Much ink could have been saved here had Edsall and the researchers simply factored in the asymmetric polarization of the GOP which has shifted sharply to the hard right over recent decades. This massive shift corresponds directly to the increase of hostility towards the other political party. The Democrats have not nearly shifted anywhere as far to the left. Suggesting such, as does corporatist media, is a very dangerous false equivalency.
One result of this GOP tectonic rightward shift has been the loss of any truly leftist voices, save for Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders as the Democratic "corporatist centrists" move ever further to the right in an attempt to "compromise" with those who consider compromise a dirty word. This leaves us with only the "centrist" Right and the Hard Right in our national discourse. That is precisely how we ended up with a Republican Health Care Plan derisively called "Obama Care" by Republicans.
The GOP and it's 24-7 echo chamber of Fox, Rush, et. al. do an excellent job of whipping up fear in their usually low info audiences and this fear explains the discriminatory attitudes of Republicans towards Democrats. The Democrats, in turn , are then responding to the extremist Draconian policies proposed by Republicans and thus we have our impasse.
The problem is then, of course, fixed in finances with the Citizens United corporate purchasing of the government as both parties become immediately beholden to 1% kingmakers like the Koch Brothers.
One result of this GOP tectonic rightward shift has been the loss of any truly leftist voices, save for Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders as the Democratic "corporatist centrists" move ever further to the right in an attempt to "compromise" with those who consider compromise a dirty word. This leaves us with only the "centrist" Right and the Hard Right in our national discourse. That is precisely how we ended up with a Republican Health Care Plan derisively called "Obama Care" by Republicans.
The GOP and it's 24-7 echo chamber of Fox, Rush, et. al. do an excellent job of whipping up fear in their usually low info audiences and this fear explains the discriminatory attitudes of Republicans towards Democrats. The Democrats, in turn , are then responding to the extremist Draconian policies proposed by Republicans and thus we have our impasse.
The problem is then, of course, fixed in finances with the Citizens United corporate purchasing of the government as both parties become immediately beholden to 1% kingmakers like the Koch Brothers.
3
"In this country people don't vote for, they vote against." -- Will Rogers, almost 90 years ago.
Here's a poll you will never see: ask voters if, in the last election, they voted 'for' a candidate or 'against' the other candidate. The reason we will never see it is because it is usually vested political interests that pay for such polls, and neither side wants the world to know just how little the public cares about the positive aspects, if any, of their platform.
Here's a poll you will never see: ask voters if, in the last election, they voted 'for' a candidate or 'against' the other candidate. The reason we will never see it is because it is usually vested political interests that pay for such polls, and neither side wants the world to know just how little the public cares about the positive aspects, if any, of their platform.
1
Mr Edsall, it gets personal when things get tense. America is the most tense society in the Western Hemisphere. Even countries that are supposedly in worse shape than we are economically are less tense than the U.S. because they have a different social and economic dynamic than we do. You can see that happen in places where cultures are generally laid back - like when Greece and Spain fell through the looking glass during the Euro Crisis.
The reality is that the U.S. is about closest you can get to a rat race economy among developed nations (under even normal conditions). When you have backdrop like that added the increasing pressures of the Great Recession and two huge market crashes within a decade, it does not matter who you are, the reactions of people are always going to tend toward being dismissive, angry and curt.
Things have never been truly peaceful in the U.S. (it always seem to be involved in some sort of war somewhere) but, when the nation was more economically fair, it was easier to be civil. Starting in the 1980s, when things began to slip to the point where winner takes all and the losers have nothing, you have the land of Mad Maxx.
The reality is that the U.S. is about closest you can get to a rat race economy among developed nations (under even normal conditions). When you have backdrop like that added the increasing pressures of the Great Recession and two huge market crashes within a decade, it does not matter who you are, the reactions of people are always going to tend toward being dismissive, angry and curt.
Things have never been truly peaceful in the U.S. (it always seem to be involved in some sort of war somewhere) but, when the nation was more economically fair, it was easier to be civil. Starting in the 1980s, when things began to slip to the point where winner takes all and the losers have nothing, you have the land of Mad Maxx.
As usual, Mr. Edsall fails to see the underlying reasons why liberals and conservatives have become so polarized and antagonistic to each other--namely that the .1% have orchestrated this antagonism to benefit themselves. Research showing that few members of the public understand what 'liberal' and 'conservative' mean and have little grasp of public policy. So, how does a public like this get so polarized and antagonistic? John Zaller's book on public opinion shows that what riles up the public are elites--if the elites people listen to are consistent, their public generally follows. Since the 1960s, a few prominent members of the GOP introduced an increasingly extreme and demagogic politics, using wedge issues and kindling dislike between groups of Americans into rampant fear and hatred. By the 1970s, the most extreme GOP politicians, particularly Reagan, were adopted by the .1% as a way to get the public to support their hidden agenda to massively redistribute America's income and wealth to themselves. They succeeded. And they did so by creating an alternate universe of media and seemingly respectable political leaders, academics, and research organizations who perpetuate complete fiction and misinformation as truth. The public began to follow political leaders with very different versions of the truth and who defined the other ideology as 'the enemy.'
As for analytic vs. holistic thinkers let's just say that unless you are thinking analytically, you're not thinking.
As for analytic vs. holistic thinkers let's just say that unless you are thinking analytically, you're not thinking.
1
I see liberals as starting their assessments of say, a policy, by examining the motives of its advocates. If the motives are pure, the policy is favored, with less concern for the actual outcome. E.g., the extension of unemployment benefits to 99 weeks. Conservatives thought this would discourage work (another recent study supported that view), but were attacked for their hardhearted attitudes.
That is as usual completely backwards. I deduce motivations from what people propose.
You really need to learn how to stop transference-projecting. It is obnoxious, juvenile, counterproductive, and evocative of personal animosity.
You really need to learn how to stop transference-projecting. It is obnoxious, juvenile, counterproductive, and evocative of personal animosity.
1
conservatives are tarred as "less analytical" but logic chopping analysis does not always lead to the best answers for living together. The article tries to imply that conservatives are less smart, but in fact there is wisdom in many institutions and traditions that cannot be defended with "logic."
In my experience, liberals are as resistant to evidence -- and more resistant -- than conservatives. They ignore the facts that are right in front of them. Being 'analytical' is not the same as paying attention to evidence.
In my experience, liberals are as resistant to evidence -- and more resistant -- than conservatives. They ignore the facts that are right in front of them. Being 'analytical' is not the same as paying attention to evidence.
2
I am a student of institutional evolution
Thank you for participating in the study here.
Thank you for participating in the study here.
Politics got so personal because personal attacks succeeded in winning elections. Edsall's op ed goes overboard NOT to attack Republican ideologues and political strategists who used personal attacks to achieve political gains. Its all of a piece with those pieces that say "everybody does it" -- which is NOT TRUE. That is FALSE EQUIVALENCE once again.
In particular, Newt Gingrich found that personal attacks against Democratic opponents was an effective way to get Republican voters to go to the polls to vote AGAINST Democrats and to get Democratic voters to AVOID going to the polls. For Republicans throughout the 90's, attacking Clinton and NEVER fairly treating Democrats was a Win-Win. Once Republicans gained the Presidency, they NEVER let up attacking Democrats because personal attacks against Democrats worked to help them win elections then and now. Once President Obama won the Presidency, Republicans redoubled their efforts to attack Democrats and succeeded in winning majorities in the House and Senate.
In particular, Newt Gingrich found that personal attacks against Democratic opponents was an effective way to get Republican voters to go to the polls to vote AGAINST Democrats and to get Democratic voters to AVOID going to the polls. For Republicans throughout the 90's, attacking Clinton and NEVER fairly treating Democrats was a Win-Win. Once Republicans gained the Presidency, they NEVER let up attacking Democrats because personal attacks against Democrats worked to help them win elections then and now. Once President Obama won the Presidency, Republicans redoubled their efforts to attack Democrats and succeeded in winning majorities in the House and Senate.
2
Conservative Democrats have more in common with most Republicans than other members of their party. The party affiliations in this country (given that we only have two viable choices) are more tribal than political. We should remember that many Republicans were once "liberal." They provided the votes Johnson needed to pass the civil rights laws over the irate opposition of the Dixicrats in his own party. Richard Nixon gave us the EPA and environmental laws so detested by Republicans today.
1
Nixon also Recognized Red China.
1
“since inter-personal contact across the party divide is infrequent, it is easier for people to buy into the caricatures and stereotypes of the out party and its supporters."
One odd form of this change is the boast of having no friends from the other faction, as though that made one a better person.
I consider myself very fortunate to belong to both a politically and religiously mixed family and a politically mixed church. Our family gatherings are always happy ones, nothing like the Christmas dinner in Joyce's "Portrait."
At church, the Ann Coulter fan (now deceased) saw his liberal co-parishioners as human beings, not as devils in disguise. And when I was considering getting an iPod, another parishioner showed me hers, complete with the Sean Hannity podcast. (I ended up getting an Android device.)
One odd form of this change is the boast of having no friends from the other faction, as though that made one a better person.
I consider myself very fortunate to belong to both a politically and religiously mixed family and a politically mixed church. Our family gatherings are always happy ones, nothing like the Christmas dinner in Joyce's "Portrait."
At church, the Ann Coulter fan (now deceased) saw his liberal co-parishioners as human beings, not as devils in disguise. And when I was considering getting an iPod, another parishioner showed me hers, complete with the Sean Hannity podcast. (I ended up getting an Android device.)
1
There is a strong argument to be made that the "middle class" originated after the the bubonic plague depopulated Europe, leading to a shortage of labor and the rise of powerful trade guilds. I doubt the Koch brothers see it that way.
And one additional comment. Schisms in politics and the public are exploited by mass media. I have wondered many times why I watch national news to find out what my neighbor thinks of me. Suppose we all turned the TV off from 6 to 8pm and sat on our front porches, talking and mingling with our neighbors. The media has positioned itself as middleman between people without and across classes, and we never question it. The media has its own agenda...to produce and market more media. It has no incentive to resolve conflict. Its interested are served by inciting it and propagating it. Thus, "If it bleeds, it leads", and "Let's see if this story has legs". The greater interests of civility and community be damned.
The front porch is going the way of the chimney for Santa Claus to come down.
My parents would have been fine with me marrying a Republican 30 years ago, but they would not be ok with that at all today. But I don't think we can infer from that that this is a problem of politics polarizing people exactly. 30 years ago, they certainly never would have been ok with me marrying somebody that rejected science. They certainly wouldn't tolerate me marrying somebody who thought "poor" means "lazy." My mom never for a day in her life would have allowed somebody to talk about gay people or black people or immigrants or Muslims in her house the way that most Republicans do today.
What changed might not be that pre-existing groups of Republicans and Democrats started to hate one another more fiercely. It could also be that these two groups have always loathed one another, they just were not so neatly divided into political parties before.
What changed might not be that pre-existing groups of Republicans and Democrats started to hate one another more fiercely. It could also be that these two groups have always loathed one another, they just were not so neatly divided into political parties before.
1
I suspect also that politics is the new religion. In 1960, according to the survey, no more than 5% of party-affiliated Americans would be disturbed if their child married a person from the other party. But 1960 was also the year that a Catholic ran for president and faced strong resistance because of his faith.
How did politics get so personal? Despite the questionable theorems of the social science fellow, and the scholars at NYU business school, I think it can be explained by a few easy to understand social phenomena.
1)The rise of the politics of personal destruction. Though often associated with the Clintons in the 90's, this really can be seen by the late Ted Kennedy's diatribe against Bork in the 80's. Instead of decrying the bombast as a McCarthyesque smearing of one's ideological opponent, it was promulgated almost as chapter-and-verse, because it had been spoken by "the Lion!" of the senate.
2)The Clinton's picked up this ball and ran with it, smearing their ideological opponents as hateful people who, really, didn't deserve to be heard. The Clinton's mastering of this tool really led to a spin off effect in society at large...
3)The shout-down. Since the folks that disagreed with you were evil, then they didn't deserve to be heard. Gangs of people descended upon speakers, generally those espousing traditional or conservative points of view. Spurred on by "activists" they would make it impossible for the person to address or even answer the shouts of the mob. What's really sick is that this was applauded as justice in academia, and rarely reported as the intolerant, thuggish act it was.
4)Democrats have sought to divide US into racial/ethnic tribes for electoral reasons. One of the failures of multi-culturalism is that the divisions it sows are deep and lasting.
1)The rise of the politics of personal destruction. Though often associated with the Clintons in the 90's, this really can be seen by the late Ted Kennedy's diatribe against Bork in the 80's. Instead of decrying the bombast as a McCarthyesque smearing of one's ideological opponent, it was promulgated almost as chapter-and-verse, because it had been spoken by "the Lion!" of the senate.
2)The Clinton's picked up this ball and ran with it, smearing their ideological opponents as hateful people who, really, didn't deserve to be heard. The Clinton's mastering of this tool really led to a spin off effect in society at large...
3)The shout-down. Since the folks that disagreed with you were evil, then they didn't deserve to be heard. Gangs of people descended upon speakers, generally those espousing traditional or conservative points of view. Spurred on by "activists" they would make it impossible for the person to address or even answer the shouts of the mob. What's really sick is that this was applauded as justice in academia, and rarely reported as the intolerant, thuggish act it was.
4)Democrats have sought to divide US into racial/ethnic tribes for electoral reasons. One of the failures of multi-culturalism is that the divisions it sows are deep and lasting.
1
In the 1960 graphic displaying distaste for accoss-the-aisle weddings, Repulicans showed 1% higher distaste for Democrats than Democrats showed toward Republicans.
By 2008, Republican distaste had risen to 7% higher than that of Democrats. And in 2010, Republican distaste for Democrats exceeded Democratic distaste for Republicans by a full 16% - a level of animosity which was 48% higher than that expressed on the Democratic side.
Draw your own conclusions.
By 2008, Republican distaste had risen to 7% higher than that of Democrats. And in 2010, Republican distaste for Democrats exceeded Democratic distaste for Republicans by a full 16% - a level of animosity which was 48% higher than that expressed on the Democratic side.
Draw your own conclusions.
3
What a surprise: the NYT is eager to highlight research conducted by liberals that shows that conservatives are illogical, avoid using "deep thought," are unduly emotional, and cling to "simple solutions."
I thought Haidt's anaysis was insightful, but Kling's "The Three Languages of Politics" hit the nail on the head. You can listen to an interview on econtalk.org. He says progressives tend to analyze problems in terms of power/oppression, conservatives look through a grid of order and barbarism, and libertarians see everything in terms of liberty and coercion.
The contention that liberals or progressives are more analytical has never been my experience. I find them more likely to be short on analysis and high on feeling.
The contention that liberals or progressives are more analytical has never been my experience. I find them more likely to be short on analysis and high on feeling.
1
Sounds like a pretty good argument for secession. Let subsidiarity be the guiding principle.
Republicans are especially upset because Democrats are so damned uncivil ;)
Politics is our religion. One wonders when the pogroms start...
1
"Liberals are more tolerant of ambiguity and uncertainty, and they have less of a need for order, structure and closure. Analytic thinking, in this view.."
Stop. "In this view...?!?!" You don't get to change the definition of analysis to reach your pre-established conclusions. Look up analysis in the dictionary and you'll find: ordered, orderly, meticulous, rigorous...
Only in the mind of a liberal is ambiguity, uncertainty and lack of order and structure typical of the "rules of logic." This, of course, is par for the course for liberals. They are either blatantly intellectually dishonest while seeking to push their ideas (see Jonathan Gruber) or they are in complete denial that liberal social philosophies always fail ultimately. Always.
Stop. "In this view...?!?!" You don't get to change the definition of analysis to reach your pre-established conclusions. Look up analysis in the dictionary and you'll find: ordered, orderly, meticulous, rigorous...
Only in the mind of a liberal is ambiguity, uncertainty and lack of order and structure typical of the "rules of logic." This, of course, is par for the course for liberals. They are either blatantly intellectually dishonest while seeking to push their ideas (see Jonathan Gruber) or they are in complete denial that liberal social philosophies always fail ultimately. Always.
1
Looking back on this article I'm struck by a few things that have gotten little attention in the comments. I hope there can be some conversation about them before the comments close.
First: Collectivism and individualism here have meanings opposite to how most of us use the terms. Conservatives collectivist? "Collectivist" is the Koch brothers' favorite scowl-word.
But it fit in with, e.g. Ronald Reagan's thinking that it's enough for Americans to be like George Bailey's neighbors, or Ann Romney pointing out how kind and generous her husband is to their friends and neighbors. In "Babbitt," after Lewis has sided politically with the progressives and working people of Zenith, he gives the conservatives their due: Myra Babbitt gets appendicitis and those who help her are the Babbitts' smug conservative family friends. What Iyengar and Westwood imply is that what works in the micro, so to speak, does not work in the macro - each has its own moral demands. For one thing, different in-groups have vastly different resources.
Second: what a difference two years make! How "I don't want my child to marry one" shot up between 2008 and 2010!
Anyone want to discuss, while there's still time for that?
First: Collectivism and individualism here have meanings opposite to how most of us use the terms. Conservatives collectivist? "Collectivist" is the Koch brothers' favorite scowl-word.
But it fit in with, e.g. Ronald Reagan's thinking that it's enough for Americans to be like George Bailey's neighbors, or Ann Romney pointing out how kind and generous her husband is to their friends and neighbors. In "Babbitt," after Lewis has sided politically with the progressives and working people of Zenith, he gives the conservatives their due: Myra Babbitt gets appendicitis and those who help her are the Babbitts' smug conservative family friends. What Iyengar and Westwood imply is that what works in the micro, so to speak, does not work in the macro - each has its own moral demands. For one thing, different in-groups have vastly different resources.
Second: what a difference two years make! How "I don't want my child to marry one" shot up between 2008 and 2010!
Anyone want to discuss, while there's still time for that?
"Collective bargaining" is their real target. They simply will not allow labor to form cartels to match their own cartels in negotiations. They lie to cheat.
1
Read some history. Politics has always involved personal insults, dirty tricks, and sometimes a whole lot worse. We should laud ourselves on our civility compared to some eras.
2
How Did Politics Get So Personal? Saul Alinsky. Thanks to Saul, we no longer talk, we screech.
So Nixon's dirty tricksters learned their art from reading "Rules for Radicals"? Marginally possible (Alinsky's book was published in 1971, the year of the Ellsberg break-in), but extremely unlikely). The Left has provided the best rhetoric for consequentialism (Alinsky, Malcolm X), but the Right provides the best masters of it (Atwater and Rove, for starters).
Saul Alinsky devoted a whole chapter of "Rules for Radicals" to laying iut a principled consequentialism (neither a contradiction in terms nor an oxymoron). Can't say it's convinced me but it's still a serious argument. The Right doesn't have even that.
For the Right to make a whipping boy of Alinsky is either a projection or yet another instance of right-wing opportunism. You know what they say about people who live in glass houses.
Saul Alinsky devoted a whole chapter of "Rules for Radicals" to laying iut a principled consequentialism (neither a contradiction in terms nor an oxymoron). Can't say it's convinced me but it's still a serious argument. The Right doesn't have even that.
For the Right to make a whipping boy of Alinsky is either a projection or yet another instance of right-wing opportunism. You know what they say about people who live in glass houses.
The polarization comes from the attempt to force "Fundamental Transformation" on the country against the will of the people.
All my children became fiscal conservatives after they got their first paychecks, saw the tax money taken out, and decided the government was way too big and inefficient.
I was a Republican when I lived in Connecticut. And I can tell you exactly when I dropped that party affiliation. The Republican convention of 1992 - when the religious right, from Phylis Schaffly, Dan and Marilyn Quayle, and Pat Buchanan and his culture wars, to others I cannot remember, took over. What has happened since is a complete and total persecution of individual freedoms. Instead, under the guise of free market capitalism, Republicans would love to turn this democracy into a theocracy and make the Bible the new Constitution of the United States. I don't identify with Democrats either and I hate to see the "political correctness" of liberals going way overboard as I think they have in recent years. (Fox News is just awful but MSNBC isn't much better!)
2
I've noticed the same thing in the comments here that I noticed in a recent comment thread about the stereotyping of abortion partisans. That thread was almost completely about the ethics of abortion, rather than the ethics of stereotyping. This article is about polarization and the even more fundamental attitudes that underlie it. Not so much about my-political-adversaries-are-no-good.
Sorry to be a Janie-come-lately about this but what the authors are really talking about is often worth discussing, isn't it?
And if this thread closes too early to reply to my last two posts, some commenters may at least come up with thoughts to inform their future conversation.
Sorry to be a Janie-come-lately about this but what the authors are really talking about is often worth discussing, isn't it?
And if this thread closes too early to reply to my last two posts, some commenters may at least come up with thoughts to inform their future conversation.
Politics got personal because government got bigger.
Liberals, the best analysts, like to analyze government as nice benevolent experts working out expert solutions to our social problems.
But government is not kindly librarians answering our questions. Government is force. And politics is civil war by other means.
So when government gets bigger then the force gets bigger, and the injustice gets bigger. Politicians pick up on this and polarize people; of course they do: that is their job.
When you put on your analyst hat and analyze that government is force, and when you really push your little gray cells and recognize that politics is civil war by other means, then the notion that politics has got more personal makes complete sense.
Liberals, the best analysts, like to analyze government as nice benevolent experts working out expert solutions to our social problems.
But government is not kindly librarians answering our questions. Government is force. And politics is civil war by other means.
So when government gets bigger then the force gets bigger, and the injustice gets bigger. Politicians pick up on this and polarize people; of course they do: that is their job.
When you put on your analyst hat and analyze that government is force, and when you really push your little gray cells and recognize that politics is civil war by other means, then the notion that politics has got more personal makes complete sense.
This is how politics got so personal:
5. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.
12. “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.
It's Alinsky's rules in action. The progressive's have been doing this stuff for years. The right is just starting to pick up on the same tactics.
5. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.
12. “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.
It's Alinsky's rules in action. The progressive's have been doing this stuff for years. The right is just starting to pick up on the same tactics.
1
Every knows that liberal, progressives, and leftists are the most sincere, enlightened, and sympathetic people around. They only want what is good for you, and are always rational. They are never motivated by fear, envy, resentment, bigotry, prejudice, superstition, or hate, as their adversaries are. They have an unrivaled respect for science, are boundlessly compassionate, and capable of empathy as others are not.
2
I assume that Steve is writing this as a nervy social comment with tongue firmly in cheek.
Anyone really thinking the above is doomed to a life of servitude to authoritarian government.
This thinking leads to what centrally planned national governments did in the 20th century - killing 100 million of their own citizens.
Anyone really thinking the above is doomed to a life of servitude to authoritarian government.
This thinking leads to what centrally planned national governments did in the 20th century - killing 100 million of their own citizens.
3
Politics has always been 'personal'. Recognizing the inextricable mesh of emotion and ideology that politics represents is rather like making the astounding discovery that there is oxygen in the air we breathe, and when there is more oxygen rather than less our physical performance is affected. However, it doesn't help to explain mass political phenomena by reducing politics to psychology, as this piece tends to do, making the real and very pressing contradictions and conflicts that are rooted in the historically specific social and economic world outside individuals heads almost completely disappear. There is much that is silly in the frameworks for analyzing the phenomenon that Mr. Edsall presents, none more so than the entirely artificial categories supposedly describing the differences between 'liberals' and 'conservatives', or the tacit assumption that the breadth of the political spectrum is somehow limited to these evidence-free conceptual constructs into which we must all fit like a procrustean bed. As a socialist I don't fit at all. Where do anarchists, libertarians and fascists fit? Apparently these 'other species' of political perspective no longer exist - perhaps the 'end of history' posited by Francis Fukuyama has led to their extinction? - so there is no need to even try to reduce them to individual psychology. In short, here we have an excellent example of a very American kind of ahistorical provincialism substituting for analysis.
2
Them fires have been stoked. Power and money have discovered they can rule by dividing, and creating hatred of otherness and other forms of manipulation are becoming more and more commonplace. And yes, I agree with those who blame the Republicans.
5
Let's be clear: polarization was highest before the Civil War, during the Civil Rights movement, and when a black president was elected. Every time the feelings of privilege and superiority of white racists have been threatened, they have lashed out. Some may call this "dividing the country." I call it "dragging Neanderthals into the civilized world, kicking and screaming."
10
"Liberals are more tolerant of ambiguity and uncertainty, and they have less of a need for order, structure and closure."
Which explains why liberals support massive government spending, regulations and cradle-to-grave welfare state. Must be there tolerance for ambiguity and uncertainty, and less need for order, structure and closure.
Which explains why liberals support massive government spending, regulations and cradle-to-grave welfare state. Must be there tolerance for ambiguity and uncertainty, and less need for order, structure and closure.
4
Hence your intolerance, I take it.
2
...or maybe liberals try to find a way to make sure their fellow American neighbors can get basic health care and build needs that doesn't just help the few, but the many which falls under governmental reforms and plans.
2
Susan, Hyphenated American is correct.
Liberalism became the warm, fuzzy public face for the Kremlin, Hitler, and for massive federal governments in the first half of the last century.
When you devote yourself to growing government, you are depriving your fellow man and woman of many/most opportunities to actually find a JOB and provide for their family with personal independence. Why? The farther all decisions made are from the people involved, the waste increases, and there is too much room for outright theft.
Were we all robots, this might not be the case. But big government becomes concentrated bad decision makers and thieves. Sorry. but the longer you live, the more you see this.
Government takes so much money out of circulation as it builds empires in capital cities that the worker is deprived of many chances to find employers willing to hire him or her.
Do you know that President Truman is now credited with ending the Great Depression? He reduced government spending and the joblessness was soon solved. It's just that simple.
Liberalism became the warm, fuzzy public face for the Kremlin, Hitler, and for massive federal governments in the first half of the last century.
When you devote yourself to growing government, you are depriving your fellow man and woman of many/most opportunities to actually find a JOB and provide for their family with personal independence. Why? The farther all decisions made are from the people involved, the waste increases, and there is too much room for outright theft.
Were we all robots, this might not be the case. But big government becomes concentrated bad decision makers and thieves. Sorry. but the longer you live, the more you see this.
Government takes so much money out of circulation as it builds empires in capital cities that the worker is deprived of many chances to find employers willing to hire him or her.
Do you know that President Truman is now credited with ending the Great Depression? He reduced government spending and the joblessness was soon solved. It's just that simple.
It has become frightening to confront those whose lives have been centered on FOX NEWS. Their obedient reiteration of propaganda is most disconcerting. In my efforts to employ reason, evidence and compassionate reframing of social policy initiatives in Congress evokes a mantra about the entitled and the cost to taxpayers.
For many years I have attempted to build relationships with a few from the right and have succeeded in generating some dialogue as we consider specific policy initiatives that might reduce the purchase of influence and the remediation of electoral processes. That strategy in these conversations has, in fact, led to consensus regarding term limits and campaign finance reform.
Avoiding the hot button issues that have been exploited as divisive by FOX has gained me some credibility as a nonpartisan advocate of competent and right sized governance addressed to issues with which we can achieve comity and thoughtful discussion if not complete agreement.
The divide we face, however, is at some level terrifying since such animus and ideational rigidity led to our Civil War. There is that risk certainly with the prevalence of heavy duty firearms. We are at a tipping point and need to be thoughtful while seeking to build bridges to find common ground.
For many years I have attempted to build relationships with a few from the right and have succeeded in generating some dialogue as we consider specific policy initiatives that might reduce the purchase of influence and the remediation of electoral processes. That strategy in these conversations has, in fact, led to consensus regarding term limits and campaign finance reform.
Avoiding the hot button issues that have been exploited as divisive by FOX has gained me some credibility as a nonpartisan advocate of competent and right sized governance addressed to issues with which we can achieve comity and thoughtful discussion if not complete agreement.
The divide we face, however, is at some level terrifying since such animus and ideational rigidity led to our Civil War. There is that risk certainly with the prevalence of heavy duty firearms. We are at a tipping point and need to be thoughtful while seeking to build bridges to find common ground.
5
What is with the left's obsession with FoxNews? The crusade against it is quite intense. Every FoxNews viewer is a personal affront. (Suddenly truth is an imperative when it comes from this station?) Its very existence a source of great frustration.
Being less fixated on FoxNews, people might not be so partisan themselves and become less defensive and combative.
All this sniping at FoxNews only bumps its ratings. "The network the left cannot stop itself from hating."
Being less fixated on FoxNews, people might not be so partisan themselves and become less defensive and combative.
All this sniping at FoxNews only bumps its ratings. "The network the left cannot stop itself from hating."
2
I believe too much time is wasted attacking the other side. Do conservatives really think that a Liberal watching Fox News is going to all of s sudden say, "You know all of a sudden I realize I have been wrong all these years" Of course the same thing applies to a Conservative watching MSNBC. The self-righteous partisans appear to think that if only they scream louder and louder, someday they will finally wipe out the other side when everyone realizes how evil the other guy is. A final victorious election occurs
Self-criticism of your own side would be more constructive because it might lead to self-improvement. For example a Liberal could analyze why the roll out of Obamacare was a disaster.in the beginning, so this could be avoided in the future. Why give Conservatives ammunition that can be used to persuade the people who are Moderates. How can government be made more efficient? Is a government program working or are we just throwing money at the problem?
A Conservative could ask themselves, what is accomplished by shutting down the government? They should do the hard work of reviewing all the regulations and government programs and then providing a specific list of programs and regulations to get rid of. As far as I know only the retired Senator Coburn attempted to do this with government programs
Self-criticism of your own side would be more constructive because it might lead to self-improvement. For example a Liberal could analyze why the roll out of Obamacare was a disaster.in the beginning, so this could be avoided in the future. Why give Conservatives ammunition that can be used to persuade the people who are Moderates. How can government be made more efficient? Is a government program working or are we just throwing money at the problem?
A Conservative could ask themselves, what is accomplished by shutting down the government? They should do the hard work of reviewing all the regulations and government programs and then providing a specific list of programs and regulations to get rid of. As far as I know only the retired Senator Coburn attempted to do this with government programs
3
True. Let's discuss whether personal enmity is the right approach in politic battles.
Well, they haven't resorted to thrashing and dueling again, so maybe it only looks worse than it really is. I think the culture has evolved. The Edwardian Era had a distinct code of behavior for the classes, which I think was felt and implemented quite pervasively in America and other parts of the world. This well reflected in then new and dazzling technology of film and spread around the world with the message: "This is how decent people behave and this how bad guys behave."
The World Wars were tremendously influential on gathering the communal spirit of co-operation across the entire nation. Those generations are mostly a memory now, but we certainly enjoy the fruit of their hard labor. It's the new generational cultures of the Cold War, the 60's counter-culture movement, the Disco Era, the end of the Cold War, the 80's & 90's and of course the Terror Era that shape our contemporary culture. I am part of this, but to be honest, it is a very vulgar culture, loosed to the world instantly by our common technological capacity. We're surrounded. It looks really bad.
Heh. Reminds of something Chesty Puller is supposed to have said in an instance of crisis when everything looked bad. "We're surrounded. This greatly simplifies things."
The World Wars were tremendously influential on gathering the communal spirit of co-operation across the entire nation. Those generations are mostly a memory now, but we certainly enjoy the fruit of their hard labor. It's the new generational cultures of the Cold War, the 60's counter-culture movement, the Disco Era, the end of the Cold War, the 80's & 90's and of course the Terror Era that shape our contemporary culture. I am part of this, but to be honest, it is a very vulgar culture, loosed to the world instantly by our common technological capacity. We're surrounded. It looks really bad.
Heh. Reminds of something Chesty Puller is supposed to have said in an instance of crisis when everything looked bad. "We're surrounded. This greatly simplifies things."
3
It became personal when it became a full time, highly compensated job.
4
Billion-dollar campaign budgets - like Barack's - have doomed us to big money vs. big money, & may the fattest wallets win.
2
Maybe when Democrats first started accusing Republicans of throwing granny over a cliff. Wait, they've always done that.
3
1940: ''If youv GOP they'll take Granny's Social Security away!''
2012: ''ditto'' for the zillionth time.
At least Conservatives can write original material.
2012: ''ditto'' for the zillionth time.
At least Conservatives can write original material.
3
Maybe...because Republicans are trying to.
1
Wow. Let's boil the acrimony down to one simple argument: it's all the Republicans' fault. Isn't there anyone else who sees the painful irony in vilifying an opposing party, making over generalizations about their positions, and issuing ad hominem attacks in a comment thread for an article that documents both parties' eagerness to vilify opposing parties, make over generalizations about their positions, and issue ad hominem attacks...? I like the NYT, but I think some of its readers have become what they sat they loathe.
5
Mr. Edsall:
It is beyond me why such a column is even printed. Why not let the facts speak for themselves. There might still be conservative thought in this country. It doesn't get much coverage in the media if there is. Todays Republic Party is not conservative. It is a propoganda machine of right-wing reactionary rejection of anything that is progressive.
No one who has any connection to or knowledge of the tradition of conservative thought and a conscious would deny that. That would seem to me to be the biggest challenge for conservatives: taking back the very word that should define them from the Luddites with bad manners who have stolen it from that tradition.
A real conservative respects the notion of civility. A real conservative is hard to find these day, they are all hiding, too afraid and embarrassed to make themselves known.
It is beyond me why such a column is even printed. Why not let the facts speak for themselves. There might still be conservative thought in this country. It doesn't get much coverage in the media if there is. Todays Republic Party is not conservative. It is a propoganda machine of right-wing reactionary rejection of anything that is progressive.
No one who has any connection to or knowledge of the tradition of conservative thought and a conscious would deny that. That would seem to me to be the biggest challenge for conservatives: taking back the very word that should define them from the Luddites with bad manners who have stolen it from that tradition.
A real conservative respects the notion of civility. A real conservative is hard to find these day, they are all hiding, too afraid and embarrassed to make themselves known.
3
Today's Democratic Party, on the other had, is no longer old-liberal like we saw liberals of the 50's saying anything that they felt like. Say anything contrary regarding abortion, immigration, gay rights, or environmentalism to the groupthink of modern radical progressivism and you are shown out the door of the Democratic discussion.
The old liberals did indeed respect the notion of civility. Today, they refuse to even let contrary opinions be heard on campus. Just ask Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
The old liberals did indeed respect the notion of civility. Today, they refuse to even let contrary opinions be heard on campus. Just ask Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
11
Steve Austin:
There was a time when liberals would have supported the religious liberty case of Hobby Land.
Religious liberty would never have been sacrificed for the "right" to have two specific types of birth control paid for by an insurer.
There was a time when liberals would have supported the religious liberty case of Hobby Land.
Religious liberty would never have been sacrificed for the "right" to have two specific types of birth control paid for by an insurer.
7
Thank God that time has come and gone.
Conservatives trust individuals to form private associations to solve common problems voluntarily. They don't believe in forcing solutions on people. Let the people find their own. They trust the people in their communities to do that. Liberal don't trust and think people must be forced.
5
Unfortunately, those same people that form private associations to solve common problems often collude to prevent others from solving problems. People in their communities have solved some problems, but in the south for example, Jim Crow would not have been overcome without outside agitators and the heel of the Federal Government. To often, local groups conspire to preserve their wealth and privileged position, even when in conflict with the law. Your theory is a nice one but it just hasn't been shown to work in a way that solves big issues. A big big stick wielded by the most powerful force in the land is needed. Unfortunately, often.
8
Liberals are more able to see the myriad of ways people are compelled, I think.
1
Health care, public transportation, public parks, highways, consistent traffic signs, public schools and universities. Those are a few of the things that "individuals" might not be able to do, even with a local community organization. We have approx. 360,000,000 people in this country, and that requires some basic public solutions to public problems.
2
Politics isn't more personal today than ever in our Republic. For proof simply look at the newspaper articles from our first contested election in 1796 between Adams supporters and Jefferson's supporters.
2
You put me off, and it's your fault that I'm stupid. -- Jean -Christophe Averty, Ubu Roi
Polarization is more likely a product of lazy thinking than any analytical difference. For example, how analytical is it for defenders of President Obama to ascribe any disagreement with him or the policies he favors to racism? How analytical is it to use straw man arguments to mischaracterize the positions of your political opposition the way President Obama does every t he talks?
4
Evidently the President of the US, whoever it may be, is a straw-man for everyone to transference-project upon.
I can say this, I am never offended by a difference of opinion on what the government should do or how it should do it. I am quite offended by the constant personal attacks that are levied against people who hold differing views. If you are the sort who think those who disagree with you are racists, for example, it is your lack of empathy rather than your analytical thinking that is making politics personal.
5
The president deals with his opposition like most liberals. He makes it personal.
1
"liberal culture is more individualistic, with looser social bonds, more emphasis on self-expression, and a priority on individual identities over group identities"
So why are liberals so obsessed with group politics to the point of having to label everyone with a hyphen and decry anyone who fits the group demographic but dares to think differently?
So why are liberals so obsessed with group politics to the point of having to label everyone with a hyphen and decry anyone who fits the group demographic but dares to think differently?
9
So why are liberals so obsessed with group politics to the point of having to label everyone with a hyphen and decry anyone who fits the group demographic but dares to think differently?
===================
Excellent questions. They don't follow
===================
Excellent questions. They don't follow
You'd know if you'd read the article.
"But if polarization reflects primal aspects of the human condition, particularly when we are under stress, it isn’t going anywhere."
If polarization actually reflected "primal aspects of the human condition," then why wouldn't it exist at all or at least most times in the same intensity? This kind of explanation is seriously reaching. The world has become so highly specialized and complex with such rapid cultural and economic change that people feel severe anomie, either consciously or not. As Yeats wrote a hundred years ago, when the center does not, some people become "full of passionate intensity" and polarization logically ensures. And it would also logically follow that this passionate intensity would be most intense in that part of the world which leaped from an essentially medieval mindset to the 21th century in a mere 50 or so years (without naming any specific parts of the world).
Unhappily for them and for us all in this interconnected world.
If polarization actually reflected "primal aspects of the human condition," then why wouldn't it exist at all or at least most times in the same intensity? This kind of explanation is seriously reaching. The world has become so highly specialized and complex with such rapid cultural and economic change that people feel severe anomie, either consciously or not. As Yeats wrote a hundred years ago, when the center does not, some people become "full of passionate intensity" and polarization logically ensures. And it would also logically follow that this passionate intensity would be most intense in that part of the world which leaped from an essentially medieval mindset to the 21th century in a mere 50 or so years (without naming any specific parts of the world).
Unhappily for them and for us all in this interconnected world.
Liberals surpass collectivists becoming downright clannish when it comes to the right. They cannot even stomach the existence of rightwing media.
4
In 2000, on the eve of the presidential election, I was having sushi, yes sushi, with a friend of mine who was also a doctoral candidate at the University of Illinois. Together we discussed the growing polarization between the two parties and I remarked that I simply did not understand Republicans. She replied, "Republicans are really stupid or really mean." We laughed at that, but those words have stayed with me all of these years. I believed those words until I moved to rural countryside and opened a yoga studio with my husband. There I found myself teaching !egads! Republicans yoga! Over the years these people have become my friends and I gradually readjusted my thinking about the liberal/conservative divide and even teach this material at the university where I work. Geography plays a huge role in our polarization--and yes, so does the human brain. Still, I believe breaking down these divisions could be addressed by finding ways for liberals and conservatives to interact formally and informally on a daily basis.
5
I feel like the study cited in this article has its characterization of liberals and conservatives backward when it comes to economics. Liberals appeal more to emotion when trying to solve problems, while conservatives try to think about less obtrusive ways to solve problems or consider whether the problem in question actually exists. This is based on the liberals' championing of social programs (such as Aid to Families with Dependent Children) which were sold to the American people on the grounds of morality rather than the specifics. Conservatives, meanwhile, have tried to reform these programs and eliminate many of the kinks that liberals overlooked when they passed them (such as the Welfare Reform Act of 1996). In addition, liberals use a similar appeal when talking about Wall Street. Elizabeth Warren's calls to "break up the big banks" is purely emotion-based and does not consider the consequences such an action would have. Conservatives, on the other hand, tell people to take a step back and consider the effects of such an action on the economy. As a result, I feel that, at least in the economic realm, conservatives are analytical and liberals use pathological appeals.
2
If humans didn't have emotions, we wouldn't bother to think at all.
What do you think "the pursuit of happiness" is?
What do you think "the pursuit of happiness" is?
After reading through many of the replies to the article, I have noticed that several of those who "share a propensity for analytic thinking and have a stronger preference for deep thought," are not above the personal attack, the ad hominem fallacy, and personal animus towards those with whom they disagree. Perhaps they are not as analytical in their thinking as they would like others to believe.
7
Alinsky, Alinsky, Alinsky. Plus Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. The spiritual leaders of the Democrat party. It's a leftwing game as old as Karl Max. But finally , finally non-leftists are learning to fight fire with fire.
War is the remedy our enemies have chosen, and I say, let us give them all they want of it. - W.T. Sherman
War is the remedy our enemies have chosen, and I say, let us give them all they want of it. - W.T. Sherman
5
Why do you use "Democrat" as an adjective?
1
The graph representing how things got worse after the 2009 explosion of autocratic thinking in D.C. makes perfect sense. Half the country was utterly ignored while redictributionists of ONLY one party wrote and passed the Obamacare disaster, a law that required dozens of rewrites after it was passed.
............ There has never been that partisan of an action in Congress before, so of course the reaction from the other side would be unprecedented.
Meanwhile, this new Congress has already seen amendment votes in the Senate just this month - almost double the number the numer that grim-faced Harry Reid allowed during all of his ''Year of Anger'' in 2014.
............ There has never been that partisan of an action in Congress before, so of course the reaction from the other side would be unprecedented.
Meanwhile, this new Congress has already seen amendment votes in the Senate just this month - almost double the number the numer that grim-faced Harry Reid allowed during all of his ''Year of Anger'' in 2014.
7
Steve Austin:
"There has never been that partisan of an action in Congress before, so of course the reaction from the other side would be unprecedented"
****
The cause for the backlash against Obama (ex., the rise of the Tea Party) continues to elude liberals, who attribute it to racism, etc.
Of course, to acknowledge it would require their taking responsibility for some of the ensuing dysfunction and divisiveness.
"There has never been that partisan of an action in Congress before, so of course the reaction from the other side would be unprecedented"
****
The cause for the backlash against Obama (ex., the rise of the Tea Party) continues to elude liberals, who attribute it to racism, etc.
Of course, to acknowledge it would require their taking responsibility for some of the ensuing dysfunction and divisiveness.
3
Ascribing your opposition's action to racism must be the analytical thinking the author is talking about.
1
Indeed, our liberal friends have blamed conservative speech on ignorance, racism, old age, youth, too much religion, too much patriotism, FAR too much life experience, and probably bad hair. And all those tie-clasps with flags on them!
4
Do Talhelm, etal. know any real people?Do they really believe that conservatives are better , or prevalent in social fields and liberals more likely to be engineers? I know people in social fields and they are more likely to be liberal. the engineers I know are more likely libertarian/ conservative. If liberals need less organization and structure, what can one infer from the ACA bill? Thousands of pages of regulations written by conservatives?
3
I agree animus has increased and this is not good for overall civilization.
Extremism/anti-compromise/non-consensus may not be bad all the time, while the trend seems d close enough to a chaotic "dis-United States."
The neo-balkanization into red & blue is nearly true, and it's become sick/ accepted/normative wis-dumb.
We are not completely torn apart, though our nation's divisive 21st century politics feel to me very ugly, while I can personally vaguely recall Harry Truman being hated in the late 1940s; and my Father telling me about FDR being hated.
While at the same time I must optimistically acknowledge that, for instance, the Mormon Church a couple days ago and that Pope Francis' RCC aren't oblivious/obsolete/irrelevant/regressive/100% reactionary, as I'd
previously perceived (in the instance of gay rights).
I had thought of American culture as tragically contradictory and unable to adapt.
Admittedly: SOCUS rulings depress a la Citizens United and
Gore v Bush.
Extremism/anti-compromise/non-consensus may not be bad all the time, while the trend seems d close enough to a chaotic "dis-United States."
The neo-balkanization into red & blue is nearly true, and it's become sick/ accepted/normative wis-dumb.
We are not completely torn apart, though our nation's divisive 21st century politics feel to me very ugly, while I can personally vaguely recall Harry Truman being hated in the late 1940s; and my Father telling me about FDR being hated.
While at the same time I must optimistically acknowledge that, for instance, the Mormon Church a couple days ago and that Pope Francis' RCC aren't oblivious/obsolete/irrelevant/regressive/100% reactionary, as I'd
previously perceived (in the instance of gay rights).
I had thought of American culture as tragically contradictory and unable to adapt.
Admittedly: SOCUS rulings depress a la Citizens United and
Gore v Bush.
1
Andrew Jackson's opponents accused him of having an illegitimate child. I don't really think politics has ever been as civil as Mr. Edsall thinks.
2
It has been more civil within living memory. We older folks know that things can be different.
3
I don't have many conservative friends but the few I do with whom I discuss politics are simply often wrong - demonstrably wrong with easy to access information. And these are pretty smart people that are well compensated for their work. In one case, no matter how many times I show him the vote on the Iraq War resolution, he still thinks the Democrats somehow tricked GWB into this war. Despite the fact that the GOP could have passed the resolution in the house themselves and needed only a handful of votes from Democrats in the senate. Still blames the Democrats for getting GWB into this war.
The other common topic is the financial collapse. Still blaming it on Barney Frank (a minority member of a house committee) and the CRA, when it's pretty clear (unless you are Peter Wallison) was not caused by ACORN forcing banks to make bad loans and then forcing S&P to lie about the risk when rating the mortgage bonds.
And, finally, they are still scared to death that the black panthers had a big impact on the last election, turning away white voters, despite only one black panther at one polling place in a largely black precinct in Philadelphia being documented as having done so, while being quickly shooed away by police.
When people are basing their choices on these three nonsensical beliefs and can't be convinced otherwise, what do I want to do with them? Less than before the craziness set it.
The other common topic is the financial collapse. Still blaming it on Barney Frank (a minority member of a house committee) and the CRA, when it's pretty clear (unless you are Peter Wallison) was not caused by ACORN forcing banks to make bad loans and then forcing S&P to lie about the risk when rating the mortgage bonds.
And, finally, they are still scared to death that the black panthers had a big impact on the last election, turning away white voters, despite only one black panther at one polling place in a largely black precinct in Philadelphia being documented as having done so, while being quickly shooed away by police.
When people are basing their choices on these three nonsensical beliefs and can't be convinced otherwise, what do I want to do with them? Less than before the craziness set it.
5
"The other common topic is the financial collapse. Still blaming it on Barney Frank" -- He and ACORN did collude to force banks to provide 100%+ mortgages, that turned into junk that couldn't be traded any further -- and led to the collapse of the mortgage industry....so yeah, we blame him.
"(a minority member of a house committee)" In 2008, when the mortgage industry finally collapsed?
"...was not caused by ACORN forcing banks to make bad loans and then forcing S&P to lie about the risk when rating the mortgage bonds."
That's actually what happened. How can this be made clearer to you? Banks did NOT want to loan money to people they felt could not reliably pay their bills, Barney Frank and ACORN called this racist/discriminitory. Amazingly, when banks were "forced to raise their standards" (of course blaming banks for forcing them to do something, then act like they were idiots for doing it!! - irony at it's finest)
"(a minority member of a house committee)" In 2008, when the mortgage industry finally collapsed?
"...was not caused by ACORN forcing banks to make bad loans and then forcing S&P to lie about the risk when rating the mortgage bonds."
That's actually what happened. How can this be made clearer to you? Banks did NOT want to loan money to people they felt could not reliably pay their bills, Barney Frank and ACORN called this racist/discriminitory. Amazingly, when banks were "forced to raise their standards" (of course blaming banks for forcing them to do something, then act like they were idiots for doing it!! - irony at it's finest)
One comment writer asks, "how do you have a constructive discussion (that could lead to a solution to a problem) with someone who reacts to everything emotionally and who does not care about evidence?"
From my perspective, one can't, unless one has several years of psychology/psychiatry under one's belt & has, as the authors say, a realization that many of these "views" (conservative thoughts), are indeed "feelings" & primal feelings at that.
Wait 'til your fellow debater is out of his/her "flight or flight" survival mode & try again tomorrow.
From my perspective, one can't, unless one has several years of psychology/psychiatry under one's belt & has, as the authors say, a realization that many of these "views" (conservative thoughts), are indeed "feelings" & primal feelings at that.
Wait 'til your fellow debater is out of his/her "flight or flight" survival mode & try again tomorrow.
Beatrice:
"One comment writer asks, 'how do you have a constructive discussion (that could lead to a solution to a problem) with someone who reacts to everything emotionally and who does not care about evidence?'
From my perspective, one can't..."
****
Perhaps it requires some empathy, an analysis of the individual's positions and a recognition of differing viewpoints, without the restrictions of partisan blinders.
In other words, it requires the mythical liberal routinely described in the NYT.
"One comment writer asks, 'how do you have a constructive discussion (that could lead to a solution to a problem) with someone who reacts to everything emotionally and who does not care about evidence?'
From my perspective, one can't..."
****
Perhaps it requires some empathy, an analysis of the individual's positions and a recognition of differing viewpoints, without the restrictions of partisan blinders.
In other words, it requires the mythical liberal routinely described in the NYT.
4
Here we go again. Upsetting the masses by quoting part of a very good study and leaving off important parts of it for some reason. To start out one of the studies actual name was "Liberals Think More Analytically (More “WEIRD”) Than Conservatives". Mr. Edsall left off the (more "weird") part of the name when he quoted it. For readers who stopped with the corrupted title, it reinforced their political views and possibly started some chest pounding. Do women pound their chest?
The main study by Lyengar was very thorough. It determined that racism actually played very little in the politcial split. It also showed via a detailed "Money game" that Republicans tend to share their money more with people they trust and Democrats with people who "kick" back money to them. My wording. It also found that so called Independents actuall have slight Democratic bias. It sounds impressive to say you are Independent. Read the actual study before just buying what someone, including me, tells you their intrerpetation of the results.
All studies have problems eliminating bias in their quesitons. I suspect this study was done in California due to the tie in to Stanford, it was not done across the US. How they found a Republican in California is beyond me. Lighten up and work toward a solution, don't keep dividing and polarizing the country as has been going on for 6 years now. Neither side is totally right or wrong.
Read Factcheck to get a pretty good rewiew of political statements.
The main study by Lyengar was very thorough. It determined that racism actually played very little in the politcial split. It also showed via a detailed "Money game" that Republicans tend to share their money more with people they trust and Democrats with people who "kick" back money to them. My wording. It also found that so called Independents actuall have slight Democratic bias. It sounds impressive to say you are Independent. Read the actual study before just buying what someone, including me, tells you their intrerpetation of the results.
All studies have problems eliminating bias in their quesitons. I suspect this study was done in California due to the tie in to Stanford, it was not done across the US. How they found a Republican in California is beyond me. Lighten up and work toward a solution, don't keep dividing and polarizing the country as has been going on for 6 years now. Neither side is totally right or wrong.
Read Factcheck to get a pretty good rewiew of political statements.
8
"How they found a Republican in California is beyond me."
Are there still Republicans in Orange County? Or in the San Diego area, where Darrell Issa comes from?
Are there still Republicans in Orange County? Or in the San Diego area, where Darrell Issa comes from?
Some elements of 21st century communications which I will oversimplify by calling out the blogosphere and social media contribute to polarization. Here are two examples and one is right on this page: Thumbs up if you recommend a comment. "Like us on Facebook". All of us are being asked to pick a side. And it is so easy to do, just like commenting on NYT content as I am here. The second example is the blackballed former equity analyst turned blogger who --it was reported-- provocatively called NYC's preparation for the non-blizzard evidence of NY being the "nanny state". This comment-- designed to provoke -- was picked up by others who like to provoke, and off we go to the point that the Internet give and take, so to speak, devolves to make snow removal a "liberal" activity. Provocation leads to reaction and reaction leads to more provocation and the result, of course, is polarization-- over snow removal.
1
Many engineers and businessmen are both analytical thinkers and conservatives. David and Charles Kolk, two of the most prominent conservatives in the country, are engineering graduates of MIT. Mitt Romney's business success is clearly due to good analytical thinking. Many conservatives I have known are skilled in analytical thinking, and I don't see where analytical thinking is a good indicator of political orientation. The differences seem to come in how people weigh different facts concerning society, how they think society should be ordered, and how they think the government should be run to give the best results. How they think particular government policies affect or will affect their well being also weighs heavily in people's thinking.
6
Well, engineering students have a way of hewing to the right. But the Koch (not Kolk) brothers are your idea of conservatives? They're reactionaries; they're part of a founding Bircher family.
Thinking poorly of people who disagree with each other is not new. It has always been the case. I think it has more to do with technological advances in the media. People think there are more kidnapping these days as a percentage of the population. There isn't, but it when it can trigger 24/7 coverage, people think it is so. In the same way, the media accentuates the differences between politicians and has little interest in when they work together. They have a vested interest in doing so and technology allows it.
1
I will raise two other factors I've not yet seen: 1. morals--yes, there are absolutes "right" and "wrong." (They were not the "10 Suggestions".) Yet--sorry, liberals--I see liberals much more willing to go against universal and timeless moral principles. 2. the idea of politics as "sport"--i.e., everyone wants to be on the winning side, no one wants to lose, instead of working for common solutions, and much more like the city council having to solve the issue of, say, a new sewer or water treatment plant or budgeting to repave a road. Often to win, to H-E-double hockey sticks with "facts and specific information on which informed decisions can be made. Lack of objective decision making for the greater and common good in exchnange for "winning." Obama is good case in point--came with an agenda and is not objectively making decisions for the greater and common good.
1
So the morality of a man who cheats on his ailing wife (Gingrich), or engages in the despicable act of sex tourism (Limbaugh), or finds it humorous to place his public hair on his employee's beverage (Clarence Thomas), or sends sexual emails to minors (Mark Foley), engages prostitutes (Vitter), or rails against homosexuality only to be arrested having sex in a men's room (Larry Craig) is "better" morally than Obama, whom a majority of voters determined --twice-- was making decisions for the greater good? Really?
6
It is clear that on an intellectual level you do not understand the Christian philosophy of "grace." Undoubtedly you consider yourself empathetic but you certainly do display any actual empathy.
I just learned about ranked choice voting (aka instant-runoff voting) and I find it an interesting idea. I have not fully investigated it, but as I understand it, voters rank all of the candidates (or as many as they want) on the ballot. Then, through a process of elimination - if my first choice doesn't make the cut, my second choice is counted ans so on until one candidate receives a majority of the votes - one of the candidates gets elected. Proponents claim that voters hear more about the actual issues and that negative campaigning is reduced/eliminated. Detractors claim that voters have to learn too much about the candidates stand on the issues.
If this works and gets combined with campaign finance reform (all candidates get federal funds in the same amount with no private funds allowed), maybe things could get better.
If this works and gets combined with campaign finance reform (all candidates get federal funds in the same amount with no private funds allowed), maybe things could get better.
1
There definitely needs to be a formal election process that educates the public about the policy stances of the candidates.
2
It wouldn't matter. You would also have to make the process mandatory or else the voters would ignore it just like they do all of the information available to them now from any number of sources.
The prospect of negotiating the social contract should draw more interest than it does. It sure has bigger implications than who wins the Superbowl.
The problem is excessive party attachment, the failure to look for the identification of problems and reasonable solutions by members of other parties. Party line voting is a symptom of excessive attachment.
2
the same story goes for the the new McCartyism of the US vs Russia,There is more in general also a growing personal felt hostility between states,races,religions etc.We a are heading for a dangerous future in a world overloaded with weapons.Fearsome!
Don't blame physicists, we only make nuclear bombs, politicians use them.
1
I believe that this phenomenon has two main causes.
1. The passing of time, so that few who remember The Great Depression personally. I recall many moderate conservative Republicans before the turn of the century who would simply have laughed at Fox News.
2. The evil empires of Fox News and the Koch Brothers, and the right-wing authors they support and engender. Just join the poll organization yougov.com and observe how many people call others "socialists." Many folk who use that word as a pejorative could not pass the simplest exam about the history and nature of socialism.
1. The passing of time, so that few who remember The Great Depression personally. I recall many moderate conservative Republicans before the turn of the century who would simply have laughed at Fox News.
2. The evil empires of Fox News and the Koch Brothers, and the right-wing authors they support and engender. Just join the poll organization yougov.com and observe how many people call others "socialists." Many folk who use that word as a pejorative could not pass the simplest exam about the history and nature of socialism.
7
Funny, I consider the evil empires of the New York Times editorial page and George Soros and all of the Democratic Party funders in Hollywood. I guess it depends on ones perspective. When you read an article like this and your conclusion is that the other side is evil, you're part of the problem.
3
Well Michael in Texas, I am not claiming to be objective, but I believe that a neutral observer might find your remarks to be less so. If you compare Koch and allies funding with the Democratic donors you mention, the ratio of dollars might be 10 to 1. I submit that is a real difference: that quantity matters. And all Democratic donations are not helpful either. I would prefer outlawing Citizens United, severely limiting campaign contributions, and adding to public funding of campaigns. Without candidates beholden to huge donors, who the candidates are might change significantly. The Kochs do nothing for freedom; their effect is to diminish influence of non-moneyed voters. And I submit that is evil. And also refer to my first point.
2
Hehe (Moral) Relativism cuts swinging in either direction it would appear :)
To the authors point, I found this transition especially pronounced in the late 60's and early 70's leaving me less able to carry on a non-emotional conversation with my progressive friends. During this period disagreements on theory, policy, and practice devolved into value judgments about me, and an assumption of lack of intelligence or worse, presence of evil on my part. Think for moment about how we went from "Anti-War" to "Pro-Ho".
Liberals may "share a propensity for analytic thinking and have a stronger preference for deep thought and a rejection of simple solutions" and "are more tolerant of ambiguity and uncertainty" with "less of a need for order, structure and closure" because to them there is never any objective truth. So everything must be analyzed, even the obvious.
Progressivism, as opposed to Classic Liberalism, runs counter to the independent self, and thinks only of the group. "People" has a far different meaning than "The People".
Liberals may "share a propensity for analytic thinking and have a stronger preference for deep thought and a rejection of simple solutions" and "are more tolerant of ambiguity and uncertainty" with "less of a need for order, structure and closure" because to them there is never any objective truth. So everything must be analyzed, even the obvious.
Progressivism, as opposed to Classic Liberalism, runs counter to the independent self, and thinks only of the group. "People" has a far different meaning than "The People".
3
What is new here? Burr and Hamilton went so far as a duel. Jefferson and Hamilton got very personal also. There never has been a period in our history without plenty of acrimony in Washington.
2
The skill part comes in making compromises. Even without the gifted Henry Clay, 40+ Presidents have found ways to make agreements with the other political side. Onky the most iconoclastically partisan don't even try and then choose to have their media stenographers blame the other party from Day One.
You can call that anything BUT leadership.
You can call that anything BUT leadership.
1
Here we can interact with you directly until you bore yourself to death.
The answer to the question is when Lee Atwater and his protege Carl Roves' political tacticsn were embraced by the republican party.
1
Yeah, it always works to blame the dead Atwater for what the current West Wing crowd has created. Say hi to your bloggers for us.
3
If people are not going to be helped when their problems are their own fault, then the help givers (whether government or private charities) will have to invade their privacy and humiliate them to find out if they get help with their problems or not.
To do this there must be a bureaucracy, appeals of decisions, possible scams of the bureaucracy and the bureaucracy's countermeasures against being scammed.
The alternative is to help everybody, make disability, pensions, health care available to all, and increase taxes on those who are doing well and do not need the help. We give the help out in services and take it back in the sorts of taxes that hit those who could have paid for the services themselves. This is much simpler and does not involve determining whose fault one's misfortunes are, just what taxes one owes. It maximizes individual freedom and dignity and minimizes government snooping.
To do this there must be a bureaucracy, appeals of decisions, possible scams of the bureaucracy and the bureaucracy's countermeasures against being scammed.
The alternative is to help everybody, make disability, pensions, health care available to all, and increase taxes on those who are doing well and do not need the help. We give the help out in services and take it back in the sorts of taxes that hit those who could have paid for the services themselves. This is much simpler and does not involve determining whose fault one's misfortunes are, just what taxes one owes. It maximizes individual freedom and dignity and minimizes government snooping.
2
It's no secret that Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, et.al. have gotten wealthy and big ratings via their business model of fear, hate and bigotry. And their viewers/listeners fall prey to this type of vitriol, regardless of truth or accuracy, because these irresponsible concscience-free, alleged journalists and entertainers have no problem whatsoever broadcasting whatever they think will garner the highest ratings, regardless of the detriment to this country and its citizens. At least, most of what is broadcast by MSNBC can be verified with the facts.
Lets not overlook the fact that most of the time when the masses believe a politician to be a wack job, he/she is a republican. I would love for somebody to provide me with a list of democrats that compare. Who is the democrats' version of Louis Gohmert, Ted Cruz, Michelle Bachmann, Joni Ernst, MIke Huckabee, Newt Gingrich, Karl Rove, Rand Paul, Sharon Angle, David Vitter, Larry Craig, and all the rest of the Insane Clown Posse. Other than Anthony Weiner, the Democrats are comprised of a pretty solid bunch of characters.
Lets not overlook the fact that most of the time when the masses believe a politician to be a wack job, he/she is a republican. I would love for somebody to provide me with a list of democrats that compare. Who is the democrats' version of Louis Gohmert, Ted Cruz, Michelle Bachmann, Joni Ernst, MIke Huckabee, Newt Gingrich, Karl Rove, Rand Paul, Sharon Angle, David Vitter, Larry Craig, and all the rest of the Insane Clown Posse. Other than Anthony Weiner, the Democrats are comprised of a pretty solid bunch of characters.
9
Like Sheldon Silver?
"It's no secret that Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, et.al. have gotten wealthy and big ratings via their business model of fear, hate and bigotry. "
The only reason Rush Limbaugh, Fox News (and that's really it, when you think about it) became incredibly wealthy & popular among (us) right wingers... is that for about 50 years (our) conservative & anarchocapitalist ideas were simply not tolerated, nor reported by the "big 3" networks. William F Buckley became famous, as a center/right-winger (milquetoast by today's standards) because he was pretty much the ONLY one you would find on a TV!
You cannot shut down an ideology -- no matter how biased you are towards it, no matter how 'bad' you think it is -- by ignoring & repressing it. Think Bolsheviks/Communists. They patiently waited from about the mid 1840s, for almost *70* years, supressed, beaten, killed, jailed...for their chance. Baby-Boomers and Generation X-ers (some of us) can finally support the right wing news, because it's finally available. As a 35 year old man, I can vividly recall "how things used to be" back in the early 90's. NBC, ABC, CBS. Dan Rather taken as a "non-partisan". I mean it was ridiculous, everybody knew it, but there was no other alternative. No internet, and even cable TV didn't have anything like FOX. Until it did.
The only reason Rush Limbaugh, Fox News (and that's really it, when you think about it) became incredibly wealthy & popular among (us) right wingers... is that for about 50 years (our) conservative & anarchocapitalist ideas were simply not tolerated, nor reported by the "big 3" networks. William F Buckley became famous, as a center/right-winger (milquetoast by today's standards) because he was pretty much the ONLY one you would find on a TV!
You cannot shut down an ideology -- no matter how biased you are towards it, no matter how 'bad' you think it is -- by ignoring & repressing it. Think Bolsheviks/Communists. They patiently waited from about the mid 1840s, for almost *70* years, supressed, beaten, killed, jailed...for their chance. Baby-Boomers and Generation X-ers (some of us) can finally support the right wing news, because it's finally available. As a 35 year old man, I can vividly recall "how things used to be" back in the early 90's. NBC, ABC, CBS. Dan Rather taken as a "non-partisan". I mean it was ridiculous, everybody knew it, but there was no other alternative. No internet, and even cable TV didn't have anything like FOX. Until it did.
Richard has named 11 Republicans; Weiner Silver = 2. Your other 9, Anne B?
Why are we stuck in linearland ? Because everything is either right or left! Just look, or just think. There are two political parties because there are really only only two choices about anything.
There two kinds of people in the world: people who think there are two kinds of people in the world and people who don't.
Linearland is simple! Linearland is fun! Step to the left or the right. There– you're done.
There two kinds of people in the world: people who think there are two kinds of people in the world and people who don't.
Linearland is simple! Linearland is fun! Step to the left or the right. There– you're done.
1
I'm always annoyed when I hear that something presents both sides of an issue. Especially if it's a school resource. Can anyone explain to me why there can never be more than two sides to any issue?
I've never seen an issue where there are only two sides.
1
I agree with you, Steve, but this "both sides" idea is so common that someone must believe there are only two sides. And that's exactly what teaching materials teach the young when they offer "both sides" of an issue. So come on, somebody, tell us why there are only two sides and no more.
People are wise to consider politics before marrying. Politics reflect our basic values and matter a great deal, especially in raising children. Today's political atmosphere has been so poisoned by Fox News and (largely) Republican men who scorn the values of their (largely) Democratic wives that successful mixed marriages are rare, and peaceful ones rarer still. Yes, there are Mary Matalin and James Carvilles who love political battles like a kind of sport, but most mixed marriages are troubled when mom and dad have a hard time talking about issues of the day with growing and curious children. If mom is a Democrat (which women tend more to be) her views are drowned out by Fox News, and ever more disrespectful dads who have been taught by Fox to interrupt her, laugh, and shout her down. Most women just don't speak to avoid conflict. It is distressing for children to try to speak up in these marriages, too. Teenage daughters are in tears arguing that free contraception should be part of basic health insurance for the poor. Teenage sons are suicidal because of the damning of their dads. And children who think the wealthy have a moral duty to pay back society for their success are accused by their dads of advocating "stealing."
Being a Democrat married to a Republican is extremely hard these days when it comes to having a voice, a sanctuary from conflict, and a respectful partner with whom to raise children.
Being a Democrat married to a Republican is extremely hard these days when it comes to having a voice, a sanctuary from conflict, and a respectful partner with whom to raise children.
7
The Republican/Democrat war in this house hold has been recently settled.
The Democrat has realized what a disaster that voting for the slogan "hope and change" has led to an administration of incompetence and deception.
Two things about this realization that have surprised me: 1) How long it has taken for the penny to drop. And, 2) how thorough the disgust and and dismay has been.
The Democrat has realized what a disaster that voting for the slogan "hope and change" has led to an administration of incompetence and deception.
Two things about this realization that have surprised me: 1) How long it has taken for the penny to drop. And, 2) how thorough the disgust and and dismay has been.
5
I wonder how the tenor and content of many replies to Times articles would change if the NYT required full names from commenters?
2
Rex Staples. I stand my the tenor and content of my post. The theory of "primal politics" explains much, and the loss of engagement by public intellectuals to help define the boundaries of what "conservative" and "liberal" has significantly contributed to both apathy and blind allegiance by the electorate.
1
So liberals and conservatives can't stand each other because liberals are smart and conservatives are dumb. An outstanding conclusion and one that will undoubtedly lead to many election victories.
4
One is left to wonder how (we) dimwitted conservatives manage to even vote, much less win elections. I mean, all the drool we (apparently) spill onto the ballot -- just by itself.
Just think; we get any "dumber" and Democrats will be in a permanent minority status ;)
Just think; we get any "dumber" and Democrats will be in a permanent minority status ;)
I wonder if, as a general proposition, our elected representatives are exploiting the electorates' "primal" traits or if they actually possess these traits themselves? In either case, "primal politics" is well on its way to capturing the check on legislative excess, the Supreme Court. Comparing the Warren Court to the Roberts Court is instructive re; political influence on SCOTUS decisions regarding politics and advocacy of Constitutional rights. The decisions of the SCOTUS are often the only intellectual considerations of any given issue. Given the lack of intellectual leadership to define both the left and the right, is it any wonder that we have "gone primal"? As Walt Kelly said, "We have met the enemy, and he is us".
So hippies are more "analytic" and conservatives are more "holistic"? This is bizarre if true, since hippies generally worship at the shrine of the holistic (aka "right brain"), and conservatives have long claimed that the problem with hippies and liberals in general is pursuing emotional goals rather than reasoned ("left brain") ones. When hippies claim to be holistic, and conservatives claim to be the guardians of reason, is each claiming as its ideal the region of its weakness rather than its strength?
Also, a large proportion of engineers today are libertarian-conservatives. Liberals do not seem to be predominant there, although they exist.
Also, a large proportion of engineers today are libertarian-conservatives. Liberals do not seem to be predominant there, although they exist.
4
I don't worship anything. That's why I have no beliefs to die for.
And, it would appear, none to live for either.
But isn't that really at the core of the argument(s)?
But isn't that really at the core of the argument(s)?
2
You provide companionship here, TheOwl. We can be like two bums waiting for Godot.
Robert Bork was a friend of my father's. I still remember Judge Bork's visit to the house in Evanston in 1959.
My how times have changed.
My how times have changed.
1
Leftist college students would shout him down in any public appearance these days, or even verbally confront him while walking to a college class like NYU geniuses did to Petraeus last year.
The treatment of Judge Bork showed Americans just how depravedly partisan Ted Kennedy and friends could be in order to score a political victory.
The treatment of Judge Bork showed Americans just how depravedly partisan Ted Kennedy and friends could be in order to score a political victory.
2
If I were to see Judge Bork again, I would ask him if he understood at the time that he was being used as a stalking horse for an end run around the Roe v. Wade ruling. He is an educated man. I would like to have his perspective on the events.
2
Politics has always been personal. It is about egos forcing their will on everybody else. Anyone or thing that opposes them must be destroyed. If politicians cared, at least some good things could happen.
The most polarizing issue for me is the use of one's personal religious beliefs in a righteous way. Tis attitude has been mixed with politics in the most offensive way.
2
The comments here are a perfect example of the result of Republican's efforts over the past 20-30 years: distraction for the net gain. They've successfully used envy ("freeloaders"/welfare recipients are stealing your tax dollars, health care is for freeloaders, immigrants are stealing our jobs) and social issues (abortion, gay marriage, prayer in schools) to manipulate us away from their grand theft of taking from the poor to give to the rich, all right in front of our open eyes.
10
Just the other day, a young (white, affluent, from Atlanta) woman two years out of college mentioned for one reason or another that she hated taking Atlanta's MARTA rail system. I said that compared to other cities, Atlanta's mass transit is really underdeveloped and that it is a source of contention every year between conservatives and liberals. Her response was off topic in my opinion but quite telling. She said she hated taking the train because 'ATL airport employees' use it. Her disgust was palpable. Airports hire many people for low wage jobs. Many of these people are poor. Many poor people in Atlanta are black. It isn't a stretch to realize that she doesn't like poor people or black people. I can't express enough how friendly and nice this young woman appeared to me before she made this comment. This is what is so disturbing about the conservative mindset.
8
I have both Democratic and Republican friends online, and it's fascinating to see current events through such different lenses.
Sometimes it's also a little scary.
Sometimes it's also a little scary.
3
Of course, when the camera pulls back to include the rest of the advanced world, the irony is that every political offering in the United States is right of center. Even Bernie Sanders could be a moderate conservative in the House of Commons. If the mutual antagonism is indeed "tribal" it is two tribes with pretty much the same rule book. One is arguably ruder and not as smart as the other.
4
The partisanship has helped one group, the very wealthy. Gridlock has exacerbated the wealth gap and the ability of the public to rectify it. Money as free speech has allowed a limited group of people to engage in polemics that cut out open discussion. The country's legislatures are controlled by money and open discussion is thwarted and often demonized. The US Congress is the best legislature that money can buy. The US presidency will cost billions in campaign money to buy the office. Two political dynasties are the only two who have a chance, the Bush's and the Clinton's. Clearly new parties need to be formed.
7
"Republican and Democratic leaders are struggling to moderate their parties’ most extreme ideological positioning." Will someone point out to me who these extremists on the left are that keep drawing the "equivalence" idea pundits seem so enamored with? When has the Democratic Party ever been as enthralled with the extreme "liberal wing" as Republicans are now with the tea party?
As these graphs show, republicans are 10% points more likely to think ill of democrats as the opposite. The boundless idealism of liberal thought has never had the sway that the failed notion of "supply side" conservatism has had.
Only the fringe of the gun control advocates ever had the intensity of the nra's absolutism regarding firearms. And that view is now the mainstream of republican philosophy on the subject.
I, personally, think modern conservatism is bad for the Nation because I have watched for 45 years as it has made a hash of the American Way of Life. Unfunded wars, unpaid for tax breaks, subsidies for the already successful, austerity for the rest of us are just a few of the by-products of modern American conservatism.
As these graphs show, republicans are 10% points more likely to think ill of democrats as the opposite. The boundless idealism of liberal thought has never had the sway that the failed notion of "supply side" conservatism has had.
Only the fringe of the gun control advocates ever had the intensity of the nra's absolutism regarding firearms. And that view is now the mainstream of republican philosophy on the subject.
I, personally, think modern conservatism is bad for the Nation because I have watched for 45 years as it has made a hash of the American Way of Life. Unfunded wars, unpaid for tax breaks, subsidies for the already successful, austerity for the rest of us are just a few of the by-products of modern American conservatism.
18
Anyone clamoring for Elizabeth Warren so far pretty much defines rabid liberal thinking, if you really want to know. Anyone who sees the current socialist-redistributionist-in-chief as too far to the Right shows you who is ''most extreme'' on the Left. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
The one thing Bob doesn't get to complain about is the other party overspending when it was Mr. Obama that gave away so much stuff to lock in the 2012 election results that the debt shot up $4.1 billion A DAY his first year.
The one thing Bob doesn't get to complain about is the other party overspending when it was Mr. Obama that gave away so much stuff to lock in the 2012 election results that the debt shot up $4.1 billion A DAY his first year.
3
Anyone who thinks a single politician will make any difference is a fool.
Abraham Lincoln.
Thomas Jefferson and his ''Revolution of 1800.''
Gen'l Washington, even.
Ronald Reagan, if we are talking employment.
And, for the worse, Jackson, Nixon, and economically, LBJ, who may have set off our eventual financial collapse, for all his good works.
Thomas Jefferson and his ''Revolution of 1800.''
Gen'l Washington, even.
Ronald Reagan, if we are talking employment.
And, for the worse, Jackson, Nixon, and economically, LBJ, who may have set off our eventual financial collapse, for all his good works.
No information here about the most significant trend. More Americans disdain both major parties and wouldn't want their kid marrying a partisan Dem. or Rep. This hardly surprises. One need not be a strident extremist to note that both parties have become beholden to business interests that are not those of the constituents, and in doing so have pulled in their wake followers who share those values. I'd like to see a survey of how many Americans would want their kid marrying an independent who can cross party lines as the issue merits and is disgusted with political grandstanding and gridlock. Count me in.
3
The GOP has practiced exclusionary policies and exclusionary personal attacks since their inception. They have just become bold enough to do it constantly at the highest levels of government, because of the PC nature of our current 4th estate...who weigh the ravings of mad men (and women....we don't want to forget our little Alaskan teeny bopper) against scientific theories and mathematical models. Appealing to the masses, has now come down to appealing to the masses lowest instincts of selfishness, isolation and hatred. Bias?.....who cares about a little bias (like police shootings of unarmed black teenagers) when you can engender massive country-wide bias with a little daytime talk show that carries on endlessly about how imperfect government is...and how perfect the GOP positions are on everything from guns to butter?
8
Jim,
you will see actual debate on abortion, immigration, and gay marriage among Republicans and Libertarians. Thy are the ones practicing diversity.
You can never see those things debated among Democrats in any public setting now, and you know that! Those cute blinders are truly becoming to you, however.
you will see actual debate on abortion, immigration, and gay marriage among Republicans and Libertarians. Thy are the ones practicing diversity.
You can never see those things debated among Democrats in any public setting now, and you know that! Those cute blinders are truly becoming to you, however.
2
Some things are just no-brainers.
All you have to do is think about the words that are now used as pejoratives: liberal, elite, intellectual, Harvard, Yale. It's astounding that some of the things we held in the highest regard are now considered disgusting by somewhere just south of half the country.
11
I am convinced that the increasing enmity members of the opposing parties feel toward one another is a result of a surge in “confirmation bias” caused by new media. Confirmation bias causes people to stop processing new information unless it agrees with their pre-existing opinions (preaching to the choir). We were once forced to watch Walter Cronkite every night, who gave us a more or less balanced view. Expanded “news” and on-line media encourages us to indulge our confirmation bias (i.e., Fox News or MSNBC). Because the world is more complex and we are expected to have an opinion on everything, we check each night with Bill O’Reilly or Jon Stewart who provide a “narrative summary” of what the opinion is among our respective tribe. Ferguson is a perfect example of how people in opposing tribes made up their mind before any of the evidence was released.
7
Walter Cronkite? My parents watched Huntley and Brinkley. And somebody must have watched whoever it was on ABC.
Good night, Chet.
Good night, David.
And good night for NBC News.
Good night, Chet.
Good night, David.
And good night for NBC News.
2
The parties were not always so polarized. In the middle decades of the last century, there was considerable overlap in party positions, and polls showed significant support for both parties across the socio-economic spectrum. Outside the South, regional preferences were also less pronounced than they are today.
Increased polarization was a result of changes in society and of deliberate Republican strategy. The 60's cultural revolution created or revealed fissures in moral and lifestyle attitudes. The Civil Rights movement altered or at least threatened the fabric of Southern society and expanded the electorate. Republican strategists made a concerted effort to define their party as conservative and the Democrats as liberal. Wealthy conservatives built a network of think tanks, media personalities, media and other institutions that supported and deeply influenced the Republican party.
As a result, the Solid [white] South flipped from D to R. African-Americans left the party of Lincoln for the party of Roosevelt and the Kennedys. Northeasterners switched from the party-of-business to the party-of-the-middle-class. Like many converts, some of them came to scorn the party they had left and the people in it.
Ultimately, however, the essential development was the deliberate choice of the Republicans to emphasize promote polarization and to demonize Democrats. It is no surprise that the polls cited here show that party bias is stronger among Republicans.
Increased polarization was a result of changes in society and of deliberate Republican strategy. The 60's cultural revolution created or revealed fissures in moral and lifestyle attitudes. The Civil Rights movement altered or at least threatened the fabric of Southern society and expanded the electorate. Republican strategists made a concerted effort to define their party as conservative and the Democrats as liberal. Wealthy conservatives built a network of think tanks, media personalities, media and other institutions that supported and deeply influenced the Republican party.
As a result, the Solid [white] South flipped from D to R. African-Americans left the party of Lincoln for the party of Roosevelt and the Kennedys. Northeasterners switched from the party-of-business to the party-of-the-middle-class. Like many converts, some of them came to scorn the party they had left and the people in it.
Ultimately, however, the essential development was the deliberate choice of the Republicans to emphasize promote polarization and to demonize Democrats. It is no surprise that the polls cited here show that party bias is stronger among Republicans.
4
I would like to suggest one more (smaller) explanation for escalating hostility toward members of the opposing political party. We live in a hyper-sensitive world, a society drenched in the ideologies of multiculturalism and diversity, in which any hint of criticism or displeasure with someone can lead to being labeled a bigot. There are so many "isms" to be guilty of. In the words of the satirical writer Florence King, "Who is left to hate?" King sees the smoker as the modern day pariah. It is socially acceptable to disdain smokers, who are forced to perform their "sinful" behavior away from righteous folk. I would add Republicans and Democrats as one of the few remaining groups that are "safe" to look down upon.
Not to mention Roman Catholics, evangelical Protestants, and theists in general.
The "in group/out group" line is telling, as is the evocation of primal needs being frustrated. In many ways I think our current polarization is partly due to three structural factors: 1) The majority-minority trend. Although red staters fall all over themselves in insisting their animus is directed at liberals, it would be more honest to admit they are afraid of people who do not look like them and that fear breeds anger. 2) Instantaneous, real-time communications available to everyone for little cost. For some people, perceiving the world as a smaller place -- where everyone is "reachable" on some level -- is threatening. 3) Population growth. The world's population has doubled in my lifetime, from 3.5 billion in the early 1960s to over 7 billion now; US population has doubled at a slightly slower rate. The effects of that kind of growth are profound, pervasive and destabilizing, and some folks (like those who prefer to live in an underpopulated environment in particular) will feel threatened by that and react out of fear.
In some ways, the US Constitution's protection of minority rights has been manipulated to the point where relatively small minorities are continuously thwarting the will of the majority. But the Constitution, as always, will guide us through this period of change as it always has. We are blessed and we should never forget that.
In some ways, the US Constitution's protection of minority rights has been manipulated to the point where relatively small minorities are continuously thwarting the will of the majority. But the Constitution, as always, will guide us through this period of change as it always has. We are blessed and we should never forget that.
2
“In some ways, the US Constitution's protection of minority rights has been manipulated to the point where relatively small minorities are continuously thwarting the will of the majority.”
Do you mean those minorities who support gun rights, civil rights, womens' rights, religious rights, your right to vote, your individual right of free speech and assembly, press freedoms, etc.?
The Constitution is not about the majority rules nor minority rules. It’s about justice for all.
Do you mean those minorities who support gun rights, civil rights, womens' rights, religious rights, your right to vote, your individual right of free speech and assembly, press freedoms, etc.?
The Constitution is not about the majority rules nor minority rules. It’s about justice for all.
3
This whole system is a scale independent system of contracts, with a give for every get. You don't get to keep guns if you are not sufficiently self disciplined to obey orders in a civilian militia.
One reason for the extreme resentment on the Right, is that Reagan promised a free lunch. By a hokey economic theory, taxes could be cut without sacrifices. You could keep all of your paycheck! Since the darned theory refused to work, it has been necessary to twist reality. "If the data don't fit the theory, ignore the data."
6
"Tax cuts are free money" is the biggest lie in the Republican playbook.
4
Since the Republicans are against free money, at least explicitly, "tax cuts are free money" shouldn't be in their playbook. They have other rationales to support tax cuts for the rich, such as "tax cuts let you keep what you've earned."
Public spending also adds to the income of the rich, directly and indirectly, so some wealthy people feel that paying tax is just giving the money back to the government.
I think we would all do better to adhere to the manners of earlier times when it was impolite to force discussions of religion or politics. There are so many more areas of possible connection between people. I am a Bernie Sanders/Elizabeth Warren Democrat and one of my best friends is Fox News Republican. We agreed early on not to discuss politics. We couldn't be more different in so many ways, but we have formed a close friendship base on our similarities. Conversely, I dated a man (briefly) who was a self-proclaimed black and white conservative who would not adhere to a no political discussions agreement. He insisted on haranguing me at length with right-wing conspiracy theories, etc., while I sat silently. I refuse to argue about politics with anyone. You can only bridge the gap if both parties are willing to set aside ideology for the sake of making a human connection based areas of commonality. It is possible and it does require mutual respect at a deeper level.
3
It would be very helpful if all these religious discussions were moot because nobody can enact tenets of any religion into US law.
3
I couldn't agree more with your comment. I don't know if I completely agree with the findings of some of the studies cited in this article, but I have felt an increasingly partisan atmosphere in our society that is reflected in the polling data presented. I feel myself becoming more liberal as the Republicans seem to be becoming more conservative, but I will not give in to the us vs. them mentality of many of the "top recommended" comments on this article. I'm from the South, where 95% of my immediate and extended family still live, and many friends and family members are socially and politically conservative. Many of them are smart, loving, generous people, and by ignoring their humanity, their rights to opinions wildly different from my own, would negate the whole point of our democracy. We need this spectrum of ideas, and we need people in our lives and society who see the world differently than ourselves (this is a tenant of liberalism after all!) - without that, no new ideas, no creativity, no balance.
6
I understand that the author has to be careful to be objective, but I don't see an equivalence here. People have always had disagreements, it is the degree of animosity that as changed and it started getting worse during the Reagan administration, specifically with Lee Atwater. Then it ratcheted up during the Clinton administration with the impeachment trials and then escalated beyond all reason when the first black President was elected. I see the hate and radicalism coming from the right. Even mainstream republicans are trying to figure out how to keep from being dragged down by them.
7
I am amazed that Newt Gingrich hasn't been laughed out of politics for cheating on his former wife with his present wife while impeaching Clinton.
Giving respect to the likes of Gingrich makes people angry.
Giving respect to the likes of Gingrich makes people angry.
4
Edsall's unspoken premise is: Liberal and conservative beliefs are equal! He doesn't need to examine the correctness of any belief to use this premise for his examination. I believe liberal beliefs are correct, have helping one another as their foundation, and see that a good life for you helps me have a good life as well.Conservatives are narcissistic and live in their fantasy world of conservative "shoulds". Liberal beliefs are BETTER!
6
I don't think Mr. Edsall understands that "belief" is not an objective of liberals. Improvement of our working hypotheses is.
How about "convictions"?
1
I think you want condemnations.
One fact left unmentioned in this article is the degree to which the Republican Party actively encouraged this tribalism to gain traction with voters. Does anyone remember Lee Atwater who made politics all about divisive social issues and deliberately did so in order that Republicans wouldn't have to discuss the real issues? Or the degree to which Richard Nixon appealed to the "Silent Majority"?
13
Right. I have no problem with same sex, cross religious, or even living without marriage. But, if one of my kids had a relationship with a Republican, in the USA of 2015, I'd be pretty unhappy about it.
7
It got personal IMO when the various factions decided that it was better to make no deal, than half a deal. If your party is more content with sitting in their castle behind their moats and walls instead of lowering the draw bridge, then the only thing left is war. And, war in politics is very personal and very ugly.
1
I would date the beginning of the religious war in the US to the Roe v. wade decision on abortion. What do you think?
1
The conservative movement has built itself around preaching hate of liberals. Liberals resent a movement that demonizes them.
12
Liberals resent the cooption of the word "liberty" by authoritarians.
4
Doesn't everyone resent any movement that demonizes them?
Read the comments. Who is routinely being demonized?
Scientists agree that our species is about to experience a massive reduction in population either from global warming disasters or nuclear weapons fired in anger or error. The oligarchs are feathering their nests in hopes of surviving the approaching massive die-off in relative comfort. The white supremacy capitalists are hoping to survive the collapse and start over with a downsized world population. Their leveraged buyout of the government and the media nearly ensures their success.
3
The only way to change things is to talk with each other. Nothing changes if we only talk to those we agree with. We all have one thing in common - we are all human beings and we all came from exactly the same place. The vast majority of us want to have enough to live relatively well and peacefully in the societies we inhabit. It is only insatiable greed for power by a tiny minority in the world that destroy civilization. Those of us who value civilization must wrest control from them before they start WWIII.
3
This is so true. I have been exerting great effort at communicating with my very "Conservative" brother. It is difficult most of the time as he sends his "Exhibit A's" from Newsmax and I send articles from the Times......he may not read the articles I send as I rarely can stomach more that a paragraph or two from his sources.
He always wants "to agree to disagree" but that leaves us little to discuss. His Christianity is vastly different from mine because it has taken on tones from, and has been severely reshaped by, his politics. The discussions most fruitful, and jointly satisfying, revolve around our faith Again and again, I have found Scriptures to back up and prove my views on caring for the poor, etc.
He always wants "to agree to disagree" but that leaves us little to discuss. His Christianity is vastly different from mine because it has taken on tones from, and has been severely reshaped by, his politics. The discussions most fruitful, and jointly satisfying, revolve around our faith Again and again, I have found Scriptures to back up and prove my views on caring for the poor, etc.
I think A(as opposed to THE) factor is that nowadays there are actual tangible differences that matter between the two parties.
It used to be(pre-Clinton administration) that people would complain that there wasn't really that much difference between parties. In the Reagan administration, for example, differences between the president and speaker of the house would resolve their differences over a beer.
Nowadays you have two parties with radically different views on a variety of topics and the impact that these parties have is much more tangible. This makes it much more personal.
It used to be(pre-Clinton administration) that people would complain that there wasn't really that much difference between parties. In the Reagan administration, for example, differences between the president and speaker of the house would resolve their differences over a beer.
Nowadays you have two parties with radically different views on a variety of topics and the impact that these parties have is much more tangible. This makes it much more personal.
2
These comments sure do a great job of illustrating the findings of this article!
6
Iyengar's hypothesis regarding societal homogeneity and residential isolation being a reason for greater hostility between groups is clearly not a great explanation. Here in Utah, liberals and Democrats by necessity, are constantly in the midst of the most conservative Mormon Republicans at work and in the community. Yet I daresay the level of mistrust and outright contempt for the other group is higher here than in any other state I have lived in the United States. Sometimes familiarity breeds contempt, not the other way around.
4
I certainly know what you mean. I grew up with a not-very-nice, conservative Republican father, and I followed suit for a while. Then, I gave it some careful thought and realized that I had been so wrong, voting against the true interests of my country and myself. I'm a center-left Independent, now, paying attention to each and every candidate, and NOT behaving or thinking like my selfish father.
6
It's not easy to keep a total fairy tale going when there are a lot of very talented skeptics of it.
1
The social psychology of influence from Robert Cialdini's many books has, I believe, risen to the status of the biblical foundation for the marketing of voter allegiance. Cialdini's '84 book, "The New Psychology of Modern Persuasion" and his six principles of persuasion represent the mantra of the modern conservative quest for absolute power. I don't think the why of anger and tribal actions is a rocket science issue, it's a science thing, and not so good for our republic, our hard-to-find-anymore national morality, or our future as a united nation of people.
Thanks for reading my comments.
Thanks for reading my comments.
3
The presence of people who can be persuaded with promises of a better life after death really throw a curveball into these discussions.
Hi, Steve, I'm sorry, I don't understand how Cialdini's work led to the "life after death" comment. Cialdini's work on influence and persuasion is a mandatory read in sociology courses and involves a psychosociological perspective on how influence works in several areas of our human experience. I don't remember reading much about spiritual or medical anecdotes or examples of life after death. Would you mind explaining your statement, please? Thanks.
2
As a big fan of Haidt's "The Righteous Mind", and as a lifelong rural person who 'went away' for a Master's degree and then returned with new experiences and perspectives, much of my work now includes trying to find ways to bridge increasing polarized people. While people often operate out of completely different epistemologies, there are cores of commonality beneath the layers of partisan rhetoric. One of the big obstacles, and one not covered in this article, is the role of sectarian media plays in all of this. For example, the only cable provider in our town doesn't even carry MSNBC. Cable news is either "liberal" CNN or "normal" FOX news. My wife, who was teaching a current events class and did not allow opinion from FOX to be used as credible sources (she said the same about MSNBC opinion) was threatened by a parent who came to our house and called her a communist, among other things. The rise of sectarian media, and the ability to only hear what you want to hear, is a huge contributing factor to increasing polarization. There is such a thing as "prevailing wisdom" or "communal sense" and especially in smaller, more homogenous communities, you counter this "culture" at your own social peril. One should not be surprised that the "sense" of a community takes the same shape as the information being fed into it.
64
And yet those very same closed rural communities will often show great generosity and caring for the unfortunate who live among them. I grew up in one of those small rural communities - 19 in my highschool graduating class. I did a mental check. Of those 19 families, 17 of the fathers were self employed, one worked for a salary and one I could not account for. What percentage of people living in the city are self employed? Being self employed is a concept that city folks can hardly identify with and it makes a big difference on how you view the world.
Subsistence farming is self employment. But it isn't practical in big cities.
1
How does almost total self-employment support your thesis of "great generosity and caring for the unfortunate who live among them"? That sounds like a plain ol' "I'll get mine, stay out of my way" lifestyle to my ears (and my grandparents were farmers).
The 2010 results make sense. If my kid marries a conservative, that person likely has fewer tattoos and better job prospects than a liberal. And will be less insufferable at Thanksgiving.
4
I still don't understand how the Democrats flunked the turnout contest so badly in a census year election.
With this ugly phenomena we have to start somewhere to make it more beautiful. The best way to start is to have one group think only about what they like about the policies of the other group. Maybe we should get a Tony Robbins type guy to go to the Senate and have them do this exercise. They certainly have the time because these folks, the vast majority of them, are the laziest people I've ever seen.
1
It started like this:
Republican: "I'm opposed to Mr. Obama's monetary policy."
Democrat: "You're a racist!!!!!"
R: "I'm concerned about the solvency of the Social Security system."
D: "You want old people to die in the streets!!!!!"
R: "I believe the welfare state has created perverse incentives toward dependency"
D: "You hate poor people!!!!!"
Eventually, we Republicans had enough and started flinging poo back at you. Now you write hand-wringing articles about how politics has gotten mean and personal. Well, get used to it because we're just getting started.
Republican: "I'm opposed to Mr. Obama's monetary policy."
Democrat: "You're a racist!!!!!"
R: "I'm concerned about the solvency of the Social Security system."
D: "You want old people to die in the streets!!!!!"
R: "I believe the welfare state has created perverse incentives toward dependency"
D: "You hate poor people!!!!!"
Eventually, we Republicans had enough and started flinging poo back at you. Now you write hand-wringing articles about how politics has gotten mean and personal. Well, get used to it because we're just getting started.
5
No, it started 35 years ago with Lee Atwater and then Rush Limbaugh completely demonizing the "opposition" and using incendiary tactics to inflame their feeble-minded sheep -- and it worked. So conservatives continued to pile on the invective, most of which had no basis in reality. Liberal became a dirty word, and liberals were deemed unpatriotic because they wouldn't follow selfish and restrictive Republican economic and social policies to the letter. It's amazing how many conservatives want to wipe away 35 years of constant denigration and attacks by the right against liberals and pretend like it all started 6 years ago when Obama was elected. Talk about selective memory -- and very bad history. Your post demonstrates not any certain grasp of reality, but just how easy it has been for the likes of Atwater, Limbaugh, and FOXNews to rope in another sucker.
3
Ample rebuttals to the "deficit hawks" were made during the Great Recession (read Prof. K's columns). Republicans like Ron Paul DID suggest that poor people get medical help -- but through random handouts that the Haves might dole out if they were so moved. Social Security solvency was a topic for discussion -- except Republicans would never talk about raising the limit of income subject to the tax (consider the reception of Bernie Sanders' plan).
Unfortunately, Republicans as a political party do not show compassion for the poor -- cuts in assistance programs for heating oil, for example, will result in people dying of the cold (yes, it happens). They had a candidate who labeled 47% of Americans (47%!) "takers". And the revolting comments about the President and his family, the unprecedented rudeness of a SC representative at a SOTU address, the obsession of "birthers" cannot be denied: Racism is at the heart of right-wing disdain of this President.
So the incivility of the Limbaughs, the Fox Network, the lesser lights of screed, and the politicians owned by the Kochs is not enough for you? Stop, please, and think of the karma you are creating for yourself.
Unfortunately, Republicans as a political party do not show compassion for the poor -- cuts in assistance programs for heating oil, for example, will result in people dying of the cold (yes, it happens). They had a candidate who labeled 47% of Americans (47%!) "takers". And the revolting comments about the President and his family, the unprecedented rudeness of a SC representative at a SOTU address, the obsession of "birthers" cannot be denied: Racism is at the heart of right-wing disdain of this President.
So the incivility of the Limbaughs, the Fox Network, the lesser lights of screed, and the politicians owned by the Kochs is not enough for you? Stop, please, and think of the karma you are creating for yourself.
2
You've shown your own bias in your comment: it's highly doubtful that most people criticizing Obama even understand what monetary policy is (which is more a function of the Federal Reserve than the President's milieu), which is why the protests 1) against the policy and 2) calling it "Obama's" are dubious at best.
Can you really listen to Limbaugh, Erickson, and (formerly) Breitbart and say that the incendiary comments solely come from Democrats? You harm your credibility by ignoring those rabblerousers, who were "flinging poo" long before Obama entered politics.
Can you really listen to Limbaugh, Erickson, and (formerly) Breitbart and say that the incendiary comments solely come from Democrats? You harm your credibility by ignoring those rabblerousers, who were "flinging poo" long before Obama entered politics.
1
This is the most important discussion we Americans can have. It is wonderful, baffling, stimulating. We should go on and on. How?
Yesterday we breakfasted at a local restaurant. Our table just below a TV airing FOX News. I love the food, I love the waitress, I love the owner. But still, I was seething beneath Trey Gowdy's alarmist concerns over Benghazi. The owner, no doubt picks the station. Everyone, but us, absorbs the vile ooze from the TV above my head, and is internally angry and terrified for opposite reasons. Or, are there others like me in the room? We'll never know. no one dares react, or discuss. We just absorb. And regardless of what side we're on, WE ARE ALL ANGRY. And through this we all smile at one another. Amazing and wonderful!
Yesterday we breakfasted at a local restaurant. Our table just below a TV airing FOX News. I love the food, I love the waitress, I love the owner. But still, I was seething beneath Trey Gowdy's alarmist concerns over Benghazi. The owner, no doubt picks the station. Everyone, but us, absorbs the vile ooze from the TV above my head, and is internally angry and terrified for opposite reasons. Or, are there others like me in the room? We'll never know. no one dares react, or discuss. We just absorb. And regardless of what side we're on, WE ARE ALL ANGRY. And through this we all smile at one another. Amazing and wonderful!
3
Who needs analytical thinking when it's so much easier to think with your gut?
The Texas school board was absolutely right to cut the course of 'analytical thinking' out of their public school curriculum.
Why confuse the little darlings by having to use their brains and thus turn them possibly into independent thinkers? They might turn out to start reading Das Kapital, watch PBS instead of Fox and turn into dangerous pinkos.
The 'analytical' argument of the school board's decision was that they might start challenging the authority of their parents as well. Quel horreur....
The Texas school board was absolutely right to cut the course of 'analytical thinking' out of their public school curriculum.
Why confuse the little darlings by having to use their brains and thus turn them possibly into independent thinkers? They might turn out to start reading Das Kapital, watch PBS instead of Fox and turn into dangerous pinkos.
The 'analytical' argument of the school board's decision was that they might start challenging the authority of their parents as well. Quel horreur....
10
I think the real motivation is the intense desire of religionists to suppress the power of logical persuasion.
In his book on the rise of fundamentalism, the church historian George Marsden really did cite the fear that children would disagree with their parents and lose respect for them.
A factor contributing to the political animosity is the corrosive effect of party and special interest-directed propaganda. Americans tend to think that propaganda is something that happens elsewhere, in countries without a free or open press, and where political thought is suppressed if it doesn't conform to "official" messaging.
Yet we are awash in propaganda, especially online but also in fake "news" articles, seriously misleading advertising (e.g., Swift Boat), and a penchant for our free and open press to settle for a "he said, she said" equivalency that has the unintended consequence of legitimizing even the most outlandish false canards. The most recent example of this is the Benghazi allegations, which have proven after several investigations to have not constituted any sort of Administration coverup, yet which persist due to the incredible claims of Darrell Issa, Fox News and others who are nothing but political propagandists.
We have not yet learned, as a nation, to distinguish between advocacy, partisanship and agitprop that has infiltrated the traditional as well as online media worlds. Our well of democratic discourse is being poisoned.
Yet we are awash in propaganda, especially online but also in fake "news" articles, seriously misleading advertising (e.g., Swift Boat), and a penchant for our free and open press to settle for a "he said, she said" equivalency that has the unintended consequence of legitimizing even the most outlandish false canards. The most recent example of this is the Benghazi allegations, which have proven after several investigations to have not constituted any sort of Administration coverup, yet which persist due to the incredible claims of Darrell Issa, Fox News and others who are nothing but political propagandists.
We have not yet learned, as a nation, to distinguish between advocacy, partisanship and agitprop that has infiltrated the traditional as well as online media worlds. Our well of democratic discourse is being poisoned.
6
If politics was not personal how else would Conservatives win elections? This is their calling card play the race, abortion, marriage equality, single mother card oh and don't forget moochers and takers cards. How much more personal can you get?
6
It is personal when politicians are basically stealing your money and your family's future to shore up their own political fortunes.
3
I think nothing has changed. Politics was always personal but now we are more eloquent and media sources are scrounging the earth for negative political news.
Politicians must feed the media. So their personal attacks are good for business.
Politicians must feed the media. So their personal attacks are good for business.
3
So true, and a very important analysis. My daughter, single, a lawyer, successful, has found that in dating usually the conservatives will define their political identity quickly, and she obviously sees a lot of negatives in opinion flouting at that point, when you barely know each other. Another one to strike off the list. Here in Big Red Mississippi one loses contact with old friends fast if you identify yourself honestly as one of the wrong group. It's getting to be like Russia prior to WW1, the Reds vs. the Whites, or like Nazi Germany, the Fascists vs the Communists, or Reconstruction, the Black Republicans vs the Jim Crowe Democrats. Where are we going with all this simplistic divisiveness?
6
“emphasizes slicing up the world and analyzing objects individually, divorced from context — much like scientific analysis requires thinkers to separate complex phenomena into separate parts.”
Conservatives know how dangerous the above is. Liberal (and Libertarian) belief systems deny the existence of a common good. Which is why every time a federal judge somewhere constitutionalizes abortion or gay marriage in the name of "individual autonomy", we cringe, because a healthy culture simply cannot have 322 separate value systems without any concern as to their impact on the larger culture. Conservatives are usuially the ones called "selfish." They're not.
Conservatives know how dangerous the above is. Liberal (and Libertarian) belief systems deny the existence of a common good. Which is why every time a federal judge somewhere constitutionalizes abortion or gay marriage in the name of "individual autonomy", we cringe, because a healthy culture simply cannot have 322 separate value systems without any concern as to their impact on the larger culture. Conservatives are usuially the ones called "selfish." They're not.
3
You obviously have no idea how crucial the separation of variables is to the solution of physics problems.
1
For about 2 years, my daughter dated a moderate Republican. Though mildly surprised, the general family reaction was, 'we welcome conversation 'across' our family aisles as a means of understanding others' convictions, as opposed to 'there is no place for a Republican in our family's political discussions.' Per her own volition, the relationship ended. I greatly enjoy political discussion and considered it a bit of a loss, which I didn't grieve very long. But it was a small stimulus for our family to seek anyone's political opinion.
2
"Republican and Democratic leaders are struggling to moderate their parties’ most extreme ideological positioning."
This is just bad analysis. The entire country has shifted right since the days of Reagan, particularly with respect to taxation and wealth sharing. Democratic leaders (Clintons/Obama) shifted right to gain votes and liberals (not radicals, mind you) have been increasingly disenfranchised as a result. The policies of Richard Nixon would make him a Democrat today. Same goes for Eisenhower.
This is just bad analysis. The entire country has shifted right since the days of Reagan, particularly with respect to taxation and wealth sharing. Democratic leaders (Clintons/Obama) shifted right to gain votes and liberals (not radicals, mind you) have been increasingly disenfranchised as a result. The policies of Richard Nixon would make him a Democrat today. Same goes for Eisenhower.
10
Edsall’s article is very interesting and thought provoking, as always. I consider myself analytical, so it fits that I am Democrat. But what doesn’t fit, and is counter to the trends researchers conveyed in their comments, is my feelings for Republicans haven’t worsened over the years.
In fact, after spending nearly 30 years as a Democratic activist, a top take-a-way from my experience is that politics is not a “contest between good and evil.” There are very good people on both sides of the political spectrum, we differ in that the world and economy look different to Democrats compared to Republicans. We all think our position reflects reality, but the prism we see it through gives each of us a different perspective.
I guess that’s what the article ends up concluding. So what can we do? I concluded long ago that Democrats need to win more elections and stop trying to convert Republicans.
In fact, after spending nearly 30 years as a Democratic activist, a top take-a-way from my experience is that politics is not a “contest between good and evil.” There are very good people on both sides of the political spectrum, we differ in that the world and economy look different to Democrats compared to Republicans. We all think our position reflects reality, but the prism we see it through gives each of us a different perspective.
I guess that’s what the article ends up concluding. So what can we do? I concluded long ago that Democrats need to win more elections and stop trying to convert Republicans.
2
The article seems to lean toward social explanations for the described cultural divide. Here's a pure speculation: Rush Limbaugh, Fox, et al., have spent two decades demonizing "analytical" viewpoints and more pertinently, those who hold and advance them. They have poisoned discourse.
12
republican and democratic leaders are not trying to moderate their party's most extreme ideological differences.......that is a false equivalence. republican moderates are disliked by republicans almost as much as they dislike democrats.
furthermore, I believe that democrats are unhappy when a child marries a republican because all open discussion using facts end. if republicans could discuss issues and accept "facts", then most democrats wouldn't care who their child married.
lastly, the anger is mostly on the republican side. when having a discussion and the facts don't support your position or logic is against you, in order to make your point, all you have left is saying the same talking point louder.
furthermore, I believe that democrats are unhappy when a child marries a republican because all open discussion using facts end. if republicans could discuss issues and accept "facts", then most democrats wouldn't care who their child married.
lastly, the anger is mostly on the republican side. when having a discussion and the facts don't support your position or logic is against you, in order to make your point, all you have left is saying the same talking point louder.
5
Go back in history and see how personal American politics could be. The fact that we have our first black President also gets the juices flowing. Especially in the South where they feel threatened and desperately want to take their country back (Post Confederacy).
2
What I find interesting is that the intolerance on the Republican side seems significantly higher than the intolerance on the Demcratic side. While in 1960 the difference was only 1% (which was probably statistically insignificant), the difference was 7% in 2008 (which may or may not be in the margin of error) and a whopping 16% in 2010. Between 2008 and 2010 this meant a 13% increase in Democrat intolerance and a 22% increase in Republican intolerance. Why is that?
9
I find this too. I'm friends with a woman who, her Republican-ness aside, has been a great part of my life for more than 25 years. She and her Fox-News-watching husband feel free to get in constant digs about President Obama and other Fox talking points. The latest was a mention that they'd enjoyed "American Sniper" with a gratuitous "I know you would be horrified but he was just protecting our troops." I have to suck up the refrain because if I ever respond with anything like "Yes, and our troops wouldn't need protecting if your idol GWB hadn't lied us into two wars that cost tens of thousands of lives" they would take major umbrage. It's not worth the drama to me so I bite my tongue but their arrogance in the face of Republican incompetence and criminality is just baffling.
Recently the wife mentioned that she spent a couple of happy hours poring over Ann Romney's new cookbook. "They are SUCH a lovely family." God. None are so blind as those who refuse to see.
Recently the wife mentioned that she spent a couple of happy hours poring over Ann Romney's new cookbook. "They are SUCH a lovely family." God. None are so blind as those who refuse to see.
6
"Analytic thinking, [Liberal thinking] in this view, “emphasizes slicing up the world and analyzing objects individually, divorced from context — much like scientific analysis requires thinkers to separate complex phenomena into separate parts.” Talhelm elaborated in a phone conversation: The analytic thinking typical of liberals is “more conscious, more focused on the rules of logic.”
Conversely, these researchers define holistic thinking [Conservative thinking] – which they consider more typical of conservatives — as “seeing scenes as a whole and seeing people as a product of situations.” Talhelm described this style of thought as “more automatic, caught up in emotions, and in some ways less adherent to the rules of logic.” "
[conservatives] Less adherent to the rules of logic. That is the real important finding here.
Conversely, these researchers define holistic thinking [Conservative thinking] – which they consider more typical of conservatives — as “seeing scenes as a whole and seeing people as a product of situations.” Talhelm described this style of thought as “more automatic, caught up in emotions, and in some ways less adherent to the rules of logic.” "
[conservatives] Less adherent to the rules of logic. That is the real important finding here.
4
My pet theory is that polarization has increased due to the conflation of religion / ideology and politics.
As liberals become either secular or veer towards multicultural forms of worship / practice, and thus far less philosophically dogmatic, conservatives have been inundated by polemicists with a steady stream of rhetoric that portrays them as being right with God by virtue of their politics / choice of a more tradition-bound religion - and thus morally superior to others.
By virtue of their embrace of either secularism or more eclectic forms of spiritual practice, liberals tend to more closely follow the evidence wherever it leads - whereas conservatives tend to hew more closely to the ideology, believing (I would argue mistakenly) that faithfulness to said ideology, be it traditional conservative Christianity or "capitalism", cannot lead them astray.
To a person more focused more on a pursuit of the evidence, (which does require that they rejected outright an earlier ideological stance, only that they now temper it with input received from other sources, either in the sciences or the senses), an ideologically driven person can appear almost insane - and thus dangerous.
Why would anyone want their child to marry an insane person? On the other hand, it is probably not illogical for a person driven by ideology to not want their child to marry someone who must strike them as subversive and philosophically dangerous.
As liberals become either secular or veer towards multicultural forms of worship / practice, and thus far less philosophically dogmatic, conservatives have been inundated by polemicists with a steady stream of rhetoric that portrays them as being right with God by virtue of their politics / choice of a more tradition-bound religion - and thus morally superior to others.
By virtue of their embrace of either secularism or more eclectic forms of spiritual practice, liberals tend to more closely follow the evidence wherever it leads - whereas conservatives tend to hew more closely to the ideology, believing (I would argue mistakenly) that faithfulness to said ideology, be it traditional conservative Christianity or "capitalism", cannot lead them astray.
To a person more focused more on a pursuit of the evidence, (which does require that they rejected outright an earlier ideological stance, only that they now temper it with input received from other sources, either in the sciences or the senses), an ideologically driven person can appear almost insane - and thus dangerous.
Why would anyone want their child to marry an insane person? On the other hand, it is probably not illogical for a person driven by ideology to not want their child to marry someone who must strike them as subversive and philosophically dangerous.
6
In my 3rd paragraph, I should have typed (which does NOT require)...
My experience with the liberals and conservatives I know is consistent with the findings that liberals tend to be more analytic and base their positions on facts. But there are some big exceptions. Liberals like Bill Maher who blame all religions for extremism are also engaging in simplistic, black and white thinking. They completely ignore the overwhelming evidence that it is radical, fundamentalist ideologies that are the problem, particularly those that hold it is their right to force their beliefs on everyone else. (The Amish are not seen as a threat.) Some of these ideologies are hostile to religion. Anarchists and Communists come to mind. Fascism is not a religious ideology though it may use religion to its advantage. Yet all these have led to extreme violence just as radical Islam has and Christianity has in the past. It is very simplistic to think that doing away with religion will solve the problem when so many people need the security of prescriptive belief systems of some kind.
From what I read most vaccine deniers are also liberals who, instead of having a healthy skepticism of government and big business, see them as evil conspiracies. Bill Maher is one of these people and he has even questioned the germ theory of disease. So anti-science, simplistic thinking is not limited to those on the right, although I do find it is more common in the people I know.
From what I read most vaccine deniers are also liberals who, instead of having a healthy skepticism of government and big business, see them as evil conspiracies. Bill Maher is one of these people and he has even questioned the germ theory of disease. So anti-science, simplistic thinking is not limited to those on the right, although I do find it is more common in the people I know.
3
Liberals and conservatives often interpret the meaning of facts differently. When that happens, conservatives say the liberals' interpretation is simply incorrect while liberals will accuse conservatives of ignoring the facts, that their conclusions must come from some other source, be it ideology, racism, sexism, etc.
1
We only want to do away with faith-based legislation, as promised to us by the US Constitution.
1
We would like a small, limited government as promised to us by the US Constitution. A federal government that defines what constitutes a healthy school lunch or regulates the formula for dishwasher detergent is neither small nor limited.
1
A very intriguing and thought-provoking article. Of course those of us who consider ourselves "liberal" will be pleased with the conclusions that we have the best minds and thought processes.
But we all develop our thoughts over time and circumstance. I drank the Regan kool-aid and watched Milton Friedman avidly. I put my tax reduction dollars to use by paying debt at 13% interest. I watched with appreciation that our military was again strong, and that the Soviet Empire dissolved without war. I dreamed then of a world on the brink of democracy for all men and women, and an end to poverty, ignorance, and racial and religious prejudice world wide.
The Clinton years were filled with suspicions allayed by personal success and stable finance. Then Bush. I was against the tax reductions, because I thought we were on the brink of no national debt. And continued progress addressing poverty and ignorance, which is the heart of human tradegy.
Alas, wars based on lies, causing blind hatred to rule many minds and hearts and give rise to extreamism in the extream. Financial catastrophe world wide caused by greed that seems insatiable. The change of religion from a personal belief to a cause. The reliance of many on guns. The return of feudal-era economics. The denial of science over belief.
More change is coming, soon. The path lies in compromise leading to incremental progress.The economics of the Right is failing. Taxes are necessary. Climate change is real. We need each other.
But we all develop our thoughts over time and circumstance. I drank the Regan kool-aid and watched Milton Friedman avidly. I put my tax reduction dollars to use by paying debt at 13% interest. I watched with appreciation that our military was again strong, and that the Soviet Empire dissolved without war. I dreamed then of a world on the brink of democracy for all men and women, and an end to poverty, ignorance, and racial and religious prejudice world wide.
The Clinton years were filled with suspicions allayed by personal success and stable finance. Then Bush. I was against the tax reductions, because I thought we were on the brink of no national debt. And continued progress addressing poverty and ignorance, which is the heart of human tradegy.
Alas, wars based on lies, causing blind hatred to rule many minds and hearts and give rise to extreamism in the extream. Financial catastrophe world wide caused by greed that seems insatiable. The change of religion from a personal belief to a cause. The reliance of many on guns. The return of feudal-era economics. The denial of science over belief.
More change is coming, soon. The path lies in compromise leading to incremental progress.The economics of the Right is failing. Taxes are necessary. Climate change is real. We need each other.
10
I learned all about the Cato Institute as a supporting member myself.
1
I note especially this misdirection:
"The conflict between Democrats and Republicans is based more on deeply rooted “in group” versus “out group” sensibilities than on ideology."
Ingroup/outgroup sensibilities do not fall out of sky onto people. They are emerge from group social identities. For over 30 years conservative talk radio, print media, and Fox "News" (since the 1990s) have been molding the conservative ingroup social identity. It id not materialize out of thin air.
That identity is founded in part on casting the left and liberals not as well-meaning compatriots who disagree with conservatives on how to run the country, but as America-hating traitors who hate the constitution and want to ruin the country. It has been claimed repeatedly by the right-wing propaganda mill that Barack Obama, President of the United States, despises America and wants to destroy it.
Nothing, absolutely, nothing comparable can be found on the "left" side of the divide. Liberals were appalled and revolted by George W. Bush, but that was for things he actually did -- turned a surplus into a deficit, wrecked the economy, fell asleep at the wheel before 9/11, invaded the wrong country based on lies, tortured, illegally spied on the public -- rather than emerging from some nebulous "ingroup" mentality.
In contrast, conservatives rail against a mirage Obama, a fiction they have created that matches the propaganda about "liberals."
There is no comparison between these two processes.
"The conflict between Democrats and Republicans is based more on deeply rooted “in group” versus “out group” sensibilities than on ideology."
Ingroup/outgroup sensibilities do not fall out of sky onto people. They are emerge from group social identities. For over 30 years conservative talk radio, print media, and Fox "News" (since the 1990s) have been molding the conservative ingroup social identity. It id not materialize out of thin air.
That identity is founded in part on casting the left and liberals not as well-meaning compatriots who disagree with conservatives on how to run the country, but as America-hating traitors who hate the constitution and want to ruin the country. It has been claimed repeatedly by the right-wing propaganda mill that Barack Obama, President of the United States, despises America and wants to destroy it.
Nothing, absolutely, nothing comparable can be found on the "left" side of the divide. Liberals were appalled and revolted by George W. Bush, but that was for things he actually did -- turned a surplus into a deficit, wrecked the economy, fell asleep at the wheel before 9/11, invaded the wrong country based on lies, tortured, illegally spied on the public -- rather than emerging from some nebulous "ingroup" mentality.
In contrast, conservatives rail against a mirage Obama, a fiction they have created that matches the propaganda about "liberals."
There is no comparison between these two processes.
19
The use of labels to define people and politics is one of the main problems. Red state, blue state, conservative, liberal, republican, democrat, christian, atheist, gay, straight and on and on. Yet, one third of Americans self-report as independent voters and there are plenty of democrats in red states and republicans in blue states. Political polarization can be directly tied to hate radio and media like fox so-called news that spew constant lies and distortions. Social polarization can be directly tied to supposed entertainment such as Survivor, Shark Tank, Hunger games, Kitchen wars, Weight loss competition shows and destructive video games. It all ties in with the wealth inequality at the top - their goal is to keep us fighting with each other to stay in power. We are all human beings first and we all want to live relatively well and peacefully and the only way we can do it in America is to force a more equitable wealth distribution. We are only as strong as our weakest link.
4
In physics there is a concept called "Hilbert Space" that postulates a potentially infinite set of orthogonal coordinates at every point in space. Under this perspective, people are defined by the polarities stored into a whole multitude of dimensions.
As to why did politics get so personal: see rule 5 of Alinsky's 'Rules for Radicals'.
RULE 5: "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." There is no defense. It's irrational. It's infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)
RULE 5: "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." There is no defense. It's irrational. It's infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)
3
Only Republicans even know who Saul Alinski was. You people just project your own worst characteristics on other people as if to deny them.
3
These theories about the difference between conservatives and liberals sound like overgeneralized bunk to me, though the polarization of the electorate is clearly a fact. One of the several benefits of ranked choice voting (RCV), which was used in the last mayoral election in Minneapolis, is that it forces candidates to listen and appeal to ALL the electorate. This eliminates a lot of the ugly campaign rhetoric and results in more moderate, realistic policies.
5
I have never understood the vitriol my fellow Americans level at one-another over politics.
What really saddens me is the sheer racist attitudes so many people have in regards to politics. Take many of these comments and change the words "Conservative", "Republican", "Democrat", etc. to one we associate with race ("Whites, Blacks, Chinese, etc.") and everyone would condemn these people as racist bigots. But instead they get 100's of recommendations! How is this ok?
The civil rights movement was about instilling love in your fellow man. It seems what progress we made in accepting people with different skin colors has been offset by the hatred we now have for those of a different political view.
What really saddens me is the sheer racist attitudes so many people have in regards to politics. Take many of these comments and change the words "Conservative", "Republican", "Democrat", etc. to one we associate with race ("Whites, Blacks, Chinese, etc.") and everyone would condemn these people as racist bigots. But instead they get 100's of recommendations! How is this ok?
The civil rights movement was about instilling love in your fellow man. It seems what progress we made in accepting people with different skin colors has been offset by the hatred we now have for those of a different political view.
4
The obvious difference is that race is something that is not chosen. Political affiliations are chosen.
1
@V: Yes and no. As Linus Van Pelt said, don't you have to think first, and then try to figure out what it is you've thought?
Lots of good information here, but the "both sides" tone is misleading. The data provided shows that the increase since 1960 in animosity towards the "out group" has been much more dramatic among Republicans. The irony is that Republicans tend to claim a greater sense of personal responsibility, yet there is an extreme reluctance to actually accept blame. Edsall in this piece, like most news articles that broach the subject of polarization, works hard to spread blame equally, even when the data undermine that contention. If such a "no fault" approach were applied to school playgrounds, the result would be a proliferation of bad behavior, which is exactly what we have in politics.
11
This article leaves out one of the most divisive forces of all -- religion. When the extreme right began to throw religion into the mix it had a horrible influence on those who were so adherent to their beliefs that they could not see beyond the doors of the church into the larger society. This was driven by wild eyed fundamentalists preachers and other demogogues that cared little for our democracy and it's destruction. A noted preacher was put on the front page of our local newspaper or what passes for one the other day saying that churches need to be in the forefront of politics. So, no wonder that things continue to be awful and our country is being destroyed.
13
And they can only satisfy these religious nuts by trashing the Constitutional ban on faith based legislation.
1
That preacher needs to have his tax preferences withdrawn.
Replace "religion" with "climate alarmists" and the exact same thing could be said about liberals.
1
"partisans on both sides believe different facts, use different economic theories, and hold differing views of history."
This sentence gets to the crux of the problem. I understand that political parties can and do have differing ideas about how to actually solve problems, but the current brand of conservatives refuses to even acknowledge that the problems exist. Where ever the facts don't line up with their ideology, they dismiss the facts. Back in 1995 Newt Gingrich abolished the Office of Technology Assessment, a non-partisan office meant to strengthen the informed deliberative capacity of the House. They have a plan now to implement 'dynamic scoring' in the CBO---another way to game the system so that they get the answers they want to economic problems.
Politics have always always been personal and heated. Politics are worse now only because conservatives of the 21st century have to find ever more creative ways to ignore facts.
The reality based community takes this very personally indeed.
This sentence gets to the crux of the problem. I understand that political parties can and do have differing ideas about how to actually solve problems, but the current brand of conservatives refuses to even acknowledge that the problems exist. Where ever the facts don't line up with their ideology, they dismiss the facts. Back in 1995 Newt Gingrich abolished the Office of Technology Assessment, a non-partisan office meant to strengthen the informed deliberative capacity of the House. They have a plan now to implement 'dynamic scoring' in the CBO---another way to game the system so that they get the answers they want to economic problems.
Politics have always always been personal and heated. Politics are worse now only because conservatives of the 21st century have to find ever more creative ways to ignore facts.
The reality based community takes this very personally indeed.
11
"Where ever the facts don't line up with their ideology, they dismiss the facts."......Exactly. It matters not that every economic indicator today screams out that we need to move toward demand side economics; yet all the Republicans can say is supply side tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts. What a wonderful world we would live in if only people would stop with the dogma, look at the facts, and think. I promise, it really doesn't hurt to use your own brain.
2
It seems to belie that they really know anything about business at all. Top salespeople make the biggest incomes after CEOs because they create demand.
Race, and racism against blacks in particular, has always played a huge part in American politics, even before the Civil War. The same questions but the different answers have always been about conservatives v progressives, and party politics has less to do with it than the answers itself. Republicans were once the more progressive party on race and now they are not. Similarly, Democrats were once the party of slavery, and now Abraham Lincoln and the "Radical Republicans" of the 19th century would fit more comfortably in the modern Democratic Party.
Let's not pull our punches here. The emergence of racism and racial animus in either parties simply moves minorities of all colors, religions, genders, orientations from one party to the next. The whites who ally with them are considered progressives while those minorities are just using common sense.
Who wants to belong to a party that hates them? If you belong to minority groups-- Asian, Hispanic, Native American, gays, Muslims, Jews, etc. ---wouldn't the rhetoric one party espouses about blacks make you at least somewhat wary that they might be talking about you too?
Let's not pull our punches here. The emergence of racism and racial animus in either parties simply moves minorities of all colors, religions, genders, orientations from one party to the next. The whites who ally with them are considered progressives while those minorities are just using common sense.
Who wants to belong to a party that hates them? If you belong to minority groups-- Asian, Hispanic, Native American, gays, Muslims, Jews, etc. ---wouldn't the rhetoric one party espouses about blacks make you at least somewhat wary that they might be talking about you too?
3
My grandfather was a Republican committeemen in NY for many years and remember his conversations with the Democratic committeeman who was a friend. Although they had different views on taxation, regulation, and foreign policy, what they had in common was problem solving--how to fix a road, get a job, pay a medical bill. Today's politics has become mired in ideology, which inevitability leads to the demonization of the other, and results in leaving their publics with bad roads, low paying jobs, and poor health care.
13
My family was traditionally Republican for generations. That party radically changed in recent decades. Our grandfathers and great-grandfathers would probably not recognize the Republican Party of today.
2
First of all, my problems with conservatives are simple. They reject science and invoke religion, refuse to admit that their policies including trickle down do not work and think that guns are the answer to almost anything. Can an intelligent person really think that way? Conservatives have a history of things like voting against civil rights, voting against fundamental rights like abortion and yet holler about government intrusion. Do I have conservative friends? I have a few but stay away from politics. Most of my educated friends are liberals and the ones who are conservative are only concerned about taxes.If you are a well educated, well read person it defies logic you will believe in the strict right wing issues. It does appear that the key ingredient is religion. Without religion in politics the divide would be minimal.
17
Pretty good piece. I cannot argue with the conclusions. I don't think this will discussed on talk radio or the other echo chamber for "conservatism" that must not be spoken of. What was interesting was how the traits of the two sides are flipped from the common conception in the media framework. If the way this collection and consensus of studies points one can truly say, liberals are smarter than conservative.
6
I started out in a "mixed" marriage: I'm a Democrat from a union household. My husband was a "Rockefeller Republican." I volunteered for McGovern while he voted for Nixon. Our only commonality was a love of reading and the New York Giants. By 1980 he was voting for John Anderson and he is now a registered Democrat. I do not take credit for this switch at all: he is a very bright man who was appalled at the rightward swerve of the GOP.
I think that many Americans have a stubborn streak: a change of parties makes them feel as though they've been hoodwinked by the deserted party. I recommend that , if questioned, they say what my spouse does: "I didn't leave my Party, my Party left me."
I think that many Americans have a stubborn streak: a change of parties makes them feel as though they've been hoodwinked by the deserted party. I recommend that , if questioned, they say what my spouse does: "I didn't leave my Party, my Party left me."
22
John B. Anderson is the same towering intellect who, in 1961, sponsored a constitutional amendment to "devoutly" recognize "the authority and law of Jesus Christ, savior and ruler of nations, through whom are bestowed the blessing of almighty God".
See "Tom Foley: Out of the Liberal Closet," courtesy of Lee Atwater, Newt Gingrich & Mark Goodin
4
Politics got personal when Lee Atwater and Newt Gingrich decided that Republicans could win elections by personalizing politics through the demonization of millions of their fellow Americans. The right wing media apparatus drew a similar conclusion about ratings.
27
Perhaps because the policies being pursued are so personal? Marriage, religion, contraception, health, food, retirement. It's much easier to have a dispassionate discussion about things that are genuinely "public interest".
11
I take your point, but food, healthcare, and social security are matters of public interest.
2
Politicians (aka demagogues) made it personal with a big help from the media. How can we not react with outrage when their is outrage brought into our homes every moment of every day?
16
If you missed that "the personal is the political" you have been in a coma for the last 30 years
If you missed that our academics and various modernist wannabes have cultivated Deconstruction, saying that all politics is expression of personal bias, unconscious, institutional, built-in, illegitimate bias, and caste, something that is how you are born, which can't be changed, then you have not read your own newspaper for thirty years
for example, readers here reflexively blame the Right I reflexively blame the Left
I hope this helps
If you missed that our academics and various modernist wannabes have cultivated Deconstruction, saying that all politics is expression of personal bias, unconscious, institutional, built-in, illegitimate bias, and caste, something that is how you are born, which can't be changed, then you have not read your own newspaper for thirty years
for example, readers here reflexively blame the Right I reflexively blame the Left
I hope this helps
4
Actually, "fortress America", your post-modernist, relativistic, "Truth is whatever belief makes you feel good." bias is showing. We East Coast liberal elitists, as we are often called, believe that sometimes there are not two sides to every story from which we can select the one that pleases us. That intellectual hedonism is an artifice that started with the tobacco lobby. They hired people to tell smokers that, since there were scientists who disagreed with the claim that smoking causes cancer, therefore nobody was certain that they would get cancer from smoking and they shouldn't worry. The exact same experts that NPR and the NY Times quoted, to get the other side of the story, in order to be "unbiased", are now using arguments of the exact same form as experts in the climate debate.
The Republicans created the scortched-earth policy of declaring hat those who disagree with them are enemies in a war. Remember Cheney's furor with GW Bush for not pardoning Scooter Libby for his role in outing a CIA officer as a political attack on her husband for telling the truth? He said, "We don't leave a soldier on the battlefield." They started this very uncivil war.
The Republicans created the scortched-earth policy of declaring hat those who disagree with them are enemies in a war. Remember Cheney's furor with GW Bush for not pardoning Scooter Libby for his role in outing a CIA officer as a political attack on her husband for telling the truth? He said, "We don't leave a soldier on the battlefield." They started this very uncivil war.
3
Aw, another persecution complex. Who knew that the US is such a torture chamber?
1
Taking as an example the Swiftboat campaign run against John Kerry. Conduct of this kind is more common on the right than on the left and suggests to me that honor is in short supply on the right. So my 'reflexive' tendency to blame the right is not really reflexive. It is considered.
6
Well, one cause of our mindless partisan hatred is the influence of hateful partisan pundits like Sean Hannity and Paul Krugman, in which there is no such thing as honest disagreement.
One interesting difference between the two sides is that many partisan liberals are always on the hunt for some "scientific evidence" of their mental superiority over those who dare not share their views. The "study" cited in this article is laughable. Certainly, there are many liberals who think more logically than some conservative, but the opposite is true as well. To claim that liberals "think more logically" on the whole than conservatives do is absurd. Did anyone look at the Occupy Wall Street crowd and see an overwhelming sea of logic? What nonsense. Folks need to just get over themselves and understand that people can disagree with you and still be intelligent and moral. They also need to see how hypocritical it is to pound their chest over how tolerant they are in the same breath they explain how dumb and immoral are those who do not share their views. Physician, heal thyself.
One interesting difference between the two sides is that many partisan liberals are always on the hunt for some "scientific evidence" of their mental superiority over those who dare not share their views. The "study" cited in this article is laughable. Certainly, there are many liberals who think more logically than some conservative, but the opposite is true as well. To claim that liberals "think more logically" on the whole than conservatives do is absurd. Did anyone look at the Occupy Wall Street crowd and see an overwhelming sea of logic? What nonsense. Folks need to just get over themselves and understand that people can disagree with you and still be intelligent and moral. They also need to see how hypocritical it is to pound their chest over how tolerant they are in the same breath they explain how dumb and immoral are those who do not share their views. Physician, heal thyself.
6
As a retired academic in the traditionally left-wing humanities, I can assure you that Deconstruction hardly dominates higher ed in the US.
To put Sean Hannity and Paul Krugman in the same sentence as if they are merely on different sides of the same bed is ludicrous.
To put Sean Hannity and Paul Krugman in the same sentence as if they are merely on different sides of the same bed is ludicrous.
4
Sean Hannity and Paul Krugman? Speaking of false equivalence ...
6
Hate to tell you this, but folks on the right are just as outraged about the comparison between Hannity and Krugman as you are. All partisans think that their hateful pundits are different than "the other side's" hateful pundits. In fact, this kind of cognitive dissonance is a clear indicator of mindless partisanship. Those of us who are equally appalled by closed minded people on both sides do not distinguish between mindless partisans. Only mindless partisans do that.
But in case anyone doesn't see my point, reference the column in which the "intellectual" Krugman personally blamed Sarah Palin for the Giffords shooting. That is just the kind of moronic and hateful partisanship that Hannity shows. If you think that kind of attack is valid, then you are blinkered by partisanship.
But in case anyone doesn't see my point, reference the column in which the "intellectual" Krugman personally blamed Sarah Palin for the Giffords shooting. That is just the kind of moronic and hateful partisanship that Hannity shows. If you think that kind of attack is valid, then you are blinkered by partisanship.
1
Politics is a big money game nowadays. Look at the Kochs, a note-in gulp almost a billion dollars to their political handlers. The mad Men folk moved onto politics and charities. Every trick in the book is being used to get money out of foods that have it. And Facebook and other follower gathering devices are used to deliver the counts that are needed to justify their advertising services to the sponsors.
1
Only 27% of Democrats believe the opposition party’s policies “are so misguided that they threaten the nation’s well-being"? Surprising -- I don't consider this a belief, I consider it a verifiable fact.
9
I found this column to be quite profound in many ways, although not arriving at a real solution. The solution is time, generations, and an ever-changing culture.
There are alternating generations in the USA, resulting in an alternating culture. The USA culture was more progressive in the 1920-30's and late 1950's thru early 1970'S, while conservative from the mid-1970's until late 2000's.
In the 1960's and early 1970's, our culture went through many changes, mostly progressive, and this resulted in many benefits to our society, some of which were more immediate, and others which are just becoming mainstream within the last decade.
Currently we are in an increasingly progressive period, which is manifesting itself in the twice-elected first Black President, a nation-wide dislike of war, ObamaCare, widespread support of gay marriage, and an increasing decriminalization and legalization of Marijuana.
Conservatism while at an extreme, is in its death throes, becoming ever more regional, and politically depending on gerrymandering and low-populated states having greater disproportionate influence in the Senate and Electoral Vote.
Due to mass communications of the Internet and Smart Phones, the regions of our country and of the world are communicating frequently and rapidly, which will ultimately cause politics to become national, international and progressive.
As bad as political divisiveness has become, we are entering a period of greater progressiveness and prosperity.
There are alternating generations in the USA, resulting in an alternating culture. The USA culture was more progressive in the 1920-30's and late 1950's thru early 1970'S, while conservative from the mid-1970's until late 2000's.
In the 1960's and early 1970's, our culture went through many changes, mostly progressive, and this resulted in many benefits to our society, some of which were more immediate, and others which are just becoming mainstream within the last decade.
Currently we are in an increasingly progressive period, which is manifesting itself in the twice-elected first Black President, a nation-wide dislike of war, ObamaCare, widespread support of gay marriage, and an increasing decriminalization and legalization of Marijuana.
Conservatism while at an extreme, is in its death throes, becoming ever more regional, and politically depending on gerrymandering and low-populated states having greater disproportionate influence in the Senate and Electoral Vote.
Due to mass communications of the Internet and Smart Phones, the regions of our country and of the world are communicating frequently and rapidly, which will ultimately cause politics to become national, international and progressive.
As bad as political divisiveness has become, we are entering a period of greater progressiveness and prosperity.
6
I do hope you are right, sir!
1
I was born into an "all Republican family". Forty years later all of us now vote Democratic, except for one uncle inexplicably trapped in the black hole gravitational field of FOX News.
That's 3 generations that were open to change, although it took the second GW Bush term for the last holdouts to switch.
That's 3 generations that were open to change, although it took the second GW Bush term for the last holdouts to switch.
15
It all changed because right wing radicals took over the Republican party and made clear that anyone who did not share their views was a RINO and unwelcome. It came to a head during W's administration. Up to that point I always described myself as a Rockefeller Republican. When it became clear that the radicals were in control and that other viewpoints were unwelcome, I dropped my registration and became independent/undeclared.
13
While this is purely speculation on my part, I think the real split can be traced to Rush Limbaugh and the rise of AM talk radio. My local station spews hateful messages all day long, every day. This meaningless enmity was also present in Germany before WWII with antisemitism being widespread and promoted in some periodicals.
18
Is there anything similar to Rush Limbaugh on the liberal side? If so, I've never heard of it. My right wing friends sent me emails about the incompetent black man in the WH, welfare recipient takers, etc. I rarely if ever get liberal emails about how horrible conservatives are. It is a completely different mindset. Since I tend to be center right, I can swing both ways, but in my personal experience, the right can often be amazingly self centered, nasty and hypocritical. I am distinguishing here between the far right and plain vanilla conservatives.
8
Agreed! Its toxic . . .and apparently addictive, if my relatives are representative oh that audience.
2
Pumping Limbaugh up with a half a billion dollars has created quite a plethora of imitators.
How did politics get so personal? I believe Lee Atwater had something to do with this. “Republicans in the South could not win elections by talking about issues,” he once said. “You had to make the case that the other guy, the other candidate, is a bad guy.” He also said "While I didn't invent negative politics, I am one of its most ardent practitioners." Not to mention one of its most skillful. Under his direction, George H. W. Bush's 1988 presidential campaign overcame a 17-point midsummer deficit in the polls to win 40 states. Smearing your political opponents works.
12
When the Fairness Doctrine was killed in 1987 and AM Rant Radio started spewing invective, innuendo and outright falsehoods day-in-day-out, our political discourse started going down the drain. With the advent of the likes of Fox Not-News the vitriol is off the Richter Scale. Governing though fear, anger, uncompromising ideology and dishonesty are the sure signs that an empire is in decline.
24
"But if polarization reflects primal aspects of the human condition..."
As I listened to a Radiolab podcast recently on the Argentine ant (http://www.radiolab.org/story/226523-ants/), I wondered how many of the same biological mechanisms that drive these behaviors can be found within individuals of the human species. "Argentine ants are not good neighbors. When they meet ants from another colony, any other colony, they fight to the death, and tear the other ants to pieces. While other kinds of ants sometimes take slaves or even have sex with ants from different colonies, the Argentine ants don’t fool around. If you’re not part of the colony, you’re dead." Sound familiar?
As I listened to a Radiolab podcast recently on the Argentine ant (http://www.radiolab.org/story/226523-ants/), I wondered how many of the same biological mechanisms that drive these behaviors can be found within individuals of the human species. "Argentine ants are not good neighbors. When they meet ants from another colony, any other colony, they fight to the death, and tear the other ants to pieces. While other kinds of ants sometimes take slaves or even have sex with ants from different colonies, the Argentine ants don’t fool around. If you’re not part of the colony, you’re dead." Sound familiar?
5
If memory serves me, the hyper partisanship in recent American politics date from the 1990s when the Republican politicians reacted so viciously to Bill Clinton becoming president. Newt Gingrich, the budget battles, the shutting down of the government, the reaction to Vince Foster's death, Whitewater, the hatred aimed at Hillary, and finally, the impeachment of Bill Clinton all come to mind. Only a few years earlier the Democrats had reacted quite tolerantly to Reagan's Iran-Contra problems.
The Democrats have reacted somewhat and the situation has truly devolved into the tribalism you describe, within both parties, although I don't remember anyone voting to impeach George W Bush, who probably deserved it.
Anyway, it should be noted that this tribalism is based largely on personal identity revolving around cultural issues, like gay rights, abortion, or minority rights and so on. When it comes to issues of political economy, the politicians of both parties, despite some rhetoric to the side, seem to agree easily enough on massive military spending, one war after another, and protecting the wealth of the upper class.
This tribalism doesn't serve the American people well. Liberals and conservatives alike need to remember the concept of "loyal opposition" and cooperation, and build bridges to each other based on the self interest of the great majority that form the middle and lower classes.
The Democrats have reacted somewhat and the situation has truly devolved into the tribalism you describe, within both parties, although I don't remember anyone voting to impeach George W Bush, who probably deserved it.
Anyway, it should be noted that this tribalism is based largely on personal identity revolving around cultural issues, like gay rights, abortion, or minority rights and so on. When it comes to issues of political economy, the politicians of both parties, despite some rhetoric to the side, seem to agree easily enough on massive military spending, one war after another, and protecting the wealth of the upper class.
This tribalism doesn't serve the American people well. Liberals and conservatives alike need to remember the concept of "loyal opposition" and cooperation, and build bridges to each other based on the self interest of the great majority that form the middle and lower classes.
7
Politics have always been personal. Now that a hand full of the 1% control politicians and even the SCOTUS they have made it intensely personal.
7
With one party on its knees to the 1% it is personal for me - they could care less about me and I could care less about them.
4
How absurd. Only fools who believe they have all the answers could be upset if their child married someone of the opposite party.
2
The problem is that there is a party that says it has all the answers and that anyone who disagrees with it is treasonous. We secular humanist do not claim to have all the answers, but we do object to sanctifying invincible ignorance. Resolute choice to prove loyalty to an ideal and reject all that stands in its way is not virtue, and the current republicam leadership clearly advances it as such.
When you use words and statements as tools, caring only for their effects, everything and everyone devolvesinto a tool, nothing more. Means become ends in themselves. I would not want my child to marry a person with such decadent values. Fools who believe they have all the answers, are very dangerous people. One party clearly demands that stance from its members because it would not survive in the fresh air and the light of the day.
When you use words and statements as tools, caring only for their effects, everything and everyone devolvesinto a tool, nothing more. Means become ends in themselves. I would not want my child to marry a person with such decadent values. Fools who believe they have all the answers, are very dangerous people. One party clearly demands that stance from its members because it would not survive in the fresh air and the light of the day.
2
Forget about a son- or daughter-in law, Daniel Hoffman: would you accept a religious believer as a fellow worker for justice?
1
I live in a building in which the landlord will not shake the hands of his female tenants because of his religion. While I can be perfectly civil to such a person for necessary communications, it is difficult to work with someone whose religion deems half the population as "less than" based solely on gender.
1
"Now almost every issue from foreign policy to taxes to lifestyle issues has been drawn into the left vs. right alignment."
I wonder. It often seems to me that the lines are blurred in interesting ways on the level of individuals. Is it so hard to imagine a gay person with conservative leanings, towards, for example, big government and high taxes? Or a liberal suspicious of teachers' unions?
Or a Republican who supports environmental issues?
Many people change heir political philosophies as they age, and the switch is not immediate and total.
I wonder. It often seems to me that the lines are blurred in interesting ways on the level of individuals. Is it so hard to imagine a gay person with conservative leanings, towards, for example, big government and high taxes? Or a liberal suspicious of teachers' unions?
Or a Republican who supports environmental issues?
Many people change heir political philosophies as they age, and the switch is not immediate and total.
3
More specifically, what about the impact of age (I believe the "Millennials" just surpassed "Baby Boomers" in number), social media, and the relatively new, adversiarial 24/7 political talk show media?
1
My brother and sister-in-law married in 1965, and have always been polar political opposites. Occasionally, they bicker but are never bitter. Their marriage is strong and they agree to disagree.
Fast forward to today. I was surprised to see the rising percentages of both parties who would be unhappy if a family member married someone of a different political persuasion. The fact those percentages have risen dramatically in just 4 years, was pretty amazing. No so amazing the higher percentage of Republicans.
It stands to reason that the more insular groups become the more polarized they become as group think and acceptance within the group favors conformity.
But I always go back to my original point about my brother and his wife, who agree to disagree. We need more of that tolerance instead of the nonstop yelling in blogs, comments here in the NYT, and even in the halls of Congress.
Fast forward to today. I was surprised to see the rising percentages of both parties who would be unhappy if a family member married someone of a different political persuasion. The fact those percentages have risen dramatically in just 4 years, was pretty amazing. No so amazing the higher percentage of Republicans.
It stands to reason that the more insular groups become the more polarized they become as group think and acceptance within the group favors conformity.
But I always go back to my original point about my brother and his wife, who agree to disagree. We need more of that tolerance instead of the nonstop yelling in blogs, comments here in the NYT, and even in the halls of Congress.
5
In all reality politics belongs on a square near self, individual accountability remains key.
Anything beyond provides for granted heritage lacking any form of reasoning; thus triggering complete madness.
If anything politics is an excuse not to go over to a global community which thrives on sense, science and creativity.
Of course one can throw a temper tantrum on this bloody planet and call it a life too, rich fantasy seems to be a hit.
Anything beyond provides for granted heritage lacking any form of reasoning; thus triggering complete madness.
If anything politics is an excuse not to go over to a global community which thrives on sense, science and creativity.
Of course one can throw a temper tantrum on this bloody planet and call it a life too, rich fantasy seems to be a hit.
I think the increased hostility across political lines has everything to do with ideology, or more correctly, ideology deliberately caricatured and simplified by media of all types. 24 hour cable news is a mess -- Fox on right, MSNBC on left, CNN just seems to exist. 90% of what passes for news on the Internet is slanted and uninformed (with links to other slanted sites). And let's not even get started on talk radio. Most of what's out there is blather on the right or blather on the left. No wonder the country's becoming more polarized.
4
If anything nations as (political) MO set people up against each other…it's a well proven fact yet we'll insist on having an opinion based on rich fantasy.
I'm always amazed that people are amazed at this.
Yesterday's political parties were more divided over questions of policy and governance - but not over culture. Democrats were the party of segregation, but Northern blacks started voting Democrat during FDR's terms in office at the same time. Even in that divisive era - Democrats could be divided on such an issue.
Today's political parties are primarily reflective of 50 years of the culture war. Yes, there are divisions over policy and governance - but the beating heart of each party is social and cultural issues - WHAT kind of country we will be. This was not something at seriously at issue in America since the Civil War.
It's perfectly normal and understandable for politics to be so divisive when guns, gay marriage, abortion, legal narcotics, multiculturalism, etc. etc. share no overwhelming American majority opinion.
People may not be upset if their children marries someone whom they disagree with over the Affordable Care Act or Social Security Reform - but they are more likely to be very upset when the issue is abortion or gay marriage.
Really pretty obvious.
Yesterday's political parties were more divided over questions of policy and governance - but not over culture. Democrats were the party of segregation, but Northern blacks started voting Democrat during FDR's terms in office at the same time. Even in that divisive era - Democrats could be divided on such an issue.
Today's political parties are primarily reflective of 50 years of the culture war. Yes, there are divisions over policy and governance - but the beating heart of each party is social and cultural issues - WHAT kind of country we will be. This was not something at seriously at issue in America since the Civil War.
It's perfectly normal and understandable for politics to be so divisive when guns, gay marriage, abortion, legal narcotics, multiculturalism, etc. etc. share no overwhelming American majority opinion.
People may not be upset if their children marries someone whom they disagree with over the Affordable Care Act or Social Security Reform - but they are more likely to be very upset when the issue is abortion or gay marriage.
Really pretty obvious.
6
Especially when the proposed marriage is a gay marriage.
Ah, that goes on in Europe (especially Southern) for decades. Ideology is intellectual laziness (since you already "reached a conclusion"), and with so many ideologues with their cups full, there is no room for anything else.
1
I'm sorry. Guilty as charged, I guess.
How can one avoid caricaturing members of the "other Party" when the creators of the caricature stem from the Party itself? What is one to make of a whole troop of sad presidential wanna-be's braving winter in conestoga caravans to Iowa to kiss the ring of Stephen King, as blatant and brass a bigot as exists in the US Congress?
This isn't my stereotype; it is Steven King's stereotype of himself. "Calves like cantalopes?" As for the weary pilgrims of the cold prairie in search of their King's blessing, c'mon!
www.endthemadnessnow.org
How can one avoid caricaturing members of the "other Party" when the creators of the caricature stem from the Party itself? What is one to make of a whole troop of sad presidential wanna-be's braving winter in conestoga caravans to Iowa to kiss the ring of Stephen King, as blatant and brass a bigot as exists in the US Congress?
This isn't my stereotype; it is Steven King's stereotype of himself. "Calves like cantalopes?" As for the weary pilgrims of the cold prairie in search of their King's blessing, c'mon!
www.endthemadnessnow.org
5
More than anything., I think it is influenced by a the rise of fanatical religious fundamentalism today (as your pappy might have learned it the ante-bellum American South or the Oriental religions of today), insisting you're right in your beliefs and unable to tolerate others who believe differently , even if theirs is scientifically provable, if you don't care what scientific evidence shows (maybe it isn't even in a Texas-approved schoolbook!) which disprove much that the sacred texts (like the Bibles, Kurans, etc.) present as truth, no matter what the secularists say. That's why we have Home schooling and madrasses to shield our "believers" from the truth. FAITH is the only answer for them and more millions die every day.
As Pope Francis said the other day, "Anyway, why do the people have to breed like rabbits?
This of course produces rigidity and unwillingness to admit error. And it's serious business.......
As Pope Francis said the other day, "Anyway, why do the people have to breed like rabbits?
This of course produces rigidity and unwillingness to admit error. And it's serious business.......
I trace that to the ascendancy of the religious right in national politics, with Ronald Reagan as its standard bearer. Jimmy Carter had run as a born-again Christian but he was too liberal for those who wanted to be the Army of God in politics.
That led to an equally bellicose reaction from the left.
If this column were on some other subject, I'd come out swinging for economic equity, for justice for the poor, for the preservation of the middle class and against the lies of right-wing propagandists. I'm for the goals of the left without the dogmatism and demonization. I may end up fighting on two fronts, but I don't believe that makes me a traitor to the progressive cause.
That led to an equally bellicose reaction from the left.
If this column were on some other subject, I'd come out swinging for economic equity, for justice for the poor, for the preservation of the middle class and against the lies of right-wing propagandists. I'm for the goals of the left without the dogmatism and demonization. I may end up fighting on two fronts, but I don't believe that makes me a traitor to the progressive cause.
1
Jimmy Carter's religion never bothered me because he seemed honor-bound to keep it out of legislation.
1
Excellent essay! Unfortunately, rational analysis is required to find common ground and when only one side of the debate believes in rational analysis, the whole process becomes a merry-go-round of "he said, she said".
2
There's an old joke that says that there's nothing new here. "Republican boys date Democratic girls. They plan to marry Republican girls, but feel that they're entitled to a little fun first."
3
C'mon, you're overlooking little things like the Republican war on women's rights, their general authoritarianism, their willingness to ignore scientific evidence on climate change (and claims that it's a fraud), their hatred of poor people, etc.
5
Thanks for placing this subject front and center. What comes to mind is the non-fiction "Bowling Alone" by a Yale prof. over a decade ago. His concern: our participation in communities is less now than previously.
Also, one could ask "Is our national characteristic arrogance?".
Let's hope not.
Also, one could ask "Is our national characteristic arrogance?".
Let's hope not.
3
When the American republic turned into a empire, class warfare became real. The numbers suggest the next stop is Venezuela, where it's even more real. On this path, there will be rich and poor, competing for resources and opportunities via "democracy".
Whether you can call post Citizens United a "democracy" or a capitalocracy is part of the essential debate.
Whether you can call post Citizens United a "democracy" or a capitalocracy is part of the essential debate.
1
One consistent pattern is evident throughout: Democrats are more tolerant than Republicans. But a turning point was in 1994 when the GOP banished the old custom of bipartisan Congressional orientations lest friendships form across the aisles. A further stage of defamation and attempts at delegitimization can be traced to “Newtspeak” and Gingrich’s thesaurus of vilification against Democrats, to the extent of banishing the adjectival form “Democratic” because it sounds too positive.
3
Even the moderate Republican Christie Whitman used "Democrat" as an adjective when she was interviewed on Fresh Air.
The "rat" emphasis was one of Gingrich's most juvenile inventions.
Politics have always been personal. When I was child (eons ago), my mother forbade me from arguing politics with my father. He would get so enraged at my different opinions that my mother was worried he would have a stroke.
3
99% of the people who comment here can't spell Bush or Cheney w/o a four letter adjective pre fix, and you wonder why we are so divided.
As long as liberals are so convinced of their moral superiority and worse yet, the inferiority of the other party which still represents half the country, we shall be divided thus.
As long as liberals are so convinced of their moral superiority and worse yet, the inferiority of the other party which still represents half the country, we shall be divided thus.
3
This post is interesting as a case study:
(1) Blame is placed on one side in the opening sentence.
(2) A putative fact (i.e., the consistent disparagement of Cheney and Bush) is presented as the cause ("...and you wonder why..."), rather than a result, of the partisan divide; again, blame is assigned to one side.
(3) The second paragraph again makes an assertion -- without an argument or factual support -- to pin culpability on one side.
(4) Some defensiveness regarding morality and other matters (e.g., "inferiority") is evident.
(5) The statement "...half the country..." is another unsupported fact that may bolster the writer's claims and position of legitimacy.
(6) Future blame is conveniently assigned, absolving the other side from any obligations to modify behavior.
On another note, perhaps everyone should take this opportunity to ask against why the political opposition generates such negative feelings. In addition to actual differences of public policy and (perhaps) interests, culture, and styles of processing information, there may be psychological complexes deeply hidden in our individual and collective Shadow. We all could benefit from analytical hours with Carl Jung, if that were possible.
(1) Blame is placed on one side in the opening sentence.
(2) A putative fact (i.e., the consistent disparagement of Cheney and Bush) is presented as the cause ("...and you wonder why..."), rather than a result, of the partisan divide; again, blame is assigned to one side.
(3) The second paragraph again makes an assertion -- without an argument or factual support -- to pin culpability on one side.
(4) Some defensiveness regarding morality and other matters (e.g., "inferiority") is evident.
(5) The statement "...half the country..." is another unsupported fact that may bolster the writer's claims and position of legitimacy.
(6) Future blame is conveniently assigned, absolving the other side from any obligations to modify behavior.
On another note, perhaps everyone should take this opportunity to ask against why the political opposition generates such negative feelings. In addition to actual differences of public policy and (perhaps) interests, culture, and styles of processing information, there may be psychological complexes deeply hidden in our individual and collective Shadow. We all could benefit from analytical hours with Carl Jung, if that were possible.
2
The irony, of course, is their screeds often include intolerance based on race, religion and gender along with pats on their own backs for tolerance and acceptance.
Lack of insight when it comes to partisanship is their Achilles heel.
Lack of insight when it comes to partisanship is their Achilles heel.
2
I am simply intolerant of unconstitutional faith based legislation.
It's really easy to have a reasoned and humane discussion with someone on the other side: Listen for a while and keep your mouth shut. Don't jump in to dispute (what you think is) the first factual error, sweeping generalization, or slippery-slope argument. Hear them out. Try to understand the person as well as the position. Then respond to the person.
OK, it's not really easy.
OK, it's not really easy.
3
Why has politics degenerated into personal mud-slinging? Ask the geniuses who first thought up those 'negative ads'. That's about all we can expect of campaigns these days. Issues? What are THOSE?
It's just a battle of the bucks, based on that most ancient and hoary - but all too often highly effective -of legal trail tactics: If you have no case, just abuse the opponents. And that fact that THAT works so very well can be explained by none other than Albert Einstein: "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I often have my doubts about the universe."
It's just a battle of the bucks, based on that most ancient and hoary - but all too often highly effective -of legal trail tactics: If you have no case, just abuse the opponents. And that fact that THAT works so very well can be explained by none other than Albert Einstein: "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I often have my doubts about the universe."
3
When I was in American history class in the early 60's, we had to go all the way back to 1884 to find a presidential campaign based on personal attacks. Now such mudslinging is so routine you can almost close your eyes and find an example.
2
This all started with Dan Rather's interview of then Vice President George H. W. Bush in January 1988. Fox News was a creation of CBS news.
1
Civil rights and the environmental crisis are not "politics."
1
It goes back at least as far as the late '70's, when I went to a Republican caucus with my father. There were 12 slots and 13 candidates for a place at the regional (meetings). Candidates were asked precisely one question before the vote: Pro-life, yes/no. 12 said yes, 1 said no. Who do you suppose was not chosen?
What I learned that day is that Republicans cared about this one issue. Nothing else on the face of the earth.
Things have changed. Anyone who isn't so-called pro-life, anyone who doesn't despise health care for the poor, anyone who doesn't know that the government can cut its way out of the social and medical needs of retiring baby-boomers is a monster. With few exceptions, my relatives have designated as monsters everyone who disagrees with them on anything that today's Republican party stands for. They make it a point of sheltering themselves from the news. (I read the NYT and about a dozen other papers, many of them conservative, mainly to see what the "other side" is up to.)
There are a few exceptions, but not many that I've seen.
Yup, it's personal.
What I learned that day is that Republicans cared about this one issue. Nothing else on the face of the earth.
Things have changed. Anyone who isn't so-called pro-life, anyone who doesn't despise health care for the poor, anyone who doesn't know that the government can cut its way out of the social and medical needs of retiring baby-boomers is a monster. With few exceptions, my relatives have designated as monsters everyone who disagrees with them on anything that today's Republican party stands for. They make it a point of sheltering themselves from the news. (I read the NYT and about a dozen other papers, many of them conservative, mainly to see what the "other side" is up to.)
There are a few exceptions, but not many that I've seen.
Yup, it's personal.
1
I would hate to think about living in a country which did not have both liberals and conservatives.
2
... Maybe it's a case of, "follow the leader"...
In the early days of the republic, there were "fights" in Congress, and not just wars of words. How about about fisticuffs between opponents, members of one Party being caned by members of "the other party", even challenges to duels [for example, Hamilton and Burr in 1804]?
Feelings of rancor among the public as well as among politicians--leading in many cases to wars [North vs. South], riots [Ferguson most recently] and assassinations [Lincoln, tragically]--have been an integral part of the American experience ever since the founding, and even before [don't forget the Boston Tea Party]. What we as a society tend to do to assuage ourselves in the aftermath of these unfortunate events is to "memorialize" them with plaques, monuments, literary accounts, even movies [for example, D. W. Griffith's "The Birth of a Nation" in 1915].
Our own Dr. Martin Luther King, following Gandhi's example, provides us with the best panacea so far, that of the non-violent protest, for which he justifiably earned the Nobel Peace Prize. But other than that, at least for the foreseeable future, I think America needs to just learn to live as best it can with it's ongoing, "history of violence."
In the early days of the republic, there were "fights" in Congress, and not just wars of words. How about about fisticuffs between opponents, members of one Party being caned by members of "the other party", even challenges to duels [for example, Hamilton and Burr in 1804]?
Feelings of rancor among the public as well as among politicians--leading in many cases to wars [North vs. South], riots [Ferguson most recently] and assassinations [Lincoln, tragically]--have been an integral part of the American experience ever since the founding, and even before [don't forget the Boston Tea Party]. What we as a society tend to do to assuage ourselves in the aftermath of these unfortunate events is to "memorialize" them with plaques, monuments, literary accounts, even movies [for example, D. W. Griffith's "The Birth of a Nation" in 1915].
Our own Dr. Martin Luther King, following Gandhi's example, provides us with the best panacea so far, that of the non-violent protest, for which he justifiably earned the Nobel Peace Prize. But other than that, at least for the foreseeable future, I think America needs to just learn to live as best it can with it's ongoing, "history of violence."
4
I don't know where I heard it, but some wise person said the difference between conservatives & liberals is that when conservatives lose, they want to kill someone--when liberals lose, they want to kill themselves.
2
When I brought home my husband to be to my Protestant grandmother, she was fine with the fact that he was Jewish, but a Democrat? She informed me in no uncertain terms that there had never been a Democrat in our family!
3
The media sound bite tends to blame folks on the conservative side of the aisle for polarization and stridency. The demand for Fox News and the like was a result of biased reporting from the left side of the aisle. If you had to pick one event that triggered the reaction from the right, it would be Dan Rather's interview of George H. W. Bush in January 1988. Rather tried to ambush the then Vice-President. Many people interpreted it as an attempt to influence the election.
4
Yes, the left is always shocked when a movement on the right springs up. It fails to notice or simply refuses to acknowledge its own culpability in giving rise to it. Example: Big spending and Tea Party.
Murdoch saw the media's liberal bias and exploited it.
Murdoch saw the media's liberal bias and exploited it.
3
There are always reactionaries around. They only get really dangerous when foolish rich people water them with money.
1
60 votes to repeal Obamacare in 49 months of a GOP-controlled House - with no chance of success. That's not 'emotional, tribal or holistic', that's insanity.
1
As a life long political moderate, I've always felt like the chicken in the middle of the road-- do I get killed by the driver on the right or the driver on the left? Does it really matter which side deals the lethal blow? The moderate is still dead?
3
I think there is just one difference between liberals and conservatives...the ability to put oneself in someone else's place. I have known conservatives who changed their mind when it was they who needed unemployment or an abortion or health care, but not before that.
5
Neither are liberals known for putting themselves in the shoes of someone who has worked his whole life, earned his own way, without help or privilege. In fact, liberals are quick to dismiss them. Unless they feel as liberals do, they're pretty much considered not to "get" it.
1
I don't have a problem with Republicans, I have a problem with people who watch Fox News and believe them.
5
Perhaps it has to do with individual development of a person's ability to express a shared empathy with fellow citizens of this world. An understanding that all persons are to be included in the in group and an acceptance of this. There are no outsiders and all need the basics in life so that poverty will be minimized and such things as health care, education, food, shelter, transportation, safety, and a sustainable environment are available to all at affordable economic policies of distribution of all these staples of life to an entire world, not just Americans, Democrats and Republicans, liberals, conservatives, independents and all those apolitical. To all regardless of gender and racial identities. Regardless of age and economic status. Inclusiveness with absolutely no outsiders means everyone has human rights to be respected and enforced by law and Constitution. Perhaps we all need to grow to an acceptance of a sustainable life for all persons on a sustainable ever living Earth. Not to do so will be dangerous to all our progenies health and well being.
So perhaps the differences in us has to do with how we perceive what is a sustainable world and how to achieve it. AS natural and finished goods resources dwinddle, the tension seems to be rising.
So perhaps the differences in us has to do with how we perceive what is a sustainable world and how to achieve it. AS natural and finished goods resources dwinddle, the tension seems to be rising.
The answer to the rhetorical question "How Did Politics Get So Personal?" is not too complicated. Politics gets personal when the economic system is no longer balanced. In other words, the infrastructure i.e., the economic system determines the superstructure, politics.
During a few decades post WWII, the US experienced a spectacular period of growth and prosperity for all Americans. Suring that time, the political system worked smoothly to achieve two apparently incompatible goals: a successful market capitalism system and social justice and income distribution. The socio-economic system was balanced with upward social mobility playing a key role in that positive loop.
In the 90s, the economy became unbalanced in favor of capital and detriment to labor. The post WWII social contract was over. The good old days of bi-partisanship and politicians behaving as gentlemen was over in America.
For the moment, economic class warfare is being fought in the corridors of Congress and at the White House. A sign of modern times. Politics in America became economic warfare by other means. It is totally personal.
During a few decades post WWII, the US experienced a spectacular period of growth and prosperity for all Americans. Suring that time, the political system worked smoothly to achieve two apparently incompatible goals: a successful market capitalism system and social justice and income distribution. The socio-economic system was balanced with upward social mobility playing a key role in that positive loop.
In the 90s, the economy became unbalanced in favor of capital and detriment to labor. The post WWII social contract was over. The good old days of bi-partisanship and politicians behaving as gentlemen was over in America.
For the moment, economic class warfare is being fought in the corridors of Congress and at the White House. A sign of modern times. Politics in America became economic warfare by other means. It is totally personal.
5
I always enjoy Edsall's columns; they are food for thought. It does seem that our political division has become more primal and our divisiveness more profound, but I take issue with the characterization of each side. Overall, I think that Americans have become more emotional: it's not about what you think, but what you feel; both sides have trouble standing back and critiquing their own side. For evidence of this, try browsing through the readers' comments after a Dowd column critical of the President.
I don't see the left as being more "analytical." The Republicans have been very organized and methodical in their campaign to take control at the state and local levels of government. Despite having to deal with the Tea Party insurgency, they have gained control of Congress. They are very single-minded in pursuing their goals.
They have been very good at "managing emotion" with such media as talk radio. I have no doubt that someone like Rush Limbaugh knows precisely what he's doing when he stirs his pot of poison.
The difference that I see is tactics. We have seen through such things as threatening to cause financial default or allying with foreign leaders to circumvent the executive branch (rf. Netanyahu) that the Republicans are prepared to put party interest over national interest. Moreover, they have made their attacks within government more personal - and vicious.
I don't see the left as being more "analytical." The Republicans have been very organized and methodical in their campaign to take control at the state and local levels of government. Despite having to deal with the Tea Party insurgency, they have gained control of Congress. They are very single-minded in pursuing their goals.
They have been very good at "managing emotion" with such media as talk radio. I have no doubt that someone like Rush Limbaugh knows precisely what he's doing when he stirs his pot of poison.
The difference that I see is tactics. We have seen through such things as threatening to cause financial default or allying with foreign leaders to circumvent the executive branch (rf. Netanyahu) that the Republicans are prepared to put party interest over national interest. Moreover, they have made their attacks within government more personal - and vicious.
1
The arithmetic is much more convincing than this analysis. Conservatives, those who represent and serve the very wealthy white patriarchy have always required the support of people who were choosing to abandon their own best interests for a "cause". Most evident is the Civil War where the Southern Army was populated by individuals who were poor, uneducated, and slightly less disadvantaged than slaves who gave their lives defending aristocracy. Their loyalty was like that of peasants rallying for their aristocrats against an invading force. Today, conservatives use ignorance and fear of science, religion, adherence to patriarchy and white supremacy, and sheer anger and fear to carve out election victories.
Liberals are what Will Rogers described: not members of an organized political party; Democrats. Sure, they forced people to fight in the Civil war. Yet the analytical characteristics of liberals impairs their capacity to march in locked -step. They mull things over as Churchill described: eventually doing the right thing after they tried everything else.
The polarization that is described is what happens when we have tried everything else. Conservatives forge a mighty bond among liberals. Just how evident the evocation of fear, stupidity, ignorance, and hatred become forces liberals to take a stand. We do believe all humans are equal, that both genders are equal, that science must supercede religion, that hatred generates hatred, that democracy is better than oligarchy.
Liberals are what Will Rogers described: not members of an organized political party; Democrats. Sure, they forced people to fight in the Civil war. Yet the analytical characteristics of liberals impairs their capacity to march in locked -step. They mull things over as Churchill described: eventually doing the right thing after they tried everything else.
The polarization that is described is what happens when we have tried everything else. Conservatives forge a mighty bond among liberals. Just how evident the evocation of fear, stupidity, ignorance, and hatred become forces liberals to take a stand. We do believe all humans are equal, that both genders are equal, that science must supercede religion, that hatred generates hatred, that democracy is better than oligarchy.
2
I am not a doctrinaire liberal, and will never be, but I would have been upset had my daughter married a far right or hard right "conservative". For one thing, it would mean the subject of politics or government could never be raised at a family gathering. It would either cause great tension or I would have to bury my thoughts and opinions.
I don't have a great problem with conservative principles, it is the way they are used and misused in actual application. Conservative can be interpreted as meaning cautious, careful, not extreme. Those concepts have nothing to do with the current conservative movement in America. Its goal is to destroy a century or so of progress, allow business to rule whatever they don't already control and leave the population at the tender mercy of the market system and corporation decisions. Ouch. Most of the people voting conservative today would be shocked and disappointed, some extremely so, if their dreams ever came true and the Republicans had absolute control of the national government.
We need the contention of competing ideas. We need people saying, "No, you're wrong" to refine proposals into better ones. Republicans have given up on the idea that we can all get better by working together. They have decided that nothing less than total victory will do, obliterating all opposition. Why would I want to associate with that at all, at any time, in any way? By taking extreme positions, they force the same in opposition.
Doug Terry
I don't have a great problem with conservative principles, it is the way they are used and misused in actual application. Conservative can be interpreted as meaning cautious, careful, not extreme. Those concepts have nothing to do with the current conservative movement in America. Its goal is to destroy a century or so of progress, allow business to rule whatever they don't already control and leave the population at the tender mercy of the market system and corporation decisions. Ouch. Most of the people voting conservative today would be shocked and disappointed, some extremely so, if their dreams ever came true and the Republicans had absolute control of the national government.
We need the contention of competing ideas. We need people saying, "No, you're wrong" to refine proposals into better ones. Republicans have given up on the idea that we can all get better by working together. They have decided that nothing less than total victory will do, obliterating all opposition. Why would I want to associate with that at all, at any time, in any way? By taking extreme positions, they force the same in opposition.
Doug Terry
4
Very few posings here end in question marks.
I'll provide another reason. Republicans have gotten even more right wing, to the point of being a bit looney and willing to damage the country to get their way. They now represent something to actually be afraid of. Why Republicans have become more hostile to Democrats is less clear; either they hate them for supporting Obama or else it is just a part of their increased looniness.
4
Once a group is so sure of its morality and it's rightness that it feels free to impose its ideology on the others its bound to get personal. When somebody tells me I'm going to burn in hell when I die, that's personal. (even though its hokum).
If a Moslem tells me that I can't draw a picture of Mohammed that's personal.
If Roy Moore tells me I have to accept the 10 Commandments as law that's personal.
Telling a person he has to sit in the back of the bus or that he has to use the "black" drinking fountain is personal.
Telling the owner of the lunch counter that he has to serve blacks is personal.
Bussing a child to an integrated school is personal.
Being arrested for driving while black is personal.
Calling someone a murderer for having an abortion is personal.
Teaching your child intelligent design is personal.
Taking a person's land by condemnation, for a pipeline, is personal.
Requiring vaccinations is personal, adding floride to drinking water is personal.
Denying a couple a marriage license is personal.
It wasn't always this personal, or was it?
If a Moslem tells me that I can't draw a picture of Mohammed that's personal.
If Roy Moore tells me I have to accept the 10 Commandments as law that's personal.
Telling a person he has to sit in the back of the bus or that he has to use the "black" drinking fountain is personal.
Telling the owner of the lunch counter that he has to serve blacks is personal.
Bussing a child to an integrated school is personal.
Being arrested for driving while black is personal.
Calling someone a murderer for having an abortion is personal.
Teaching your child intelligent design is personal.
Taking a person's land by condemnation, for a pipeline, is personal.
Requiring vaccinations is personal, adding floride to drinking water is personal.
Denying a couple a marriage license is personal.
It wasn't always this personal, or was it?
3
The numbers show that republicans are more extreme in their views. That works to their advantage because it makes for a more coherent group, more likely to vote and vote a straight party ticket. Democrats, according to the data, are more open minded, tolerant, and inclusive. Nothing new here.
1
Reviewing the article again, and my own and other comments, I wonder if the election of JFK was more of a turning-point than I'd realized. I know that Evangelical leaders went to Switzerland to discuss how they might stop the Papist, and that his victory sparked a scurry of activity among conservatives--but perhaps not just because Goldwater lost.
JFK's victory may have signaled real danger to the hegemony of the old bosses of America. This might explain the gutter responses to Carter and Clinton—their elections were further warning signs of a take-over by “undesirables.” Of course, in Obama’s case, that sentiment would have been doubled, and would explain the sewer responses to him and his family. BTW, did the First Lady actually touch the hand of the Saudi King, and she not even wearing a head-scarf?
JFK's victory may have signaled real danger to the hegemony of the old bosses of America. This might explain the gutter responses to Carter and Clinton—their elections were further warning signs of a take-over by “undesirables.” Of course, in Obama’s case, that sentiment would have been doubled, and would explain the sewer responses to him and his family. BTW, did the First Lady actually touch the hand of the Saudi King, and she not even wearing a head-scarf?
1
This is an interesting bit from the study:
''Strong Republicans'' and ''Weaker Democrats'' led the demonstration of pro-Right and pro-Left responses for their sides of the divide.
Are ''Strong Democrats'' learning so much about the corrupting influence of liberalism on their fellow believers that they are starting to question emotional and logical effects of the class struggle they signed up for so long again?
That would explain my personal observation that the responding commenters here are much more likely to convey the intensity of the new convert than the fewer conservative commenters. Or, the Times simply isn't attracting the eyes of newly conservative readers.
''Strong Republicans'' and ''Weaker Democrats'' led the demonstration of pro-Right and pro-Left responses for their sides of the divide.
Are ''Strong Democrats'' learning so much about the corrupting influence of liberalism on their fellow believers that they are starting to question emotional and logical effects of the class struggle they signed up for so long again?
That would explain my personal observation that the responding commenters here are much more likely to convey the intensity of the new convert than the fewer conservative commenters. Or, the Times simply isn't attracting the eyes of newly conservative readers.
3
Republicans are just a whole lot more obsessed about strong and weak than Democrats.
Any comparison between 1960 and 2008-2010 has to consider the rise of the vast gulag of hate radio, as well as the 24/7 cable news streams.
Both sides disparage the other, but the GOP has the advantage in hate radio. It's hard to believe that Republicans consider themselves more intelligent and less selfish.
Both sides disparage the other, but the GOP has the advantage in hate radio. It's hard to believe that Republicans consider themselves more intelligent and less selfish.
6
With the internet, people can be much more selective where they get their information. In 1960, you had your local paper and 3 or 4 newscasts.
Liberals go to MSNBC for their lies and conservatives to Fox news.
Liberals go to MSNBC for their lies and conservatives to Fox news.
2
I think fewer L's go to MSNBC vs C's going to Fox which makes sense given the thesis of the article.
1
Alistair:
No, MSNBC simply doesn't do as good a job presenting the issues.
FoxNews Sunday's panel with Chris Wallace has sharp conservatives, liberals and middle-of-the-roaders. All their shows have someone with an opposing viewpoint. Guests always get challenged with the question, "Opponents claim such-and-such. How do you respond?"
MSNBC spends its time confirming its own viewpoints. They like to hear themselves talk. Meet the Press has talking heads with gossipy opinions. Al Sharpton's opinion is not worthy of an entire show.
No, MSNBC simply doesn't do as good a job presenting the issues.
FoxNews Sunday's panel with Chris Wallace has sharp conservatives, liberals and middle-of-the-roaders. All their shows have someone with an opposing viewpoint. Guests always get challenged with the question, "Opponents claim such-and-such. How do you respond?"
MSNBC spends its time confirming its own viewpoints. They like to hear themselves talk. Meet the Press has talking heads with gossipy opinions. Al Sharpton's opinion is not worthy of an entire show.
1
The pie graphs showing the number of each of party who would be upset if someone married the opposing party says it all. Nice to know that the Republicans were once on a par with Democrats in their lack of prejudice.
2
Fox news was a creation of Dan Rather and CBS news. I think if you had to pick one event that really ignited it it would be Rather's interview of George H. W. Bush in January 1988. Ironically, Rather subsequently went after George W. Bush in in a 60 minutes II story which pretty much violated every rule of journalistic integrity.
2
Dan Rather was set up to defuse the truth that Bush got leave from the National Guard to help his daddy run for public office in the middle of the Vietnam War.
It sure worked on America's rampant fools.
It sure worked on America's rampant fools.
1
My theory goes something like this. I believe we used to marry people that were different from us. Part of this had to do with the fact that fewer women worked. Now accountants marry accountants, lawyers marry lawyers, college professors marry college professors, and so forth. This leads to group think. In addition, we often tend to socialize with people who are similar to us. Thus, there are bars that are known as cop bars, or ones by the court house where lawyers and government workers gather. Thus, our opinions are constantly being reinforced, instead of questioned. I read both the NYT and the WSJ, and it is often very amusing to read comments on the same issue. Perhaps, we need to read a variety of things and actually have dinner with people who think differently. They do not do that in Congress, but the rest of us can make the effort. What you will find, if you make the effort and agree to not get angry, is that we actually agree on many things.
2
From the data Republicans, are more religious, more moral, and more hateful than Democrats, but it is a moral hatred so it is okay.
2
The combination of political party dogmatism, "tenured" legislators resulting from gerrymandering, media fueled propaganda substituting for news and a winner take all economy has resulted in the personal hostility aspect of political partisanship.
Partisanship exhibited by personal hostility is more perfectly embodied in the republican party at this time than in any time in our history with the exception of the democratic south in the 1850s.
Partisanship exhibited by personal hostility is more perfectly embodied in the republican party at this time than in any time in our history with the exception of the democratic south in the 1850s.
5 cents' worth of the blame comes from the late and missed Lee Atwater marrying Gov. Dukakis to a recidivist criminal in 1988.
95 cents' worth, however, accrues to liberal Democrats for their felony-level war of hatred against Presidents George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan, Sarah Palin, Clarence Thomas, Fox News Channel, all women non-liberals, all black non-liberals, all Hispanic non-liberals, and anyone religious, pro-national defense, and most American businesses.
95 cents' worth, however, accrues to liberal Democrats for their felony-level war of hatred against Presidents George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan, Sarah Palin, Clarence Thomas, Fox News Channel, all women non-liberals, all black non-liberals, all Hispanic non-liberals, and anyone religious, pro-national defense, and most American businesses.
5
I could never get involved with someone who was either a Republican or religious. Relationships lead to arguments enough, why add more fuel to the fire?
1
This analysis can be boiled down to one observation. The Republican Party is the one which has the greatest appeal to those who harbor bigotry. That has probably been true for decades.
3
A Pew poll showed that 25 percent of US conservatives opposed interracial marriage... in 2014! That percentage is probably much higher in the Deep South.
Coming from a multiracial family, why would I want to associate with these kinds of people?
Coming from a multiracial family, why would I want to associate with these kinds of people?
2
No mention of the deregulation of radio and television and the subsequent proliferation of so-called "talk radio." It became a platform for anyone with access to a microphone and a transmitter, facts be damned. I remember strong opinions and spirited discussions from the 1960's through mid-1980's, but nothing like the hateful rhetoric that is commonplace in the 21st century. This is not to say that regulating media saves all, but a requirement that information have a reference source that is more thoughtful than, "Rush said it, so it must be true" would certainly help tone things down on both sides.
1
Media executives aligned with Koch interests deliberately cultivated the creeps who water their microphones with spittle on talk radio.
1
In other words, politics in the US has become religion.
3
That's what makes the social contract non-negotiable in the US.
1
The word is "progressive." "Liberal" is inaccurate, misleading, obsolete, and catnip to conservatives. It must be abandoned.
6
"Liberal" is too closely related to "liberty". They believe they own liberty.
"Liberal" was abandoned when it became a scowl-word on the lips of G.H.W. Bush, probably thanks to Lee Atwater. Now "progressives" are the target for right-wing propagandists - how does that suit you, my fellow lefties?
In 1994 I attended a memorial service for Irving How, whom I considered one of the last liberals left. I said that to one attendee, who said that "liberal" is a dirty word. After the service I said it to a protégé of Howe, who quoted Howe as saying that to be a socialist you have to be liberal.
What is liberalism? It includes generosity of spirit, openzmindedness, intellectual honesty, belief in the dignity of every person, and love of freedom. Progressivism without liberalism is a dangerous force.
In 1994 I attended a memorial service for Irving How, whom I considered one of the last liberals left. I said that to one attendee, who said that "liberal" is a dirty word. After the service I said it to a protégé of Howe, who quoted Howe as saying that to be a socialist you have to be liberal.
What is liberalism? It includes generosity of spirit, openzmindedness, intellectual honesty, belief in the dignity of every person, and love of freedom. Progressivism without liberalism is a dangerous force.
1
Sorry, I meant Irving Howe, as I spelled his name subsequently.
Political affiliation has to cover many things things we’re now supposed to be blind to—race, color, religion/creed, gender, gender expression, age, national origin/ancestry, disability, marital status, sexual orientation—every important (and interesting) aspect of a human being, in other words.
Oh come on Mr. Edsall, personal attacks have been part of the American political process since at least the election of 1828. If you want to examine a collection of scurrilous personal attacks, you cannot top the way supporters of Andrew Jackson and John Quincy Adams absolutely vilified the other candidate.
1
It was already running rampant by 1800 Adams/Jefferson election and even before with the Federalist Arguments. Personal attacks and villainy where scurrilously expressed. Alexander Hamilton was the first professional character assasin in our political history. His style of expression led to his demise for the scandalous expressions let loose on Mr. Burr. Mr. H. had many bad things expressed about Mr. J's character. All of Mr. H's advisaries always had a very great lack of character. Mr. H didn't have much good to say about Mr. Adams either. Mr. J paid editors to scourge Mr. A's reputation. With the avent of party politics in 1800 presidential election, each set up their own news papers to bash the other side.
1
The difference is now it's considered "unfair" and worthy of censorship?
1
I live in a liberal bubble, but I still have conservative friends and family members. There is an analytical difference between the two camps, but what I have seen is somewhat different from the cited studies. Liberals are more willing to consider positions that call for social and economic changes, while many conservatives do not see the need to do so. In fact, some conservatives resent having to consider such positions. They accept the status quo as a given, rather than a product of social forces. In some sense, their horizons are more limited, and they like that. If I could ignore what I know about history, politics, and society, I would agree with them.
2
They sure don't see us living under a dynamic social contract that we evolve through the political process.
1
Let's not mince words. One party and its corporate backers, has given up any pretense of good faith argument and will happily put forth "facts" it knows not to be true, such as the weeks long rants about the "no go zones" in Europe, striking fear into its followers that the same thing will happen in America -- and, obviously, the administration is not doing enough to protect us. Unforgivable! Or the "reports" of ISIS attempting to cross our southern border before the election! Heavens! Vote those people out to protect your children! (Although there was no such credible reports.) Good news, such as increased employment numbers? The other side can't get credit for something good! So, the numbers are a lie! Also, let's not forget to exploit the human problem of extrapolation. Some people caught committing welfare fraud? Who needs a detailed study when an anecdote about 3 or 4 people proves a claim made against millions? All of them must be lazy and they are taking YOUR money! No analysis into how much fraud actually takes place in the welfare system will ever be discussed on Fox News... that would take analysis, and would prove the world to be much grayer than the black and white grievous machinery that the right wing stakes its existence on these days...
3
These stats don't address that the political ground now is very different than before Reagen's economic shift and before Nixon's resignation. The six fold shift to the right by republicans forces people to have to choose sides in a way more moderate party platforms did not. Nor did parties so strongly advocate for the interests of who paid so directly and with so much money. All of these create the "heat". Take the money and focused narrow interests out of the republican party, return congress to the rules it played by before, and advocate a more moderate platform rather than the extreme to pull everything even further to the extreme with the intent to force division, the temperature will change as quickly as these things happen. And let's be clear, this is a republican driven phenomenon and not by their so called constituency. It's a centralized position promoted by leadership that presses their decisions down on voters and citizens without regard for them, often downright hostile.
I recently got an email from my senator headlining "No excuses on Keystone" as if representing that most feel Obama has thrown up excuses to defy the citizenery. This is not congress instituting the will of the people, it;s congress pressing it's will on the people.
I recently got an email from my senator headlining "No excuses on Keystone" as if representing that most feel Obama has thrown up excuses to defy the citizenery. This is not congress instituting the will of the people, it;s congress pressing it's will on the people.
1
The most extreme ideological positioning of the Democratic Party no longer exists. Nobody is talking about Medicare for all, or making Social Security a larger part of the retirement of most people. Nobody wants a robust state-owned railway system, or labor unions and state governments represented on boards of directors.
The most Democrats are pushing for these days is a robust safety net and regulation of a market-based economy. This is hardly extreme when compared with what they were after at the end of World War II. Republicans in those days had basically accepted the New Deal and wanted to make it cheaper and more efficient. Now they want to shrink government (except for the military) and turn over everything to private enterprise.
The most Democrats are pushing for these days is a robust safety net and regulation of a market-based economy. This is hardly extreme when compared with what they were after at the end of World War II. Republicans in those days had basically accepted the New Deal and wanted to make it cheaper and more efficient. Now they want to shrink government (except for the military) and turn over everything to private enterprise.
7
Being one of those liberals that seems to have an analytic side, this is shoddy science. There are some interesting parts but it implies things that aren't really in evidence. Is being analytic genetic, or is it learned. Can it be unlearned? Maybe it is possible that I had an inclination that way, but without the proper environment, I would not have developed those talents. And having measured that liberals are in general more analytic than conservatives, does that imply causality. Or maybe it is a feature of all these different environments that they both developed independently. Actually, I don't know if the degree of polarization in society as a whole is really any different now. What I do know is that rigid groups are more able to organize more easily now, that they get a constant stream of propaganda that solidifies that rigidity, and that an assemblage of rigid groups (religious, Tea Party, Guns, racists) have taken over the Republican party and pushed it so far to the right that it really stands for nothing. The polarization is a result of that extreme shift and the purification of the brand. In 1965, a sizable number of Republicans supported the Civil Rights Act. Today, not a single one would particularly if Obama was in office. Unfortunately, the political system re-enforces this shift by effectively gerrymandering the country so that a few control the political process.
4
These questions may help to explain why people might distrust those in the other party:
If you know, as you should, that greenhouse gas emissions are changing our climate and that continued emissions will severely impact our civilization, then wouldn't you feel antipathy toward people who deny that reality and that are willing to risk millions, or possibly even billions, of deaths as a result of famine, flood, and drought?
If you believe, as many people do, that a human life exists from the moment that a fetus begins to develop in the woman's womb, then would you not consider those who would sanction the killing of that nascent human under the guise of "choice" or the Constitution to be morally obtuse?
If you believe that a human being has a fundamental, basic right to a fair return on his or her labor, then would you not regard as greedy and full of avarice those who condone the practice of paying people less than a living wage or, worse, tolerate the practice of out-sourcing factories so that the corporation can pay pennies per day to children?
If you regard the functioning of democracy as being almost totally dependent on self-sufficiency, as much localized government as possible, and as few restrictions on economic freedom as practical, then wouldn't you regard those who think more power should be held by officials in Washington, D.C., favor a social safety net administered by the federal government, and encourage business regulation to be anti-democratic?
If you know, as you should, that greenhouse gas emissions are changing our climate and that continued emissions will severely impact our civilization, then wouldn't you feel antipathy toward people who deny that reality and that are willing to risk millions, or possibly even billions, of deaths as a result of famine, flood, and drought?
If you believe, as many people do, that a human life exists from the moment that a fetus begins to develop in the woman's womb, then would you not consider those who would sanction the killing of that nascent human under the guise of "choice" or the Constitution to be morally obtuse?
If you believe that a human being has a fundamental, basic right to a fair return on his or her labor, then would you not regard as greedy and full of avarice those who condone the practice of paying people less than a living wage or, worse, tolerate the practice of out-sourcing factories so that the corporation can pay pennies per day to children?
If you regard the functioning of democracy as being almost totally dependent on self-sufficiency, as much localized government as possible, and as few restrictions on economic freedom as practical, then wouldn't you regard those who think more power should be held by officials in Washington, D.C., favor a social safety net administered by the federal government, and encourage business regulation to be anti-democratic?
2
All politics is scale-independent. But we will never get this mess straightened until more people understand what that means.
The comments posted to this point clearly illustrates the ongoing undeniable rancor that permeates politics. Where there is unanimity is we all can agree that there is enough blame to go around. I do not believe in reductionist thought as we live in complicated times. I do however believe that there was a signature event which has led to the sad state affairs we are having today. I am in the November of my life and I have seen much history. Respectfully I submit that the genesis of the current sad state of affairs began with the rejection of Robert Bork as a Supreme Court Justice. We ever have a verb - Borked - as a reminder of that deeply malevolent hearing.
1
That was certainly whem the pustule of religion broke upon US politics. Bork was the first of the wave of religiously motivated Supreme Court appointments.
I have followed politics rather closely for the past 35 years. In my observation, liberals, whether in the form of office holders, candidates or writers, have never exhibited the hate-filled, fact-challenged speech that has often accompanied those of the conservative stripe. Ever since the Reagan years in the 80s, conservatives have always just seemed...mean-spirited. As a person, Reagan himself was well-liked by both democrats and republicans for his affability. But he ushered in the meanness of the so-called moral majority.
14
I don't understand why the near-hate speech of the extreme right-wing media of Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, et al to a very large audience is not mentioned as a key contributor to the distrust of conservatives. Similarly, liberal pundits contribute to the problem though I feel their effects are much less as fewer people listen to them!
Also it is not equivalent if one side criticizes the other for policies that have not worked and ignoring scientific evidence versus the other side claiming that the opponents are "coming to get you" and that they are evil. Both will make the listeners less trustful of the others but it is pretty clear that the harsher language has more detrimental effects.
Also it is not equivalent if one side criticizes the other for policies that have not worked and ignoring scientific evidence versus the other side claiming that the opponents are "coming to get you" and that they are evil. Both will make the listeners less trustful of the others but it is pretty clear that the harsher language has more detrimental effects.
7
Conservatives "dislike welfare programs because those programs serve strangers or even people from out-groups."
I'd add, from what I hear and read from conservative friends and family, is that they think that welfare recipients are cheating the system (some are, most are not) and/or not trying to find a job (many are). There is no gray in their thinking with regard to this issue and others (guns, the wars, Obama, etc.) Add to this simplistic falsities they watch on FOX, and their willful ignorance of the real theft of on the part of corporations via corporate welfare, subsidies and off-sharing profits.
I'd add, from what I hear and read from conservative friends and family, is that they think that welfare recipients are cheating the system (some are, most are not) and/or not trying to find a job (many are). There is no gray in their thinking with regard to this issue and others (guns, the wars, Obama, etc.) Add to this simplistic falsities they watch on FOX, and their willful ignorance of the real theft of on the part of corporations via corporate welfare, subsidies and off-sharing profits.
13
Black-and-white thinking is not peculiar to conservatives. I see similar thinking in liberals who claim, "Republicans are all like this, or republicans all believe such-and-such" (almost always mistaken). Tax cuts don't work (they can). And in their thinking about corporations and "the rich" (absolutely no gray there either).
And these are NYT readers.
This kind of angry distrust is prevalent among both liberals and conservatives. People are just very frustrated now.
And these are NYT readers.
This kind of angry distrust is prevalent among both liberals and conservatives. People are just very frustrated now.
6
"Tax cuts don't work (they can). "......Yes, they can. But not in an environment where the corporate sector profit margins are already at their highest level in 65 years; where the stock market is at an all time high; not when inflation is below 2% and wages have been stagnant for 15 years. and there is a high rate of unemployment. This is exactly the problem of not knowing the facts and not having even the most basic understanding of economics 101. The correct solution at this moment in time is demand side economics. If the only thing you know is tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts; your only going to be right 50% of the time, and it happens at this time you are way off on the wrong side of 50%.
12
W.A. Spitzer:
You have spun off into your own argument against republicans ("If the only thing you know is tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts...").
Like the argument against liberals that the only thing they know is spending, spending, spending....
You have spun off into your own argument against republicans ("If the only thing you know is tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts...").
Like the argument against liberals that the only thing they know is spending, spending, spending....
2
American culture is media driven. Large media companies make huge profits on the divisions they foster. Just ask Rupert Murdoch how he gets his. The public are worse than sheep. Think about who profits the most from political elections and the need for political identification becomes self evident. It's no different than branding.
8
No group has been better at market segmentation than democrats. They've sliced Americans into identity groups based on race, gender, sexuality, etc.
Pitting segments against each other has served them well but divided the country. In the process they've alienated one of their key segments (white males) so will now have to reassess. A good thing for the country.
Pitting segments against each other has served them well but divided the country. In the process they've alienated one of their key segments (white males) so will now have to reassess. A good thing for the country.
4
"American culture is media driven"
And nothing attracts an audience like carnage or a good fight.
And nothing attracts an audience like carnage or a good fight.
indeed - "the personal is political".
Much of this hostile polarization is due to the ever-increasing ease with which one can have one's world view validated by some form of media.
It began when we went from three networks and a couple local TV stations to 500 channel TV. The concept was sold as a way to promote diversity. In fact, it has had the opposite effect. Now 24/7 a person can sit glued to his or her television without ever having to encounter something he or she does not already believe. Another aspect of the same phenomena is that by absorbing nothing but self-reinforcing viewpoints, we no longer even have a common body of information -- such as the three networks newscasts -- about which we can discuss, even argue.
When we went to the internet, what we created is 500 channel TV on steroids. Now you can be the only person in your community that thinks a certain way and, by hooking up with others of like inclination around the country, convince yourself you are part of a mass movement. Sadly, even Times online Comments often tend to bear this out, no acknowledgement of the other except in Manichean terms.
It began when we went from three networks and a couple local TV stations to 500 channel TV. The concept was sold as a way to promote diversity. In fact, it has had the opposite effect. Now 24/7 a person can sit glued to his or her television without ever having to encounter something he or she does not already believe. Another aspect of the same phenomena is that by absorbing nothing but self-reinforcing viewpoints, we no longer even have a common body of information -- such as the three networks newscasts -- about which we can discuss, even argue.
When we went to the internet, what we created is 500 channel TV on steroids. Now you can be the only person in your community that thinks a certain way and, by hooking up with others of like inclination around the country, convince yourself you are part of a mass movement. Sadly, even Times online Comments often tend to bear this out, no acknowledgement of the other except in Manichean terms.
7
I believe that we need a required year of national service after high school. One of the inadvertent benefits of the military draft was an enforced empathy for others from different backgrounds. One of the great attributes of the so called "greatest generation" was the sense of common cause that they gained during their military service. I believe it is a reason that they possessed a more collegial temperament, and while partisan, not as personally stigmatizing in their views. As outlined, we are becoming more polarized across political, cultural, and economic classes. A year of positive common purpose and with required social duties would promote national cohesion and tolerance.
5
The level of partisanship has fluctuated throughout American history. While politicians may play with voters' minds by alternating between ideological purity and moderation, they have little control over politically-driven personal animosity. The culprits who bear the larger share of the blame are talk show hosts, "political commentators" and the Internet.
Too many talk show hosts and commentators are skilled at creating group-think, provoking outrage and alienating Americans. They encourage the personalization of politics. As for cyberspace, it's an excellent medium for spreading misinformation with guaranteed anonymity. The forces converge to create a highly toxic political atmosphere.
Unchecked politically-driven hatred is as dangerous to society as is any other form of bigotry. It takes people of all races to fight racism. Similarly, a strong backlash from mainstream Americans is urgently required to prevent political fissures - caused by certain 21st century forces - from grievously harming the country.
Too many talk show hosts and commentators are skilled at creating group-think, provoking outrage and alienating Americans. They encourage the personalization of politics. As for cyberspace, it's an excellent medium for spreading misinformation with guaranteed anonymity. The forces converge to create a highly toxic political atmosphere.
Unchecked politically-driven hatred is as dangerous to society as is any other form of bigotry. It takes people of all races to fight racism. Similarly, a strong backlash from mainstream Americans is urgently required to prevent political fissures - caused by certain 21st century forces - from grievously harming the country.
3
Family and other in-group ties are being (have largely been) replaced by the illusory ties of Identity Politics. Having been repeatedly assured that there are no actual individuals worthy of their personal commitment and loyalty, Americans invest ethnic/gender group- and party-affiliation with the semi-childish defensive emotions they once invested in family members, gang members, and lovers.
3
Liberals "have less of a need for order, structure and closure" -- or results.
Individualism feels and sounds great until it's time for accountability. Then it quickly turns into collectivism, when an "other" is needed to blame for the policy failures that ensue.
Individualism feels and sounds great until it's time for accountability. Then it quickly turns into collectivism, when an "other" is needed to blame for the policy failures that ensue.
2
A Pew poll last summer showed that a quarter of conservatives are still opposed to interracial marriage (it was less than 5 percent among liberals).
Since most people don't admit their racism, that percentage is probably even higher (especially in the South, the GOP regional base).
Why would I associate with people like them?
Since most people don't admit their racism, that percentage is probably even higher (especially in the South, the GOP regional base).
Why would I associate with people like them?
19
Because you might be able to set a good example, or to do or say something that would make them want to be less racist in the future.
1
No reason. Make sure you ask people straight away, though, because they may belong to the cooler 75% of conservatives. Then it is their choice whether they wish to associate with you based on your initial question.
1
Bad idea, SKM. You're on the verge of starting a conversation, and the other person offrs you a litmus-test question as the condition of continuing the conversation. How do you think that will affect a conservative's opinion of liberals?
I'm with Charley horse.
I'm with Charley horse.
"“liberals and conservatives in the same country think as if they were from different cultures.”"
Personally, I think there's something to this, for the simple reason that, unlike the days before our current, voluntary military service, conscription had the effect of forcing hundreds of thousands--if not millions--of young Americans from all over the country to rub shoulders with other Americans for a common purpose.
Such shared experiences have a tendency to last a lifetime and can make the difference, however small it may seem, between identifying ourselves as 'Americans' in the fullest sense of the word, or simply as 'Americans' from Iowa, or Wisconsin, or Mississippi. Just ask your grandparents, especially Grandpa.
In fact, this phenomenon was already noted as a difference in attitude before and after the Civil War, when people would self-identify according the their state-of-origin before the war, but for the first time in American history began to refer to themselves as 'Americans' after the war. Unfortunately, we are reversing this trend (though it hasn't yet been reflected in our language much) in part because of diminishing opportunities to mix with Americans outside of our region as well as other technological changes that put different demands on how we perceive our countrymen from different parts of the nation.
Personally, I think there's something to this, for the simple reason that, unlike the days before our current, voluntary military service, conscription had the effect of forcing hundreds of thousands--if not millions--of young Americans from all over the country to rub shoulders with other Americans for a common purpose.
Such shared experiences have a tendency to last a lifetime and can make the difference, however small it may seem, between identifying ourselves as 'Americans' in the fullest sense of the word, or simply as 'Americans' from Iowa, or Wisconsin, or Mississippi. Just ask your grandparents, especially Grandpa.
In fact, this phenomenon was already noted as a difference in attitude before and after the Civil War, when people would self-identify according the their state-of-origin before the war, but for the first time in American history began to refer to themselves as 'Americans' after the war. Unfortunately, we are reversing this trend (though it hasn't yet been reflected in our language much) in part because of diminishing opportunities to mix with Americans outside of our region as well as other technological changes that put different demands on how we perceive our countrymen from different parts of the nation.
7
The study contrasts opinions in 1960 versus 2010, but more pertinent would be the change in the past 20 years, i.e. since the advent of the Internet. Many people get their information solely from ideological agreeable websites and only congregate in social media forums with like-minded individuals.
15
The reason for the increasing polarization is not a mystery. It began with Rush Limbaugh in the late 1980's -- the man who made America hate. He made incivility "respectable" and paved the way for other blatant polarizers like Hannity, Savage, etc. I hate to give Rush credit for anything, but he deserves the credit -- and a large share of the blame -- for this. His dittohead followers can divvy up the rest of the blame any way they choose, as responsibly minded as they claim to be.
31
Rush Limbaugh came on the national scene as the successor to Morton Downey, Jr. Downey had mainstreamed the political stance of Joe Pyne. All three saw meanness as a virtue and civility as fit for wimps. Meanwhile, Ronald Reagan and his allies told us that greed is a virtue and callousness is patriotic.
The acrimony that was the downside of the 60's never went away; it was just in retreat during the days of Ford and Carter.
The acrimony that was the downside of the 60's never went away; it was just in retreat during the days of Ford and Carter.
3
As others have said, it's odd that the substance of politics since the sixties plays no role in this analysis. Ever since LBJ turned the southern and segregationist Democratic party around 180 degrees and aligned it with the Civil Rights Movement, and the Republicans responded with the southern strategy, our politics has gotten nastier and nastier. While Democrats pandered to blacks, lawyers, teachers, unions, Republicans pandered to racists, xenophobes, misogynists, fundamentalists, gun nuts, anti-intellectuals, homophobes, and the very greedy. They have gotten nastier and nastier, more and more irrational. They are not a serious party of governance anymore, they are the intellectual and political equivalent of the far-right parties in Europe. How is it possible that this has played no role in the increasing polarization?
11
Perhaps it is due to my religion and its teachings that I am a liberal leaning Democrat. I prefer to see my neighbors succeed than struggle and if it takes the government to help them, using my tax money, it's fine with me. I prefer to see an educated workforce and if the government can help those wanting an education, using my tax money, it's fine with me. I prefer to see people working, perhaps on repairing our badly decaying infrastructure being paid with government money, using my tax money, it's fine with me. I could go on ad nauseum with the reasons others might think are directly against my own best interests, but wanting the best for those who need a helping hand and supplying it, is my reason for supporting one political party as opposed to the other. It also makes me want to be around those who feel as I do.
27
It is really so much more frugal to be a liberal. Cheaper to educate someone than to imprison them. Etc. Etc. Etc.
1
It's always been there, in the '60s you were anti-war or pro re Vietnam, pro or con civil rights, women's rights. Same group, long hair short skirts obv the liberals. But the personal hatred wasn't there, except for J.Edgar.
I think the 24/7 Fox News and Murdoch's other outlets, Rush, Hannity et al have degraded our discourse to where it presently is. No Walter Cronkite here.
The bellowing coming out of talk radio over Sandra Fluke I overheard from an adjacent doctor's room and had to ask that it be turned down (they turned it off), it was so offensive--in an Oncology office! Rush was yelling.
That bellicosity adopted by fans who are instantly identified by their trite slogans, attitude and claims of wanting back their country. I remove myself as quickly as possible, there is no possibility of discussion.
I would be horrified if any of my friends or family was marrying a Republican. Race, religion, gender--none would matter but a Republican, too important to abide.
I think the 24/7 Fox News and Murdoch's other outlets, Rush, Hannity et al have degraded our discourse to where it presently is. No Walter Cronkite here.
The bellowing coming out of talk radio over Sandra Fluke I overheard from an adjacent doctor's room and had to ask that it be turned down (they turned it off), it was so offensive--in an Oncology office! Rush was yelling.
That bellicosity adopted by fans who are instantly identified by their trite slogans, attitude and claims of wanting back their country. I remove myself as quickly as possible, there is no possibility of discussion.
I would be horrified if any of my friends or family was marrying a Republican. Race, religion, gender--none would matter but a Republican, too important to abide.
19
In the 60's people were too busy analyzing religious differences and distancing themselves over those issues to attack political party affiliation.
Then Kennedy, a Catholic, became president, was assassinated, and somehow Catholics weren't so bad after all. The pope had not taken over the United States by the time Kennedy died so the religious fussing settled down.
As the Supreme Court has allowed anyone to buy elections, which is exactly what is being done, the Koch and the likes of the Koch advertising will certainly stir up disappointment - their commercials are a test, almost, of what people will end up believing. If the statistics shown here are accurate, we can see the results of the tests, can't we? Oh, those poor dissatisfied Republicans.
I feel sort of bad for my one Republican leaning son-in-law, the newest to the group. "He just doesn't understand!" Or we could say "If he would only educate himself more, he'd get it!" Hopefully I can't help but wish the other sons-in-law will convince him to cave to the other side, the good side. :)
Maybe they could do that by keeping him away from all those nasty Koch TV commercials!
Then Kennedy, a Catholic, became president, was assassinated, and somehow Catholics weren't so bad after all. The pope had not taken over the United States by the time Kennedy died so the religious fussing settled down.
As the Supreme Court has allowed anyone to buy elections, which is exactly what is being done, the Koch and the likes of the Koch advertising will certainly stir up disappointment - their commercials are a test, almost, of what people will end up believing. If the statistics shown here are accurate, we can see the results of the tests, can't we? Oh, those poor dissatisfied Republicans.
I feel sort of bad for my one Republican leaning son-in-law, the newest to the group. "He just doesn't understand!" Or we could say "If he would only educate himself more, he'd get it!" Hopefully I can't help but wish the other sons-in-law will convince him to cave to the other side, the good side. :)
Maybe they could do that by keeping him away from all those nasty Koch TV commercials!
5
Cases in point: Eugene McCarthy and Edmund Muskie were Catholics. Not to mention JFK's brother Robert.
The GOP has relentlessly embraced the conservative Southern voters who were reliably Democratic back in the Jim Crow days. But the Democrats back then were also the party of union labor, Northeast cities, and other balanciing factors. There's no equivalent balance on the GOP platform today. That's why the 2012 election map looked almost like something from the Civil War. So the GOP has become this collection of highly partisan ideologues who believe their propaganda.
That sort of evolution is inherently polarizing. When a major political party defines reality in terms of us (the good conservatives) and them (the dastardly liberals), then middle ground becomes almost impossible to reach. As others have asked, who in the Republican Party am I going to have a reasoned and open-minded discussion with?
That sort of evolution is inherently polarizing. When a major political party defines reality in terms of us (the good conservatives) and them (the dastardly liberals), then middle ground becomes almost impossible to reach. As others have asked, who in the Republican Party am I going to have a reasoned and open-minded discussion with?
12
I have many Republican friends and it has indeed become a struggle to keep my respect for them. The recent No Go zones issue at Fox was a case in point. They insisted Fox was right on this and told me to Google it if I didn't believe them. I did and saw only Fox and some ther conservative outlets carried it. They insisted iy was true right up till Fox issued an apology for the incorrect reporting. Too many conservatives have chosen to believe whatever they wish to right or wrong. It has become very hard to have any meaningful discussions with them. You have to stick to the weather. This is hard on a friendship let alone a marriage.
25
It is instructive that the decline in trust has doubled within the last decade, mostly since Obama was elected. Most of the uncooperative behavior really has been exhibited by Republicans who refuse to balance deficits with tax increases, continue to insist that shrinking government and imposing cultural conservative preferences upon everybody, continue to insist that market distortions are the fault of government attempting to regulate markets, insisting that those who are refusing to invest in our domestic economy are the job creators, and calling everyone who accepts the science describing man's contribution to climate changes deluded. They see the facts contradicting these beliefs as being false or misreading of the facts by so-called experts. They identify with their preferences so much that a lose of self esteem would soon follow any changes from their attitudes.
7
It's a self-reinforcing trend. The more one group refuses to associate or affiliate with the other group, the easier it is to demonize the other group. It's an unhealthy trend. As each group becomes more insular, the members reinforce each other's beliefs without challenge or exposure to opposing points of view.
However, I think some of the studies discussed in this piece over-interpret their research results. The conclusions seem to stray into the realm of pop psychology, attributing a lot of very specific personality traits based on political affiliations.
However, I think some of the studies discussed in this piece over-interpret their research results. The conclusions seem to stray into the realm of pop psychology, attributing a lot of very specific personality traits based on political affiliations.
2
Yet another column where the author posits the idea that Democrats and Republicans are, you know, somehow equal in this game of reasonable political alternatives. I am told this was true once upon a time--during the Eisenhower and even Reagan years. But it's not true any longer.
It's not true when we have one political party that believes in tax cuts and tax loopholes for the super-rich while simultaneously cutting benefits for the poor and middle class. It's not true when we have one political party that honors the climate-change denier Senator Inhofe by letting him chair the Senate Environment Committee, and rewards the climate-change denier Ted Cruz by letting him chair the Subcommittee on Space, Science, and Competitiveness (ridiculous name, but that's how it is.)
And don't get me started on women's rights--the right of a woman to control her body and to earn equal pay in the workplace.
Yes, I have a young adult daughter, and yes, I'd gag and throw a fit if she chose a Republican boyfriend. In fact, I'm proud to say this in public.
Fortunately, my husband and I raised her well.
It's not true when we have one political party that believes in tax cuts and tax loopholes for the super-rich while simultaneously cutting benefits for the poor and middle class. It's not true when we have one political party that honors the climate-change denier Senator Inhofe by letting him chair the Senate Environment Committee, and rewards the climate-change denier Ted Cruz by letting him chair the Subcommittee on Space, Science, and Competitiveness (ridiculous name, but that's how it is.)
And don't get me started on women's rights--the right of a woman to control her body and to earn equal pay in the workplace.
Yes, I have a young adult daughter, and yes, I'd gag and throw a fit if she chose a Republican boyfriend. In fact, I'm proud to say this in public.
Fortunately, my husband and I raised her well.
30
Haha I couldn't agree more. The truth is I have little in common with Republicans in terms of how I view the world and what is just. Or even what is simply factual and what is not.
2
My sister brought home a Republican boyfriend and their were no fits in the family over that. Should there have been?
There are a lot of important social issues to parse out regarding people who feel strongly about each party, but I suggest people have always been this divided in their philosophies. What explains the trends in the surveys is the steady decrease in economic power of the USA, since 1950. The rest of the world has been slowly catching up, either recovering from WWII or more recently educating and developing their economies (i.e. what we today call "globalization"). Republicans like to keep what they have, and Democrats like to contribute their monies to a common pot. Back in the 1950s, everyone just had more money and so was less critical about how it was "spent". Progressively, through the decades, American purchasing power decreased and people became more sensitive to where their money is going. In recent decades, internet-fueled globalization has severely leveled many playing fields and Americans feel drastically pinched; and so are more likely to retreat to their core philosophies. The philosophies have not changed; only the extent to which economic hardship has worn away our congenial outer shells. It is easy to be agreeable when everyone has plenty.
3
One practical step that can reduce the polarization is what California and a couple of other states have done. They have eliminated party primaries. There is one big primary in California now, and the top two become the general election candidates. They can be from the same party or from different parties.
This reduces the influence of the extremes in each party. When the alternative to an extremist in your party is a moderate from another party, the extremist is marginalized.
California also eliminated re-districting by the party in power, which leads to gerrymandering. Now it is done by a non-political committee of judges who have never run in a party campaign.
One more step would help -- pie slice shaped districts with roughly the state balance of blue city dwellers and red country folk. They are all smart but they have different perspectives.
For other steps to save America and the world, go to YouTube and watch Comedy Party Platform (2 min 9 sec). Then support Elizabeth Warren and invite me to speak to your group. Thank you.
This reduces the influence of the extremes in each party. When the alternative to an extremist in your party is a moderate from another party, the extremist is marginalized.
California also eliminated re-districting by the party in power, which leads to gerrymandering. Now it is done by a non-political committee of judges who have never run in a party campaign.
One more step would help -- pie slice shaped districts with roughly the state balance of blue city dwellers and red country folk. They are all smart but they have different perspectives.
For other steps to save America and the world, go to YouTube and watch Comedy Party Platform (2 min 9 sec). Then support Elizabeth Warren and invite me to speak to your group. Thank you.
13
"One more step would help -- pie slice shaped districts with roughly the state balance of blue city dwellers and red country folk. They are all smart but they have different perspectives."
Exactly. I've had the same thought, though I call them "radial districts" that would extend like spokes of a wheel from urban centers, through their adjacent suburbs, and into to rural areas beyond.
Another solution might be multi-member districts spanning larger geographical areas, such as Northern California, to include rural and urban dwellers in roughly equal proportions. The prevailing candidates would have to appeal to a broad center.
Exactly. I've had the same thought, though I call them "radial districts" that would extend like spokes of a wheel from urban centers, through their adjacent suburbs, and into to rural areas beyond.
Another solution might be multi-member districts spanning larger geographical areas, such as Northern California, to include rural and urban dwellers in roughly equal proportions. The prevailing candidates would have to appeal to a broad center.
3
Let us not omit the fact that California is a de facto one party state.
1
Reading the comments makes it clear that both sides ascribe bad intent to the side.
The comments by Liberals assume that Republicans are a combination of stupid, mean spirited, greedy, and self centered.
Republicans assume that Liberals are selfish, promoting an agenda that destroys the foundation of America, immoral and seek to impose their immorality on the rest of the nation, and lack personal responsibility and seek policies to make up for their personal shortcomings through redistribution that they did not earn.
Putting aside members of each group that are irrational, one has to enter a conversation with a presumption of goodwill and intent on the part of the other person or there will be no common ground.
There is no test that asks if you are greedy, selfish and mean to become a conservative. Similarly, no Liberal is intent on destroying the culture or country.
I believe strongly that the core beliefs of vast majority of both groups is for a better country, a better life for all Americans, and opportunity for each person to succeed. No one wants suffering.
The comments by Liberals assume that Republicans are a combination of stupid, mean spirited, greedy, and self centered.
Republicans assume that Liberals are selfish, promoting an agenda that destroys the foundation of America, immoral and seek to impose their immorality on the rest of the nation, and lack personal responsibility and seek policies to make up for their personal shortcomings through redistribution that they did not earn.
Putting aside members of each group that are irrational, one has to enter a conversation with a presumption of goodwill and intent on the part of the other person or there will be no common ground.
There is no test that asks if you are greedy, selfish and mean to become a conservative. Similarly, no Liberal is intent on destroying the culture or country.
I believe strongly that the core beliefs of vast majority of both groups is for a better country, a better life for all Americans, and opportunity for each person to succeed. No one wants suffering.
11
I wish that were the case. I have found many of my conservative friends feel that those who are suffering deserve it...that it is due only to bad behavior and anyone who plays by the rules will do well...unless of course if it is they who are not doing well themselves, it must be because of all those poor people taking away from them, not their own behavior.
6
Note that there's more antipathy on the right. This has clearly evolved tit for tat but the impetus is that liberals (Democrats) are more rational than conservatives (Republicans). As Republicans have grown more rigid in their unthinking ideology, they have become more hostile to Democrats, who, seeing the irrational mania before them, reacted in like kind.
8
There apparently is a reason that university academics are overwhelmingly liberal. I was shocked when the very conservative daughter of one of my friends told me she was campaigning for one of Texas' most liberal politicians the first summer after college. She told me that now she had seen the real world and her outlook changed.
17
Tell your friend not to worry. Her daughter will snap right back into line on re-entry.
1
We are all guilty of judging others based on labels. They are convenient markers which Often but Not always tell us Much about someone's likelihood of meshing with each other. Likewise, many people utilize labels to help project the identity they wish to convey. The Political label has indeed become extremely important to us because it creates an Image reflecting a set of Values we either accept or reject.
Because the expressed values either Support or Threaten our way of life vis a via the election process,we find " accepting " the Other Party" members nearly impossible.
I believe the divide will continue to grow unless that unlikely leader comes along or unlikely event ( other than war ) truly unites us as a country.
Because the expressed values either Support or Threaten our way of life vis a via the election process,we find " accepting " the Other Party" members nearly impossible.
I believe the divide will continue to grow unless that unlikely leader comes along or unlikely event ( other than war ) truly unites us as a country.
2
Unfortunately the article misses one huge issue. The Republicans of today are not the same as the Republicans of the 1960's and even later. Nelson Rockefeller built a massive amount of highways in New York State for public infrastructure and wanted to make the University of Buffalo one of the largest public universities in the world. Richard Nixon wanted to have a national health care program. Bill Miller, who ran for VP under Goldwater, was in Congress and, as his daughter Stephanie Miller said on NPR about ten years ago, even though the Democrats and Republicans would argue their points on the floor, they were still friends, have dinner together and work out reconciliations. Not the Republicans of today!
14
I am eternally grateful to Gov. Rockefeller for vetoing a bill that would have re-legalized corporal punishment in the schools.
1
I suspect that if you compared 1968, instead of 1960, to the current period, you would find much less distinction in the polarity of the numbers. It strikes me that most of the studies cited in the article are really stretching to find "fundamental" differences; it is much more likely that current concerns and events (such as unpopular wars, Fox news and other news outlets, recession, a black president, etc.) determine the phenomena. The political polarity today is certainly undeniable, but let's not overdo our profundity.
1
I do understand these different qualities but it seems like the Koch brothers and others throw in qualities not mentioned here-greed and environmental shortsightedness. Then they look to whom they can influence to their own advantage.
I see places where liberals and conservatives come together. Town councils, often conservative, in New York State banned fracking in their communities. I see other environmental areas where liberals and conservatives agree, despite the best efforts of corporate bought politicians to influence them. Hunters do not like hunting land privatized by rich people.
Police are supposed to tend conservative? They by and large are not happy with the Castle Doctrine in my state. Some right wing state representative now has a bill in asking that Montana be exempted from federal gun laws. The police associations are on record as being against that.
I see Fox News and talk radio shows providing some strange entertainment for people but I can still find some common ground with people who partake of those media outlets. I wish someone would study where we all do have common ground.
I see places where liberals and conservatives come together. Town councils, often conservative, in New York State banned fracking in their communities. I see other environmental areas where liberals and conservatives agree, despite the best efforts of corporate bought politicians to influence them. Hunters do not like hunting land privatized by rich people.
Police are supposed to tend conservative? They by and large are not happy with the Castle Doctrine in my state. Some right wing state representative now has a bill in asking that Montana be exempted from federal gun laws. The police associations are on record as being against that.
I see Fox News and talk radio shows providing some strange entertainment for people but I can still find some common ground with people who partake of those media outlets. I wish someone would study where we all do have common ground.
2
When academics start dividing liberals into "logical reasoning" and conservatives into "holistic", it would be nice to know that they interviewed at least a representative (if there is such a thing) sliver of the 90,000,000 or so Americans who identify themselves as liberal and conservative.
One suspects they did not, and therefore this is, well...garbage. The data about marriage may be true, but their explanations are pure speculation.
One suspects they did not, and therefore this is, well...garbage. The data about marriage may be true, but their explanations are pure speculation.
2
Do not conservatives tend towards religious fundamentalism? Which is in no way rational. Neither is the dogma that characterizes right wing thought these days, whether it comes from Ayn Rand or Rush Limbaugh.
According to Gallup, 43% of Americans identify themselves as Independents. Those who continue to identify as Democrat (30%) or Republican (26%) are the true believers who are too inflexible to vote across party lines, or to consider that their children might want to marry someone with a different political outlook.
1
The "independent" label has been found out as meaningless long ago.
Most of these so-called "independents" vote for the same party over and over. They like that label because it projects an image of open-mindedness, even though they're just as partisan as others.
People tend to assume that independents are moderates, but they're not.
In fact, many Tea Party members identify as "independents" even though they're probably the most consistently partisan group out there.
Mitt Romney overwhelmingly won the "independent" vote, yet Obama won among "moderates"... Go figure!
Most of these so-called "independents" vote for the same party over and over. They like that label because it projects an image of open-mindedness, even though they're just as partisan as others.
People tend to assume that independents are moderates, but they're not.
In fact, many Tea Party members identify as "independents" even though they're probably the most consistently partisan group out there.
Mitt Romney overwhelmingly won the "independent" vote, yet Obama won among "moderates"... Go figure!
2
This article makes it sound like the conflict comes all from within. But in fact there is a great deal of conditioning going on from without to widen the differences and demonize compromise.
A political balance was upset in '64 with the passage of the civil rights act, and conservative strategists have jumped on that ever since to drive a wedge into social programs and government intervention of all kinds.
Yes, people are different from one another, but compromise was and is possible. People didn't change in the last 40 years; but events pulled them apart and ever since political operators with vast amounts of backing have done everything to jimmy the gap wider and wider. And you can't do that without demonizing the other side.
I'm a lifelong progressive, and yet I try to get along with anyone. But when I'm presented with conservatives who forcefully present their views with minimal excuse and eschew respect of my opinion, I'm not likely to think well of them. Who conditioned them to believe that I was a combatant? Someone did.
Aside from all that: what is a Republican these days? In California, where I life, there are fewer and fewer of them. But more independents: basically conservative people who are reasonable and respect the other side. They've been driven out of their own party by the extremists. To compare "Republicans" in 1960 with the GOP membership today is a comparison of two different animals.
A political balance was upset in '64 with the passage of the civil rights act, and conservative strategists have jumped on that ever since to drive a wedge into social programs and government intervention of all kinds.
Yes, people are different from one another, but compromise was and is possible. People didn't change in the last 40 years; but events pulled them apart and ever since political operators with vast amounts of backing have done everything to jimmy the gap wider and wider. And you can't do that without demonizing the other side.
I'm a lifelong progressive, and yet I try to get along with anyone. But when I'm presented with conservatives who forcefully present their views with minimal excuse and eschew respect of my opinion, I'm not likely to think well of them. Who conditioned them to believe that I was a combatant? Someone did.
Aside from all that: what is a Republican these days? In California, where I life, there are fewer and fewer of them. But more independents: basically conservative people who are reasonable and respect the other side. They've been driven out of their own party by the extremists. To compare "Republicans" in 1960 with the GOP membership today is a comparison of two different animals.
6
I have friends who are far right republicans. We play cards and golf together. However, certain topics are off limits e.g. global warming to name just one example. Thus the depth of our relationship is limited. As one of my republican poker buddies put it "we live in alternate universes."
How can a friend be truly "close" when must filter the topics one can share with them. Thus, is it truly surprising that I would be moderately unhappy if one of my children married "across the aisle."
How can a friend be truly "close" when must filter the topics one can share with them. Thus, is it truly surprising that I would be moderately unhappy if one of my children married "across the aisle."
15
It's the New Feudalism, an economy and culture run by families rather than individuals (after the Enlightenment called citizens) casting aside centuries of European cultural development and becoming the conservative imperative under late capitalism. So now adults have to plan for retirement via inheritance rather than pensions; parents feel ecomonically responsible for their children long after they were in decades past (better save for college and medical insurance); children/students are in constant conversation with their parents, to whom they owe the very core of their identity, never seeking rebellion for fear of the "poverty" that in the past would have generated both conservative self-determination and liberal creativity. The New Feudalism is already fast creating "medieval" castes before the impending Fall of America.
1
The "OTHER" is stupid or evil or refuses to look at the data or the facts or listen to reason or whatever.
You, meanwhile, are educated and intelligent and pure and good.
That's what you all tell yourselves and that is how the politicos play you off against each other.
What a bunch of rubes...
How about practicing what you preach, e.g., tolerance.
You, meanwhile, are educated and intelligent and pure and good.
That's what you all tell yourselves and that is how the politicos play you off against each other.
What a bunch of rubes...
How about practicing what you preach, e.g., tolerance.
2
I would love to see a study examine the correlation (if it exists) between this personalization of politics and (1) the increase in aggressiveness in political discourse beginning during the Clinton presidency (or maybe a little before then) and (2) the rise of cable news.
I remember being struck by how much more aggressive and antagonistic the Republican party became when Newt Gingrich became speaker. It seemed like all of a sudden people who disagreed with them weren't just political opponents anymore, they were branded as outright traitors, enemies of the state who were out to destroy America and deserved to be crushed by all means necessary. And with a 24-hour news cycle to fill, that kind of vitriol began to permeate the airwaves like never before.
I'd also be interested in a study that compares the language used by both parties and their supporters (especially the Limbaugh wing of the Republican party) with wartime propaganda. There is a constant dehumanization of the (political) enemy at work in their speeches, which makes it all the more easy to fear and hate, in the deepest sense, those you don't agree with.
Sure, Americans have changed since these "thermometer ratings" started being done, but not that much. I think we've just been fed a constant stream of propaganda by political parties that see short term electoral gains as more important than national cohesion. And we're succumbing to it.
I remember being struck by how much more aggressive and antagonistic the Republican party became when Newt Gingrich became speaker. It seemed like all of a sudden people who disagreed with them weren't just political opponents anymore, they were branded as outright traitors, enemies of the state who were out to destroy America and deserved to be crushed by all means necessary. And with a 24-hour news cycle to fill, that kind of vitriol began to permeate the airwaves like never before.
I'd also be interested in a study that compares the language used by both parties and their supporters (especially the Limbaugh wing of the Republican party) with wartime propaganda. There is a constant dehumanization of the (political) enemy at work in their speeches, which makes it all the more easy to fear and hate, in the deepest sense, those you don't agree with.
Sure, Americans have changed since these "thermometer ratings" started being done, but not that much. I think we've just been fed a constant stream of propaganda by political parties that see short term electoral gains as more important than national cohesion. And we're succumbing to it.
4
People are often full of antipathy and such people will always find targets for their hatred. The two parties use these negative emotions to their advantage, working together to create a policy of perpetual war and depression.
Meanwhile, the people point fingers of blame at each other and line up to vote to no effect as the politicians rifle their pockets and sucker them into bad investments, e.g., mortgages, insurance and college loans.
And that is not going to change...the suckers never tumble.
Meanwhile, the people point fingers of blame at each other and line up to vote to no effect as the politicians rifle their pockets and sucker them into bad investments, e.g., mortgages, insurance and college loans.
And that is not going to change...the suckers never tumble.
3
The funny thing is that my conservative friends think that they are the logical ones. The title of the most well known libertarian publication is "Reason." And interestingly enough, I find conservatives are more prevalent in the logical fields: engineering, medicine. Flight clubs are full of them. I am an outlier as a liberal in those circles, but not in my chosen work field of music. But I certainly think of myself as the more open minded logical thinker. I don't get it!
5
They can reason but they're not rational. They don't have the ability to objectively evaluate the premises on which their arguments are based. It always comes down to a first principle which can't be defended.
3
Dougl1000:
Have to laugh. The same is said about liberals by conservatives. I mean, literally, the exact same words.
This is why I love liberals. They don't know how often they sound like conservatives.
Have to laugh. The same is said about liberals by conservatives. I mean, literally, the exact same words.
This is why I love liberals. They don't know how often they sound like conservatives.
6
With all this understood, now these researchers (or even better ones) can get to work developing practical strategies to once again put the destructive genie of the fear and loathing of poor, disaffected American whites -- loosed this time by the destruction of our industrial economy (last time it was this bad, it was the end of the slave economy) -- back into the bottle.
1
I am an Asian-American parent who have never considered the Republican Party as the one for me since day 1 of my naturalization. I never discussed politics with my daughter and was pleasantly surprised to see her go blue when she started voting at 18. It would never have bothered me if she married a Republican as long as she is happy. But again she pleasantly surprised me.
5
Data? From what I see and hear from any number of sources, neither side trusts the actual data on just about any subject and worse, neither side has any comprehension of the viewpoint of the other side. Politics and people have gone to their trenches, lobbing hand grenades and mustard gas at each other just like WW 1 and we know the futility of that method. it has become a black and white world with no shades of grey and is aided and abetted by the fragmented sources of information where one can live smugly and comfortably certain that their viewpoint is correct because that is what their favorite information source tells them and they accept no substitutes. Rational and civil discussion rarely exists. As to the leaders "struggling to moderate their ideological positioning", I haven't seen it yet. They always keep some rabid ideological purist attack dogs on hand if they want to tear away at their opposition without having to do it themselves. As to the future of the country, I am usually an optimist in the long haul, but do agree it is looking more and more like just before the civil war in the short term and no Lincoln in sight.
2
What Democratic/liberal attack dogs do you know of?
I don't know what 'sources' you listen or see but progressives/liberals don't quibble over climate data, unemployment data, inflation data, evolution, etc.
Liberals comprehend the conservative viewpoints and the data says its all garbage.
Lincoln was a President, just like the one we have now and the one to follow. Conservatives have been consistently trying to de-legitimize this President since the day he started.
Liberals comprehend the conservative viewpoints and the data says its all garbage.
Lincoln was a President, just like the one we have now and the one to follow. Conservatives have been consistently trying to de-legitimize this President since the day he started.
The differences between the purposes of Democrats and Republicans could not be greater. They perceive having a much smaller area of shared interests than they in fact do share, which is the source of the conflict. Republicans simply reject all policies and institutions which treat all equally because they treat the deserving and undeserving alike, which means that their money goes to pay for the undeserving which they perceive as a kind of theft. They have adopted attitudes which are opposed to supporting the equality which permits democracy and favor a trend that will result in a system where some are more equal than others, tending to be either theocratic or plutocratic oligarchies.
5
Democrats are just greedy lazy socialists.
2
If I need a gun to do it, it isn't worth doing to me.
What Mr. Edsall and the folks who did the study seem to ignore is that the period from 1945-1980 was fairly unique in American history. We've always been a partisan nation. Politics has, more often than not, been both very personal and something of a blood sport. The press has most general been partisan and not especially objective.
The period after WWII was a fairly unique example of broadly shared prosperity and reasonably wide agreement on basic ideologies of government. Read deeply in almost any other period of American history and you will find the sorts of broad divisions that we are again beginning to see. Deep economic and social inequality has been the norm for most of our history, as we emerge from the egalitarian age that was driven by the profound shocks of the Depression and the necessity of common purpose created by WWII we are returning to form.
Discussions like the one in Mr. Edsall's piece offer a rose-colored standard that denies or defies history. In doing so they divert us from paying attention to the need for change in our political and social structures.
The period after WWII was a fairly unique example of broadly shared prosperity and reasonably wide agreement on basic ideologies of government. Read deeply in almost any other period of American history and you will find the sorts of broad divisions that we are again beginning to see. Deep economic and social inequality has been the norm for most of our history, as we emerge from the egalitarian age that was driven by the profound shocks of the Depression and the necessity of common purpose created by WWII we are returning to form.
Discussions like the one in Mr. Edsall's piece offer a rose-colored standard that denies or defies history. In doing so they divert us from paying attention to the need for change in our political and social structures.
5
Hostile polarization rules the day for both sides of the political spectrum. Trying to have a rational discussion with someone who believes with religious fervor that W is to blame for everything bad (even to this day), and that all conservatives are evil, inbred moonshine swilling dolts, or that all liberals are wimps who want to ruin the country, destroy our work ethic and put everyone on welfare, is just a waste of time. Unfortunately finding someone to have a reasoned political discussion with who does not subscribe to one of these clashing belief systems is getting harder and harder.
1
When Republicans adopted the "more-American-than-thou" philosophy of the late, unlamented Sen. Joe McCarthy, American politics became more personal. And that's where American politics now stands.
16
But Democrats instruct their young True Believers to operate on EMOTION where Conservatives generally react based on results and observed behaviors. Getting the ignorant to act ONLY on feelings takes a bit of hate speech, while the responses we see from conservatives require adult-level reading comprehension.
When your bloggers send off hate-filled Liberals to spew the fatuous personal attacks we are subjected to here, the largely-justified-if-faulty Sen. Joe McCarthy looks milder than new American cheese.
Otherwise, explain the mania of the years-long holy war among Liberals against Sarah Palin, Geo. Bush, Reagan, Clarence Thomas. etc., etc....
When your bloggers send off hate-filled Liberals to spew the fatuous personal attacks we are subjected to here, the largely-justified-if-faulty Sen. Joe McCarthy looks milder than new American cheese.
Otherwise, explain the mania of the years-long holy war among Liberals against Sarah Palin, Geo. Bush, Reagan, Clarence Thomas. etc., etc....
3
Steve Austin:
Obama's success demonstrates liberals' desires to be led purely on emotions. His SOTU was based on promises that would never materialize. They cheered that he was "back." ("You can keep your doctor," comes to mind.) The rational and intellectuals' Zelig.
It's about how he makes them feel, not what he actually does. After all, what was done was done by democrats, many of whom lost their jobs because of him.
Obama's success demonstrates liberals' desires to be led purely on emotions. His SOTU was based on promises that would never materialize. They cheered that he was "back." ("You can keep your doctor," comes to mind.) The rational and intellectuals' Zelig.
It's about how he makes them feel, not what he actually does. After all, what was done was done by democrats, many of whom lost their jobs because of him.
3
After 1953, people started to believe that being American requires being faithful to, or fearful of, God, reinforced by what amounts to a daily prayer in schoolrooms for children of all ages.
In the abstract I suppose there's nothing to argue about here. Unfortunately, "e pluribus unum" doesn't work very well in practice when one side has strong tendency to see strangers not as fellow citizens toward whom they have responsibilities but as variously undeserving, immoral, or just "different." And it certainly doesn't help matters when their representatives in government insist on using terms like "moochers", "radical environmentalists", "illegals", "union thugs" and so on to describe members of the many "out-groups" with whom they have a problem.
8
The enmity is not just right-on-left. In 2013 an opinion piece, "I Want to Be Friends with Republicans," drew many comments (which have disappeared), and the liberal-progressive commenters seemed evenly split between those who encouraged trans-political friendship and those who viewed it like consorting with the Devil, no matter the human kindness of the author's conservative friends. The Times's commenter-versifier Larry Eisenberg wrote that "it's plain as your nose" that right-wingers are "foes."
Well, it's not as plain as my nose, or my sister's nose - she married a conservative Republican.
Well, it's not as plain as my nose, or my sister's nose - she married a conservative Republican.
2
The Devil is good company as long as you don't sign any of his contracts.
One party is 55% white, 23% black, 18% latino and 5% asian.
The other party is 92% white, 3% black, 4% latino and 1% asian.
America is 62% white, 18% latino, 14% black and 5% asian.
Which party is more inclusive?
The other party is 92% white, 3% black, 4% latino and 1% asian.
America is 62% white, 18% latino, 14% black and 5% asian.
Which party is more inclusive?
26
Democrats: 100% socialists. Really inclusive.
3
Primal traits aside, I suggest the greater the inequality in wealth and opportunity in this country and the longer it persists the greater will grow the hostility between classes. I don't know how this divide will be bridged, although I do think Obama offered a good start in his State of the Union address.
6
Obama promotes equality by making the rich poor.
Republican want to unshackle the American people from big fat bloated government and make everyone wealthy.
Republican want to unshackle the American people from big fat bloated government and make everyone wealthy.
3
Want to know why political hostility became so personal? Listen to any 'conservative' media outlet like FOX or talk radio, and you'll hear a constant stream of ad hominem attacks on the left. Issues matter only as tools to make people angry or afraid - and to turn the thinking part of the brain off.
The prevailing world view is simple: if you're not with them, you're against them.
The prevailing world view is simple: if you're not with them, you're against them.
23
The same could be said of MSNBC is anyone actually watched that network.
3
"Now almost every issue from foreign policy to taxes to lifestyle issues has been drawn into the left vs. right alignment."
Bicycle transportation is one of these issues. Bicycle advocacy is definitely "left", as efforts by Republicans in Congress to defund bicycle transportation attest. From an ideological perspective, why would bicycle transportation be leftist? Private citizens are riding private vehicles made by private companies bought at private stores. No government license or proof of insurance is required. Why isn't bicycle transportation bipartisan? I can't figure this out.
Bicycle transportation is one of these issues. Bicycle advocacy is definitely "left", as efforts by Republicans in Congress to defund bicycle transportation attest. From an ideological perspective, why would bicycle transportation be leftist? Private citizens are riding private vehicles made by private companies bought at private stores. No government license or proof of insurance is required. Why isn't bicycle transportation bipartisan? I can't figure this out.
16
It isn't [seen as] bipartisan because bicyclists ask for bike lanes and bike paths, which take money -- government money -- to provide. Therefore evil. (I ride my bike and advocate for support for bicyclists, which makes me a bad person where I live now.)
2
Bike riding is what business-hating environmentalists do - they think there's something wrong with spewing pollutants into the air.
In what world do liberals prioritize "...individual identities over group identities"?
6
Most Republicans' actions and statements make me vomit. When they stop making me vomit and start making sense, then I'll start speaking to them again. It's the racism, overt and covert, stupid. When they change that, drop that out, start talking about us as one people, then OK. Until then, who needs 'em? We have too many people in the US anyway. Let the Republicans go back where they came from. Deport 'em if necessary.
13
You must be really skinny.
1
The comments here say it all. Many "liberals" apparently assume that conservatives are hateful, stupid, and worthy of loathing. No wonder that conservatives feel unloved by this group. Sort of ironic - liberals are very inclusive except to those that they disagree with!!
10
I haven't noticed 'conservatives' being particularly inclusive or open-minded. Some years ago, NJ Republican governor Christie Whitman wrote a book lamenting the trend of pushing out moderate Republicans and shrinking the supposed 'big tent'. Her book was titled, 'It's My Party, Too.' Except it has not been, not for a long time. There are no equivalents of moderates like Whitman, no 'Rockefeller Republicans'. It is startling to realize that Richard Nixon couldn't get nominated today by his own party - and might even be too liberal for some Democrats.
The question of whether 'conservatives are hateful, stupid, and worthy of loathing' is debatable. To ask me to love someone regardless of what they believe and practice is absurd. Your beliefs inform your actions, and your actions are indicative of who you are. 'Hate the sin, love the sinner' is nonsense. Your beliefs are you, and if you hold hateful, stupid, and/or unlovable beliefs, well, QED.
The question of whether 'conservatives are hateful, stupid, and worthy of loathing' is debatable. To ask me to love someone regardless of what they believe and practice is absurd. Your beliefs inform your actions, and your actions are indicative of who you are. 'Hate the sin, love the sinner' is nonsense. Your beliefs are you, and if you hold hateful, stupid, and/or unlovable beliefs, well, QED.
2
The liberals thought logically and analytically on this column and have scientifically deduced that conservatives are hateful, stupid and worthy of loathing.
2
This is the usual argument that it is hypocritical to be intolerant of intolerance. I thought Jesus was, too!
2
Remove the South, including Texas, the largest population section, from the national poll and you'd probably find a remaining country that's generally moderate-to-liberal. Toss the South back in, and you get a complete nation that's moderate-to-conservative. During the past decade or two, the Republicans have become a Southern-identified party while Democrats have made historic advances in the rest of the country, mostly in the populous, previously GOP suburbs of major urban centers.
Along the way, the Democrat's conservative wing--mostly found in the South--left the party for the increasingly more conservative GOP while the Republicans ousted their moderate, mostly Northern wing in the name of ideological consistency.
The historic "realignment" of the two parties is now pretty much complete, and at least one of the results should not be a surprise: one party has become apples, the other oranges.
Along the way, the Democrat's conservative wing--mostly found in the South--left the party for the increasingly more conservative GOP while the Republicans ousted their moderate, mostly Northern wing in the name of ideological consistency.
The historic "realignment" of the two parties is now pretty much complete, and at least one of the results should not be a surprise: one party has become apples, the other oranges.
3
I'll attribute it to a pervasive failure to listen to anything that comes out of the other side. We've lost decorum and respect. We, instead of looking at what dreams and aspirations we have in common , shut our ears the instant we see that the label is republican or democrat. One need just look at the majority of comments readers have posted to this article and the evidence is plain. Each day when I read the Times I shake my head at the degree of hostility from readers about the other party. And I hope they don't represent the average American.
9
Have you ever tried to listen to Rush Limbaugh or anything on Fox "News" looking for verifiable facts, let alone "decorum and respect"? They're professional liars, skilled at their trade and richly rewarded for deceiving millions of gullible voters with a constant stream of bile and invective. They care not whom they destroy, slander, or demonize. They care not what the results of their insidious propaganda may be. They're devoid of humility, empathy, or kindness, or they wouldn't make their lucrative livings that way.
They've destroyed the reasoning capacity of millions of minds in a few short years. That's why it's virtually impossible to have a civil exchange of political or social views with their victims. You can't reason with screamers or name-callers, or people passionately professing easily debunked delusions.
What's to listen to? Buckley and Hitchens are dead, and in their place we have the political walking dead.
Hostile? You bet I'm hostile, exhausted from arguing with demonstrably foolish people spouting vile nonsense about virtually any topic you might bring up.
They've destroyed the reasoning capacity of millions of minds in a few short years. That's why it's virtually impossible to have a civil exchange of political or social views with their victims. You can't reason with screamers or name-callers, or people passionately professing easily debunked delusions.
What's to listen to? Buckley and Hitchens are dead, and in their place we have the political walking dead.
Hostile? You bet I'm hostile, exhausted from arguing with demonstrably foolish people spouting vile nonsense about virtually any topic you might bring up.
2
It makes perfect sense. As a conservative, I personally object to liberals constantly sticking their noses into my finances and telling me that I owe more, more more. As a result, I generally dislike them. I'm sure they feel the same way about me although I couldn't care less as long as they leave me alone.
5
It's comments like these that further deepen the divide. When do liberals "stick their noses into your finances"?
As for what you "owe," you might be able to have a better conversation if you would be ideologically consistent about what you want. Maybe you are that rare conservative who doesn't want to pay for the vast military-industrial complex or corporate handouts. But if you're not, you really have no reason to complain that some might see raising taxes as a way to fund some of these enormous national expenses.
As for what you "owe," you might be able to have a better conversation if you would be ideologically consistent about what you want. Maybe you are that rare conservative who doesn't want to pay for the vast military-industrial complex or corporate handouts. But if you're not, you really have no reason to complain that some might see raising taxes as a way to fund some of these enormous national expenses.
22
They won't. The president is coming over in just a bit to ram something else down your throat. I think that's the right phrase, yes?
2
There are liberals who believe if you don't want to pay more you are actually "stealing". Now Mr. Kristof is on column # 2 (soon to be #5?) equating a belief in personal responsibility with no empathy.
With this kind of distortion of morality, it's easy to understand why liberals and conservatives would have serious differences.
With this kind of distortion of morality, it's easy to understand why liberals and conservatives would have serious differences.
2
The human animal is tribal in nature, and because of television, and now the internet, people are free to see all, express all, and hate all, a few with guns or violence in mind. The comments made recently by Howard Dean about those attending American Sniper being angry and in the Tea Party shows Howard Dean has not evolved, nor is such behavior by him or others a respecter of parties or degrees, as Howard Dean is a retired doctor and former person running for President in the Democratic party. So, my husband, I, his brother, and wife all went to the movie. My husband and his brother were raised in a Mennonite Church of conscientious objectors, although my husband went into the military out of rebellion against all that, and was sent to Vietnam. I was raised a democrat in Montana, and worked in finance in New York, so I am a firm believer in fiscal accountability. I don't think any of this makes me or any of us haters or tea party people. I would say that Howard Dean is the hater in all of this by his comments. I personally don't like to see any movies with any kind of violence. A number of years ago, I confronted the head of a Wisconsin company that was in Paris to collaborate with his peers on violent video games. He had young kids, and I stood up to him about what he did. "Never go along with the tribe only the truth." The movie was very good at showing what was going on over there. See it, and then make your comments. I doubt whether Howard Dean saw the movie.
1
It's a movie - it's not real. Would you be so miffed if you saw a movie about Abu Ghraib?
Get off your soapbox - violent video games are bad but little boys have had toy guns for centuries.
Conservatives are emotionally driven - leave the tough stuff for the analytical-minded.
Get off your soapbox - violent video games are bad but little boys have had toy guns for centuries.
Conservatives are emotionally driven - leave the tough stuff for the analytical-minded.
I read just a few of the comments, at random, because to read more would affect my conclusions, so thinking it best to fall back on my own experiences, after 65 years on the planet, I conclude that people are very curious animals indeed.
We saunter back and forth all over the planet, imposing our will on others, whether such others want it, causing hardship when we deem it appropriate, less often, peace and happiness if it suits our goals, conquering the weak and subjugating whomever when the opportunity arises, laying waste to sate our anger when we are frustrated in our efforts, and so forth...
Politicians are no different, in fact the exalted perception they hold of themselves, causes them to excel and seek to improve upon our relatively efforts at being the alpha male.
Animals, one and all, although methinks I defile the character of the animal kingdom by including humanity in their ranks
We saunter back and forth all over the planet, imposing our will on others, whether such others want it, causing hardship when we deem it appropriate, less often, peace and happiness if it suits our goals, conquering the weak and subjugating whomever when the opportunity arises, laying waste to sate our anger when we are frustrated in our efforts, and so forth...
Politicians are no different, in fact the exalted perception they hold of themselves, causes them to excel and seek to improve upon our relatively efforts at being the alpha male.
Animals, one and all, although methinks I defile the character of the animal kingdom by including humanity in their ranks
2
Correction to forgoing - "...our relatively weak efforts..."
It all started with Newt Gingrich in 1994.
Before that, Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill could fight over policy all day, and enjoy each other's company socially in the evening. As someone who has always been on the left, I remember a majority of friends being conservatives/Republicans, but it not being a problem in the least - I actually enjoyed it, because it was more fun discussing/debating with those having different ideas than me.
I remember Gingrich calling Democrats "the enemies of America", among other things. How do you break bread with someone who has basically branded you a traitor?
Since then, the rhetoric from the right has gotten worse, and yes, some on the left have responded with strong rhetoric of their own. Unfortunately, I think we need an existential threat to our country to get everyone back together.
Before that, Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill could fight over policy all day, and enjoy each other's company socially in the evening. As someone who has always been on the left, I remember a majority of friends being conservatives/Republicans, but it not being a problem in the least - I actually enjoyed it, because it was more fun discussing/debating with those having different ideas than me.
I remember Gingrich calling Democrats "the enemies of America", among other things. How do you break bread with someone who has basically branded you a traitor?
Since then, the rhetoric from the right has gotten worse, and yes, some on the left have responded with strong rhetoric of their own. Unfortunately, I think we need an existential threat to our country to get everyone back together.
32
This is SO dead-on...Karl Rove brought a style of Republicanism that was take-no-prisoners ugly to get his man George W. Bush elected governor of Texas and because of his success, has been perpetuated since, especially by radio and television media (Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, etc.) magnifying the message of "if you're not with us" you're a traitor.
11
And what about the attacks on Senator Goldwater?
2
Couldn't agree more. It was called Newt's "scorched earth policy" and it was widely reported that he encouraged Republicans to refer to Democrats as, "psychopaths, insane, traitors, criminals....." on and on. He did a terrible disservice to the country by ramping up the rhetoric and the volume.
2
Ideological purity is the enemy of reality as is, given that there is so much randomness escaping our vainly thought-of control. Politics is the art of the possible, and demands compromise. The political culture has become tribal indeed, a 'Us vs Them' proposition between republicans and democrats, a healthy rational opposition of ideas converted into a hateful war, discounting reality as is, and leaving unfulfilled the needs and desires of the people that elected these same politicians. Some sanity must be inserted in our current dysfunction, and a good start may be a list of tasks to accomplish, and priority given according to the urgency, the funds available (and raising taxes of necessary!) and the opportunities at hand; then, place Congressmen and women in a room as long as necessary to solve the problems, and be the proud participants in their solutions (and not the other way around). For that, to occur, no 'tedcruzes' need apply.
2
I have long believed that attitudinal surveys by under-employed social scientists should be consigned to the ash bin. Especially worthless are those that attempt to divide all of mankind into just two groups. I believe that the late Max Beerbohm was the first to do this. He said that they were either hosts or guests. But back to my topic. I would like to propose a thought experiment. Ask a random sample of liberals if they think of themselves as "analytic" thinkers. Ask a similarly selected control group of liberals if they are holistic thinkers. (Don't try this with conservatives. If they are familiar at all with the word "holistic" they associate it with quack cancer treatment centers or Yoga and will throw your questionnaire into the wastebasket.) Anyway, my strong guess is that very sizable majorities of liberals will identify themselves as analytic and as holistic thinkers. Again, conservatives tend to be somewhat hostile to abstract questions, so don't waste your time.
Finally a tip to Thomas Edsall; don't refer to run-of-the-mill surveys as "seminal". It makes you look foolish.
t
Finally a tip to Thomas Edsall; don't refer to run-of-the-mill surveys as "seminal". It makes you look foolish.
t
6
You are a poster child for the type of people this editorial tries, unsuccessfully, to explain how they got there.
6
Fully agree about the noxious effect of talk radio and Fox News. I was a Reagan Republican in college in the mid-1980s, and one of the main reasons I was attracted to conservatism was because it was, at that time, intellectually interesting. Granted, many of the ideas turned out to be bad ones, but I'm fairly certain that we didn't, as one poster put it, "turn into rabid attack dogs" when someone disagreed with us. I feel for Times columnists like Brooks and Douthat who try desperately to pretend that intellectual discussions about policy reform still matter to mainstream conservatives. I can't imagine engaging in a discussion of, say, immigration reform with my Fox-addicted father-in-law, whose only "argument" is "If Obama is for it, I'm against it."
14
That's all about where the mainstream now is. More sensible conservatives such as Christopher Buckley and David Frum have found themselves politically homeless.
Too bad Glenn Beck named one of his books after the Overton window. It's a very useful concept.
Too bad Glenn Beck named one of his books after the Overton window. It's a very useful concept.
Right wing conservatives should be pleased with the antagonistic and ultra personal political arena they have created since the time of Richard Nixon: they have spent billions of dollars; created media networks and think tanks that produce artificial information and fake outrage; and successfully demonized immigrants, minorities, atheists, gays/lesbians, uppity women, gun control advocates, and other "human trash." And now, in the age of Citizens United and the Koch Brothers, they have purchased government and learned to suppress the votes of those they don't like.
Yes, the foregoing paragraph is perfect example of the problem it seeks to diagnose; I admit that I am a liberal. But I wasn't always; in fact, I was a registered Republican until 1984 and voted for Bush in 2000. But one day politics became less of an attempt to be competitive and more of a need to exercise dominion -- and that's the reality today, in a nutshell.
Why do I blame conservatives more than liberals: They have had repeated chances to work with President Obama since 2009, and proclaimed loudly their main goal to be to sabotage and nullify his achievements. They don't want to govern America as much as they want to prevent anyone else from governing it. Paralyzed government is much easier to influence, of course.
I don't see it changing unless the groups who have profited so much from division suddenly rein in their hostility, for which they would need an incentive: justice? equity? not so much . . . .
Yes, the foregoing paragraph is perfect example of the problem it seeks to diagnose; I admit that I am a liberal. But I wasn't always; in fact, I was a registered Republican until 1984 and voted for Bush in 2000. But one day politics became less of an attempt to be competitive and more of a need to exercise dominion -- and that's the reality today, in a nutshell.
Why do I blame conservatives more than liberals: They have had repeated chances to work with President Obama since 2009, and proclaimed loudly their main goal to be to sabotage and nullify his achievements. They don't want to govern America as much as they want to prevent anyone else from governing it. Paralyzed government is much easier to influence, of course.
I don't see it changing unless the groups who have profited so much from division suddenly rein in their hostility, for which they would need an incentive: justice? equity? not so much . . . .
23
Since they all have single digit mental ages, I don't want any of them governing me.
The research doesn't explain the geographical bias at all, is everyone on the American coasts Analytical thinkers ( liberals) and everyone else holistic thinkers ( Republicans ). Having watched programs about how propaganda played such a huge part in German society leading up to WW2, i imagine the propaganda machine that is Fox news has more than played a part in the current breakdown.
13
For some time, I have speculated that the hostility of political discourse has risen as religiosity has waned. In effect, a person’s position on a political issues has replaced their spiritual beliefs. I agree, now there is more likely to be discrimination against someone based on their politics, rather than their religion. Recognizing that for some, both liberal and conservative, they are indistinguishable.
My personal experience doesn’t support the conclusions of Talhelm and his colleagues; that liberals tend to be more “individualism” and conservatives more “collectivism”, as I understand the term. My professional experience of 30 years in a technical field, surrounded by engineers, scientists and businessmen, was that liberals tend to engage in “group think” and conservatives challenge orthodoxy.
My personal experience doesn’t support the conclusions of Talhelm and his colleagues; that liberals tend to be more “individualism” and conservatives more “collectivism”, as I understand the term. My professional experience of 30 years in a technical field, surrounded by engineers, scientists and businessmen, was that liberals tend to engage in “group think” and conservatives challenge orthodoxy.
3
You realize that challenging orthodoxy is the opposite of being conservative right?
4
Ann, as you suggest, labels don't necessarily match reality. My point was that in problem solving situations individuals, who identified as political conservatives, tended to be more likely to question assumptions and analyses.
1
Today's self-proclaimed "conservatives" obviously conserve nothing.
This is highly significant:
Social psychology doctoral candidate Thomas Talhelm posits that “analytic thinkers [who are typically liberals] tend to do better in engineering" while "holistic/intuitive thinkers [typically conservatives] tend to do better in more social fields, such as ... marketing."
This seriously explains why many conservative Republicans speak to the nation in sharp, on-target political messages, while liberal Democrats (including President Obama) often nebulously intellectualize issues, causing voters' eyes to glaze over.
Social psychology doctoral candidate Thomas Talhelm posits that “analytic thinkers [who are typically liberals] tend to do better in engineering" while "holistic/intuitive thinkers [typically conservatives] tend to do better in more social fields, such as ... marketing."
This seriously explains why many conservative Republicans speak to the nation in sharp, on-target political messages, while liberal Democrats (including President Obama) often nebulously intellectualize issues, causing voters' eyes to glaze over.
7
First, it must be recognized that the 2 parties are not the same. They are different in many respects, in style and in substance. Having said that, and knowing that there will be those that cry "false equivalence," my personal anecdotal experience tells me that both sides are equally convinced that the other side is comprised of lunatics who will destroy the country. This is consistent with the findings of Iyengar, Talhelm and Haidt, as reported in this article.
2
"Simplistically, our politics got so personal due to the left's insistence that the right's convictions are the products of diseased minds and deluded secular souls"
Well put. So what's the issue again?
Well put. So what's the issue again?
2
Fox News is the most popular"news" channel in the country with about 60% of the market. This network is explicitly dedicated to advancing the cause of the Republican party. It openly encourages contempt for opposing political views. It does this 7 days a week around the clock.Such a thing has never existed before in this country on this scale. This truly is a new thing but is seldom mentioned in discussions on the subject of political polarization.
There was a similar situation in the 1950's when conservatives in the Senate demonized opposing views as communist and this probably produced as much polarization as we have now; different social mechanism but same effect.
There was a similar situation in the 1950's when conservatives in the Senate demonized opposing views as communist and this probably produced as much polarization as we have now; different social mechanism but same effect.
8
Foxnews numbers are pretty small in the when you at the big picture.
Their most popular shows barely average 3 million viewers, while America has 120 million households.
Reruns of SpongeBob SquarePants get more viewers every night!
If Fox was truly representative of America's views, Obama wouldn't have won either of his presidential campaigns.
Their most popular shows barely average 3 million viewers, while America has 120 million households.
Reruns of SpongeBob SquarePants get more viewers every night!
If Fox was truly representative of America's views, Obama wouldn't have won either of his presidential campaigns.
1
Foxnews numbers are pretty small when you look at the big picture.
Their most popular shows barely average 3 million viewers, while America has 120 million households.
Reruns of SpongeBob SquarePants get more viewers every night!
If Fox was truly representative of America's views, Obama wouldn't have won either of his presidential campaigns.
Their most popular shows barely average 3 million viewers, while America has 120 million households.
Reruns of SpongeBob SquarePants get more viewers every night!
If Fox was truly representative of America's views, Obama wouldn't have won either of his presidential campaigns.
Didn't we once condemn Communist countries because their people received all their information from a single political party and news source?
1
"Republican and Democratic leaders are struggling to moderate their parties’ most extreme ideological positioning."
Really? I'm getting so tired of this false equivalence, which bears so little relation to reality. The Republican party is in the hands of its own extremists, and the Democrats now occupy the ground the GOP vacated. Today's Democratic "extreme ideologues" are hardly any further left than where Presidents Nixon and Eisenhower governed from. For the Democrats to moderate their "extreme" means in effect surrendering the nation's politics to the GOP's hard right vision. It's time to move the entire political spectrum to restore its center where it belongs - at the center.
Really? I'm getting so tired of this false equivalence, which bears so little relation to reality. The Republican party is in the hands of its own extremists, and the Democrats now occupy the ground the GOP vacated. Today's Democratic "extreme ideologues" are hardly any further left than where Presidents Nixon and Eisenhower governed from. For the Democrats to moderate their "extreme" means in effect surrendering the nation's politics to the GOP's hard right vision. It's time to move the entire political spectrum to restore its center where it belongs - at the center.
33
You mean Eisenhower and Nixon would have invited Al Sharpton to the White House?
2
Having extended family members who are deeply conservative, religious, Republican gives me some insight after reading this column. Except for a close family member who is in that category also and lives in New England, all of them live in the deep South.
They are an extremely close knit family, live in a community where they do 'know everyone on the street' and have ties going back to their grandparents childhoods.
And although some have traveled and a number of them are college educated and a couple teach at universities, they still seem to share most of the same ideology about politics and liberals/Democrats.
IMO, this article may have some value and explain some parts of what it is to be liberal/conservative. But like almost everything, there is no one 'true' definition of either.
I left home, family, religion, and had experiences which blew away much of what I grew up believing and replaced it with the realization that I didn't know very much after all. That people were, by and large, pretty much what their background made them and also how they broadened that background.
As some comment writers have said, when we hone in on just one aspect of where we get our news, speak only to those who agree with us, suspect anyone not in our group, then we are on a long slide to disaster.
They are an extremely close knit family, live in a community where they do 'know everyone on the street' and have ties going back to their grandparents childhoods.
And although some have traveled and a number of them are college educated and a couple teach at universities, they still seem to share most of the same ideology about politics and liberals/Democrats.
IMO, this article may have some value and explain some parts of what it is to be liberal/conservative. But like almost everything, there is no one 'true' definition of either.
I left home, family, religion, and had experiences which blew away much of what I grew up believing and replaced it with the realization that I didn't know very much after all. That people were, by and large, pretty much what their background made them and also how they broadened that background.
As some comment writers have said, when we hone in on just one aspect of where we get our news, speak only to those who agree with us, suspect anyone not in our group, then we are on a long slide to disaster.
4
The vast majority of Americans want the same things; safe neighborhoods, access to excellent educational opportunities , rewards for hard work, the reasonable expectation that succeeding generations will further prosper. Our collective problem is that we do not do our homework as adults. Many of us do not know our own history, science or politico. We are easily led and misled and it is indeed our own elected leaders that misleading us. Why over the past thirty some odd years have politics become more personalized and polarizing? Why have inflation adjusted wages been going down in this same time period? We are being divided for a purpose. We are being mis-educated for a purpose. We the people of both parties, have to hold our elected leaders feet to the fire and demand truth and transparency and their honor and loyalty to the people must be beyond any reproach and without compromise. End Citizens United.
13
If you listen to propaganda daily, you would certainly become more polarized and feel enmity toward the "out group." We've seen that with war propaganda. What's strange about these times is that there is a massive propaganda machine -- let's call it talk radio, Fox News, the Wall Street Journal editorial page, thousands of web sites, and more -- that spew vile and hate about liberals 24/7. No wonder conservatives/Republicans (pretty much synonymous now) don't want their children to married liberals, who seem to them to be Satan's spawn. And, as a reaction, no wonder even some liberals now feel the same way about having their children consort with people who hate them. There should be no false equivalency in causation: there is no similar propaganda machine from the left.
44
In the 1960s, the Cold War was an overriding, very big issue. Education was crucial if the US was to survive, etc. Now the external enemy has faded, so we find internal enemies.
6
When a party makes it an absolute for membership to never disavow allegiance to that party, they will continue to court the dullards of this country - those who care not to think or debate anything other than their own mistaken ideology. The GOP attacks when they are forced to withdraw from debate. Check out Fox News and watch their lack of objectivity, their name calling, their labeling while all the while remain afraid to debate issues for the common good.
14
My short answer - it's Fox News. One need look no further than that. Coupled with unlimited money in politics, available as it is to those who would cynically use it for personal gain, it is poison to our nation.
To those who accuse me of the tribal bias described in this column, I would say show me a Democratic congressman who juvenilely called out a Republican president in the midst of his SOTU speech, Democrats who questioned the heritage of an elected president, or Democrats in Congress who chose to run roughshod over foreign policy in direct contradiction to and purely out of spite for the executive branch. Then we can talk. Enough of the false equivalences, we know what the problem is, and we are living (and dying) with the result.
To those who accuse me of the tribal bias described in this column, I would say show me a Democratic congressman who juvenilely called out a Republican president in the midst of his SOTU speech, Democrats who questioned the heritage of an elected president, or Democrats in Congress who chose to run roughshod over foreign policy in direct contradiction to and purely out of spite for the executive branch. Then we can talk. Enough of the false equivalences, we know what the problem is, and we are living (and dying) with the result.
167
I too say enough of the false equivalences. They're a red herring. But if you're doing something that is wrong (caricaturing, demonizing, dogmatizing without daring to get too close to make an accurate observation), it's no excuse to point out that They do it more. Even if They really do do it more.
Sorry, I meant close enough to make an accurate observation.
Sir, reading your thoughts from your part of the country gives me great hope.
I am no fan of the current level of political mistrust and dysfunction. But if you look at the historical record you will see that the mid-20th century, with its relatively high level of social consensus, was an anomaly, not the norm. In the 19th century, fights and duels were features of political life and then, of course, there was the Civil War. Why was the 20th century from roughly 1940 - 1990 so different? Scholars will be debating that one endlessly, but certainly WWII, the Cold War, and high levels of middle-class prosperity were high on the list. That last feature seems to me to be the key that could help unlock our current predicament. Without it, we are only going to see more discord. People such as the Koch brothers who actively foment it think they will benefit from heightened tensions. Maybe, but probably not. They are playing with fire, and that doesn't usually work out well for anyone.
15
Agree completely with you that the size of the middle class (thriving 50 years ago and now in its death throes) is the key too social cohesion in this country.
Unfortunately, the far, hard right wing of the GOP (Guardians of Plutocracy) has been trying to throw that key away for the last 30 years!
Unfortunately, the far, hard right wing of the GOP (Guardians of Plutocracy) has been trying to throw that key away for the last 30 years!
4
Guardians Of Plutocracy - I like that!
1
Just be sure to copy it out every time. Otherwise people will assume you mean "Grand Old Party."
It's spelled Fox, fair an balance. I think it's funny, Murdock hates America an he took all these American loving republicans and use them to destroy America. And the democrats, being dumb, fell into order by voting to go to war for George. Best example, Maxine Waters came to congress railing against the banks, now her and her husband own one. Isn't America great?
7
The "right" condemns the NYT as a left-wing propaganda publication. That being said, I was wondering how many discussions along these lines you'll find on Fox News or the acknowledged right-wing talk radio shows. The left is supposed to angst over our lack of discussion of differing viewpoints, while the right, frankly, doesn't give a damn.
40
It comes down to ideologiy - but that has it's roots in the primal survival instinct.
Also, the two ideologies are pretty incompatible.
One says that we all work together to survive, and the other says that I've got all I need, thank you, and you can't have any, and furthermore, I'm going to make sure that you don't get anything, and I'm going to take what you have.
Each side feels that it's existence is threatened by the other.
Also, the two ideologies are pretty incompatible.
One says that we all work together to survive, and the other says that I've got all I need, thank you, and you can't have any, and furthermore, I'm going to make sure that you don't get anything, and I'm going to take what you have.
Each side feels that it's existence is threatened by the other.
12
I think it is more than what you say, as the idea that each of us is responsible or to blame, if people choose to smoke, drink, go to the doctor for painkillers or get pregnant over and over again, or eat themselves into oblivion, with the idea that society should take care of them, does not go over that well with intelligent people nor should it.
2
Here's how politics get personal, citing an editorial from the NYT today:
"Like other attempts to weaken health care reform, the bill, named the Save American Workers Act, is based on false premises and offers false promises." I was trying to get my arms around exactly what the NYT Editorial Board meant by that statement, when it dawned on me that it was exactly the same as "if you like your plan you can keep your plan" and "if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor", false premises and promises. I hope I got that right.
"Like other attempts to weaken health care reform, the bill, named the Save American Workers Act, is based on false premises and offers false promises." I was trying to get my arms around exactly what the NYT Editorial Board meant by that statement, when it dawned on me that it was exactly the same as "if you like your plan you can keep your plan" and "if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor", false premises and promises. I hope I got that right.
3
Did they look at the impact of constant bombardment of political propaganda from both sides of the spectrum -- conservatives watching Fox News around the clock while liberals recharge their loathing with MSNBC and the Daily Show. There is never any down-time anymore in the constant prodding to be outraged at the other side. It's why I watch Al Jazeera now
5
good question. many of us centrists who don't watch either Fox or MSNBC because of their obvious tilts (and are nonetheless no more ignorant than the average bear) think it runs the other way. people start with a bias and gravitate toward media that reflect their world view on a 24/7 basis. there's data suggesting that Fox didn't create conservatives, but was found attractive by conservatives who found the mildly liberal perspective of the Big Three TV news operations inconsistent with the world encountered by the viewers.
3
I'd send this to some of my conservative friends, if only I had any.
19
People before politics.
3
Divide and conquer. Keeping the masses angry at each other distracts them from how they are being exploited by both parties on behalf of the tiny but powerful segment of wealthy Americans.
The Democratic party has traditionally been somewhat of a counterweight to Republican business greed, often sticking up for working people, but Clinton ended that 22 years ago and Obama has brought the Democratic party even further into Republican territory.
Unfortunately, many still cling to the idea of the Democratic party as the "people's party" despite the fact that the Democrats have done nothing of substance to deserve that description in the past few decades, election year rhetoric aside.
In the same irrational way, working class rank and file Republicans cheer on legislation that is counter to their interests. Maslow described the needs that party loyalty gives the illusion of fulfilling, although I doubt he ever would have believed that so many would allow themselves to be fooled under what amounts to quite flimsy evidence of true political representation.
But the partisanship scam is working like a charm, due in no small part to the dedicated efforts of mainstream journalists who treat the Democrats and Republicans as credible political parties instead of the millionaires clubs that they are.
The Democratic party has traditionally been somewhat of a counterweight to Republican business greed, often sticking up for working people, but Clinton ended that 22 years ago and Obama has brought the Democratic party even further into Republican territory.
Unfortunately, many still cling to the idea of the Democratic party as the "people's party" despite the fact that the Democrats have done nothing of substance to deserve that description in the past few decades, election year rhetoric aside.
In the same irrational way, working class rank and file Republicans cheer on legislation that is counter to their interests. Maslow described the needs that party loyalty gives the illusion of fulfilling, although I doubt he ever would have believed that so many would allow themselves to be fooled under what amounts to quite flimsy evidence of true political representation.
But the partisanship scam is working like a charm, due in no small part to the dedicated efforts of mainstream journalists who treat the Democrats and Republicans as credible political parties instead of the millionaires clubs that they are.
5
Perfect description. Thank you.
The article makes a classic mistake. It divides the world into two groups - Republicans and Democrats; when in fact today about a third of the population declines to be associated with either party. Between 1960 and 2010 this group in the middle has increased considerably, so while Republicans and Democrats may have grown significantly farther apart, when you include the nonaligned, the divide is not so great. I suspect a big part of the problem is the development of a two party primary system which excludes participation of those in the middle. When you think about it, having taxpayers subsidize a two party primary system is more than a little bit odd - but then you usually get what you subsidize.
4
The abysmal voter turnout in the last election confirms your observations. Polls I've seen indicate that most Americans prioritize infrastructure repair, jobs, etc. over programs the two political parties pursue. That is because they represent major campaign funders; not their constituents.
"Taxpayers" subsidizing the two-party system is what the $3.00 donation to the ’70’s FEC matching funds for Presidential campaigns and political party conventions did. I think of it as the “original sin” in rent-seeking. Donors did not know whose money they were supplementing, or obtain a voice in choosing candidates. Taxpayer subsidies to businesses grew as the wealth and influence of most citizens declined.
Complaining is ineffective. We need new ideas. Imagine going beyond being a party voter to a community voter. With a $7.00/year tax, www.thefairelectionsfund.com, offers legislators the opportunity to give up fundraising and retain their independence. Registered Voters decide who may use these public funds. This refocusing may improve our compassion for others.
"Taxpayers" subsidizing the two-party system is what the $3.00 donation to the ’70’s FEC matching funds for Presidential campaigns and political party conventions did. I think of it as the “original sin” in rent-seeking. Donors did not know whose money they were supplementing, or obtain a voice in choosing candidates. Taxpayer subsidies to businesses grew as the wealth and influence of most citizens declined.
Complaining is ineffective. We need new ideas. Imagine going beyond being a party voter to a community voter. With a $7.00/year tax, www.thefairelectionsfund.com, offers legislators the opportunity to give up fundraising and retain their independence. Registered Voters decide who may use these public funds. This refocusing may improve our compassion for others.
I said before in another Comment section that liberals and Democrats could be downright divisive and jump on anyone who disagreed with them. Someone even asked for "proof" that liberals and Democrats could be negative in their Commentary responses. Here it is, in this article. I was never a Republican or a Democrat, I have always been an individual though with some connections to a group. Sometimes, even an outsider can be right.
4
my awareness of nasty verbal political attacks came about in the 70's when I noticed talk radio and its veer to the right, the emergence of the Christian Right, and the insulting and demeaning comments from conservatives who were, plainly, bullies. sorry, but liberals were still amorphous, had divergent points of view, and just couldn't figure out how to respond to this sea change in attitude - and still can't. wimps.
15
I never noticed it until rotten ronnie became governor of California. I liked Ike. Didn't care much for Nixon, he always sounded dishonest. Learned to despise Johnson during the Viet Nam war. Since the appearance of ronnie, I've either been paying more attention, or things have changed so much that I don't even like neighbors and co workers who constantly spit out their faux news venom. I think that has poisoned the well.
7
Or perhaps some of us have noticed that the differences between parties are a bit more important than chocolate vs vanilla?
I don't have a child. But if I did, and he or she brought home a Republican, I would ask what it was about this person that my child found so lovable as to offset the beloved's voluntary affiliation with a party that has consistently stood for things I considered not only bad policy but morally wrong.
There are some topics that are open to debate. There are some issues on which compromise is possible. And there are some about which you nail your thesis to the church door and say, 'here I stand, I cannot do otherwise, God help me'.
My best friend is a Rand Paul libertarian - but on those 'nailing up the thesis' issues we are able to agree.
I don't have a child. But if I did, and he or she brought home a Republican, I would ask what it was about this person that my child found so lovable as to offset the beloved's voluntary affiliation with a party that has consistently stood for things I considered not only bad policy but morally wrong.
There are some topics that are open to debate. There are some issues on which compromise is possible. And there are some about which you nail your thesis to the church door and say, 'here I stand, I cannot do otherwise, God help me'.
My best friend is a Rand Paul libertarian - but on those 'nailing up the thesis' issues we are able to agree.
5
The entire column masks a false equivalency. Republicans have been whining about Democrats like they do today since 1964. It is the nature of conservatism to be suspicious, to see conspiracies against them at every turn and to hate.
Democrats are merely responding to what republicans are doing, but it is Republicans who initiate the ill will.
That is why today you see a conservative claim that someone who accuses him of being a bigot is actually a bigot themselves for accusing the conservative of being a bigot.
Conservatism in this country and those who adhere to it are actually like a semi autonomous people within the nation: their own language, their own economic theories, their own science and religion, none of which conforms to or is in common with that of the nation as a whole and which goes against the national culture and creed.
Democrats are merely responding to what republicans are doing, but it is Republicans who initiate the ill will.
That is why today you see a conservative claim that someone who accuses him of being a bigot is actually a bigot themselves for accusing the conservative of being a bigot.
Conservatism in this country and those who adhere to it are actually like a semi autonomous people within the nation: their own language, their own economic theories, their own science and religion, none of which conforms to or is in common with that of the nation as a whole and which goes against the national culture and creed.
23
IOW we're justified in doing it because they do it mor it more.
Simplistically, our politics got so personal due to the left's insistence that the right's convictions are the products of diseased minds and deluded secular souls. This tends to put a crimp on the willingness to share barbecue and beer.
More complexly, it starts with a fundamental disagreement on what it means to be an American. One insists that the hallmarks of American identity are self-reliance and individualism, with life choices being central to life-outcomes; while the other sees the primary imperative as collectivism with government as the mediator and similar life-outcomes as the universal objective: couldn't be two more mutually antagonistic world views.
I reject the analysis that has liberals "more analytical", with a "stronger preference for deep thought and a rejection of simple solutions". The truth is that liberals favor "solutions" that frontally attack social issues without the slightest concern for sustainability of those solutions, often merely because of their "feel good" effects. And sustainability is NEVER an issue: just increase taxes ... forever, apparently. Talhelm and others who honestly believe this are hiding fundamental weakness behind a manifestly invalid defense.
Tom begins by a stated attempt to discern causal factors to real differences, and ends by defending one side's views, ignoring the other's and simply concluding that those who disagree with him are primitive and that there may be no saving of Neanderthals. Some inquiry.
More complexly, it starts with a fundamental disagreement on what it means to be an American. One insists that the hallmarks of American identity are self-reliance and individualism, with life choices being central to life-outcomes; while the other sees the primary imperative as collectivism with government as the mediator and similar life-outcomes as the universal objective: couldn't be two more mutually antagonistic world views.
I reject the analysis that has liberals "more analytical", with a "stronger preference for deep thought and a rejection of simple solutions". The truth is that liberals favor "solutions" that frontally attack social issues without the slightest concern for sustainability of those solutions, often merely because of their "feel good" effects. And sustainability is NEVER an issue: just increase taxes ... forever, apparently. Talhelm and others who honestly believe this are hiding fundamental weakness behind a manifestly invalid defense.
Tom begins by a stated attempt to discern causal factors to real differences, and ends by defending one side's views, ignoring the other's and simply concluding that those who disagree with him are primitive and that there may be no saving of Neanderthals. Some inquiry.
5
Liberals may think a lot, but conservatives believe actions speak louder than words.
1
Why does one have to be either liberal or conservative? Who says all or even most issues are so easily divided around these loose, and often self interpreted lines?
Until recently, I had always believed that the American ideological position was called pragmatism, problem solving mixed with dedication, energy and careful thinking before acting. Now, I see our nation being forcefully herded into hateful and hating groups, each despising the other.
I lived rather comfortably for 5 years in a hyper conservative city, Dallas, in a state that was generally defined as conservative, while producing moderately liberal change agents like Lyndon Johnson. I had an older acquaintance at my work who was so far to the right he gave me the creeps, this at a time when I might have defined myself as mildly conservative on some issues. I left Texas. Since that time, the state has increasingly defined itself, by the politicians it has elected, in the mold of hyper, take-no-prisoners conservativism.
This is a major part of what is happening in America: to create "brand differentiation", the Republicans and their tea party faction are pushing harder and harder to the right. They do this, in part, to make a promise to the wealthy elite of what they can do IF ONLY they can get power. There has to be a goal, a dream, and their dream is becoming ever more radical, not conservative at all. Meanwhile, the Democrats are afraid, still in hiding, which is one reason they lose, often.
Doug Terry
Until recently, I had always believed that the American ideological position was called pragmatism, problem solving mixed with dedication, energy and careful thinking before acting. Now, I see our nation being forcefully herded into hateful and hating groups, each despising the other.
I lived rather comfortably for 5 years in a hyper conservative city, Dallas, in a state that was generally defined as conservative, while producing moderately liberal change agents like Lyndon Johnson. I had an older acquaintance at my work who was so far to the right he gave me the creeps, this at a time when I might have defined myself as mildly conservative on some issues. I left Texas. Since that time, the state has increasingly defined itself, by the politicians it has elected, in the mold of hyper, take-no-prisoners conservativism.
This is a major part of what is happening in America: to create "brand differentiation", the Republicans and their tea party faction are pushing harder and harder to the right. They do this, in part, to make a promise to the wealthy elite of what they can do IF ONLY they can get power. There has to be a goal, a dream, and their dream is becoming ever more radical, not conservative at all. Meanwhile, the Democrats are afraid, still in hiding, which is one reason they lose, often.
Doug Terry
5
It may be less about party designation than about the moral and economic values that the parties represent.
3
This is a breathtakingly arcane example of false equivalence. Yes, Democrats can be impatient and uber-partisan. It's because Republicans are increasingly ignorant and fundamentally dishonest.
It's like equally blaming the abused and the abuser. "Why can't you just get along?"
It's like equally blaming the abused and the abuser. "Why can't you just get along?"
40
Advertising works. There is an impact when billions of dollars are pumped into a message that other people who do not think like you are less than human. We need to stop funding the political juggernauts assembled as standing armies. Those in the industry can put their powers to good instead.
10
Rocket science: post-WWII Americans were much more alike politically than today because they were much more alike as people. One significant reason?...Even many of the 1% had served in the military during WWII and respected their "working class" enlisted men because they knew first-hand that they had skills, and smarts, and leadership qualities equal to and often more important and/or better than their own. They didn't resent them for wanting to earn a living wage (e.g., approx. 35% union membership post WWII…now approx. 7% of workers). Almost no one in the 1% would serve in the military today…they consider it an absurd and laughable idea to take such risks or to mix with the hoi polloi. Let the other guy do it. All you need is a gold and diamond-studded American flag lapel pin and to go around saying "thank you for your service" to be a 1% patriot today, that is, for the few 1% who actually ever personally come in contact with someone in the active military or a veteran.
35
Two years ago just before Christmas I discovered that my mother was listening to talk radio, watching lots of Fox News and had managed to become the target of numerous conservative scamm-ers who were peppering her with $$ solicitations for numerous non-profit conservative causes (Impeach Obama, etc.) which she occasionally responded to.
She was also nervous and upset. Worse yet, this wonderful 92 year old woman who has always loved everyone had become suspicious of many of the people she knew at her church of 30+ years. She wouldn't talk a lot about it, but eventually she explained that she was worried because many people were now out to destroy the country. I asked her if she thought that these people love our country less than she, and for a moment her eyes softened, and she said, "no." But after an hour or so the gleam came back...
When looking through some of the solicitations she received I discovered that one of the organizations was "based" in a mailbox along one of my bicycle routes here in Orange County. The piece, sent third class, purported to have a secret plan to impeach Obama (complete with sealed colored envelopes only to be opened if the recipient agreed) and the inevitable request for money to help advance the cause.
I sent the letter's signer a letter asking him to please take my mother off his list. The same mailing showed up just before Christmas...
She was also nervous and upset. Worse yet, this wonderful 92 year old woman who has always loved everyone had become suspicious of many of the people she knew at her church of 30+ years. She wouldn't talk a lot about it, but eventually she explained that she was worried because many people were now out to destroy the country. I asked her if she thought that these people love our country less than she, and for a moment her eyes softened, and she said, "no." But after an hour or so the gleam came back...
When looking through some of the solicitations she received I discovered that one of the organizations was "based" in a mailbox along one of my bicycle routes here in Orange County. The piece, sent third class, purported to have a secret plan to impeach Obama (complete with sealed colored envelopes only to be opened if the recipient agreed) and the inevitable request for money to help advance the cause.
I sent the letter's signer a letter asking him to please take my mother off his list. The same mailing showed up just before Christmas...
19
"complete with sealed colored envelopes only to be opened if the recipient agreed"
Hey, it's snailmail, it's offline, it's completed its journey through the postal system - open it!
Hey, it's snailmail, it's offline, it's completed its journey through the postal system - open it!
1
The "Not in Our Family" dates of the illustration explains it all.
VIETNAM. The nation fractured with the insistence of going to war where no war was needed -- or, more accurately, because America was breaking the promise it made to the Vietnamese during WW2.
America said they could decide their own government and rule themselves -- that they could stop fighting the French, if they sided with the USA against Japan.
America violated it's word. Then went on to destabilize nations and eventually pay the price by Killing Saddam Hussein over lies (including those about his involvement in 9/11 & WMD's) -- with the result that there is now ISLAMIC STATE terrorism to deal with.
The division is the "America right or wrong" group vs the "Do what is right" group. The first promoting the most harm to the most people under a false sense of nationalistic pride.
To promote ideology one must control the marriage and family relationships -- it has always been that way. When the ideology was religion, it was marry based on religion; when slavery, it was race; now its politics.
Ultimately it will span three generations -- roughly 100 years -- and result in a fracturing of the society akin to that of the Civil War.... though we could see the ultimate effect as soon as 2020/25.
VIETNAM. The nation fractured with the insistence of going to war where no war was needed -- or, more accurately, because America was breaking the promise it made to the Vietnamese during WW2.
America said they could decide their own government and rule themselves -- that they could stop fighting the French, if they sided with the USA against Japan.
America violated it's word. Then went on to destabilize nations and eventually pay the price by Killing Saddam Hussein over lies (including those about his involvement in 9/11 & WMD's) -- with the result that there is now ISLAMIC STATE terrorism to deal with.
The division is the "America right or wrong" group vs the "Do what is right" group. The first promoting the most harm to the most people under a false sense of nationalistic pride.
To promote ideology one must control the marriage and family relationships -- it has always been that way. When the ideology was religion, it was marry based on religion; when slavery, it was race; now its politics.
Ultimately it will span three generations -- roughly 100 years -- and result in a fracturing of the society akin to that of the Civil War.... though we could see the ultimate effect as soon as 2020/25.
4
I don't know how we got to where we are , but Democrats, knowing the likely party affiliation of folks in a late model truck or luxury car in Texas, may well pass by without giving assistance. Drivers of the late model trucks or luxury cars are likely to pass by a Latino or Black in a jalopy without giving assistance. The class divide is reflected in party affiliation and politics . . . although, for the life of me, I don't understand why poor whites identify with the fat cats who dispise them and vote against their interests.
15
The wealthy ruling class has used religion, gun rights, wars, patriotism, gay rights, abortion, 9/11, terrorism, Islamophobia and other red herrings to confuse and scare the poor and under-educated. They adroitly use focus groups and polls to discover those fears and hot buttons. Then they constantly drum-beat and repeat those issues. This vocal prestidigitation causes the under-educated to ignore the real issues that are negatively affecting their daily quality of life. This kind of "magic" has been used for centuries on the under-educated with no end in sight.
7
I live in New York, so I am surrounded by ignorant, hypocritical, judgmental people who identify themselves as liberals. It is amazing how similar they are to the ignorant, hypocritical, judgmental people who identify themselves as conservatives.
It's time for everyone to open their minds and question their beliefs, because last I checked neither party is 100% correct and neither is 100% wrong.
As for me, I think every liberal needs to realize that their policies have created a lot of the social problems they blame on others.
It's time for everyone to open their minds and question their beliefs, because last I checked neither party is 100% correct and neither is 100% wrong.
As for me, I think every liberal needs to realize that their policies have created a lot of the social problems they blame on others.
6
Some parties are more wrong than others, surgres. And some things are not a mere matter of 'you say to-MAY-to, I say to-MAH-to'.
I'm an independent and don't fall easily into one part of the ideological spectrum. One thing that consistently amuses me in checking for replies to my comments is that the 'conservatives' deride me as a communist and the 'liberals' deride me as a reactionary. I have been 'buked and scorned by both sides.
Yet, I don't see any Democratic equivalent of Mike Huckabee or Ted Cruz. The most extreme Democrats are nowhere near as extreme as the most extreme Republicans. There is no Democratic equivalent of the Tea Party or Grover Norquist. The farthest-left of the Democrats are few, and still pretty rational. Whereas the extremist Republicans are thick on the ground - alas, 'my' (I sure didn't vote for him) NJ 5th District congressman is one such - and if they moved any more to the right they'd fall off the edge of the earth, or at least into the part of the map that reads 'here be dragons'.
I'm an independent and don't fall easily into one part of the ideological spectrum. One thing that consistently amuses me in checking for replies to my comments is that the 'conservatives' deride me as a communist and the 'liberals' deride me as a reactionary. I have been 'buked and scorned by both sides.
Yet, I don't see any Democratic equivalent of Mike Huckabee or Ted Cruz. The most extreme Democrats are nowhere near as extreme as the most extreme Republicans. There is no Democratic equivalent of the Tea Party or Grover Norquist. The farthest-left of the Democrats are few, and still pretty rational. Whereas the extremist Republicans are thick on the ground - alas, 'my' (I sure didn't vote for him) NJ 5th District congressman is one such - and if they moved any more to the right they'd fall off the edge of the earth, or at least into the part of the map that reads 'here be dragons'.
6
Nonsense. Liberal policies are designed to alleviate social problems by applying intellectual and historically informed analysis to situations and formulating policies intended to solve problems. Not all such solutions pan out, but to attribute "a lot of the social problems they blame on others" to liberal policies without suggesting a single example is why nobody in government even tries to solve problems anymore.
3
DMC:
Liberal policies may be designed to alleviate social problems and deserve an "A" for good intentions, but they are removed from concrete measurable results.
Once landmark legislation is passed, accolades given and votes secured, liberals are on to the next big future social problem to solve. The execution doesn't seems to interest them, which is a shame since that's how the benefits are actually realized.
When the implementation goes awry, it's always someone else's problem. If the policy has adverse effects, such as welfare did, liberals will still vociferously defend its "intentions", which makes little sense.
This takes the glow off their good deeds.
Liberal policies may be designed to alleviate social problems and deserve an "A" for good intentions, but they are removed from concrete measurable results.
Once landmark legislation is passed, accolades given and votes secured, liberals are on to the next big future social problem to solve. The execution doesn't seems to interest them, which is a shame since that's how the benefits are actually realized.
When the implementation goes awry, it's always someone else's problem. If the policy has adverse effects, such as welfare did, liberals will still vociferously defend its "intentions", which makes little sense.
This takes the glow off their good deeds.
1
Interesting that the most hateful, ugly comments being made in this Comments section, are by liberals. When one feels that everything in which one believes is being denigrated and attacked, it's pretty hard to feel all "warm and fuzzy".
When I called my parents in late 1977 to tell them I had just become engaged (to someone they didn't even know I was dating), my VERY conservative Republican father's first question was "Is he a Republican or a Democrat?" He wasn't interested in his race, ethnicity, previous marital status, just his politics. I knew he had voted for Jimmy Carter in the previous election but that his parents were Republicans, so I said "Genetically, he's a Republican". My father then asked where he grew up and I said "Westchester County". My father exploded! "Jacob Javits Republicans! Not MY Republican party!".
My father worried himself sick over the next election, but my new husband voted for Reagan and was a Republican for the rest of his life. His reason? He always said a Republican was a person with a mortgage and two children, which he now had!
When I called my parents in late 1977 to tell them I had just become engaged (to someone they didn't even know I was dating), my VERY conservative Republican father's first question was "Is he a Republican or a Democrat?" He wasn't interested in his race, ethnicity, previous marital status, just his politics. I knew he had voted for Jimmy Carter in the previous election but that his parents were Republicans, so I said "Genetically, he's a Republican". My father then asked where he grew up and I said "Westchester County". My father exploded! "Jacob Javits Republicans! Not MY Republican party!".
My father worried himself sick over the next election, but my new husband voted for Reagan and was a Republican for the rest of his life. His reason? He always said a Republican was a person with a mortgage and two children, which he now had!
41
I'm gay, and there is a difference between the two parties.
If you hate me, I'll hate you back.
It really is that simple.
If you hate me, I'll hate you back.
It really is that simple.
7
And a liberal is someone with two kids and a mortgage who thanks FDR and the New Deal for his FHA mortgage and for the Social Security system that provides a safety net for his family should he die when his two kids are young and which makes possible a decent retirement for his parents.
13
Well, does that make a Democrat someone with two mortgages and one child, because that's what I am, and what I have (and I wouldn't take anything for the child). The second mortgage results from our determination that our child have the education that his special needs require and his intellect and work ethic deserve.
As a liberal who wants educational opportunity for everyone, I resent the post's smug assertion that anyone who shoulders responsibility must be a Republican. That, I think, is the kind of dismissiveness and lack of interst in real-world facts that the studies in the article noted.
Aside from that, I have to fault the article for what one post termed false equivalency, especially in bemoaning the supposed "extremes in both parties." What is Mr. Edsall talking about? Republicans hand US healthcare over to unregulated insurance companies and shrinking coverage, high premiums, and cancelled policies (remember the collapsing benefits prior to the ACA?) Democrats, by contrast, modeled their reform not on liberal ideas like single-payor, but on Gingrich's private insurance approach. When offered their own idea, Reps moved right and said no. And in climate policy, when offered cap and trade by the Dems, the Reps abandoned their own concept and began all-out denial of the facts. Who are the extremists here?
The real problem, As much as the extremists, are the journalists who give the right cover by pretending the problem is general, and systemic. It's not.
As a liberal who wants educational opportunity for everyone, I resent the post's smug assertion that anyone who shoulders responsibility must be a Republican. That, I think, is the kind of dismissiveness and lack of interst in real-world facts that the studies in the article noted.
Aside from that, I have to fault the article for what one post termed false equivalency, especially in bemoaning the supposed "extremes in both parties." What is Mr. Edsall talking about? Republicans hand US healthcare over to unregulated insurance companies and shrinking coverage, high premiums, and cancelled policies (remember the collapsing benefits prior to the ACA?) Democrats, by contrast, modeled their reform not on liberal ideas like single-payor, but on Gingrich's private insurance approach. When offered their own idea, Reps moved right and said no. And in climate policy, when offered cap and trade by the Dems, the Reps abandoned their own concept and began all-out denial of the facts. Who are the extremists here?
The real problem, As much as the extremists, are the journalists who give the right cover by pretending the problem is general, and systemic. It's not.
3
The biggest fault of conservatives is their total lack of empathy.
19
You do know that conservatives donate more money to charity than liberals do, right? That's because liberals think government should take care of everyone and conservatives see it as a personal responsibility to help others in need. But the desire to be of help to others is pretty universal across the political spectrum. Notice how one can comment without being a hater?
2
If you want the public to perceive that government is bad and dysfunctional, animosity and obstructionism play precisely into that hand. Republican obstructionism and truculence is a long-term party strategy. Bill Clinton said it best: Democrats want to govern, Republicans want power.
19
Six words explain most of it -
Tea Party
Fox News
Sarah Palin
Tea Party
Fox News
Sarah Palin
11
I often associate liberals with cities and conservatives with small towns and rural areas. If you live in a multicultural city, with mostly people you don't know, you have to be open to ideas and other cultures to survive. Your tolerance of different people is higher, and your ability to be different yourself is much greater and tolerated by that society. On the other hand, if you are in a small town, you are connected with everyone and have a stronger need to fit in to survive. Thus you become less tolerant of differences and become less different yourself. You can have differences in opinions with people in cities because you aren't likely to see them again or have others you can associate with. In small towns, you don't have a different pool of people who may share your opinion and you will always see the same people. So if you want a social life, you need to play along.
5
Neither party represents my views completely: I am socially liberal and fiscally conservative. I choose to decline to list a party preference and am therefore an independent. What drives me crazy is it seems now the political party has become the most important thing...BOTH parties seem to emphasize party loyalty comes fist, and "their" ideas must trump others' from the other side. It strikes me that leading and governing the entire nation (not just for "their" people), and working on solutions for the challenges we have in our country and the world are the last thing on the list.
3
Mark,
You should be a Democrat. "Fiscally conservative and socially liberal" describes a lot of us or at least "fiscally moderate and socially liberal" does, since the current "conservative" economic dogma includes privatizing Social Security, cutting taxes regardless of the effect on public education or our infrastructure, and giving free rein to Goldman Sachs and the other financial giants that caused the 2008 economic implosion.
You should be a Democrat. "Fiscally conservative and socially liberal" describes a lot of us or at least "fiscally moderate and socially liberal" does, since the current "conservative" economic dogma includes privatizing Social Security, cutting taxes regardless of the effect on public education or our infrastructure, and giving free rein to Goldman Sachs and the other financial giants that caused the 2008 economic implosion.
2
My older sister has been a teacher in a low income school district for over 32 years, she's retiring at the end of this year. She used to be a nun. My brother and sister have regularly suggested to her that her pension through the TRS is akin to a free handout -- money she has put into a retirement account for herself. They of course, are republican. It IS personal. But she didn't make it that way, and neither did I.
35
over the past 15+ years with Fox News, the channel and affiliate points of view have done their best to make liberal a dirty word and make Republicans and Conservatives "the Real Americans" while liberals and Democrats became others with lattes and ivory towers that don't understand what "America is".
This perversion is far more pervasive and damaging than one might give credit for. Republicans will watch and reflexively think Democrats want to destroy America, ban the Bible, give everyone a free coupon for an abortion, and raise taxes for it all. Naturally Democrats will respond to this with repulsion and naturally not want their children to deal with a group of people so divorced from reality.
We all lose because there are so many great people on both sides that are naturally wary of developing bonds with people that think you are an enemy to their way of life
This perversion is far more pervasive and damaging than one might give credit for. Republicans will watch and reflexively think Democrats want to destroy America, ban the Bible, give everyone a free coupon for an abortion, and raise taxes for it all. Naturally Democrats will respond to this with repulsion and naturally not want their children to deal with a group of people so divorced from reality.
We all lose because there are so many great people on both sides that are naturally wary of developing bonds with people that think you are an enemy to their way of life
20
Fox News and talk radio provide a definition, a template, for why the other Americans should be detested, even hated. When we lost communism as the universal threat behind which we could unite, we turned our attentions and anger toward each other. We should remember, however, that there are almost always underlying, unmentioned forces at work. One of those forces is unhappiness living in the modern, 21st century world. It is not just that those in rural or less populated areas would like to stop change, it is that the change, like drugs, teenage pregnancies, the breakdown of marriage, and low wages are impacting those areas dramatically. People need someone to blame. Hey, how about those dirty liberals? Snarl when you say the word.
8
Things don't get personal with people who try to view issues objectively, and are willing to talk things out and evolve. They do get personal with people who are acting insane for the benefit of their life after death.
11
For David, 1946-1992, when times were good.
Benjamin was more like a brother,
We'd argue then order another.
Yet never, methinks,
While drinking our drinks,
We'd ever agreed with each other.
'Twas a long line to wait at the wake
But I bided for Benjamin's sake.
"He looks good they said."
To me he looked dead.
But I looked more and started to quake.
In his coffin Ben still wore a sneer,
Like he wanted to argue more here.
I'd nary a drink,
Not many, I think,
And I leaned in my lips for his ear.
"Benjamin, you left-fanatic,
Ay, sure, I'm a right-wing dogmatic.
But all life is leased,
You've been, Ben, deceased.
'Least you've ceased voting Democatic."
The Hawk, it blows cold this September.
I walk to my stool and remember,
His body was cool
When Ben croaked, "You fool,
'Tis Chicago, I vote in November"
Benjamin was more like a brother,
We'd argue then order another.
Yet never, methinks,
While drinking our drinks,
We'd ever agreed with each other.
'Twas a long line to wait at the wake
But I bided for Benjamin's sake.
"He looks good they said."
To me he looked dead.
But I looked more and started to quake.
In his coffin Ben still wore a sneer,
Like he wanted to argue more here.
I'd nary a drink,
Not many, I think,
And I leaned in my lips for his ear.
"Benjamin, you left-fanatic,
Ay, sure, I'm a right-wing dogmatic.
But all life is leased,
You've been, Ben, deceased.
'Least you've ceased voting Democatic."
The Hawk, it blows cold this September.
I walk to my stool and remember,
His body was cool
When Ben croaked, "You fool,
'Tis Chicago, I vote in November"
63
Chicago, where party faithful were and maybe still are urged to vote early and often.
One reason politics has gotten so personal: it has gotten so serious. Attempts at humor are not genuinely funny. They are mostly clumsy attacks at the other side rather reminders of our often stubborn and bumbling species, who needs a good laugh at ourselves much more often than we think we do. In the words of George Carlin, as I remember them, We're all just blobs of protoplasm walking around, saying "Hey, how's it goin?"
One reason politics has gotten so personal: it has gotten so serious. Attempts at humor are not genuinely funny. They are mostly clumsy attacks at the other side rather reminders of our often stubborn and bumbling species, who needs a good laugh at ourselves much more often than we think we do. In the words of George Carlin, as I remember them, We're all just blobs of protoplasm walking around, saying "Hey, how's it goin?"
1
In the past party affiliation was a good indicator of class, education and financial situation.
Now, for many Americans party affiliation conflates with character, morality...
Now, for many Americans party affiliation conflates with character, morality...
6
It only goes to prove that no matter how "rational" politics may seem (i.e.-"ideology") it is basically emotion. Makes you wonder why we have political "debates" as if it were just logical discourse.
2
If there is one great political thinker whom American "conservatives" like to regard as their intellectual paragon it's the 19th century political philosopher Edmund Burke. In fact, the argument of Iyengar, Talhelm and Haidt suggests that Burke's way of thinking had much more in common with today's "liberals." Burke has been tagged a reactionary for writing critically of the French Revolution, but he deeply believed that the chief of aim of the educational elite (to which he belonged) and the political class (who owned most of the land at the time) ought to be improvement - the betterment of all lives, not just those at the top. Burke abhorred the sort of stock simplistic language one hears so often from today's Right. To him, words like "liberty" and "freedom" were not abstractions or slogans, but the complicated product of human history, about which he was keenly analytical ("Every age has its own manners and its politicks dependent upon them," he noted.) For him, a politician inspired confidence to the degree that he told the truth. His intellect was speculative and pragmatic - not dogmatic. In fact, the contemporary politician whose habit of mind is most "Burkean" may be none other than that abomination to "conservatives" - Barack Obama.
41
Correction: Burke, of course, was an 18th century political philosopher. Sorry for the typo.
3
Many years ago, I wrote a paper for a course in American Political Thought where I argued that a true American conservative would necessarily be a liberal because the American tradition has been "liberal" from the git go, from John Locke thru the "Founding Fathers" and Abe Lincoln. THAT is the tradition a Burkean conservative would seek to preserve and protect. What we have today instead are radicals, calling themselves "conservative."
4
I first noticed this phenomenon in late 1996. Suddenly most of the right wing folks I came in contact with morphed into rapid attack dogs. They started screaming at random strangers on the street yelling something about wanting their country back. They all seemed to agree on a set of "facts" that no one had ever heard of before even though they seemed to fly in the face of common sense. It was very strange. While it's true that Rupert Murdoch appointed Roger Ailes CEO of Fox news in October of 1996 I'm sure that is only a circumstantial coincidence.
97
*Note: I meant to say "rabid" attack dogs. But since the dogs were so quick to attack anyone who disagreed with them I guess "rapid" works just as well.
13
"rancid" would also work.
2
My antipathy toward conservatives/libertarians has an exceptionally personal basis. Society's only line of defense against the degradation of our air, our water, our food supply that may result from corporate practices is consistently enforced government regulation. Conservatives/libertarians don't believe government should have this power. My conclusion from this is that they want me to die.
115
Thank you for displaying the tribal mindset so beautifully described by Shanto Iyengar.
3
Nope. My attitude is simply a reaction to what these people have actually said, not what I imagine they said.
3
Actually, they don't believe there is a danger. I think it has something to do with the fact that they underestimate certain types of risk. They do not deal with distributive and long-term risk well (explains the run-up to the Financial Crisis and the climate change denial dynamic). Social risk (e.g. embarrassment, risk to social position) on the other hand seems to be tremendously important and they are particularly prickly about it.
I admit I bristle in the presence of Republicans (as they probably do in my presence) - they just have a worldview that I cannot tolerate. Growing up I was taught that politics was personal and that a person's vote was no one's business but their own. But today I disagree - since I believe Republicans have done so much damage to our country. I am especially irked when friends (and family) believe Sean Hannity's view of health care reform over mine - even though I have worked in health care for almost 30 years.
93
"So far there are 502 recommendations with more to come I'm certain"
Your comment is an NYT Pick, and lots of Times readers, I'm sure, read only the NYT Picks because it saves time.
And since when is wisdom determined by majority vote, anyway?
Your comment is an NYT Pick, and lots of Times readers, I'm sure, read only the NYT Picks because it saves time.
And since when is wisdom determined by majority vote, anyway?
I'm a 65-year-old woman who has always felt I am the equal of any man. For me, politics has always been personal. Republicans do not respect full human rights and freedom for women. I've had two abortions, about which I feel nothing but relief and no guilt whatsoever. The GOP would have denied me the right to have them. They would have trashed my life, given the opportunity. I don't take kindly to that.
I love to hike and camp, I love nature, and I am grateful for science and the ability it gives us to cure diseases, feed more people, and broaden our understanding of our world, ourselves and the cosmos. I detest the damage humans are doing to our planet through greed, overpopulation and pollution. I am sickened by our incessant pointless wars. I love education for its own sake as well as for its tangible benefits. The GOP has always expressed disdain for science, "elites" and "intellectuals," as if those of us who are well educated have some kind of disfiguring, debilitating disease. I don't respect that point of view. Not one iota.
Yes, it's personal. Republicans are not my friends. Never have been, never will be. That said, I have good manners and am polite to the Republicans I meet. More than that is something they do not have any right to expect, given their destructive and dehumanizing attitude towards me and the things I love.
I love to hike and camp, I love nature, and I am grateful for science and the ability it gives us to cure diseases, feed more people, and broaden our understanding of our world, ourselves and the cosmos. I detest the damage humans are doing to our planet through greed, overpopulation and pollution. I am sickened by our incessant pointless wars. I love education for its own sake as well as for its tangible benefits. The GOP has always expressed disdain for science, "elites" and "intellectuals," as if those of us who are well educated have some kind of disfiguring, debilitating disease. I don't respect that point of view. Not one iota.
Yes, it's personal. Republicans are not my friends. Never have been, never will be. That said, I have good manners and am polite to the Republicans I meet. More than that is something they do not have any right to expect, given their destructive and dehumanizing attitude towards me and the things I love.
574
I am 86. Your first paragraph, I understand. I completely identify with your second paragraph! As I see it, those of us who went through WWII and witnessed the phenomenal ability of this country to mobilize and fight a war on two fronts was nothing short of raw patriotism and our "Can Do' attitude. Our youth cannot be expected to understand what was accomplished. Yet they are beneficiaries of that time in our history. In addition, we were privileged to have professional journalists! Now it is ratings and money. It's no wonder that media finds 'juice' in setting one against the other. However the consequences of this greed and irresponsibility will tear us apart, Only if we allow it.
7
Thank you! Amen! I am same age, same gender, and feel precisely the same way.
5
I do not consider myself a republican or a democrat. I am a human being. I am sure I am not alone.
"...partisans on both sides believe different facts, use different economic theories, and hold differing views of history. But might the differences run even deeper? Do liberals and conservatives process the same set of facts with different cultural thought styles?"
This statement is comical. I cannot recall who first said this but the statement is highly relevant. Everyone is welcome to their own opinions but not their own "facts". Facts are facts, they are not a matter of opinion. One of our big problems right now is that there are groups and individuals who insist on ignoring and denying facts that so not support their belief systems or points of view. They draw facts from their conclusions, which is not the right order of operations.
This statement is comical. I cannot recall who first said this but the statement is highly relevant. Everyone is welcome to their own opinions but not their own "facts". Facts are facts, they are not a matter of opinion. One of our big problems right now is that there are groups and individuals who insist on ignoring and denying facts that so not support their belief systems or points of view. They draw facts from their conclusions, which is not the right order of operations.
14
Does your opinion form from the facts, or does your opinion dictate what the facts must be?
Try that on to filter the sheep from the goats.
Try that on to filter the sheep from the goats.
The quote is, I believe, from Daniel Patrick Moynihan, although it probably has been paraphrased by others.
1
To answer the question in the header, it started with Newt Gingrich and his take-no-prisoners, scorched earth brand of politics which found great favour among conservatives, in concert with the rise of right-wing Hate Radio and, of course, Fox News. Liberals have responded in kind, although we don't have our very own propaganda machine as does the right.
The only ones unaffected by the bitter partisanship these days are those who aren't actually paying attention to what's happening in the country.
And, unfortunately, there's no going back.
The only ones unaffected by the bitter partisanship these days are those who aren't actually paying attention to what's happening in the country.
And, unfortunately, there's no going back.
4
It probably started earlier with the impeachment of Nixon......bad blood ever after
I agree with you, Heff. I noticed it before the days of Clinton and Gingrich. And it was the near-impeachment of Nixon, who quit before he was fired.
The only U.S. presidents to be impeached were Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton.
The only U.S. presidents to be impeached were Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton.
1
Norman Ornstein and Thomas Mann have been over this ground repeatedly. I am not sure we Professors to tell us that Republicans are irrational and eschew science or that they look for overly simplistic solutions. The GOP's popsition on climate change and what to do it about (nothing) are clear evidence of what we already knew.
While the rise of tribalism is not healthy for our democracy we need to be clear about where it is coming from. The numbers for Republican aversion to sons or daughters marrying a democrat and so forth are at least 50% larger than for democrats. That is statistically extremely significant. Might the rise in democratic dislike of Republicans be in reaction to that?
Nobody is suggesting that democrats are not at fault as well. But the extent, intensity and pervasiveness of the toxicity is critical to dealing with it. False equivalency in this paper is not going to help. We need to honestly talk about how extremism has taken over the Republican Party and turned into a parliamentarian style opposition party whose goals are to shrink government by funding cuts and tax cuts, or if that fails, fillibuster and shutdown the government to prevent progress. The GOP's attitude is if government is paralyzed, the government looks bad. When government looks bad, people vote to kill government. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
While the rise of tribalism is not healthy for our democracy we need to be clear about where it is coming from. The numbers for Republican aversion to sons or daughters marrying a democrat and so forth are at least 50% larger than for democrats. That is statistically extremely significant. Might the rise in democratic dislike of Republicans be in reaction to that?
Nobody is suggesting that democrats are not at fault as well. But the extent, intensity and pervasiveness of the toxicity is critical to dealing with it. False equivalency in this paper is not going to help. We need to honestly talk about how extremism has taken over the Republican Party and turned into a parliamentarian style opposition party whose goals are to shrink government by funding cuts and tax cuts, or if that fails, fillibuster and shutdown the government to prevent progress. The GOP's attitude is if government is paralyzed, the government looks bad. When government looks bad, people vote to kill government. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
36
Obviously the Koch brothers can afford to bankroll their own political party. They are obviously acquainted with how political parties operate, and they can fill a vacuum when they detect one.
1
That republicans can get away with being the opposition party even while in control of congress is especially galling. It show how far the 4th Estate has wandered from their duty to expose the truth in our society.
60% of voters, before the election, did not know which party controlled congress. So sad.
60% of voters, before the election, did not know which party controlled congress. So sad.
The correlations between liberalism, analytic thinking, curiosity, and individuality ring true with me. But is this nature or nurture? I grew up in a rural Montana community and went on to become a scientist, world traveler, foodie, and liberal.
Those I grew up with who did not attend college nor move far from their roots, including many family members, remain far to my political right. And somewhat suspicious of the motives of others. Is this because they did not become exposed to the variety of experiences, people, and the scientific training that I did? Or was I predisposed to seek out this way of living, while their innate lack of curiosity made them satisfied with their tightly knit lifestyle?
If training and experience can change political orientation, then there may be hope for more political moderation in a world with more education and exposure to strangers. But such preferences might be inborn and relatively immutable.
Why political differences have recently become so extreme does baffle me, and this is a problem that must be addressed; we are heading in the wrong direction. I would strongly support a return to drafting of high school graduates for 2 years of community service outside their communities, military service or otherwise. I believe that early exposure to other groups can only help to moderate our attitudes toward each other.
Those I grew up with who did not attend college nor move far from their roots, including many family members, remain far to my political right. And somewhat suspicious of the motives of others. Is this because they did not become exposed to the variety of experiences, people, and the scientific training that I did? Or was I predisposed to seek out this way of living, while their innate lack of curiosity made them satisfied with their tightly knit lifestyle?
If training and experience can change political orientation, then there may be hope for more political moderation in a world with more education and exposure to strangers. But such preferences might be inborn and relatively immutable.
Why political differences have recently become so extreme does baffle me, and this is a problem that must be addressed; we are heading in the wrong direction. I would strongly support a return to drafting of high school graduates for 2 years of community service outside their communities, military service or otherwise. I believe that early exposure to other groups can only help to moderate our attitudes toward each other.
19
The "contradiction between purity and pragmatism" is essentially a conflict between instinct and intellect.
This is reflected in the phrases "Affect, Not Ideology", and "deeply rooted "in group" versus "out group" sensibilities".
Technology (especially the Internet) has divided the world into primeval tribes of "us" versus "them". The continually refined art of propaganda since the second World War (Goebbels would be impressed) inflames the deep-rooted instinct to protect ones own tribe from attack by "others".
These inherent instincts of self protection are magnified by media and reinforced by government education systems that increasingly advocate conformity and group thinking. Entities such as the conservative Texas Board of Education exacerbate the problem ("the power of the Texas Board to determine textbook contents for the rest of the country is, at present, unprecedented" http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Texas_Board_of_Education).
The "progressive" camp (what kind of progress, toward what end?) contributes to the conflict with its own ideologically manifest agenda.
Until open-minded, analytic thought is reintroduced in the educational system to again embrace classic liberal concepts ("open to new ideas, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; not bound by traditional thinking; broad-minded"), the nation will experience further ideological division, pitting instinct against intellect to the great detriment of society and the entire human race.
This is reflected in the phrases "Affect, Not Ideology", and "deeply rooted "in group" versus "out group" sensibilities".
Technology (especially the Internet) has divided the world into primeval tribes of "us" versus "them". The continually refined art of propaganda since the second World War (Goebbels would be impressed) inflames the deep-rooted instinct to protect ones own tribe from attack by "others".
These inherent instincts of self protection are magnified by media and reinforced by government education systems that increasingly advocate conformity and group thinking. Entities such as the conservative Texas Board of Education exacerbate the problem ("the power of the Texas Board to determine textbook contents for the rest of the country is, at present, unprecedented" http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Texas_Board_of_Education).
The "progressive" camp (what kind of progress, toward what end?) contributes to the conflict with its own ideologically manifest agenda.
Until open-minded, analytic thought is reintroduced in the educational system to again embrace classic liberal concepts ("open to new ideas, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; not bound by traditional thinking; broad-minded"), the nation will experience further ideological division, pitting instinct against intellect to the great detriment of society and the entire human race.
3
This discussion ignores core ideas from history that can tell us much about what is happening today. In the pre-Reagan period, both parties were acting upon a perceived future that looked much more liberal than we discuss today. But underneath the top discussion, discontents swelled among those persons who had lost the battles of the 20th Century over civil rights, women's rights (voting and workplace), and religion and science (contraception, abortion, and evolution). Reagan articulated their grievances and was elected to the surprise of many. The Republican party has relied on these voters ever since while also serving the interests of the economic plutocrats. The Democrats held Congress for another 20 years after Watergate which lead them to believe they were still on a progressive path to the future and not realizing that such progress was not supported by everyone. The old grievances have faded but have not disappeared entirely. Immigration has become a new source of discontent, and the discontented do not appear to want a realistic solution. Underlying the Republican position is a claim that we have not been served well by progress and that a return to social arrangements of the past would be best. The 50%+ who are better off by our progress do not speak as loudly as the minority who are aggrieved. The real significance of Obama is not being the first black president but being the first president elected from the north since Kennedy.
7
This so called "analytic" versus "holistic" dichotomy the author outlines and its connection to liberal and conservative thinking is, in my opinion, not the way to explain the differences between the liberal and conservative perspectives, and the endless nonsense we all have to endure on cable news shows.
Instead of looking at this mess via a culture or tribal conflict I would suggest something like "team science" versus "team we get to make up our own facts, science and reality" or, "team 81 people with half of the world's wealth get to decide everything" or, "team god has already decided the winner of the Superbowl."
Instead of looking at this mess via a culture or tribal conflict I would suggest something like "team science" versus "team we get to make up our own facts, science and reality" or, "team 81 people with half of the world's wealth get to decide everything" or, "team god has already decided the winner of the Superbowl."
3
Liberals apply rational analytical thinking to facts.
Conservatives rely on emotional reactions to deep-seated teachings.
Liberals can change their opinion based on new information.
Conservatives resist change of any sort, especially if it contradicts their deeply held convictions.
Most conservatives are very religious and their beliefs are based on the Bible and religious doctrine, which frequently strongly oppose new thinking in society, even science supported by incontrovertible data.
Liberals have a hard time getting conservatives to listen to new lines of thought, because "faith" can't be questioned.
Conservatives rely on emotional reactions to deep-seated teachings.
Liberals can change their opinion based on new information.
Conservatives resist change of any sort, especially if it contradicts their deeply held convictions.
Most conservatives are very religious and their beliefs are based on the Bible and religious doctrine, which frequently strongly oppose new thinking in society, even science supported by incontrovertible data.
Liberals have a hard time getting conservatives to listen to new lines of thought, because "faith" can't be questioned.
11
Funny thing - they measure and assess reaction to the hypothetical marriage but never get around to address the actual occurrence of what happens when people actually marry across the political divide - and I bet it occurs fairly often.
My instinct is that the vast chasm they identify collapses and it makes a less interesting/strident paper.
My instinct is that the vast chasm they identify collapses and it makes a less interesting/strident paper.
3
Marriage across the political divide causes misery. Politics reflects our basic values, so we tend to marry people who share our politics. No other measure save religion is more important, studies show. According to Pew, the gender divide during the 2012 election was higher than ever, women by far preferring Democrats who share their values. When couples are young they can ignore it. But when children grow up and women want to teach her children values such as tolerance, taking care of the vulnerable, the importance of community, diplomacy over war, it becomes extremely difficult and heart-wrenching to find common ground with conservative men. When you add the toxic effect of Fox News into the mix, which teaches men that it's okay to laugh at and shout down wives and children who disagree, it's downright ugly.
9
I can tell you that for my conservative husband it's difficult to be married to a liberal. Lucky he's like so many Americans and doesn't vote. He just complains a lot. For me as a liberal, it is fun to counter his non facts with real facts.
At the end of the day we both value family and our marriage so we don't let politics come between us.
At the end of the day we both value family and our marriage so we don't let politics come between us.
3
Follow the money:
In 1950, the post-war boom saw wage-earners gaining power through unionization, better-than-inflation wage settlements, veterans GI Bill schooling and training, export market growth, and urban renewal and expansion.
Today, we have none of the above, and in most cases falling real income for workers with rapidly expanding ownership of wealth for the investor class. Since one party seems not to give a darn for the slippage of the middle class and the suffering of the poverty class, it is only nature that the haves and have-nots are polarized as never before in the study. It is natural to feel hurt and angry when a kid throws her lot in with the moneyed class while your pension disappears. Natural and tragic.
In 1950, the post-war boom saw wage-earners gaining power through unionization, better-than-inflation wage settlements, veterans GI Bill schooling and training, export market growth, and urban renewal and expansion.
Today, we have none of the above, and in most cases falling real income for workers with rapidly expanding ownership of wealth for the investor class. Since one party seems not to give a darn for the slippage of the middle class and the suffering of the poverty class, it is only nature that the haves and have-nots are polarized as never before in the study. It is natural to feel hurt and angry when a kid throws her lot in with the moneyed class while your pension disappears. Natural and tragic.
Has it not been obvious for some time now that the most expedient means to compel a citizen to vote against his or her economic self interest is to vilify the opposition through repetition of falsehoods designed to appeal to irrational fears?
The trend in the "not in our family" graphic then follows logically. Republicans, the designated audience for the repetition of falsehoods, have an exaggerated sense of fear of the "other"; Democrats, understanding the link between intelligence and the capacity for critical thinking, naturally want something better for their offspring.
The trend in the "not in our family" graphic then follows logically. Republicans, the designated audience for the repetition of falsehoods, have an exaggerated sense of fear of the "other"; Democrats, understanding the link between intelligence and the capacity for critical thinking, naturally want something better for their offspring.
18
When faced with issues like poverty, crime, and low educational performance, liberals tend to give intellectual ("analytic") reasons, e.g. socio-economic factors, to explain the different impacts on different ethnic groups. Conservatives tend to explain these differences using "common sense" - as the result of individual moral failure like shiftlessness or poor impulse control, or perverse incentives. Consequently, liberals believe in the power of government programs to rectify these "structural" problems, whereas conservatives believe these programs are a waste of (their) taxpayer dollars. Reacting to each other's policy proposals, liberals view conservatives as heartless, while conservatives see liberals as gullible enablers at best.
As higher education trains the mind to seek underlying causes to explain common-sense phenomena, it shifts college students in a politically liberal direction. Clearly we need both common sense and analysis to understand and negotiate life. And political differences are more than just differences of perception, but reflect the contestation of interest groups at each stage in history. Perhaps our society's increasing individualism since the 1950's and 1960's has been a major element in causing more intolerant divisions between "intellectual" liberalism on the left and Tea Party libertarianism on the right.
As higher education trains the mind to seek underlying causes to explain common-sense phenomena, it shifts college students in a politically liberal direction. Clearly we need both common sense and analysis to understand and negotiate life. And political differences are more than just differences of perception, but reflect the contestation of interest groups at each stage in history. Perhaps our society's increasing individualism since the 1950's and 1960's has been a major element in causing more intolerant divisions between "intellectual" liberalism on the left and Tea Party libertarianism on the right.
6
It got started when Johnson signed into law the Civil Rights Act. He knew the South would leave the Democratic party, and he was right.
Since the Republicans have become the party of racial bigotry, voter suppression, and science-deniers, while they continue to try to repeal any form of medical help to the poor, why on earth should I want one in the family? I prefer people who believe in reality.
The column stresses that conservatives seem to prefer "community" with tight social ties and less trust toward strangers. But that doesn't mean they should therefore deny anthropogenic climate change and evolution, does it? I'd prefer that people have a nodding acquaintance with reality. And that they not think other races don't count as much, aka bigotry.
Since the Republicans have become the party of racial bigotry, voter suppression, and science-deniers, while they continue to try to repeal any form of medical help to the poor, why on earth should I want one in the family? I prefer people who believe in reality.
The column stresses that conservatives seem to prefer "community" with tight social ties and less trust toward strangers. But that doesn't mean they should therefore deny anthropogenic climate change and evolution, does it? I'd prefer that people have a nodding acquaintance with reality. And that they not think other races don't count as much, aka bigotry.
6
As defined in the article, "collectivism" explains a lot of the behaviors we see in conservatives today. Any group that is different can't be trusted and must be out to take from us. Therefore, we should demonize them and cut off programs which benefit them. Mitt Romney's 47% speech went right to the point - the 47% are people that aren't even worth appealing to because they're "different" from the people he was talking to. Once you decide you can blithely write off half the population, it becomes easier to easier to exclude other groups as well.
33
" For the persons who worked hard and more or less lived by the rules, there is no longer the pride of breadwinning and self-sufficiency brought to home or church or neighborhood interactions. These people are setups for polarizing political appeals."
People in these situations see day to day the cause and effects. They will listen to alternatives to the standard party lines that caused much of the mess around them. That's not polarization. That's the political and labor elite being shocked and knocked down.
People in these situations see day to day the cause and effects. They will listen to alternatives to the standard party lines that caused much of the mess around them. That's not polarization. That's the political and labor elite being shocked and knocked down.
1
Well, at least outright political hostility is honest and direct.
You can't say the same for political hostility camouflaged as social science, which is what some of these "social scientists" are guilty of. I have always that to be a dirty business, like some of the character assassination by psychobiography that we used to see a decade or more back.
How come these researchers always end up with the conclusion that people who disagree with their own views are more stupid or pathological?
The wackiest results reported here are Talhelm and co.'s. Liberals are analytical? Tell that to Justice Scalia. Do engineers tend to vote Democratic? And deep ecologists are analytical? Go figure.
It goes to show: "I'd rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University."
You can't say the same for political hostility camouflaged as social science, which is what some of these "social scientists" are guilty of. I have always that to be a dirty business, like some of the character assassination by psychobiography that we used to see a decade or more back.
How come these researchers always end up with the conclusion that people who disagree with their own views are more stupid or pathological?
The wackiest results reported here are Talhelm and co.'s. Liberals are analytical? Tell that to Justice Scalia. Do engineers tend to vote Democratic? And deep ecologists are analytical? Go figure.
It goes to show: "I'd rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University."
4
The polarization of the political parties coincides with an increase in thoughtful independent voters that tip the scales in most elections.
1
While you can not generally determine political party nor faith nor ethnicity nor national origin by physical appearance alone. That is not true with regard to racially colored American history. Nor are the consequences so dire pervasive and enduring in revolution, slavery, civil war, reconstruction, Jim Crow and civil rights.
Any claim to the contrary including gender based discrimination is ignorance or stupidity or lying. Blacks were denied their humanity and equality in America by other Americans. The only comparable American experience is that of Native Americans.
The last time that American white people had political differences that led to civil war race and slavery were at the root of the problem. The post civil rights era political shift among whites is also based on racially colored politics.
Unless and until all Black African Americans are accepted and acknowledged in word and deed as being divinely naturally created equal with certain unalienable rights including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness then America will still be a monument to cynical hypocrisy and perfidy.
Any claim to the contrary including gender based discrimination is ignorance or stupidity or lying. Blacks were denied their humanity and equality in America by other Americans. The only comparable American experience is that of Native Americans.
The last time that American white people had political differences that led to civil war race and slavery were at the root of the problem. The post civil rights era political shift among whites is also based on racially colored politics.
Unless and until all Black African Americans are accepted and acknowledged in word and deed as being divinely naturally created equal with certain unalienable rights including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness then America will still be a monument to cynical hypocrisy and perfidy.
3
Blackmamba, is your comment attached to the wrong article? I don't see the connection between your topic and Republican/Democrat political hostility.
3
In part this has occurred because now every single issue is viewed as existential. Honestly, can you say with a straight face that Obamacare or the Keystone pipeline will mean the end of our civilization!
And we now have a political system that makes adherence to the party line as much a demand as in 1950s Moscow or 1930s Berlin. No Democrat (except in deep Red states) can be pro-life; no Republican (except in deep Blue states) can be anything else. The same dichotomy applies to everything else, from tax rates to student loans. Compromise is anathema.
But as long as we have Fox News and talk radio, we will have the GOP side taking up the cause, and the Democrats then defending their positions against them. The loser, of course, is the American people.
And we now have a political system that makes adherence to the party line as much a demand as in 1950s Moscow or 1930s Berlin. No Democrat (except in deep Red states) can be pro-life; no Republican (except in deep Blue states) can be anything else. The same dichotomy applies to everything else, from tax rates to student loans. Compromise is anathema.
But as long as we have Fox News and talk radio, we will have the GOP side taking up the cause, and the Democrats then defending their positions against them. The loser, of course, is the American people.
34
An excellent summary by Mr. Edsal of the research. Since the statistics show that the current status quo was not always thus, I'd like to know how we got from there to here. There is some speculation by the researchers about that, but there doesn't seem to be definitive research. We know what people think about each other. Now we know how their approach to issue affects the outcomes of their thinking. This is all valuable information. However, in order to reverse the trend, unless the country is better off going further down this path, we need to find out _why_ liberals and conservatives start out today with such different approaches, when, once upon a time in the not too distant past, they apparently didn't. It wasn't too long ago that Ralph Nader was complaining there was no difference between the major parties and many agreed. Now Mr. Nader is probably still making the same complaint, only find a Democrat or Republican who agrees with him and you win a Willkie for President button. Whatever triggered the change can be altered or (perhaps we shouldn't hold our collective breath waiting for this to happen) reversed. Time to give Mary Matalin and James Carville (21 years and counting) a call, no? They know something the rest of us seem to have forgotten and need to be reminded of. Could they enlighten us without delay?
4
I've held a very low level political office - for two years I was President of a Super Neighborhood. It was a non partisan position, but it taught me one thing: people are generally apathetic no matter what the cause. If you want to get people involved, you either have to make them feel scared about something, or tap into their pre existing fears.
.
So of course politicians have become particularly adept at painting their opposition as evil and dangerous. It's how they mobilize the vote. It's how they win elections. It has carried through to public opinion, and that's why we have become so divided.
.
If only they would take the approach I tried to take. Granted it was a lot easier in a non-partisan position, but I tried to figure out what the real issues were and answer them. The people I pitted myself against weren't members of an opposing party, but rather anyone (regardless of party) who stood in the way of addressing our community problems. Alas, it seems, few take this common sense approach.
.
So of course politicians have become particularly adept at painting their opposition as evil and dangerous. It's how they mobilize the vote. It's how they win elections. It has carried through to public opinion, and that's why we have become so divided.
.
If only they would take the approach I tried to take. Granted it was a lot easier in a non-partisan position, but I tried to figure out what the real issues were and answer them. The people I pitted myself against weren't members of an opposing party, but rather anyone (regardless of party) who stood in the way of addressing our community problems. Alas, it seems, few take this common sense approach.
13
It wouldn't hurt if politicians, during the re-election cycle, would speak to their plans and achievements once they are elected - instead of only destroying their opposition. There's no civility from the leadership.
2
The civil don't get elected. They don't even bother running because they can see how nasty electoral politics are.
A more civil campaigning style will emerge only if a more civil electorate stops responding to despicable negative campaigns.
A more civil campaigning style will emerge only if a more civil electorate stops responding to despicable negative campaigns.
3
We wouldn't be having this discussion if Rush had stayed with the Royals.
55
Or Obama had stayed in Chicago.
2
Did you ever try to have a political discussion with a die hard republican. After the last Presidential election, I mearly asked a Repubican friend how did he feel about the election. He said he was very upset and surprised. I said you really shouldn't have been surprised as the polls indicated that there was about 1 chance in 10 that Romney would win. The fact that i believed the polls indicated to him that perhaps I was worthy of his friendship. Although we are still friends, I steer clear of political discussions with him.
My point is that to resolve the political differences, we must be able to have free dispassonate discuss with others whos views differ from ours.
My point is that to resolve the political differences, we must be able to have free dispassonate discuss with others whos views differ from ours.
4
Ask any anthropologist or sociologist and they'll tell you that, as Robert Reich predicted in these pages not too long ago we here in America are becomingca tribal society with all that that implies. We already have 'revenge killings' (cf Martin Luther King, Robert, The Freedom Riders etc etc). With the growth of tribalism and its accompanying Authoritarianism/Fascism comes the decline and demise of Democracy that we are already witnessing.
Don't marry a Shia if you're a Sunni, don't marry a Democrat if you come from a Republican family, or you know what will happen. Heaven help us, can 'honor killings' be far off?
Don't marry a Shia if you're a Sunni, don't marry a Democrat if you come from a Republican family, or you know what will happen. Heaven help us, can 'honor killings' be far off?
I would be interested in a study that compares the South and the rest of the country. Southern identity is very important to a lot of Southerners, with nothing of comparable intensity in the north. The view of many Southerners than they are under attack from outsiders has a very long history, going back to the early 19th century. That perception had much truth at times in the past but not now. Habits of thought persist though, and these have become a huge problem.
164
We certainly saw it 50 years ago, at the height of the civil-rights movement, when "outside agitators" and "liberal media" were the culprits. That latter talking point was a specialty of a broadcast editorialist named Jesse Helms.
3
Kind of scary if we can't do better than they did during the run-up to the Civil War.
1
In the South, politics and race are typically one and the same and can rarely be separated. Democrat is code for one race and Republican the other.
The political parties have each become identified with different sides of the racial and class divisions that have always afflicted this country. These divisions have been exacerbated by social changes, economic dislocation, and an African-American president, whose presence is an inspiration to some and an abomination to others.
It's not all that complicated, folks: it's about race and class.It always has been. The Southern Strategy worked.
It's not all that complicated, folks: it's about race and class.It always has been. The Southern Strategy worked.
41
Why can't researchers simply accept that there are differing interests within our polity that find their expression in competing political parties? That's what the Founders thought and I don't see that they are wrong. Do we really need all this mumbo jumbo?
Factions fight it out for dominance; that's politics.
Factions fight it out for dominance; that's politics.
1
Janin...'s belief is an example of the problem; a belief in dominance, not degree of influence over a compromise.
1
That would fail to explain the huge number of people who vote against their own interests.
3
It all goes to show: you can't take the politics out of politics. Polarization occurs when people have competing vital interests. It's not some kind of failure. It is the natural consequence of competing interests.
What requires explanation is our discomfort as a society with that reality.
What requires explanation is our discomfort as a society with that reality.
Newt Gingrich carefully taught the politics of the personal.
Never call a position wrong when you can call the person who holds it wrong.
Never call someone wrong when you can call him immoral.
Never call someone immoral when you can call him evil. Or subhuman. Or for best results both.
And that poisonous tree is still bearing fruit.
Never call a position wrong when you can call the person who holds it wrong.
Never call someone wrong when you can call him immoral.
Never call someone immoral when you can call him evil. Or subhuman. Or for best results both.
And that poisonous tree is still bearing fruit.
216
"Newt Gingrich carefully taught the politics of the personal."
It occurred long before Newt G.
Does the expression "fascist pig" ring a bell? That was a favorite of political progressives some years ago.
"Never call someone immoral when you can call him evil. Or subhuman."
That's what the picture of W being portrayed as a chimp did. As you said:
"And that poisonous tree is still bearing fruit."
It occurred long before Newt G.
Does the expression "fascist pig" ring a bell? That was a favorite of political progressives some years ago.
"Never call someone immoral when you can call him evil. Or subhuman."
That's what the picture of W being portrayed as a chimp did. As you said:
"And that poisonous tree is still bearing fruit."
1
No, Jp, it doesn't. Thanks for asking; have a blessed day.
You're right about the picture of Bush as a chimp. His depiction as Mad Magazine's Alfred E. Neuman was much more accurate.
4
I've read a lot of columns arguing that the fact that more parents would not want their children to marry outside of the parents' political party is a problem for our nation. (David Brooks wrote a column in these very pages with a similar thrust.) I don't understand this claim. We agree that not wanting your child to marry someone of a different race is noxious and racist, because race is an innate characteristic that someone can't change. But political party identification isn't like that. You can change that easily. And it isn't just about party identification. It represents values. You vote for the candidate who most represents your values.
We're told that we shouldn't make choices about who to marry based on superficial characteristics like physical appearance, but based on someone's morals and values. Well, isn't political party identification representative of someone's values?
We're told that we shouldn't make choices about who to marry based on superficial characteristics like physical appearance, but based on someone's morals and values. Well, isn't political party identification representative of someone's values?
126
C'mon. Political affiliation isn't anything like marriage.
1
Actually, we can not easily change our political beliefs; they're mostly hard wired. Start with "Political Orientations Are Correlated with Brain Structure in Young Adults", Ryota Kanai, et al. in Vol 21, Issue 8 in Current Biology.
1
God help us if political beliefs are hard-wired, or even genetic. That idea was promoted a few years ago in the hope that mutual understanding would ensue, as with sexual orientation - it didn't. If those on both sides see their opponents as evil, the corollary sill be that some people are born evil. Two-Seed-in-the-Spirit predestinarianism - coming right up.
This is a disappointing exercise in trying to prop up confirmation biases. I expected more from Edsall though, to his credit, he did not write the underlying paper.
2
I did notice that your questions on the "Not in Our Family" chart vary in wording in each year shown. It went from "displeased" in 1960, to "upset" in 2008, to "unhappy" in 2010. Those differences change the questions considerably.
10
Democrats and Republicans are hard-wired to see differently. Democrats tend to be intuitive "Idealists" in Myers-Briggs lingo, and Republicans are sensory "Guardians." Healthy societies have both types, and treat each other with mutual respect. Both add value. Guardians see the world as it is and preserve tradition, while Idealists see the world as it could be and strive for progress. Guardians focus much more on threats and protecting us from harm, their focus is more on short-term harm, while Idealists are able to think long-term Idealists can visualize the future. Idealists can see the harmful trajectory of out-of-control market forces, discrimination, torture, and pollution. If only Guardians ruled we would still be serfs, stuck in the Middle Ages, with rivers running with raw sewage. If only Idealists ruled, we would be too impatient for change.
Health is in balance. We had balance when network news reported facts and kept opinions separate, the problem is now we have Fox News so Guardians live in a vacuum where the only good values are theirs and they disdain Idealist Democrats. Democrats hardly know what hit them. But suddenly on Capitol Hill and here at home Republicans interrupt us, and shout us down, and never, ever compromise. Fox News is to blame for how personal and polarizing politics is now. Democrats like myself are fed up and lashing back in kind.
The only way back is get rid of Fox and get back to mutual respect, but the ball's in Republicans' court.
Health is in balance. We had balance when network news reported facts and kept opinions separate, the problem is now we have Fox News so Guardians live in a vacuum where the only good values are theirs and they disdain Idealist Democrats. Democrats hardly know what hit them. But suddenly on Capitol Hill and here at home Republicans interrupt us, and shout us down, and never, ever compromise. Fox News is to blame for how personal and polarizing politics is now. Democrats like myself are fed up and lashing back in kind.
The only way back is get rid of Fox and get back to mutual respect, but the ball's in Republicans' court.
13
Indeed, if the Republicans were true Guardians of the natural world, there would be much to recommend them. Same too if they were Guardians of international law or public education, which Americans in the past worked hard to create.
And who were the true guardians when these "Guardians" started to run amok?
And who were the true guardians when these "Guardians" started to run amok?
1
The deep irony here is that the studies cited have been produced by one of the factions, the logical and analytical. Most likely some of these researchers are conservative, and surely some conservatives can analyze and reason. The point is that your garden variety Fox fan is instinctively hostile to the findings of this or any other sort social science.
It is nearly impossible to argue with physical science, and most have given up. Social science, on the other hand, offends by its mere existence. Why should anyone be wasting resources on finding out how society (or the economy) works when we already know morally how it should work?
It is nearly impossible to argue with physical science, and most have given up. Social science, on the other hand, offends by its mere existence. Why should anyone be wasting resources on finding out how society (or the economy) works when we already know morally how it should work?
3
Not to ignore, of course, the impact of the demonization of liberals by far-right outlets like Fox & Limbaugh.
17
In the mid-19th century, before the Civil War, beatings on the floor of the House and Senate were pretty common. See the historian Joanne Freeman's work for examples. So maybe politics has always been pretty personal?
49
Columnists who use historical "facts" probably should read some history before writing an article.
"In the mid-19th century, before the Civil War, beatings on the floor of the House and Senate were pretty common."
I think we need more of that today.
I think we need more of that today.
1
I think that a lot of the differences between conservatives and liberals has to do with the shift in social values over the past half century--the focus on the Me generation, the individual, getting mine. Earlier in the twentieth century we focused on our community, giving everyone a chance to get ahead. That seems to have broken down, and we began to fear the 'other'. We also have to take into account the shift between the two parties, that the Republicans are now espousing the ideas that the Democrats espoused in the 19th century.
During the past few decades policies have hurt many people and as those policies grew harsher, the divide grew wider between the ideologies. This all may well be a natural progression of ideas, and it will start swinging back to a more middle area in time. For now, that is going to be hard to accomplish with gerrymandering and other political tricks used to ensure that the conservatives win the seats in Congress. In the meantime, more and more people will lose their voice and ability to join in the governance of the country.
During the past few decades policies have hurt many people and as those policies grew harsher, the divide grew wider between the ideologies. This all may well be a natural progression of ideas, and it will start swinging back to a more middle area in time. For now, that is going to be hard to accomplish with gerrymandering and other political tricks used to ensure that the conservatives win the seats in Congress. In the meantime, more and more people will lose their voice and ability to join in the governance of the country.
6
Although personal attacks and mudslinging have always been a part of the political process, the contributions of several factors should not go unmentioned: Gary Hart's "Monkey Business" affair; the effectiveness of George H.W. Bush's campaign attacks on Michael Dukakis engineered in large part by Lee Atwater (think Willie Horton); the likes of Rush Limbaugh fanning the flames; politicians like Steve King and Mitch McConnell discovering it is easier (and more profitable) to be obstructionists; and unlimited political spending on everything from funding 'tea party' groups to endless campaign attack ads in the wake of the infamous Citizens United decision.
21
" the effectiveness of George H.W. Bush's campaign attacks on Michael Dukakis engineered in large part by Lee Atwater (think Willie Horton); "
Al Gore was clever enough to first raise the furlough of Willie Horton as an issue.
Al Gore was clever enough to first raise the furlough of Willie Horton as an issue.
Jp - Al Gore never mentioned the name of Willie Horton. He opposed the furlough program, but the introduction of Willie Horton was due to the Republicans.
" In June 1988, Republican candidate George H.W. Bush seized on the Horton case, bringing it up repeatedly in campaign speeches. Bush's campaign manager, Lee Atwater, said "By the time we're finished, they're going to wonder whether Willie Horton is Dukakis' running mate."[10]"
" In June 1988, Republican candidate George H.W. Bush seized on the Horton case, bringing it up repeatedly in campaign speeches. Bush's campaign manager, Lee Atwater, said "By the time we're finished, they're going to wonder whether Willie Horton is Dukakis' running mate."[10]"
2
When one realizes that a noisy minority of others wish to take your own personal rights away....and they have the microphone.
1
These are interesting points, and I don't doubt that part of the current political polarization is due to the factors described here. But I'm curious as to why certain other factors are not discussed.
We have had nothing but conservative economic policies for the past 35 years (and yes, I'm including Clinton and Obama in that assessment), and in those 35 years things have gotten nothing but worse for everyone but the richest few. Is my belief that conservative economic policy is threatening to the welfare of the country as a whole not reasonably motivated by this fact? Or do these studies suggest that such a fact is open to different interpretation?
How about the famous conservative use of the word 'liberal' as a smear, using it as a thinly-coded abbreviation for "bleeding hearts that want to set murderers free, give your money to 'those people,' kill unborn babies, and appease enemies?" The right has been demonizing the left in that way for almost 50 years--is it any surprise it has led to an increased distrust among the two groups?
Look, I get that some will read these comments and say I exemplify what these studies are suggesting. Yet I ultimately feel that these studies (at least how they're presented here) are another instance of false equivalency--i.e. "both sides have gotten more partisan." Sure, but just as with the claim that both sides are keeping government from functioning properly, it fails to acknowledge that one side is more at fault than the other.
We have had nothing but conservative economic policies for the past 35 years (and yes, I'm including Clinton and Obama in that assessment), and in those 35 years things have gotten nothing but worse for everyone but the richest few. Is my belief that conservative economic policy is threatening to the welfare of the country as a whole not reasonably motivated by this fact? Or do these studies suggest that such a fact is open to different interpretation?
How about the famous conservative use of the word 'liberal' as a smear, using it as a thinly-coded abbreviation for "bleeding hearts that want to set murderers free, give your money to 'those people,' kill unborn babies, and appease enemies?" The right has been demonizing the left in that way for almost 50 years--is it any surprise it has led to an increased distrust among the two groups?
Look, I get that some will read these comments and say I exemplify what these studies are suggesting. Yet I ultimately feel that these studies (at least how they're presented here) are another instance of false equivalency--i.e. "both sides have gotten more partisan." Sure, but just as with the claim that both sides are keeping government from functioning properly, it fails to acknowledge that one side is more at fault than the other.
613
My favorite variant was the one that George H. W. Bush used on Mike Dukakis: "card-carrying member of the A.C.L.U."
5
I agree, and am horrified at the retreat of one political party of my adopted country into obscurantism in politics and economics and into medievalism in science.
4
I also think there's a false equivalency in Edsall's use of phrases like "ideological differences," as if there's a battle between ideologies going on. As I hear it, all the "ideology" is coming from the Right (although I think it's a clever use of that term to mask what is really nothing more than a determination to protect wealth and privilege). I haven't heard anything "ideological" from the so-called Left (a meaningless, catch-all term for anyone who voted for a Democrat) since the death of Norman Thomas.
6
What seems to be missing in this interesting analysis is the influence of education on the way individuals view people of opposing opinions, and the way they vote. It's fascinating that red states commonly make Draconian cuts to their education budgets. In Arizona, both the past governor and the new, Doug Ducey, slashed education budgets, most recently cutting $75 million from an already decimated higher education budget. In national and international tests, students from Arizona do not rank near the top, especially in reading.
While the article skims over the issue of intelligence, several credible studies in England clearly demonstrate that conservatives in general have lower IQs than liberals. Typically, university and college communities tend to vote blue, while increasingly blue collar communities vote red. As social media takes over from professional journalism, the less intelligent prefer quick bites of sound and "information" available on Facebook, Twitter and blogs, to the effort required to study the differences in policies of each party, and the voting history of candidates. Certainly the voting practices of the poor who vote Republican would tend to validate these theories.
The acrimony between the parties is encouraged by Republicans, whose media outlets spew hatred and falsehoods which are cynically fashioned to incite hate. The Koch brothers can take credit for much of that.
While the article skims over the issue of intelligence, several credible studies in England clearly demonstrate that conservatives in general have lower IQs than liberals. Typically, university and college communities tend to vote blue, while increasingly blue collar communities vote red. As social media takes over from professional journalism, the less intelligent prefer quick bites of sound and "information" available on Facebook, Twitter and blogs, to the effort required to study the differences in policies of each party, and the voting history of candidates. Certainly the voting practices of the poor who vote Republican would tend to validate these theories.
The acrimony between the parties is encouraged by Republicans, whose media outlets spew hatred and falsehoods which are cynically fashioned to incite hate. The Koch brothers can take credit for much of that.
176
What no one seems to be able to answer is: how do you have a constructive discussion (that could lead to a solution to a problem) with someone who reacts to everything emotionally and who does not care about evidence?
514
You can't. The alternative seems to be that voters are offered hot-button issues. What hot-button issues can Democrats offer other than civil rights, voting rights, reproductive rights, marriage rights... rights that are demonized or lost in a war machine?
5
Actually, there is a way. The trick in a discussion with a strong motivated reasoner (in short, one who feels rather than reasons from evidence) is never to offer facts nor data nor solutions, as they will quickly and unthinkingly be rejected.
Rather ask questions. "what the is mechansim that leads you to your conclusion?", "how does that work?", "what is the causal mechanism"", etc. The literature indicates that the ideologue will have to shift his thoughts from the emotional centers of the brain (limbic system) to the prefrontal cortex, where reasoning occurs. This then will cause them to mollify their positions.
This requires good personal control. By asking a serious of questions (for which you know the answers), you can get them to modify views, and today, given that we have the world of informtion at our finger tips literally, you can agree where to find data and information to bring to bear on the discussion.
Rather ask questions. "what the is mechansim that leads you to your conclusion?", "how does that work?", "what is the causal mechanism"", etc. The literature indicates that the ideologue will have to shift his thoughts from the emotional centers of the brain (limbic system) to the prefrontal cortex, where reasoning occurs. This then will cause them to mollify their positions.
This requires good personal control. By asking a serious of questions (for which you know the answers), you can get them to modify views, and today, given that we have the world of informtion at our finger tips literally, you can agree where to find data and information to bring to bear on the discussion.
28
The venue may hold part of the answer, if you see the primary contests as a place where the most intense"within the bubble" conversations take place. In competitive districts, the primaries will be pushed toward the center, because extreme candidates will regularly lose in the general election.
If this is true, we can begin to restore comity to our politics by the single step of state initiatives taking districting out of the hands of the parties, which have together failed us utterly, in this as other political areas. Since people are very unhappy with parties, proposal to eliminate gerrymandering is an easy sell. And, by improving our politics, the far right instantly loses traction.
If this is true, we can begin to restore comity to our politics by the single step of state initiatives taking districting out of the hands of the parties, which have together failed us utterly, in this as other political areas. Since people are very unhappy with parties, proposal to eliminate gerrymandering is an easy sell. And, by improving our politics, the far right instantly loses traction.
7
Fascinating. My experience reflects at least two threads in this column.
First, as an urbanite with a reverse commute I find myself working at a company with people who generally come from very different communities: They have standalone single family homes--many in New Hampshire, which has a low tax reputation--and they have the concerns that go with that, while I live in a condo in a city and am far more exposed to be the joys (restaurants, nightlife, art, music) and troubles (the homeless, poverty, crime) of the city. I am of course quite liberal, and most of my colleagues very conservative.
Secondly, though most of my co-workers are engineers, I see tremendous gaps in their analytical thinking when it comes to political and social issues. As I expressed to someone in a tense coffee room interchange, "I don't really understand how you can accept the products of science--the car that got you to work, and the technology-based work you do--but reject the science you don't care for, such as the data and arguments relating to climate change. All that science proceeds via the same mechanisms by which the scientific community reaches consensus". These conservatively-minded folks choose what to believe, even while they can apply sharp analytical skills to performing their jobs.
People are funny. And wonderful.
First, as an urbanite with a reverse commute I find myself working at a company with people who generally come from very different communities: They have standalone single family homes--many in New Hampshire, which has a low tax reputation--and they have the concerns that go with that, while I live in a condo in a city and am far more exposed to be the joys (restaurants, nightlife, art, music) and troubles (the homeless, poverty, crime) of the city. I am of course quite liberal, and most of my colleagues very conservative.
Secondly, though most of my co-workers are engineers, I see tremendous gaps in their analytical thinking when it comes to political and social issues. As I expressed to someone in a tense coffee room interchange, "I don't really understand how you can accept the products of science--the car that got you to work, and the technology-based work you do--but reject the science you don't care for, such as the data and arguments relating to climate change. All that science proceeds via the same mechanisms by which the scientific community reaches consensus". These conservatively-minded folks choose what to believe, even while they can apply sharp analytical skills to performing their jobs.
People are funny. And wonderful.
109
I am a retired mathematician and computer programmer. Among technical people scientists and engineers typically are much different politically, with scientists on the left and engineers conservative. Engineers frequently have blue collar family backgrounds and are the first college graduates in their families. They are hard workers who tend not to sympathize with those they see as less diligent than they are.
9
Scientist like surprises (e.g., General Relativity), while engineers try to avoid them (Galloping Gertie).
3
Perhaps the problem is not that they reject the science but that it has not yet been rigorously enough applied. We are still talking models, after all, and about a system that is vastly larger and more difficult to model, never mind predict, than anything yet attempted.
If anything, it's hard to understand your lack of understanding of an engineer's skepticism. Anyone with a basic understanding of models should have some skepticism. The absence of skepticism demonstrates a lack of analytical rigor, in my view.
If anything, it's hard to understand your lack of understanding of an engineer's skepticism. Anyone with a basic understanding of models should have some skepticism. The absence of skepticism demonstrates a lack of analytical rigor, in my view.
1
I'll confess to partisan discrimination.
My granddaughter marry a Republican? Never!
But let's ask why, rather than assume a symmetry of motives.
I maintain, and I can defend it, that, at least in terms of the stereotypes -- and let's use practicing politicians as proxies for the stereotypes -- Republican politicians act principally out of interests of power.
They act on the premise that anything is permitted to attain power, and that once that has been achieved, not in fractionated form, but totally, then and only then can rationality be reintroduced into the discussion.
Democrats are not uninterested in power, but they have "ongoing pangs of rationality" which influence their behavior.
In a word, they are willing to accept that the goal of the social contract is to maximize the good of everyone in the democracy, and not just the few, such that, if the few are satisfied, we can rely on magical forces to trickle the super welfare of the few down to the mi-welfare of the many.
Or maybe not. But that's only because those who are not able to scoop up sufficient scraps from the trickle down effect basically have only themselves to blame.
That the Republicans are mired in the bad infinite of the few never being satisfied screams from the headlines of the Koch Brothers being willing to throw mega millions at the prospect that their power and wealth not be diminished in the slightest, or possibly be even enhanced more.
More wealth, more trickle down?
Surely they jest.
My granddaughter marry a Republican? Never!
But let's ask why, rather than assume a symmetry of motives.
I maintain, and I can defend it, that, at least in terms of the stereotypes -- and let's use practicing politicians as proxies for the stereotypes -- Republican politicians act principally out of interests of power.
They act on the premise that anything is permitted to attain power, and that once that has been achieved, not in fractionated form, but totally, then and only then can rationality be reintroduced into the discussion.
Democrats are not uninterested in power, but they have "ongoing pangs of rationality" which influence their behavior.
In a word, they are willing to accept that the goal of the social contract is to maximize the good of everyone in the democracy, and not just the few, such that, if the few are satisfied, we can rely on magical forces to trickle the super welfare of the few down to the mi-welfare of the many.
Or maybe not. But that's only because those who are not able to scoop up sufficient scraps from the trickle down effect basically have only themselves to blame.
That the Republicans are mired in the bad infinite of the few never being satisfied screams from the headlines of the Koch Brothers being willing to throw mega millions at the prospect that their power and wealth not be diminished in the slightest, or possibly be even enhanced more.
More wealth, more trickle down?
Surely they jest.
75
Mr. Edsall: Are you kidding? Have you been visiting my home state for some special herbal remedy? Politic got really personal and off-the-cliff with the insane conspiracy theories surrounding the Clintons and Whitewater and Monica Lewinski's "oral arguments" which led to Kenneth Starr and now manifests itself as the running hatred and disrespect of "The Other" - Barack Obama. Have you been asleep for the last 30 years?
202
You're right. My own strong partisanship started during the Clinton years. The Republicans forced me to choose sides, and they were so much worse than Clinton in their behavior that it was easy. They made themselves my enemy.
12
Or was the Clinton witchhunt blowback from Watergate, as suggested by one of my colleagues, a Republican who was born at the time of Watergate. An interesting idea that I had never considered because of the 20 year timespan and the intervening Reagan-Bush regime.
I think that the authors have it right - the problem is primal tribalism. If it were not the current set of issues, it would be another set of issues. Adherents of both parties look at the past as idyllic - the Right to the 50s and early 60s and the Left to the late sixties and early 70s. However, I think that real Republicans from the 1950s would be appalled by the resurrection of the Robber Barons that we have today, and I am sure that many old liberals from 1967 would be appalled at the breakdown in so much of society on the micro and macro levels.
I think that the authors have it right - the problem is primal tribalism. If it were not the current set of issues, it would be another set of issues. Adherents of both parties look at the past as idyllic - the Right to the 50s and early 60s and the Left to the late sixties and early 70s. However, I think that real Republicans from the 1950s would be appalled by the resurrection of the Robber Barons that we have today, and I am sure that many old liberals from 1967 would be appalled at the breakdown in so much of society on the micro and macro levels.
1
The disappearance of the middle class is the disappearance of the middle. Add to that the polarized media and you don't even have to listen to the other side. We really need to get our ballast back in the middle, and to get that we have to have cooperation. Good luck!!!
10
Tom, you missed the middle. I am one that does not identify with either of the major parties, never have. Yes, I am one of the 'nones', and very happy to be there. Also, I don't vote, so I am also part of the two thirds of the eligible voters that do not do so. Yes, I discriminate, and do so if a person identifies as a politician. I am never disappointed, never have political discussions with my family, its a waste of time.
1
And as a result, you never complain when what the government does affects you in a negative way. If taxes go up, you merrily pay them. If services go down, you don't care if you thereby suffer. If your nephew or niece dies in an overseas war, hey, stuff happens! Similarly, if your nephew or niece gets a federal grant to do research, well, who cares if they find a new method of oral, surgery or a previously unknown ancient language? If your medical coverage improves, you're not really happy; you'd rather go back to the coverage that was worse, or not. What difference does it make? If your house gets washed away in a storm and federal government aid comes, that's nice. But if it doesn't come, that's nice too. I regret asking you to consider these things so personally, but you presented your personal take on politics as separate from that of most of us, how you personally view the whole system and choose, so you say, to consider political discussion a waste of time...which forces me to ask -- Why did you read this article and comment on it?
39
Coolhunter - Your comment is the epitome of poor citizenship.
23
Coolhunter I agree with you, not because I am in the middle but because I am insightful enough to understand. From a rational perspective perspective both parties are at the same extreme, being tools of the rich that are carrying us toward fascism as fast as they can.
3
Through the 1960s the American dream was alive. The experience of WWII was no picnic, but all seemed to be in the same boat, from Rosie the Riveter, to female pilots, to fighting men. And the cause was just.
After the war, labor was at a premium: the middle class grew. However, the horrors of Vietnam taught harsh lessons--leaders were not to be trusted; it was the poor who did most of the fighting and dying; and it was not unanimous that the cause was just. In spite of the suffering of Black families and veterans, the GOP adopted the Southern Strategy. After Goldwater’s defeat, the political landscape shifted. With the formation of conservative think tanks, paid agents pumped out conservative propaganda.
In the 1980s, Gingrich taught his fellow Republicans that they must not only out-debate rivals—they must demonize them. Grover Norquist wallowed in “nasty bitterness” as a political weapon. The GOP bayed like demented hounds on the scent of anything Clinton.
Then, the attacks of 9/11 were used in a naked manipulation of sentiment, and the invasion of Iraq poisoned any clean landscape that remained. How can any rational person on the Left expect anything like a rational discussion with a Republican today? Talking points, lies, and demonization rule. Occasionally, we get a reference to Ayn Rand and to the Invisible Hand! How trite!
After the war, labor was at a premium: the middle class grew. However, the horrors of Vietnam taught harsh lessons--leaders were not to be trusted; it was the poor who did most of the fighting and dying; and it was not unanimous that the cause was just. In spite of the suffering of Black families and veterans, the GOP adopted the Southern Strategy. After Goldwater’s defeat, the political landscape shifted. With the formation of conservative think tanks, paid agents pumped out conservative propaganda.
In the 1980s, Gingrich taught his fellow Republicans that they must not only out-debate rivals—they must demonize them. Grover Norquist wallowed in “nasty bitterness” as a political weapon. The GOP bayed like demented hounds on the scent of anything Clinton.
Then, the attacks of 9/11 were used in a naked manipulation of sentiment, and the invasion of Iraq poisoned any clean landscape that remained. How can any rational person on the Left expect anything like a rational discussion with a Republican today? Talking points, lies, and demonization rule. Occasionally, we get a reference to Ayn Rand and to the Invisible Hand! How trite!
233
"the GOP adopted the Southern Strategy. "
The Democrats paid no attention to the problems faced by many working class folks. I lived the progressive dream call the Great Society/Model Cities in Detroit during the 1960s.
The "progressive" acts gave us a gerrymandered congressional district in the name of progress. Please, Southern Strategy, right, if that makes you feel better.
The Democrats paid no attention to the problems faced by many working class folks. I lived the progressive dream call the Great Society/Model Cities in Detroit during the 1960s.
The "progressive" acts gave us a gerrymandered congressional district in the name of progress. Please, Southern Strategy, right, if that makes you feel better.
1
Southern Strategy is a simple fact of history. As for Dems and workers, how about Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Civil Rights? I do feel better when I face the truth.
11
@Des Johnson: The Voting Rights Act is what led to the gerrymandering. It doesn't sound like you understand history or the truth.
1
How did politics get so personal? Politics has always been personal, unless you believed it didn't matter who was elected; you still had to go to work and pay taxes.
While divisions in this country have come and gone, they usually were ameliorated by the silent majority or our political centers.
The 1960's and 70's exposed our greatest social and political divisions and the dark side of our democracy; racial discrimination, sexual discrimination, poverty, and the Vietnam war battle between proponents for peace and our growing military-industrial complex. It was a time people realized they would not be heard unless engaged in civil disobedience.
Yet, many still believed we would find common ground and generally common ground was found.
Enter the era of the internet, and the explosion of information and everyone's opinion for all to see. Now, those bare stereotypes of Americans held somewhat in the abstract, were now clothed in concrete expressions of those stereotypes; often, leading people to react more viscerally to opinions and beliefs different from their own.
Certainly, the impact of Fox news, bloggers and MSM added to our skewed views of the "others', and contributed to Americans feeling that the other side is out to destroy the American way of life.
The result has been astounding, a country now engaged in political battles to limit voting rights, repeal of Roe v. Wade, separation of religion and government, etc.
While divisions in this country have come and gone, they usually were ameliorated by the silent majority or our political centers.
The 1960's and 70's exposed our greatest social and political divisions and the dark side of our democracy; racial discrimination, sexual discrimination, poverty, and the Vietnam war battle between proponents for peace and our growing military-industrial complex. It was a time people realized they would not be heard unless engaged in civil disobedience.
Yet, many still believed we would find common ground and generally common ground was found.
Enter the era of the internet, and the explosion of information and everyone's opinion for all to see. Now, those bare stereotypes of Americans held somewhat in the abstract, were now clothed in concrete expressions of those stereotypes; often, leading people to react more viscerally to opinions and beliefs different from their own.
Certainly, the impact of Fox news, bloggers and MSM added to our skewed views of the "others', and contributed to Americans feeling that the other side is out to destroy the American way of life.
The result has been astounding, a country now engaged in political battles to limit voting rights, repeal of Roe v. Wade, separation of religion and government, etc.
28
The one sentence that filled me with gloom: "However much they might want to pitch themselves toward the center, politicians will feel the need to tap into the energy, not to mention the primary votes, that ideological purity provides."
The two party winner take all system of voting currently in use gives us elected ideological warfare, but fails to give legislatures that actually represent the people The asymmetry is further exasperated by the two votes per state in the Senate, which doesn't take into account the population size of each state.
If we really want our politicians to work effectively and to represent all ideological stripes, we need to work on how we vote them into office and the proportions of the population that they represent.
It's easier to change systems than people. And somethings gotta change.
The two party winner take all system of voting currently in use gives us elected ideological warfare, but fails to give legislatures that actually represent the people The asymmetry is further exasperated by the two votes per state in the Senate, which doesn't take into account the population size of each state.
If we really want our politicians to work effectively and to represent all ideological stripes, we need to work on how we vote them into office and the proportions of the population that they represent.
It's easier to change systems than people. And somethings gotta change.
8
Lots of parties don't necessarily lead to better government.
And the way the Senate works, giving each state equal representation regardless of population, is by design. The House is where state populations are taken into account. Is it time to revisit this admittedly unwieldy compromise? Maybe, but this nation has always viewed the tyranny of the majority with suspicion and the "undemocratic" nature of the Senate at least theoretically keeps that "tyranny" in check.
And the way the Senate works, giving each state equal representation regardless of population, is by design. The House is where state populations are taken into account. Is it time to revisit this admittedly unwieldy compromise? Maybe, but this nation has always viewed the tyranny of the majority with suspicion and the "undemocratic" nature of the Senate at least theoretically keeps that "tyranny" in check.
1
The underlying political suggestion is clear: the ineffectiveness of Congress is not due to their inability to reach compromise. It is because the present Congress reflects the deep division in the country itself. The political base of each party has determined that the moral position is that no compromise is desirable, let alone possible. Politicians who once valued compromise as the best way to govern, a uniquely American political virtue, are now brought up short by the electorates who feel that compromise is a deal with the devil, sometimes literally. When I was younger, this division was masked by the focus on the Viet Nam war and the struggle for civil rights. But beneath these issues, a deeper split was beginning to take place, or more correctly, reasserting itself. The ideologues of both parties are drawing the people more apart as issues are considered in ideological and even moral terms. Often these mask more primitive emotions, like racism, nativism, economic and class consciousness, and the necessity of keeping weapons to guard against a perceived governmental tyranny, by which is meant a government which doesn't hold with one's point of view. The resulting split is therefore far more bitter than that over a single issue, like the war. What is now the case is that one's own deep beliefs trump the presentation of facts or rational statements of opinion. We have come to the point where people prefer mythology to either history or science.
19
Which is it? the ideologues or the political base of each party?
I can say clearly that I have always been open to compromise--e.g., schooled in coalition government in Ireland, I long ago learned to distinguish between my personal beliefs and what actually is feasible. In America, I have never encountered a Republican who made a rational argument, but rather spoke the talking points of the day or worse, gross bigotry. Remember, Gingrich raised the rhetoric of the gutter to Congressional level by making Limbaugh an honorary member of Congress in 1994. With the passing of Hitchens and Buckley, the Right lost acerbic but reasonable spokesmen. Now, any such remaining appear to be under contract to the Murdoch Misinformation Machine.
I can say clearly that I have always been open to compromise--e.g., schooled in coalition government in Ireland, I long ago learned to distinguish between my personal beliefs and what actually is feasible. In America, I have never encountered a Republican who made a rational argument, but rather spoke the talking points of the day or worse, gross bigotry. Remember, Gingrich raised the rhetoric of the gutter to Congressional level by making Limbaugh an honorary member of Congress in 1994. With the passing of Hitchens and Buckley, the Right lost acerbic but reasonable spokesmen. Now, any such remaining appear to be under contract to the Murdoch Misinformation Machine.
29
One can argue that the turning point was 1968. Nixon made the 'Southern Strategy" one of the centerpieces of the Republican party ever since. With the horrible assassinations of MLK and RFK, one can point to the tribalism that has ensued.
34
Alternatively you can look to the arrival of Newt Gingrich and his Contract with America for turning politics into war. Newt introduced the concept of the end justifying the means and compromise no longer necessary. Our political discourse degraded drastically from that point when the religious right hatched their plans for taking back the culture. It was no longer enough for people to live their lives according to their own values, they were now on a mission to enforce those beliefs upon the rest of America. With the help of the right wing media (Faux Fox "News", etc.) much of America has been brainwashed to believe that those who they derogatively call liberals are people of bad intentions and wrong on 100% of the issues.
Since the political platform of the Republicans today is often in conflict with science and intellectual consensus the party has to personalize its attacks on the Democrats. Because they usually lose the arguments (and the polls) on their merits they are forced to resort to demonizing the other side. Thus the personal and vicious attacks on President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, etc. These attacks are working so they will continue.
Since the political platform of the Republicans today is often in conflict with science and intellectual consensus the party has to personalize its attacks on the Democrats. Because they usually lose the arguments (and the polls) on their merits they are forced to resort to demonizing the other side. Thus the personal and vicious attacks on President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, etc. These attacks are working so they will continue.
62
I agree 90%. But the 10% relates to the "think tanks." It also relates to the Federalist Society, founded by Meese and Bork. Members included Alito, Robinson, Scalia, and Thomas. The Society gained a major but quiet victory in becoming the go-to society for the Bush presidents in selecting nominees for the SCOTUS.
14
Indeed, there can be argument about a "turning point," but I think of this more a result of a succession of events: invention of the birth control pill, Brown vs. Board of Education, Roe vs. Wade, forced desegregation, forced busing, white flight, the assassinations of JFK, RFK, and MLK, the battle over the ERA, Vietnam, the entry of large numbers of women into the labor force, Nixon (yes), the loss of influence of the three network TV news programs and the emergence of talk radio, televangelism, Fox and cable news, Ronald Reagan, Newt Gingrich (yes), Gore vs. Bush, 9/11 and our reaction, Iraq, Bush/Cheney, Citizens United, efforts to outlaw marriage equality and restrict voting rights, .... If this is a useful way of looking at the trend, I find it surprising how often the SCOTUS gets a role.
1
Interestingly, Democratic political strategists use much the same type of thinking as that ascribed to conservatives in the article. They look at voters as blocs, not individuals. They ask how they can get young single white women, or middle-aged black men, or white union workers in the Midwest, to vote for their candidate. They do not try to appeal to thoughtful individuals with their platform, it's all interest-group backscratching.
So, in politics, even liberals acknowledge that this is the way the world really works, especially when you have enormous populations.
So, in politics, even liberals acknowledge that this is the way the world really works, especially when you have enormous populations.
5
While it is true that much recent Democratic policy is aimed at recognizing the rights of groups, Republicans also think about getting more blacks or hispanics or women to vote for them, except they look at them as 'other' interest groups, Democrats look at them as groups of struggling individuals,who are just like me, or just like I would be, if I were in their situation. To the degree that people are put in groups, and policies are directed solely at those groups, I think Democratic policy fails, and they may actually lose a more traditional type of liberal voter. It's a case of identity liberals versus more traditional, economic and social liberals. Identity liberals do make group policy, but I still think, for the most part, it is directed at a concept of individual justice.
4
Do they ask how they can keep non-Democratic blocs away from the polls? Do they fan the flames of antipathy?
Tu quoque, let's not forget, is a logical fallacy: the sign of a weak argument.
Tu quoque, let's not forget, is a logical fallacy: the sign of a weak argument.
13
Politics got personal as it was proven over and over again that people/institutions became more insular and subject to group-think and polarization showed up in aspects of day-to-day life that SCOTUS personifies:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/11/upshot/the-polarized-court.html?abt=00...
Things went into hyper-drive following the SCOTUS Bush v. Gore decision.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/11/upshot/the-polarized-court.html?abt=00...
Things went into hyper-drive following the SCOTUS Bush v. Gore decision.
51
Adam Liptak further highlighted the problem in this piece:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/06/us/politics/in-justices-votes-free-spe...
demonstrating why diversity in institutions is key, and why the deliberate pursuit of a lack of diversity on one side of the political spectrum has brought strong reaction from the other side of the spectrum, both social and economic.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/06/us/politics/in-justices-votes-free-spe...
demonstrating why diversity in institutions is key, and why the deliberate pursuit of a lack of diversity on one side of the political spectrum has brought strong reaction from the other side of the spectrum, both social and economic.
6
Why is it the Republicans are more hateful? And by a pretty wide margin?
Is it something inherent in conservatism?
Something about modern conservatism (Goldwater? Nixon? Reagan?)?
Is it something inherent in conservatism?
Something about modern conservatism (Goldwater? Nixon? Reagan?)?
178
Accidently posted too soon...
I understand the research by Talhelm, Haidt, et al., suggests there is, indeed, something inherent in conservatism that makes its adherents more hostile to liberals than liberals are to conservatives, but is that all there is to it? It's not like conservatism is a new ideology. We've had disaffected people who've fallen into hardship before, just like the group Leege describes.
Why are things different now, in 2010?
I understand the research by Talhelm, Haidt, et al., suggests there is, indeed, something inherent in conservatism that makes its adherents more hostile to liberals than liberals are to conservatives, but is that all there is to it? It's not like conservatism is a new ideology. We've had disaffected people who've fallen into hardship before, just like the group Leege describes.
Why are things different now, in 2010?
15
Two words: talk radio. To build excitement and interest, conservative radio shows adopted a confrontational style. It proved extremely popular. Not only did they build their audience, they created a cultural phenomenon. Even my father talks to me in this bullying manner. But they don't have the ability to build an argument or analyze the other person's argument - it's just "my view is the correct one, and you are a moron."
197
This is sad. You obviously haven't spent much time really listening to what liberals say about people who differ politically from them.
4
One big factor has to be the huge influence of PACs and SuperPACs funded by the wealthy. The Koch brothers have been pouring millions into their own political influence, at all levels of government, for decades. If they're going to budget up to $889 million for the 2016 presidential election, this crams their personal beliefs down the throats of every voter. Unfortunately, too any millions of voters are willing (or ignorant enough) to accept what this propaganda tells them. Shameful!
122
When ideology acquires the power of faith, then there's only one side, yours. Opposing views are not views at all, but the tribal mouthings of the enemy. So...the contest here is so ugly because moral landscape on which it is fought is so completely depersonalized.
66
I think we are frozen in opposition here because neither side has access to reality. We need to break free of the deceitful propaganda propagated by the main stream media before a workable consensus can be achieved.
2
Example, please, of this "deceitful propaganda" that makes everyone delusional.
1
For example Ukraine which is US aggression.
Fox News and Rush Limbaugh and talk radio came into being and carried the messages, rewriting history as they went along. "Liberal" was deliberately made a dirty word, although the dictionary says quite the contrary.
I watched these issues divide us down the middle. Unfortunately this strategy worked quite well for the Republicans...until recently, when the base they built up began to take control. Who knows how it might turn out now.