Polarized Politics: How Extremists Have Taken America Hostage

Discussion in 'Politics' started by MiddleClass, Sep 30, 2011.

  1. MiddleClass
    Offline

    MiddleClass Moderate American

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2011
    Messages:
    362
    Thanks Received:
    81
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Delaware
    Ratings:
    +81
    Polarized Politics: How Extremists Have Taken America Hostage

    by June Carbone - Edward A. Smith/Missouri Chair of Law, the Constitution and Society: University of Missouri at Kansas City

    In the most recent polls, an overwhelming 68% of the American public wanted a compromise on the debt ceiling. Break down those numbers by party, however, and a different picture emerges. 81% of Democrats want a compromise compared to only 53% of Republicans. Even more strikingly, 53% of the Tea Party oppose a settlement compared to 42% who favor it. The Tea Party, in opposition to the majority of the country, the majority of the Republican electorate and the weight of professional opinion, takes the my-way-or-the-high-way approach. What is going on?

    The short answer is that the Republican leadership, in general, and the Tea Party, in particular, is designed to be a party of extremists. That is, the modern Republican party is built on its appeal to those most likely to see the world in black and white. Giving power to the true believers of any stripe is dangerous, and the this makes visible a decades long process that increases the risk that the country will become ungovernable.

    Understanding the stalemate therefore requires understanding the modern Republican party and how it has been assembled. The result is not a parallel construction of liberals versus conservatives. It is rather the construction of one party (and only one) designed not to compromise.

    First, with respect to substance, the Republican party has become dramatically more conservative while the Democratic party has not become similarly more liberal. Republicans have been able to do so and still win elections principally by adopting policies that increase turnout and those policies tend to be the ones that fire up the base and attract deep pocket funders. The principal difference between the outcome of the 2008 and the 2010 elections, for example, was the identity of those who showed up at the polls.

    Second, the appeal to the base involves an appeal to those least likely to compromise, and Republican partisans are more inflexible than Democratic partisans. An intriguing study attempted to determine whether political orientations were inherited by examining the difference between identical and fraternal twins. It described conservatives (irrespective of their positions on individual issues) as those "yearning for in-group unity and strong leadership." They desire clear, unbending moral and behavioral codes, a fondness for systematization, a willingness to tolerate inequality and an inherently pessimistic view of human nature. In contrast, those with a more liberal political orientation tend to be more tolerant of out-groups, and to take a more context-dependent rather than rule-based approach to proper behavior. They also demonstrate more empathy, optimism and "suspicion of hierarchy, certainty, and strong leadership." The polar opposites in this typology are the true believers v. the flip-floppers. While the jury is out on how conclusively the twin studies establish a genetic component, other studies tend to find that such preferences are hard to change and influence perceptions of facts as well as policies. 64% of Tea Parties, for example, 'incorrectly' believe that President Obama raised taxes in comparison with 34% of the country overall.

    Third, Republicans have adopted an intentional rhetorical strategy that tends to appeal to those who prefer fixed, unbending values. According to linguist George Lakoff, for example, conservatives celebrate the "strict father," who enforces relatively fixed and hierarchical values, while liberals prefer the "nurturing mother" who makes context-based decisions designed to promote individual well-being.

    Fourth, with the multiplication of cable TV channels and internet sites and the decline of the mainstream media, we increasingly listen only to those with whom we already agree. 63% of Tea Parties, for example, say that they get the majority of their political and current events news on television from the Fox News Channel, compared to 23 percent of Americans overall.

    Finally, these effects are greatest for those with the most influence. Polarization on issues -- and values preferences -- are dramatically greater for political activists and the more educated generally than for the rank and file. Tom Ferguson explains that the big increase in political contributions has come from conservative big money donors who both respond to and shape the "no compromise" rhetoric (*For more on how money drives polarization, see Lynn Parramore's ND20 interview Ferguson).

    A half century ago, neither political party disproportionately consisted of those who favored a my-way-or-the-high-way approach. Unbending ideologues did not make it into leadership positions. Today, it may be the only way to get elected - for one of the parties. That party has framed the debt limit as a matter of principle and used it to fire up the base. For a group inclined to see the world in terms of absolutes, compromise can accordingly only be seen as betrayal.

    June Carbone is the Edward A. Smith/Missouri Chair of Law, the Constitution and Society at the University of Missouri-Kansas City.

    From:
    Polarized Politics: How Extremists Have Taken America Hostage – Huffington Post (blog) | American Family Values
     
  2. peach174
    Offline

    peach174 Gold Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2010
    Messages:
    20,512
    Thanks Received:
    4,039
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    S.E. AZ
    Ratings:
    +7,351
    Tea Party wanted Paul Ryan's bill of 6 trillion in ten years. But didn't think that was enough.
    They wanted 1.5 Trillion each year till the debt came down to a reasonable amount.
    The S&P wanted the minimum of 4 Trillion.
    The Dem's got it down to 1.5 trillion in ten years. Totally unreasonably amount. Like a little pin prick.
    So S&P downgraded us.
    It's the Dem's who have been unreasonably on the debt.
    So who compromised? 6 trillion down to 1.5 trillion. The Republicans
     
  3. francoHFW
    Online

    francoHFW Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2011
    Messages:
    33,418
    Thanks Received:
    2,175
    Trophy Points:
    1,115
    Location:
    NY 26th FINALLY DEM!
    Ratings:
    +5,603
    BS- Obama wanted 4.1 Trillion- change the channel.
     

Share This Page