America's political dilemma

Liberals and conservatives were never crazy about each other, but now we hate each other. "Repugs" and "Magas" (sounds like "maggots") weren't terms in common usage 30-40 years ago. Controversial speakers at unis didn't cause riots. We didn't view opponents as existential threats to democracy.

Tip O'Neil and Reagan were buds. Hell, even Nixon and Kennedy were friendly. You should watch their TV debates. Dubya Bush enjoyed a +70% approval rating after 9-11.

The dilemma is that no one who does not see the other side as the Devil can get elected these days because he can't generate enough enthusiasm to even get his own party's nomination. We are in a non shooting civil war. That means there is no one who can represent all Americans after a general election anymore. Oh, he can call for unity, sure, as Trump did. Maybe Biden did, too. But is that realistic? The calls for civility were certainly ignored after Trump was elected.

We can either elect moderates who will embrace compromise (Biden sees himself as such) or elect haters who will strong arm the other side into bitter and grudging submission.

So, intransigence or compromise? It's one or the other, and they're both bad to too many of us.

 

End Stage Democracy.

 

if you dont like democracy, please don't vote.

@Le Chef i, and most of us, would prefer compromise, but your lunatic fringe is in the driver's seat.

“Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.”
― Barry Goldwater

are you real sure this is not a shooting war? at least in a gorilla/terrorist/insurgency sense, at least up to "shays rebellion" or "whiskly rebellion" levels.

 

Nobody really wants full democracy (the kind where the >50% can vote to kill and enslave the <50%), and similarly no one wants no democracy (where one person has all the power). We're still arguing over just how much democracy is the proper amount, like we always have been. We're just a lot more adament now that too much and too little is totally unacceptable.

...and its not outside the realm of possibility that full democracy can equate to no democracy and vice versa. Social media + group psychology + predictive algorythms = mind control. In this day in age, enough people can be manipulated to shift 'democratic will' in more and more extreme directions, allowing for a situation where more democracy actually equates to greater control for those 'holding the reigns'. A very interesting time to be alive...

 

Yes, Nixon and Kennedy were good friends. Tip O’Neil and Reagan got along. That was true for previous generations.

Now Nancy Pelosi makes a big scene tearing Trump’s State of the Union address in half in a childish rage. The Democrats think that is great. Do you think that no one knew your position before you made a fool of yourself?

The colleges and universities are mostly to blame. The have made the two sides, good vs. evil. The political science professors were doing that in the late 1960s when I was in undergraduate school. It’s grown like a cancer since then.

These professors think that they are intellectuals who know it all. They are only political hacks whose brains are in fishbowls.

 

End stage fascism.

 

I think it's more tv and social media than it is colleges and universities. I know people that spend 10hrs a day everyday listening to certain political radio stations. But I agree, colleges and universities do play their part.

 

Colleges and universities train or indoctrinate the news persons and commentators who are on the radio and TV stations. It still goes back to the state of higher education.

 

The Federalist Papers noted the danger to the federal government, as defined by the Constitution of the United States of America, of 'factions'. For factions, read political parties. The sole remedy the drafters of the Constitution proposed was to trust the good character of those elected to high federal office.

That works as long as a political party does not find itself in a secure enough position to consider a 'winner takes all' approach. Once one party does, and is led by people willing to follow a policy of winning through tossing away the numerous gentlemen's agreements of the past, the other party has two choices: oppose using similar tactics or accept permanent second-class status. [Ed.: Or worse.]

That's where we are as of 2023. This poor old country mouse sees no less-combative heads prevailing at this time or in the near future.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

Addendum. I have not used names for the parties. A secular humanist, I subscribe to neither one. It doesn't matter to me who started the 'battle'.

 

Tell us what "compromise" you would like to see.

 

Compromise only means that the Communists get what they want, a little bit at a time. A lot of times, as with the 2nd Amendment, there is no compromise. There's only, our 2A rights being eroded a little at a time.

 

There was no "rage". She calmly tore it in half. Showboating? Sure. Made a fool of herself? Hardly.

 

Funny. My recollection is that the professors were uptight and the students rebelled.

 

I listen to right wing radio while driving about 10 hours a week. They are certifiable. The hate is palpable.

 

I disagree
The problem isn't the parties. The problem is money. Always was, always will be.

 

She made a total fool of herself in a childish display. If you are Democrat, you love it. If you care about the issues, not so much. I’ve said it before. When Nancy Pelosi was Speaker, she was the worst person in government.

 

One poly si professor: Tricky Dicky will never be top banana!

Another: I HATE those Republicans! Awful people!

 

And you determined that I don't like democracy based on...?

 

Well tyranny of some sort is usually the successor to democracy.

 

Not a Democrat and I didn't love, didn't hate it.

What does her tearing up a terrible speech have to do with the issues.

You mean other than Trump I take it.

 

Ok, he was wrong......but he should have been right.

He was right.

 

I liked your post. Until this last sentence. I think you are presenting a binary choice when it does not need to be. There is option C Sometimes we compromise, and sometimes we dig in our heels. that's realism. I do think you are going to need to decide whether you want your candidate of choice to lean towards intransigence or lean towards compromise as a preferred governing principle of his public policy though.

 

Funny, many of you guys go on and on supporting Democrat policies, yet you say you are not Democrats.

Does you last comment mean that you have strongly disagreed with Nancy Pelosi on many issues?

 

Previously you said that you were not a Democrat. Does this mean that you hate the American political system? If so, then we must take your comments in a new light.

And yes, Nixon was a flawed person with more than his share of problems, led by dishonesty and a lot of paranoia. Still, he made this remark in 1968, fours years before Watergate.

 

Hi, 9royhobbs.

An interesting surmise. If money has always been the problem, it doesn't explain why we are witnessing a distinct break in co-operation and comity with our two major political parties in the past few decades.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.