Why has political polarization become a problem in the US?

[Kosh]

As I am concerned I will tell you...
The biggest reasons I hear for the increase in political polarization, and the resulting gridlock in politics, is either gerrymandering or "the other side is just extra crazy" The truth is gerrymandering has basically existed forever on both sides, and the other argument is just group think. Anyone have any data on why the political process has become more polarized in the past 20 some years?
What will you say to this?

There's political polarization on both sides, though not to the same degree. In both politicians and in those supporting them the right is significantly more polarized than the left.

If I were to guess as to why we're in an era of polarization, I'd say its the focus on ideology over good governance. We have people making decisions based not on what is best for the country, but what is most consistent with their ideological beliefs. Ideologues tend to be both uncompromising and somewhat extreme. And too often they are the one's leading the debate.

What is empowering the ideologues? I'd say four things. Truthiness, politics as entertainment, the internet, and the wealthy pushing their views through massive funding of ideologue candidates.

Many folks are abdicating reason and critical thinking for what feels true. They don't much care if it actually is. Thus, you can convince some folks more readily with a bullshit story that they can identify with than a real story that doesn't sync up to their views. There is an encouragement of this mentality. As a person who had abdicated reason is much easier to control and exploit.

Politics as entertainment isn't new. But the degree of its cultural penetration is. We have various talking heads that offer belligerent commentary that's gobbled up by people that want to hear what they already believe. It makes for excellent ratings and boat loads of money. It also helps insulate people from views that are not their own. This leads to greater polarization.

The internet is also a major influence. Social mores and immediate consequence is a powerfully moderating influence for face to face conversations about politics. People tend not to dedicate much energy to the issue in the past because of this mitigation. But the internet lets you go apeshit anonymously. You can say shit here that you'd never say in person. And find people that will support almost any perceptive imaginable, no matter how inane or utterly batshit. All of which helps foster polarization.

Finally, the wealthy are taking a much more direct hand in electing those who support their views. Some of the wealthy are ideologically motivated. Others financially motivated and using ideologues as a way of herding the gullible toward policy that benefits the business interests of the wealthy. Regardless of motivation, there's more money in politics than ever before, with the mitigating influence of establishment politics breaking down. And more extreme views find lavish funding.

With the most effective method of combating this polarization being to help folks recognize that they're being manipulated as part of someone else's business plan. The political equivalent of ol' Buddha's practice of mindfulness.

For the most part I agree, except that the right is more polarized than the left. My experience has shown me that both sides are about equal. On what do you base your assertion?

They are a far left drone running the far left programming!

I said in post #6 essentially the same thing he just said and I am a Republican. I might split hairs with him/her on the role of the wealthy although there is no denying that money influences politics and wins elections. But I agree with the post as a whole. I would add that the information age has also increased intellectual laziness. Take any topic and a simple Google search will offer plenty of supporting data for any side of the debate one happens to be on. Thus, one can freely pick and choose their data in order to support their position and ignore the rest. This creates a mindset of comfort and overconfidence in the personal view of the individual. That mindset is reinforced by targeted and selective news reporting. This happens on both sides of the aisle. Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity don't tell it straight and neither does Rachel Maddow or Chris Matthews. The result is that people become lazy and simply accept what they are told to believe instead of developing their own views and having the balls to champion them even if their views conflict with their chosen political party. rDean is a perfect example of this. He/she...I think its a she...doesn't think. She simply parrots whatever the liberal media tells her to. She is a dream come true for any political party because she thinks how she is told to think by the institution. What politician wouldn't love that?

Yes money does influence politics and have long since the birth of the US.

Although McCain was for Campaign Finance Reform. That is a matter of record and fact, the only other was Feingold.

And while they may not tow the party line all the time, I think they were right to try and change things.

Most of the "news" media and talking heads do not the whole story. It is all about circulation, rating, page hits, etc. So money rules the "news" world.

You may get more information from you local news, but even they may still spin it for ratings..

 

[Pete7469]

I said in post #6 essentially the same thing he just said and I am a Republican. I might split hairs with him/her on the role of the wealthy although there is no denying that money influences politics and wins elections. But I agree with the post as a whole. I would add that the information age has also increased intellectual laziness. Take any topic and a simple Google search will offer plenty of supporting data for any side of the debate one happens to be on. Thus, one can freely pick and choose their data in order to support their position and ignore the rest. This creates a mindset of comfort and overconfidence in the personal view of the individual. That mindset is reinforced by targeted and selective news reporting. This happens on both sides of the aisle. Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity don't tell it straight and neither does Rachel Maddow or Chris Matthews. The result is that people become lazy and simply accept what they are told to believe instead of developing their own views and having the balls to champion them even if their views conflict with their chosen political party. rDean is a perfect example of this. He/she...I think its a she...doesn't think. She simply parrots whatever the liberal media tells her to. She is a dream come true for any political party because she thinks how she is told to think by the institution. What politician wouldn't love that?

I think that a difference between your examples is that Rush/Hannity plainly express that their shows are about their oppinions, and yes they use whatever data they need in order to reach those oppinions. The Madcow/Mathews shows present themselves as "journalists" presenting raw facts in an objective manner.

I personally listen to Rush/Hannity/Levin on occassion and I don't agree with them on every issue. I can actually look up the information they provide such as tax rates and they've proven to be truthful.

The libs? Quite the opposite.

 

[Pete7469]

When has polarization not been a problem? Life is tough...and then you die, yo.

I really don't see it as a problem.

If your principles aren't important, and you're not concerned about who is running the country or the direction they're taking it in, that's a real problem.

 

[Pete7469]

Yes money does influence politics and have long since the birth of the US.

Although McCain was for Campaign Finance Reform. That is a matter of record and fact, the only other was Feingold.

And while they may not tow the party line all the time, I think they were right to try and change things.

Most of the "news" media and talking heads do not the whole story. It is all about circulation, rating, page hits, etc. So money rules the "news" world.

You may get more information from you local news, but even they may still spin it for ratings..

Take the power away from congress to spend money like drunken sailors and hold them accountable for their crony capitaism and I'll bet a whole lot of that campaign cash dries up, and the lobbiyists will have to get real jobs.

 

[kaz]

As I am concerned I will tell you...
The biggest reasons I hear for the increase in political polarization, and the resulting gridlock in politics, is either gerrymandering or "the other side is just extra crazy" The truth is gerrymandering has basically existed forever on both sides, and the other argument is just group think. Anyone have any data on why the political process has become more polarized in the past 20 some years?
What will you say to this?

The irony is the more the two parties become the same the more they hate each other

 

[kaz]

Smaller govt. has been the motto of the GOP for 200 years, yet look at us now.....

Agreed, and the Democrats say they care about people while screwing us.

It would be nice if both of them would live their words

 

[BluePhantom]

I said in post #6 essentially the same thing he just said and I am a Republican. I might split hairs with him/her on the role of the wealthy although there is no denying that money influences politics and wins elections. But I agree with the post as a whole. I would add that the information age has also increased intellectual laziness. Take any topic and a simple Google search will offer plenty of supporting data for any side of the debate one happens to be on. Thus, one can freely pick and choose their data in order to support their position and ignore the rest. This creates a mindset of comfort and overconfidence in the personal view of the individual. That mindset is reinforced by targeted and selective news reporting. This happens on both sides of the aisle. Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity don't tell it straight and neither does Rachel Maddow or Chris Matthews. The result is that people become lazy and simply accept what they are told to believe instead of developing their own views and having the balls to champion them even if their views conflict with their chosen political party. rDean is a perfect example of this. He/she...I think its a she...doesn't think. She simply parrots whatever the liberal media tells her to. She is a dream come true for any political party because she thinks how she is told to think by the institution. What politician wouldn't love that?

I think that a difference between your examples is that Rush/Hannity plainly express that their shows are about their oppinions, and yes they use whatever data they need in order to reach those oppinions. The Madcow/Mathews shows present themselves as "journalists" presenting raw facts in an objective manner.

I personally listen to Rush/Hannity/Levin on occassion and I don't agree with them on every issue. I can actually look up the information they provide such as tax rates and they've proven to be truthful.

The libs? Quite the opposite.

Hardball is an editorial show. I believe Madcow's is too. I would disagree with you on that. I used to listen to Rush but I got bored with his propaganda. Hannity I will watch if I am too lazy to turn the channel after the O'Reilly Factor.

Probably my favorite story about stuff like this was when I was listening to Michael Savage (I believe) on the radio one time on the way home from work. A caller asked a question and he went on a long discussion about how the GOP needs to be more tolerant and inclusive of others to grow the party. The very next caller made a comment about gay rights and he goes on an absolute tirade about how homosexuality must be driven from society and how it represents the global fall of morality. I thought "Really? You talk about tolerance, inclusion, and opening your mind to different points of view and with the very next caller you rant and rave showing intolerance, divisiveness, and bigotry. Sigh..............(click)" I mean there it is. What more needs to be said?

 

[Pete7469]

Hardball is an editorial show. I believe Madcow's is too. I would disagree with you on that. I used to listen to Rush but I got bored with his propaganda. Hannity I will watch if I am too lazy to turn the channel after the O'Reilly Factor.

Probably my favorite story about stuff like this was when I was listening to Michael Savage (I believe) on the radio one time on the way home from work. A caller asked a question and he went on a long discussion about how the GOP needs to be more tolerant and inclusive of others to grow the party. The very next caller made a comment about gay rights and he goes on an absolute tirade about how homosexuality must be driven from society and how it represents the global fall of morality. I thought "Really? You talk about tolerance, inclusion, and opening your mind to different points of view and with the very next caller you rant and rave showing intolerance, divisiveness, and bigotry. Sigh..............(click)" I mean there it is. What more needs to be said?

The impression I got was that Madcow/Mathews present themselves as "journalists", but for that matter almost everyone who IS a journalist is a raving liberal.

Never was much of a Savage fan, I read one of his books though. I once heard him say 50 Round magazines should be banned. I haven't listened to him since.

O'Reilly is too moderate too me, I listen to Hannity when he has Jamie Dupree on, otherwise I listen to Rush mostly.

I don't watch anything on TV. The internet has everything I care to watch.

 

[Skylar]

Ah, you did ask where. Pew Research Groups work on political polarization in the American public is a great resource. Its very broad, both longitudinally and in what it measures. And it shows the right more prone to the echo chamber, less likely to hear views from people that disagree with them and more likely to view the opposition negatively (though this last one is nearly equal).

Those who are consistently conservative are less likely to listen to folks who don't agree with them. By sizable margins. To loosely paraphrase the Captain America movie; Conservatives didn't invent the echo chamber, but no one does it better than they do.

The PEW study lays it out pretty clearly:

But since 2004, Republicans have veered sharply back to the right on all of these dimensions, and the GOP ideological shift over the past decade has matched, if not exceeded, the rate at which Democrats have become more liberal.

Political Polarization and Growing Ideological Consistency Pew Research Center for the People and the Press

The nation has moved leftward over the last 20 years. Though as PEW points out this is mostly due to a softening of stances on homosexuality and immigration. In the 90s we were pretty hard line on both.

And that's just among voters. When we get into actual elected officials, its much, much worse. I use the DW Nominate scale, as its the most widely accepted scale in use. And the one most Washington politicians use to measure themselves.

And it shows a *stark* skewing of the right toward the fringes of its ideology:

0.0 would be a perfectly moderate position. 1.0 would be the most extreme conservative positions. -1.0 would be extreme liberal positions.

And democrats are at about a -0.4. While republicans are at a 0.65. With dems being about as liberal as republicans were conservative in 1991. When we look at individual rankings, it gets fucking nuts.

The most liberal member of congress is Sanders at a -0.693. There is no other democrat even close. Nor any other democrat in the -0.6 range. In comparison, there are 17 republicans in the 0.60 range or higher. With 10 republicans more conservative than Sanders is liberal. And amazingly 3 republicans members of congress at a 0.90 or higher.

Think about that. A self avoid socialist is LESS liberal than 10 republican members of congress are conservative. With every of the most polarized scores ever recorded for members of congress being republicans.

Every single one.

 

[Kosh]

Ah, you did ask where. Pew Research Groups work on political polarization in the American public is a great resource. Its very broad, both longitudinally and in what it measures. And it shows the right more prone to the echo chamber, less likely to hear views from people that disagree with them and more likely to view the opposition negatively (though this last one is nearly equal).

Those who are consistently conservative are less likely to listen to folks who don't agree with them. By sizable margins. To loosely paraphrase the Captain America movie; Conservatives didn't invent the echo chamber, but no one does it better than they do.

The PEW study lays it out pretty clearly:

But since 2004, Republicans have veered sharply back to the right on all of these dimensions, and the GOP ideological shift over the past decade has matched, if not exceeded, the rate at which Democrats have become more liberal.

Political Polarization and Growing Ideological Consistency Pew Research Center for the People and the Press

The nation has moved leftward over the last 20 years. Though as PEW points out this is mostly due to a softening of stances on homosexuality and immigration. In the 90s we were pretty hard line on both.

And that's just among voters. When we get into actual elected officials, its much, much worse. I use the DW Nominate scale, as its the most widely accepted scale in use. And the one most Washington politicians use to measure themselves.

And it shows a *stark* skewing of the right toward the fringes of its ideology:

0.0 would be a perfectly moderate position. 1.0 would be the most extreme conservative positions. -1.0 would be extreme liberal positions.

And democrats are at about a -0.4. While republicans are at a 0.65. With dems being about as liberal as republicans were conservative in 1991. When we look at individual rankings, it gets fucking nuts.

The most liberal member of congress is Sanders at a -0.693. There is no other democrat even close. Nor any other democrat in the -0.6 range. In comparison, there are 17 republicans in the 0.60 range or higher. With 10 republicans more conservative than Sanders is liberal. And amazingly 3 republicans members of congress at a 0.90 or higher.

Think about that. A self avoid socialist is LESS liberal than 10 republican members of congress are conservative. With every of the most polarized scores ever recorded for members of congress being republicans.

Every single one.

I love how the far left shows that they do not understand the terms of words like "Conservative" as it would negate a large portion of their talking points.

 

[BluesLegend]

The Democratic party has become obsolete, that's why most of their narrative is from 1970's. You have to remember they had a lock on congress for 40 years so they remain freaked out the GOP has taken control. In their desperation to regain power they lie and foment this division, racial division, gender division, economic division. While that's doing a lot of damage to the country its not working. They needed a new plan, which is to import millions of poor, uneducated illegals, grant them amnesty, bribe them for their votes with taxpayer hand outs and welfare to cancel out millions of Republican party votes.

Smaller govt. has been the motto of the GOP for 200 years, yet look at us now.....

Feel free to tell us what point you are trying to make.

 

[Pete7469]

Feel free to tell us what point you are trying to make.

Another example of weapons grade stupidy on display by moonbat.

The GOP was established 161 years ago, and it was founded by people mostly concerned with freeing the democrooks' slaves.

Some things never change.

 

[Skylar]

As I am concerned I will tell you...
The biggest reasons I hear for the increase in political polarization, and the resulting gridlock in politics, is either gerrymandering or "the other side is just extra crazy" The truth is gerrymandering has basically existed forever on both sides, and the other argument is just group think. Anyone have any data on why the political process has become more polarized in the past 20 some years?
What will you say to this?

When has polarization not been a problem? Life is tough...and then you die, yo.

Its the degree of polarization. Not merely the existence of it. We're pretty polarized.

There are two major tools I use to combat it. First, I recognize that there are principled arguments for both sides of the political spectrum. Second, I always harbor a grain of uncertainty in any position I hold, recognizing that I could be wrong. It really helps keep you from embracing extreme positions.

Certainty is the enemy of intellectual curiosity in my opinion. And I always want to remain hungry for new information.

 

[Kosh]

As I am concerned I will tell you...
The biggest reasons I hear for the increase in political polarization, and the resulting gridlock in politics, is either gerrymandering or "the other side is just extra crazy" The truth is gerrymandering has basically existed forever on both sides, and the other argument is just group think. Anyone have any data on why the political process has become more polarized in the past 20 some years?
What will you say to this?

When has polarization not been a problem? Life is tough...and then you die, yo.

Its the degree of polarization. Not merely the existence of it. We're pretty polarized.

There are two major tools I use to combat it. First, I recognize that there are principled arguments for both sides of the political spectrum. Second, I always harbor a grain of uncertainty in any position I hold, recognizing that I could be wrong. It really helps keep you from embracing extreme positions.

Certainty is the enemy of intellectual curiosity in my opinion. And I always want to remain hungry for new information.

Now there are so many lies from the far left drone in this post I would not know where to begin.

The far left would much rather see the world burn than admit they are wrong!

 

[Yarddog]

As I am concerned I will tell you...
The biggest reasons I hear for the increase in political polarization, and the resulting gridlock in politics, is either gerrymandering or "the other side is just extra crazy" The truth is gerrymandering has basically existed forever on both sides, and the other argument is just group think. Anyone have any data on why the political process has become more polarized in the past 20 some years?
What will you say to this?

Maybe partly also because many places of higher learning are not teaching critical thinking as they once did, and you now have college campuses that have become politicized, even outside of the appropriate classes on those subjects. Politicians also focus their ideology on the very young and impressionable in a way that was never possible in years past. Knowing that they are raising a new crop of voters

 

[BluePhantom]

Ah, you did ask where. Pew Research Groups work on political polarization in the American public is a great resource. Its very broad, both longitudinally and in what it measures. And it shows the right more prone to the echo chamber, less likely to hear views from people that disagree with them and more likely to view the opposition negatively (though this last one is nearly equal).

Those who are consistently conservative are less likely to listen to folks who don't agree with them. By sizable margins. To loosely paraphrase the Captain America movie; Conservatives didn't invent the echo chamber, but no one does it better than they do.

The PEW study lays it out pretty clearly:

But since 2004, Republicans have veered sharply back to the right on all of these dimensions, and the GOP ideological shift over the past decade has matched, if not exceeded, the rate at which Democrats have become more liberal.

Political Polarization and Growing Ideological Consistency Pew Research Center for the People and the Press

The nation has moved leftward over the last 20 years. Though as PEW points out this is mostly due to a softening of stances on homosexuality and immigration. In the 90s we were pretty hard line on both.

And that's just among voters. When we get into actual elected officials, its much, much worse. I use the DW Nominate scale, as its the most widely accepted scale in use. And the one most Washington politicians use to measure themselves.

And it shows a *stark* skewing of the right toward the fringes of its ideology:

0.0 would be a perfectly moderate position. 1.0 would be the most extreme conservative positions. -1.0 would be extreme liberal positions.

And democrats are at about a -0.4. While republicans are at a 0.65. With dems being about as liberal as republicans were conservative in 1991. When we look at individual rankings, it gets fucking nuts.

The most liberal member of congress is Sanders at a -0.693. There is no other democrat even close. Nor any other democrat in the -0.6 range. In comparison, there are 17 republicans in the 0.60 range or higher. With 10 republicans more conservative than Sanders is liberal. And amazingly 3 republicans members of congress at a 0.90 or higher.

Think about that. A self avoid socialist is LESS liberal than 10 republican members of congress are conservative. With every of the most polarized scores ever recorded for members of congress being republicans.

Every single one.

Just couldn't stop yourself, could ya? Well I won't try to argue the findings. I would agree though with Kosh that there is a big difference between a conservative and a Republican just as there is a difference between a Democrat and a liberal. Now as I said, I live in Portland. Not sure if you have ever been here but let me assure you that this place is made up of liberals. Not just Democrats, but flaming, screaming, all right-wingers are evil, liberals. I can attest that I have never lived in a city that was full of people so closed-minded, xenophobic, vitriolic, antagonistic, and just plain nasty. Maybe it's worse on the other side in, say, Kansas. I don't know. When I was in Kansas I stopped through for gas and that was about it. But I can tell you, the left-wing liberals, at least in this city, are not nice people and they have no interest whatsoever in a rational exchange-of-ideas discussion.

 

[FA_Q2]

Ah, you did ask where. Pew Research Groups work on political polarization in the American public is a great resource. Its very broad, both longitudinally and in what it measures. And it shows the right more prone to the echo chamber, less likely to hear views from people that disagree with them and more likely to view the opposition negatively (though this last one is nearly equal).

Those who are consistently conservative are less likely to listen to folks who don't agree with them. By sizable margins. To loosely paraphrase the Captain America movie; Conservatives didn't invent the echo chamber, but no one does it better than they do.

The PEW study lays it out pretty clearly:

But since 2004, Republicans have veered sharply back to the right on all of these dimensions, and the GOP ideological shift over the past decade has matched, if not exceeded, the rate at which Democrats have become more liberal.

Political Polarization and Growing Ideological Consistency Pew Research Center for the People and the Press

The nation has moved leftward over the last 20 years. Though as PEW points out this is mostly due to a softening of stances on homosexuality and immigration. In the 90s we were pretty hard line on both.

And that's just among voters. When we get into actual elected officials, its much, much worse. I use the DW Nominate scale, as its the most widely accepted scale in use. And the one most Washington politicians use to measure themselves.

And it shows a *stark* skewing of the right toward the fringes of its ideology:

0.0 would be a perfectly moderate position. 1.0 would be the most extreme conservative positions. -1.0 would be extreme liberal positions.

And democrats are at about a -0.4. While republicans are at a 0.65. With dems being about as liberal as republicans were conservative in 1991. When we look at individual rankings, it gets fucking nuts.

The most liberal member of congress is Sanders at a -0.693. There is no other democrat even close. Nor any other democrat in the -0.6 range. In comparison, there are 17 republicans in the 0.60 range or higher. With 10 republicans more conservative than Sanders is liberal. And amazingly 3 republicans members of congress at a 0.90 or higher.

Think about that. A self avoid socialist is LESS liberal than 10 republican members of congress are conservative. With every of the most polarized scores ever recorded for members of congress being republicans.

Every single one.

Just couldn't stop yourself, could ya? Well I won't try to argue the findings. I would agree though with Kosh that there is a big difference between a conservative and a Republican just as there is a difference between a Democrat and a liberal. Now as I said, I live in Portland. Not sure if you have ever been here but let me assure you that this place is made up of liberals. Not just Democrats, but flaming, screaming, all right-wingers are evil, liberals. I can attest that I have never lived in a city that was full of people so closed-minded, xenophobic, vitriolic, antagonistic, and just plain nasty. Maybe it's worse on the other side in, say, Kansas. I don't know. When I was in Kansas I stopped through for gas and that was about it. But I can tell you, the left-wing liberals, at least in this city, are not nice people and they have no interest whatsoever in a rational exchange-of-ideas discussion.

That’s pretty much the case IMHO wherever there is a massive majority of singular political views in a single place.
There is no difference in what you are describing than going up to Seattle and stating that you are a conservative. Massively liberal here.

 

[Skylar]

Ah, you did ask where. Pew Research Groups work on political polarization in the American public is a great resource. Its very broad, both longitudinally and in what it measures. And it shows the right more prone to the echo chamber, less likely to hear views from people that disagree with them and more likely to view the opposition negatively (though this last one is nearly equal).

Those who are consistently conservative are less likely to listen to folks who don't agree with them. By sizable margins. To loosely paraphrase the Captain America movie; Conservatives didn't invent the echo chamber, but no one does it better than they do.

The PEW study lays it out pretty clearly:

But since 2004, Republicans have veered sharply back to the right on all of these dimensions, and the GOP ideological shift over the past decade has matched, if not exceeded, the rate at which Democrats have become more liberal.

Political Polarization and Growing Ideological Consistency Pew Research Center for the People and the Press

The nation has moved leftward over the last 20 years. Though as PEW points out this is mostly due to a softening of stances on homosexuality and immigration. In the 90s we were pretty hard line on both.

And that's just among voters. When we get into actual elected officials, its much, much worse. I use the DW Nominate scale, as its the most widely accepted scale in use. And the one most Washington politicians use to measure themselves.

And it shows a *stark* skewing of the right toward the fringes of its ideology:

0.0 would be a perfectly moderate position. 1.0 would be the most extreme conservative positions. -1.0 would be extreme liberal positions.

And democrats are at about a -0.4. While republicans are at a 0.65. With dems being about as liberal as republicans were conservative in 1991. When we look at individual rankings, it gets fucking nuts.

The most liberal member of congress is Sanders at a -0.693. There is no other democrat even close. Nor any other democrat in the -0.6 range. In comparison, there are 17 republicans in the 0.60 range or higher. With 10 republicans more conservative than Sanders is liberal. And amazingly 3 republicans members of congress at a 0.90 or higher.

Think about that. A self avoid socialist is LESS liberal than 10 republican members of congress are conservative. With every of the most polarized scores ever recorded for members of congress being republicans.

Every single one.

Just couldn't stop yourself, could ya? Well I won't try to argue the findings. I would agree though with Kosh that there is a big difference between a conservative and a Republican just as there is a difference between a Democrat and a liberal. Now as I said, I live in Portland.

I have no doubt that your personal experiences differ from the more national ones. Portland is a pretty liberal city. And not exactly an environment of political tolerance. My point is directed to the nation more than Portland specifically.

However, its garnish to the meat and potatoes of the OP. Whether there's disparity in the degree of polarization between Democrats and Republicans, I think we all agree that polarization has increased on both sides.

 

[BluePhantom]

That’s pretty much the case IMHO wherever there is a massive majority of singular political views in a single place. There is no difference in what you are describing than going up to Seattle and stating that you are a conservative. Massively liberal here.

Probably true. I haven't been to Seattle in over 20 years so I can't say. Loved it when I lived there though. The best way I can describe Portland to someone who has never been here is to put 2 million rDeans in a single city, give them an inferiority complex about their larger and more successful neighbor to the north, and pour rain on them for five months out of the year to make sure they are in a bad mood and that's pretty much Portland. Oh and once a year have them all ride naked through the streets on bicycles.

 

[Contumacious]

Why has political polarization become a problem in the US?

Because our liberty is being adversely affected.

the parasites want more financial support , liberty be damned

the war profiteers want more wars , liberty be damned

the warmongers want wars, liberty be damned

the government supremacists want more centralized power, liberty be damned


.