions these days seem to be so much deeper and wider than before? Do you at all?

 

 

 

Cesar Millan the dog trainer says he is different from most others in his field because he treats dogs as pack animals. To paraphrase his methods and ideology - dogs (humans too) live and work together in harmony when everybody knows who is in charge and what is going on (Also reflected in other TV programs on this subject plus Brat Camp, Supernanny etc). A society run by someone like George Bush, that is secretive and incompetent, throws all its members into disarray (survival mode - rats in a sinking ship). A balanced pack does not swing between great high and lows but is steady in its relationship with others (at peace). George does not create confidence and stability but fear from insecurity. Like I said on the thread about him being a moron - Saddam Hussain created stability in Iraq and George messed that up there (and in his own country) which is why there is now infighting going on there to create dominance. Once this is achieved things will settle down again (dog fight now). His domestic policy is equally divisive, sending the flat line of stability into a rollercoaster of highs and lows - this explains what is going on in a nutshell. As they say if we don't swing together, then we'll all swing separately (hang). Together we stand as a world - divided, we fall as a civilization.

[TheBigDog]

Society and our perception of it seems to have so much less gray area these days. Large numbers of folks are at a very extreme end of whatever spectrum is being viewed, and deaf to arguments made from opposing viewpoints.

 

We're all skewed. That's a given.

 

Why do you think the ideological divisions these days seem to be so much deeper and wider than before? Do you at all?

 

 

;)

 

I think the divisions are perceived as being bigger because they are what is being being marketed. There was a time when the common ground on issues got far more attention to help foster what I would describe as the "inevitable compromise" of politics. Today the presentation of politics is framed in the most volatile and confrontational manner possible in virtually every media that you find. There was a time that a public figure like Malcolm X was vilified for his public "chickens coming home to roost" comments, today he would be invited onto every show in America to repeat the statement, and those with even more radical views would be sought out to up the radical ante for the sake of ratings. What the media user gets is rhetorical cage matches.

I believe that political ideological division in the US is slightly greater than in 2007 than it was in 1994. I believe that this division seems to be greater because it is greatly exaggerated by many journalist and politicians, largely because of a political tactic initiated by Republican party candidates and strategists following the 1992 election of Bill Clinton. However, the actual distribution of people in the US of various political ideologies, has not, IMHO, changed significantly over this time period.

I actually saw the start of this happen a bit earlier than that, Craig. In his 1988 campaign, Vice President Bush made his now famous pledge of "Read my lips, no new taxes." President Bush had never been a supporter of "Reaganonmics" and was the man who had been credited with the phrase "Voo-Doo Economics" for his description of the Reagan tax plan during the 1980 presidential primary. Reagan won the primary, chose Bush as his VP, and VP Bush sang the boss's tune for the next 8+ years. Facing a darkening economy the politically moderate and centrist President Bush chose to push a compromise budget that raised existing taxes (note that this was technically not a violation of his pledge, as there were in fact no new taxes, just higher ones).

 

What he was doing was finding middle ground between the parties to help facilitate progress, exactly what EVERY person who runs for public office claims they are going to be the one person capable of doing. How was he awarded for this behavior of ideal principle (compromise)? He was branded a liar in the next election by his opponents, Governor Bill Clinton and Ross Perot.

 

What lesson came from this? Don't ever compromise because your opponents will hang you on it. Both parties learned this lesson well. You saw it with the Clinton Administration and the Democratic party during his political problems, and how they to a man (in the Senate) stuck with Clinton in the vote on Impeachment. Now you see it with the Bush administration and their steadfastness to policy decisions - any sign of wavering, no matter how minor is seen as blood in the water and used as a sign of political weakness. Even when President Bush chooses to buck the party, such as on Immigration, he receives criticism from both parties, from the Republicans for his long held political stance on Immigration, and from Democrats for his eroding his political base in his own party to the point that he cannot sway votes toward passage of the bill.

 

Note that Senator Lieberman, much touted as the "Conscience of the Senate" in 1998 was publicly the last man to state how he would vote on one of the charges that ended up in a 50-50 tie then broken by Vice President Gore, and thus became the man who saved Clinton's presidency, and then he became the next Democratic VP candidate. Hmmm... now he is on the outs for going against the party line on the war because he is following his once revered conscience.

 

So my question would be this, is compromise a myth in modern politics? Pick a topic; the war, abortion, taxes, social security, immigration, homeland security. Where is there an inch of compromise being shown by either party on these issues? Senator McCain had been seen as an heir apparent (so crowned by the US media) for the Republican nomination for some time, but due to his active centrist politics he has lost any chance at the Republican nomination at this point. Either one party needs to become so politically dominant that they can simply push forward an agenda, or compromise must be found between the parties. The problem is that as each party moves toward power, the opposing party goes into a mode of destruction with both parties maneuvering to demonize compromise, both from within and without. This is exacerbated by the cage match style media that we enjoy today.

 

As for extremism, I think that is a matter of political maneuvering and part of the bigotry of the tolerant. Leftists characterize their opposition as right wing extremists so they don't have to deal with the arguments being made from points of rational thought. Conservatives point to the most extreme members of the left and make slippery-slope arguments. Liberals take advantage of the compromising nature of Republicans (yes, you read that correctly and history is on my side on that point) to keep "progress" moving left, by showing that they are not the radicals that Conservatives are always pointing to.

 

So, how do we find compromise, or does anyone actually want any? I don't, but by definition I am willing to live with it.

 

Bill

[TheBigDog]

As they say if we don't swing together, then we'll all swing separately (hang). Together we stand as a world - divided, we fall as a civilization.

That appeal by Benjamin Franklin lead to the compromise of allowing the southern states to have legalized slavery to form the United States. Do you agree with that level of compromise in the name of progress?

 

Bill

[TheFaithfulStone]

;)

 

Right On, BD.

 

Even though I consider myself a liberal, I admire both McCain and Bush I for the reasons you state. I may not agree with their policies, but I think they at least earnestly wish to solve problems.

 

On the other hand, I'm immediately suspicious of people like Liebermann (the recent variety) and Zell Miller - who seem to actively attack their own party. To me that seems like political opportunism.

 

And I completely agree with you that the Republicans are historically more willing to compromise. Now - that could be because they've had trouble hanging onto power since FDR, and that before that they were a considerably more liberal party. (Union boosterism, anti-corpratism, and environmentalism that bordered on militant? If it weren't for the whole "Imperial America" thing, Teddy Roosevelt would be a prototype for todays Democrat.) But - think about how many RINO's there are as opposed to how many DINO's.

 

Specter could totally take Liebermann.

 

TFS

[CraigD]

Note that Senator Lieberman, much touted as the "Conscience of the Senate" in 1998 was publicly the last man to state how he would vote on one of the charges that ended up in a 50-50 tie then broken by Vice President Gore, and thus became the man who saved Clinton's presidency, and then he became the next Democratic VP candidate.

While I won’t agree or dispute that intra-party payback politics occur, as a point of Constitutional accuracy,

… When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present. …

The whole senate was present for both impeachment votes, voting 45 guilty / 55 not guilty on the perjury charge, 50/50 on the obstruction of justice charge, neither sufficient for conviction. Had Lieberman voted to convict on the obstruction charge, the vote would have been 51/49, still short of the necessary 67 guilty votes.

 

The President of the Senate (the Vice President of the US) has no vote unless the Senate is evenly divided. Arguable, Gore could have voted on the 50/50 obstruction charge, but his vote could not have affected outcome. He is not on record as having voted. (source: Wikipedia article “Impeachment of Bill Clinton”)

[InfiniteNow]

Would anyone else care to opine? :applause:

 

 

 

 

 

 

:)

[Buffy]

Would anyone else care to opine? :eplane:

Well, its me the wacko Feminazi again, but have you noticed the polarization *within* the right wing? Just in the last week we have these two examples of the extreme right slandering their own:

There's evidence, evidence, evidence, McCain was adamant about shutting down anything to do with recovering POWs.

...along with a lovely Swift-Boating of McCain by yet another shadowy "veterans group."

 

oh and this whopper (click this link to see the video...priceless...)

McCain has done more to hurt the Republican party than any elected official I know of.

:applause:

 

The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all, :)

Buffy

[InfiniteNow]

Society gets more polarized each day. Some of it has to do with new circumstance, some of it has to do with a lack of face-to-face communication (which further leads to a greater lack of concern for the feelings of others).

 

What do you think causes us to continue polarizing on issues?

Why do people argue so ferociously for their positions?

Are we in a new renaissance, or are we at war with ideas, and what will happen in the end?