how has america become so ideologically polarized?

[kiwiman127]

I went with the Internet.
There are many divisive websites out there peddling bullshit as "the truth" to the unaware, who are typically those who believe anything if it's on the internet. We see many poster use these sites for reference. These sites are obviously biased and their quest is too piss off their visitors about the "other side".
I mean really, how many times have seen multiple posters reel of the same exact talking points and man, are they ever pissed! Many of the times someone will post something that's factual to debunk the bullshit and the multiple mad posters who posted in unison stomp off.
These sites have just one objective as I pointed out. It's not to inform, it's to boil people's blood with bullshit. Divisive? You bet. Polarizing? It's their objective.

 

[Asclepias]

.

The division pimps - those in the "media" who have a vested financial and professional interest in keeping their "side" angry and combative - have done their job so well that many of their flocks now behave in essentially the same way.

As a result, the whole political environment is dominated by a minority of partisan narcissists who put virtually all of their energy into finger-pointing and spewing simplistic talking points, and none of their energy into cooperating like adults to fix the growing problems this country faces.

The two "sides" hate each other more every day. All the rest of us - the majority - can do at this point is watch and wish these narcissists would find another hobby.

.

You are not in "the majority". I have witnessed your backing of and espousal of narcissistic views on several occasions. Its the people that think they are normal that tend to turn out to be the biggest narcissists of all. If you cant simply listen to people and understand their ideas you have no room to point out something with the log in your own eye. BTW you can always do more than just wish and hope. Dont be lazy.

I'll try to make this clear: Most of us have strong opinions on given issues, and I'm certainly one of those people. But my views on the issues don't conveniently and predictably and transparently fall in line with those of one party or the other. Like good little partisan ideologues.

How about you?

I wonder if you see the distinction.

If you want to pretend that you don't know what I'm talking about, that's your call.

Partisan ideologues utilize spin, deflection, denial, distortion, hyperbole and outright lies as a matter of course, and none of our problems can be fixed without a more honest rhetorical environment. That behavior is killing us, and it appears to be the point of this thread.

.

Taking this off of just you. Here is the problem. When you believe you have all the information necessary to make a decision you pretty much kill dialog between people with opposing views. Thats what I see most of the time on this site. It seems most people are comfortable with their beliefs and cannot be bothered with admitting they are either wrong or dont know all they should.

 

[shart_attack]

What do you think happened to the democrat party when JFK looks like a right wing conservative? The political system is polarized because the democrat party drifted so far left that it's off the charts.

JFK doesn't "look like a right wing conservative".

JFK was farther to the left than the current Democratic party platform and leadership.

JFK's family may have gotten fat pockets from bootlegging for The Mob, but JFK and his brothers — did they like organized crime?

That doesn't sound very Left to me, sport.

 

[midcan5]

Barriers mostly artificial, are at the root. Racism and privilege play in here. Regulatory structure after the great depression. The rise of an entitled class, top 20% roughly. Religions fear over taxes. No draft or responsibility for all. Gated living and locked communities. Wealth willing to pay and having some medium to propagate their ideology. Job security fear. Outsourcing and in-sourcing. Wider diversity of society. Immigration. And on and on.

Here's an example. 'The Real Origins of the Religious Right'

"They’ll tell you it was abortion. Sorry, the historical record’s clear: It was segregation." Randall Balmer May 27, 2014

Read more: The Real Origins of the Religious Right - Randall Balmer - POLITICO Magazine

 

[theDoctorisIn]

What do you think happened to the democrat party when JFK looks like a right wing conservative? The political system is polarized because the democrat party drifted so far left that it's off the charts.

JFK doesn't "look like a right wing conservative".

JFK was farther to the left than the current Democratic party platform and leadership.

JFK's family may have gotten fat pockets from bootlegging for The Mob, but JFK and his brothers — did they like organized crime?

That doesn't sound very Left to me, sport.

Huh?

 

[kiwiman127]

What do you think happened to the democrat party when JFK looks like a right wing conservative? The political system is polarized because the democrat party drifted so far left that it's off the charts.

On the flip side, my parents were Eisenhower Republicans before they moved to the US and they have been consistent to those values and positions. A funny thing happened through the years and in particular recent decades, the right just kept moving further to the right after each election cycle when they lost. Now the model the GOP used for decades and those who have remained true to that GOP are now chastised and called RINOs.
Not that I don't think the Democrats have moved further to the left, they have. It's just the more obvious move to the right that is occurring within the GOP, is much more pronounced.

 

[Flopper]

The internet and 24 hour cable news cycle.

The Internet provides the means for extremest on both ends of the spectrum to spread half truths, and lies with little or no consequences.

The internet was built without any centralized control which makes control of content difficult if not impossible, a real victory for freedom of speech. However, it also gives billions of people the ability to pass off fiction as fact, If a person has the literary skills they can change public opinion with innuendo, accusations, lies, and one sided arguments and they won't be fired, sued, and probably not even discredited. 50 years ago, journalist and news commentator could not get away with the trash that passes for news and news analysis today.

So you don't like the First Amendment, then?

Nothing wrong with the first amendment, we just don't have an effective means to see that it is applied as intended. Freedom of speech on the Internet doesn't mean you should be able to make false statements that damage people's reputation, to incite riots, or perpetrate fraud.

The political extremist is free to spread lies and fiction across the Net with impunity. If he repeats it often enough, people will believe it, and he will even come to believe it himself.

 

[shart_attack]

The Internet provides the means for extremest on both ends of the spectrum to spread half truths, and lies with little or no consequences.

The internet was built without any centralized control which makes control of content difficult if not impossible, a real victory for freedom of speech. However, it also gives billions of people the ability to pass off fiction as fact, If a person has the literary skills they can change public opinion with innuendo, accusations, lies, and one sided arguments and they won't be fired, sued, and probably not even discredited. 50 years ago, journalist and news commentator could not get away with the trash that passes for news and news analysis today.

So you don't like the First Amendment, then?

Nothing wrong with the first amendment, we just don't have an effective means to see that it is applied as intended. Freedom of speech on the Internet doesn't mean you should be able to make false statements that damage people's reputation, to incite riots, or perpetrate fraud.

The political extremist is free to spread lies and fiction across the Net with impunity. If he repeats it often enough, people will believe it, and he will even come to believe it himself.

Nor does it mean that only those who have the money and/ or the power—like David Letterman, Keith Olbermann, Nancy Grace and Al Sharpton, for examples—should be allowed to incite riots.

They can get away with whatever they want, because they:

1.) are social antagonizing public figures on television;
2.) have the recognition and/ or the money to manipulate the courts in their favor; and
3.) intimidate people by virtue of numbers 1 and 2 directly above.​

I cite the way Mr. Letterman made fun of fellow American George Zimmerman, for example, when Zimmerman was in court pleading his defense — just because Letterman could, for the purpose not of discovering truth, but of arousing anger.

I cite the same thing with regard to anyone who's even tickled the US Constitution butcher Nancy Grace's fancy. (Good luck getting a fair trial, if she ever finds your name to be a ticket to higher ratings.)

If the First Amendment applies to everybody, then it applies to everybody, PERIOD. Not merely the rich and powerful, who have the ability to coerce the courts and intimidate the poor, in the process dismantling the Constitution.

Those are the people on whom we should be declaring the Second American Revolution — the people who do those very things, just because they can.

There are more political extremists in the supposedly "mainstream media" today than there are on the Internet. But they will always have the First Amendment, because those extremists are the ones who have the money.

That is a problem.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Indeed. As the Doctor said, it is nothing new. Take a look at the pamphlets that were published in the late 1700's and early 1800's...they were terrible and duels were fought because of some of them.

I think it is new for the post world war 2 era.

This graph shows the polarization that has been taking place in Congress for example.

The Pickle: News Round Up 2/03/2012 - Truth Spoken Here

This is an interesting graph... It shows for example that in the late 50's early 60's conservatives abandoned their values wholesale. Further if you look at the trending of the two lines... The conservative trend line is rather flat (other than that aforementioned oddity), keeping nearly level with the bottom of the chart. The liberal line however tends further and further toward the top of the graph. This shows that the left has indeed grown further and further from the center and more toward the extremes. One could also perhaps infer a causality to the narrowing of the "out of party line voting" band to this liberal trend toward the extremes. Interesting to see so much truth actually presented by a left leaning organization.

Partisan polarization, in Congress and among public, is greater than ever | Pew Research Center

Polarization in Congress has risen sharply. Where is it going next?

 

[Nutz]

Indeed. As the Doctor said, it is nothing new. Take a look at the pamphlets that were published in the late 1700's and early 1800's...they were terrible and duels were fought because of some of them.

I think it is new for the post world war 2 era.

This graph shows the polarization that has been taking place in Congress for example.

The Pickle: News Round Up 2/03/2012 - Truth Spoken Here

This is an interesting graph... It shows for example that in the late 50's early 60's conservatives abandoned their values wholesale. Further if you look at the trending of the two lines... The conservative trend line is rather flat (other than that aforementioned oddity), keeping nearly level with the bottom of the chart. The liberal line however tends further and further toward the top of the graph. This shows that the left has indeed grown further and further from the center and more toward the extremes. One could also perhaps infer a causality to the narrowing of the "out of party line voting" band to this liberal trend toward the extremes. Interesting to see so much truth actually presented by a left leaning organization.

Partisan polarization, in Congress and among public, is greater than ever | Pew Research Center

Polarization in Congress has risen sharply. Where is it going next?

Good post, Jimbo...I don't know if I agree with your interpretation, but at least you are presenting some facts. Definitely worth looking into...

 

[Peach]

Though I grew up in a quaint, idyllic 80s American town, I was not the least bit uninformed about new social dilemmas like the introduction of crack cocaine and the AIDS epidemic into the American metropoli.

Political correctness was slowly being introduced in the once-hallowed halls of academia, but—likely thanks in large part to the threat of the Cold War Doomsday Clock—it wasn't the nemesis which many proclaim it to be now.

In the 11th-hour-of-the-first-Cold-War America in which I was raised, the boisterously salient opinions of the ideological extremes of today did not exist.

It seemed that, despite our differences, we always found ways to work together back then.

What has changed?

Were our leaders simply better at reaching compromises, or was the picture somehow more complicated even then, just as it is today?

Please rank the poll options from what are in your view the most destructive to the least in terms of contributing to the marginalization of the average American of today.

What is causing America to implode?

You are viewing the past through rose-colored glasses.

The "ideological divide" right now is not a new thing. The only difference is that the internet has made the loonies on either side louder.

Every type of person interested in politics more visible I believe.

 

[dilloduck]

How about the 2 parties allow a few other parties in ? How can we not be polarized ?

 

[Peach]

It could differences in modern polling methods:

HUFFPOLLSTER: Is America Really Becoming More Polarized?

 

[shart_attack]

How about the 2 parties allow a few other parties in ? How can we not be polarized ?

Sad as it may sound, most political science professors and historians are in agreement that a federalist republic works best when it is run by people of two distinct political parties.

If you have three or more, then you have no resolute theoretical aisle to cross, no way to have theoretical "middle ground" because it's much more difficult to define what the term middle ground even entails.

Look at what's been happening in contemporary European states like Greece, for example.

Look at what happened to Yugoslavia after the Berlin Wall fell.

Look at what happened to Germany after WWI.

Those are three good examples of what multiple parties can do to a republic, no matter how strong its federalism may be, and no matter what other issues—like economic inflation and multiculturalism—complicate the big picture.

In the U.S., the two-party system works best. What sucks IMHO is that we have way too many third parties influencing those who represent them.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

I voted "internet" because we've always had income inequality as well as the other issues. Its just that now, thanks to the internet, we all know just how bad it is. We now know that the Republicans really do run on the platform of keeping you poor. I think we used to believe what various politicians and public figures said but they can't hide from us nearly so easily now.

 

[sameech]

It could differences in modern polling methods:

HUFFPOLLSTER: Is America Really Becoming More Polarized?

Not even that. I have been randomly working my way through an archive collection of old liberal (not democratic necessarily liberal--but liberal liberal) political thought essays that appeared as a periodical. It is all pretty much the same as now. They just had different names to drop and anecdotes to illustrate the same old same old as we get now.

 

[Flopper]

How about the 2 parties allow a few other parties in ? How can we not be polarized ?

Simply, more liberal Republicans and more conservative Democrats. A party doesn't have to be dominated by single political ideology.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

How about the 2 parties allow a few other parties in ? How can we not be polarized ?

Why would the existing parties want to do that?

More political parties = less money for the 2 existing parties.

 

[dilloduck]

How about the 2 parties allow a few other parties in ? How can we not be polarized ?

Why would the existing parties want to do that?

More political parties = less money for the 2 existing parties.

Oh the two parties collude to make sure no one interrupts their corrupt power sharing.

 

[dilloduck]

How about the 2 parties allow a few other parties in ? How can we not be polarized ?

Sad as it may sound, most political science professors and historians are in agreement that a federalist republic works best when it is run by people of two distinct political parties.

If you have three or more, then you have no resolute theoretical aisle to cross, no way to have theoretical "middle ground" because it's much more difficult to define what the term middle ground even entails.

Look at what's been happening in contemporary European states like Greece, for example.

Look at what happened to Yugoslavia after the Berlin Wall fell.

Look at what happened to Germany after WWI.

Those are three good examples of what multiple parties can do to a republic, no matter how strong its federalism may be, and no matter what other issues—like economic inflation and multiculturalism—complicate the big picture.

In the U.S., the two-party system works best. What sucks IMHO is that we have way too many third parties influencing those who represent them.

The question is why we are so polarized. Not what would work the best.