A more balanced take on our political polarization

Unlike another thread where the OP proceeds to blame the Right for the cause of our polarization, I'm going to present a more balanced take for your consideration that holds both sides responsible for this issue (if one chooses to consider it an "issue").

In terms of the two main political parties in America - Republican and Democrat - I submit that the cause of our polarization has to do with social conservatives taking over the Republican Party and socialist "progressives" taking over the Democratic Party. Naturally, this is going to result in a growing divide between the two parties. One would also think that this would create a larger, genuinely Independent Center (not the phony "Independent/Center" that consists of political partisans who aren't card-carrying members of the DP or GOP) that is neither socialist nor socially conservative. Right now, this Center has no party to call its own, so it tends to vacillate between the two dominant political parties.

As far as the grassroots are concerned, I think things get a little more complex. The polarization to some extent reflects/mirrors what we see in the political parties, but I think there is more going on there, such as the demise of the New Left. We've heard talk about the "ideological purification" that has been happening on both sides of the aisle for quite some time, but I'm going to keep the OP short and simple and comment on that later (feel free to respond to it now, however).

Another dynamic I see at work today is something akin to what we saw in this country before the outbreak of the Civil War in 1860, when the political center was shouted down by the John Browns and Edmund Ruffins on both sides of the slavery issue. Moderation and compromise have become pejorative terms amongst the ideological puritans on both sides, and much ink has been spilled over how that has made it harder to reach common ground on issues where common ground can be reached.

What do you think?

I'd be interested to hear your own take on the cause of our polarization - I presume there are a host of different and interesting perspectives on this.

 

Another part of this problem is caused by those moderates who consider themselves independent and register as such. In most cases they have no say in the primaries. This drives both parties further towards the extreme because they no longer have a moderating voice in the primaries. That is where both parties are defined, in the primaries.

 

The problem is that you start with an inaccurate premise. Fact is that socialist progressives have NOT taken over the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party was social progressive decades ago. It's less so now.

The idea that an objective analysis HAS to start by blaming both sides equally is faulty. Which doesn't mean that Democrats are not at fault at all. They are. Only less so. But not in the sense you appear to believe.

You see, the problem is NOT left vs right. The problem is ideologues vs non-ideologues (or less-ideologues, if you prefer). The pursuit of ideological "purity" exists way more on the right than on the left. On the right you have concepts like "never-trumpers" or "RINO"... descriptions of any who failed the ideological "litmus test".

This started way before Trump. Rush Limbaugh, Anne Coulter, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly ... and many other noisy talk show jocks made a name for themselves by demanding ideological "purity". Organizations like the Heritage Foundation, The Club For Growth.... or extreme right movements like The Tea Party, had all taken upon themselves the task of defining right-wing ideology and making sure that NO candidate that deviated from the dogma would ever be elected.

This level of "purity" simply does NOT exist in the Democratic Party. There is some level, but nowhere near this. And it's just the same level that has ALWAYS existed. Nothing has changed on the left. What HAS changed is on the right. This might not adapt to the premise that you must find some way to blame both sides equally, but it does adapt to reality.

So I'm happy to see you attempting a balanced analysis. But an objective analysis is NOT about starting with the premise that "they are both equally culpable" and then trying to find ways to justify this premise. It starts with acknowledging reality, and then see where that takes you. In my opinion you just started in the wrong direction

 

Fact is, socialist "progressives", i.e., socialists, have taken over the Democratic Party and are currently dictating its agenda. As for being libertarian on social issues, I'm inclined to agree with you that it is less so now than it was in the past, and that has to do with the ideological purification of the Left that led to the demise of the New Left and the individualism that many New Leftists including myself stood for.

I agree that the idea that an objective analysis has to start by blaming both sides equally is faulty, but it does have to start by holding both sides accountable if both sides are responsible. However, being a former New Leftist I reject your assertion that Democrats (and the broader Left) are less at fault.

I disagree. The demise of the New Left is evidence that the pursuit of ideological purity on the Left is just as bad if not worse than it is on the Right.

As is the case with Old Left "progressives". Democratic presidential debates have become an exercise in candidates constantly trying to "out-progressive" one another. Men like John F. Kennedy couldn't get a job as a dog catcher in today's Democratik Party. They've all become Center Right or "establishment" Republicans.

Actually, it's just the opposite. The reason you don't see Democrats engaging in the infighting we recently saw in the GOP over the speakership is precisely because of the ideological purity one finds in the Democratic Party (and to some extent on the broader Left). Again, the demise of the New Left is another example of the extreme level of ideological purification that has occurred on the Left over the course of the past several decades.

Which might explain why I never tried to hold both sides equally culpable. I held both sides accountable because both sides are responsible to some degree for the polarization.

I'm all for acknowledging reality and seeing where that takes you, but your "opinion" that I started in the wrong direction is really a strawman.

That being said, I will throw you a bone on the ideologue thing. I think it's pretty easy to observe and conclude that ideologues on both sides of the aisle are playing a large if not over-sized role in our polarization.

 

I disagree. The leaders of the Democratic Party today are Biden, Schumer, Jeffries, .... NONE of them are anywhere near as left as FDR, LBJ, Humphrey, ...

The Democratic Party has shifted right. Not as far or as quickly as the Republican Party, but a definite shift to the right. What it has not done is become a Party of ideologues, like the Republican Party has. Where ideology trumps everything (except Trump). And THIS is the reason for the political divide.

I completely reject that. Democrats have their faults too. But they are not political zealots, like Republicans are. There are things I believe Democrats could have done better. For example STOP catering to Republican nonsense. However, their faults that have led to this situation are immensely less

Democrats may be at fault, but they are not equally at fault.

There has been NO pursuit of ideological purity on the left. None! And this is one of the things I fault them with. I mean, I understand compromise. And I don't want them to become a party of ideologues like the GOP has (or HAD before Trump... now it's something even worse). But they should have been more assertive in some of the things they have compromised on.

But when, for example, Obama compromised with Bush to bail out private companies to get us out of the crisis, that was clearly a right-wing. Necessary, but right-wing. When he compromised to pass Obamacare. When Democrats have failed to bring Green legislation to the floor even when they had majority.... Examples are many of Democrats yielding to Republican ideology. NONE the other way around.

You are confusing backing a candidate from their own party with ideology? Who you back for speaker is not ideological. It's partisan, but not ideological. I believe you are confusing the two terms. If Republicans had brought to the floor a moderate candidate, and negotiated Democrats, he would have won easily. But he/she would have also been rejected by House Republicans who are ideologues. So they would not have been able to lead the House as a Republican. This is why they none of them even ASKED

I have no idea what this "New Left" is, so I can't comment. If you mean the newer left-leaning members, they are faaaar from controlling the Party. And they are not even a milimeter more to the left than any of the historical Democratic figures (who DID control the Party) that I mentioned.

It may be right, it may be wrong. But it most definitely is NOT a "strawman". Calling it a strawman IS a strawman, though. A clear attempt to avoid debating it.

Not sure what this "bone" you talk about is. Because if you claim that anybody in a position to control the Democratic Party is an ideologue, you would have to demonstrate it. You haven't so far.

The only person in Congress I can think of (there may be more, but he's the only one I can think of) is Bernie Sanders. Who is right most of the time, but he has committed flagrant acts of ideological dogmatism. Like opposing Free Trade Agreements (another example of how Democrats are NOT ideologues, BTW). However, Bernie does NOT control the Democratic Party. AOC surprised me a few days ago in an interview for her openness to discuss things she would agree with Republicans about.

 

Not a bad point, but also some of the independents left their original parties because they were not far enough to the left or right. But it's true there is a dearth of party moderates among the activists who push agendas in both parties because if you are a moderate, it's highly unlikely you're involved in party politics.

 

I'll go for that and I agree that his point is a good one.

I don't think it's moderates who want to leave. Or rather, they are moderates on the Republican side, but not on the Democratic side.

Here is the problem: this thread is intended to force a view of "equivalence" between Democrats and Republicans. Some perspective in which they are both the same, and the only thing that varies is their ideology. But that is not true. Both parties have flaws. But they are completely different flaws. Each party has to be fixed independently from the other. They have to be analyzed independently and solutions have to be implemented independently. There is no such thing as "one solution" that applies to both. And this is my main objection to this thread. It attempts to equate both parties when they are just not equatable.

I think this is a different topic. I have many many issues with independents. Parties are not intended to represent them ideologically (at least I think it's better if they don't). They are intended to represent their NEEDS. And it's not possible for any party to account for everybody's needs. They never have and they never will be. So nobody will ever be completely happy with their party. You just vote for whoever represents your needs better. @Sirius Black 's point is that they exclude themselves from primaries. I agree that's a problem because they have no SAY. If you don't vote, you don't count.

But, again: I think moderates may be leaving the Republican Party. Not so much the Democratic Party. They are two different realities.

And, BTW, I don't count people who don't follow politics as "moderates". They just don't follow politics. They may even be extremists, in some cases. But neither party is extremist enough for them.

 

Because I'm not convinced that plurality system is the problem and ranked choice voting is the solution. If ranked choice voting is what made California essentially a one party state I'd rather stick with the current system where there is competition in the arena ideas.

Sirius made an excellent point, and I agree with much of what you said here, but I'm inclined to believe that the solution is a viable third Centrist party. I can relate to those who think neither the Democratic nor the Republican parties represent their views - over the years both have left me and I've found a home elsewhere - so I think with the right leadership and financial backing moderates could find a home in a third party if they got serious about forming one.

 

I think polarization is the result of using government for impose beliefs on others. I can understand and even respect all beliefs up to the point of forcing it on me.

If you don't like gay marriage, don't get gay married.
Don't want an abortion, don't get one.
Hate guns? Don't buy one.
Think drugs are bad, don't take them.
You want to be a lab rat for big pharma, take the vax. Don't insist that I take it.
You oppose producing greenhouse gases, be a bicycle-riding Vegan!

Stop using government as your personal belief police.

 

This alone would cause the entire system to be upended almost immediately — the duopoly will never let it happen.

 

LOL - Biden is a stuffed suit. He's a marionette who dances at the ends of the strings of "progressive" extremists dictating the party's Far Left agenda,

As far as your claim that none of them are as Far Left as FDR, LBJ and Humphrey, you clearly are in denial. The DP universally supports the policies those men promoted and enacted and more. The truth of the matter is that today's DP, where everyone is trying to "out-progressive" one another, has essentially become the direct linear rump of Henry Wallace's Progressive Party (there's that term "progressive" again). Alinskyite Barack Obama better represents what the New Democratic Party (to use Eric Holder's lingo) and Left have become since "progressives" began their Long March in Chicago back in 1968

By the way, how could you leave self-avowed socialist Bernie Sanders off of your list of Dem leaders? He has come close to winning the last two Democratic presidential primaries and was appointed by the aforementioned "moderate" Chuck Schumer to chair the most powerful committee in the Senate.

And then there's Alinskyite Barack Obama, who along with Sanders, best represents what has become of the New Democratic Party (to use Eric Holder's lingo) and Left have become since "progressives" began their long march through both in 1968.

Of course, one would have to have witnessed these changes first hand or done their research to know these things and address them in a knowledgable and honest manner. This would have also familiarized you with the New Left, which you've said you know nothing about, so clearly you haven't benefited from either personal experience or research (or both).

Risible. The Democratic Party and the Left have shifted Left and continue to shift further to the Left, which is why it has left countless former Democrats and New Leftists like me behind. This continuing movement to the Left, which began a long time ago and was merely interrupted by the Cold War, is one of the main factors, if not the main factor, responsible for the growing ideological and political polarization in our country. As Democrats and the Left lurched further and further towards its ideological extreme, it figured that the Republicans and much of the Right would respond accordingly, and so here we are.

Again, you are in denial and reduced to spouting uninformed partisan ideological talking points, and the sad fact of the matter is there's no point in discussing and debating a matter as complex as this with someone who has admitted that he has no idea what the New Left was. I appreciate your honesty there, but if you don't know what the New Left was you're not in a position to discuss the ideological purification that has taken place on the Left and in the New Democratic Party in an informed and honest manner. The demise of the New Left is one of the core components of the increasing polarization that has taken place in this country over the past several decades, and it helps illustrate how the marginalization of the libertarians on both the Right and the Left has played an enormous role in widening our ideological and political divide.

I guess it's time you lived up to your signature, Golem. Until then, I leave you to your denials.

 

For starters, our political polarization started in the 1990s when Newt Gingrich was the speaker. Second, both political parties attempt to use political purification, but more so with the GOP than the Dems. For instance, after the January 6th insurrection, all GOP members of the House who voted with the Dems to impeach DJT were primaried out or pressured to not seek reelection in 2022. This is also happening in my state where every single GOP member of the State House and State Senator has primary opponents endorsed by Paxton and/or Patrick. Some may lose, like state Rep. Phelan, who represents Liberty County, who voted for Trump in 2020 by about 80%. Third, safe congressional districts cause part of this problem. Both parties gerrymander their respective districts when that party controls the state legislature, but with overt safe districts, congressional representatives like Matt Gaetz and Rep. MTG can do or say anything, sow chaos and division, without any repercussions from the voters because of divisive politics. It can be said the same thing with some Democratic Representatives, but House Democratic leadership tends to be more capable of governing than their Republican counterparts. Fourth, social media has a lot to do with this. American voters are generally fickle and will believe what is shown on social media. This is especially true with young adults who are more willing to text than have a real verbal communication with someone like adults. And the young people tend to view only sites that politically agree with their political idealogy. We call this brainwashing. With older Americans, it is talk radio, podcasts, and even TV, only listen to those opinionated shows that agree with their political idealogy. Again, this is brainwashing. Both sides do this, but more so on the GOP. We use to have respect for political differences. Both sides would agree to the problem but differ on the solutions. Not anymore with alternative facts and fantasies. Finally, voters are too hinged on that letter behind the name. Those assumptions cause some of the divisiveness.


If we really want to get rid or minimize our political divisiveness, first make our congressional districts more purple. Second, educate all voters on issues from a variety of viewpoints. Get politics out of education AND religion. Finally, use the House and Senate Rules that if any person is criminally charged, they cannot seek office until that legal matter is resolved.

 

I think that the reality is that the left moves ever farther left. And republicans are kicking and screaming trying to stop moving farther to the left.

 

Isn't this statement polarizing in itself? If the problem is to be solved we have to think about what we can do to solve it, not who to blame for it.

 

Hmm.. facts are polarizing? Who knew....

 

I can not, and should not control your opinion, but I point out that you can choose to make things better and I can choose to make things better. As long as you are "right" and I am "wrong" there will be polarization between us.

 

I wasn't the person who inserted the dichotomy. But you did. Perhaps a mirror might help?

 

This is a formula for the far left to win every election. That is why they push for it.

Equally disgusting is the so-called “jungle primary.” If it ends up becoming a contest between two far leftists on Election Day, why vote? It’s the same as it was when I lived in Massachusetts when there was only the incumbent, do nothing for your district Democrat Representative on the ballot. I left it blank.

 

The trouble with “independents” voting in primaries is that some of them aren’t “independent” at all. They are party hacks who want to nominate the most extreme candidate in the opposing party so that their side will win. The Nixon people bragged in 1972 that they helped to get George McGovern the Democrat nomination.

He really was the weakest Democrat candidate. He was too disorganized to run a coherent campaign.

 

The Republican fight over the speakership would seem to support that contention.

 

Please point out the dichotomy as I am unsure what you mean. Well if I stopped preventing dichotomies would it help end the division? Once again we are not discussing how to stop division, we are discussing why I am to blame.

 

I think it goes back considerably further to the 1960s when our country was tearing itself apart at the seams. Many have marked the events surrounding the 1968 DNC in Chicago as the turning point...

 

DUPLICATE