discussion: polarization in america (in Debates)

Why can't we all just get along?

Too many people who care about politics.

Perhaps too many people that don't?

Easy,

Instead of our Presidente taking a middle of the road path, he went all left turn on the US. Something most Americans do not want.

But he has to pay back all the unions that payed the way for him to become president.

If he kept his campaign promise and become a moderate president, I am certain things would be very different and less polarizing.

But the whole process of graft, bribes, back room deals etc.. really turn people off.

There is always new hope in November.

Demonizing your opponent is a hell of a way to get people angry, fearful and most importantly out to vote. Just today at work I heard some guy saying "oh those [political party omitted] and their [political dramatization]". I know this guy was angry and I'm pretty sure he would go and vote to make his strong feelings heard.

If political discussion was civil and logical, we probably wouldn't have politics at all, because everyone would learn to get along and agree to the most logical viewpoint. But we don't, and we won't, because we all have our own level of experience, and our own opinions and agendas to have heard. Often times, there isn't really a right and a wrong, but more a "my way of doing things" and "your way of doing things".

This is why.

As opposed to all the hate that was spewed when W was in office?

Works both ways.

Come on Ranger, don't take advantage of this opportunity to make your political agenda the focus here. The discussion is about why we can't get along. Saying that we can't get along because "that guy did this" or "that guy did that" is not helpful to the discussion. That goes for you too Lord Bob, we can discuss this without just flat out blaming people here, you guys endlessly bait each other for some political sideshow we've got here and it doesn't help others participate in the discussion.. I expect more from you guys then another thread filled with political potshots taken at each other to fulfill the fateful "Rule of the Internet" about arguing.

I agree completely. Both sides are guilty of this. Heck, I just finished watching Olbermann.

However, the tea baggers take this to entirely new levels.

The reason is that people are stuck in their beliefs.

Neither W nor Obama is a true moderate. Someone who can get the country together and get true bipartisanship.

Most of the country hoped Obama was not lying when he campaigned on trying to be a moderate, however, in politics as usual, he went to the left to appease his base.

The last true moderate was Clinton and he became a moderate after the pounding the Democrats took in 1994.

Perhaps Obama can finally listen to the people and all the poll and become more moderate after the Democrats get crushed in November.

I think a big problem is that the party that wins the general presidential election thinks they have a mandate to do whatever they want. Which was far from reality in 2008. If a corpse ran against McCain, it would have likely won due to the economy and the anti-Bush rhetoric that year.

We can all get along once we have a more moderate president and not one that is either too far left or right.

Just what are these "new levels" that you type about?

Having rallies to try to get America back to what made is great? Yes, that is so bad for the country *sarcasm*

All the liberal propaganda slandering this group is totally unfounded and in fact, diminished by all the violence by the left wing radicals. IE eggs being thrown at Tea Party buses. SEIU members beating up diabetic black men who disagree with them. Black Panthers intimidating voters during the general election. And more. Much more than anything the Tea Party has supposedly done.

The more I listen the the Tea Party, the more sense it makes. Less government, free markets, personal freedom and a strong national defense. Principles that I can agree with.

The Tea Party has less than 50% Republicans, about 40% Independents and 10% Democrats. All wanting the government to get out of regulating every aspect of our life.

dudemus for president!

Dudemus cannot even get on Carnage Blender's CPC. I think that disqualifies him from public office.

That nonsense claiming Obama is a socialist Muslim Kenyan communist terrorist sympathizing illegal immigrant anti-christ hell bent on destroying America as we know it. And worst of all, he's black!

This is not the left's portrayal of the tea-hadists. It's what I've heard directly from them.

I think Hilary should of made president, that way once a month would bomb the #$&% out of the terrorists.

People treat politics like sports teams. I hate the terms left wing and right wing. There are stupid ideas and good ideas. We're all in the same country fighting for the same thing, prosperity. Unfortunately, most people would rather see their side "win".

If you look at McCain and Obama issue by issue, they were nearly identical. If you ask voters what it would take to switch their vote, most of them would never ever do it.

The two-party system is absurd in its oversimplification and just hurting everybody.
I think you guys need to have your huge monolithic parties split or shatter into 3 to 5 smaller parties each, so you can get anywhere between 6 to 10 decent parties going, covering the entire left-right spectrum, most of them near the middle.

This is alot of what creates separation of views... I know what you said to be entirely true. Apparently only the most ignorant of headcases are noticable/newsworthy enough. Both sides have such a clouded view on things and it stems from crap like this. There are "teabaggers" and plenty of others on the right with valid points and/or concerns. Then Beck or some other nutjob gets on TV and inspires more nutjobs.

Suddenly poo-for-brains is getting all the attention, and this guy over here gets none. The nutjobs getting the attention are on his side though, so they can't be the problem, even if they do detract from any real issues that may or may not be at hand... So it must be the media's fault... Why aren't they covering what this guy has to say? Instead they're focusing on the guys who's biggest decision for the day is giving Obama the Hitler mustache or claimaing that he wants to kill your grandma and eat her soul... Unfortunately for that guy with a valid point, he's not entertaining or loud enough to be good for ratings.

All in all, neither side is right in any full sense. If people would stop thinking like liberals or conservatives or democrats or republicans and just start thinking like people, then we might could get somewhere... But the whole concept is a joke, as either side's idea of bipartisanship is telling the other side what you're going to do anyway.


Do people actually think Obama is trying to destroy America? Or do they perhaps realize that he means well, but disagree with his ideas? On the other side, do people really think Obama is infallible? How many of the "teabaggers" are insane? How many are logical with valid points? How many are just there for something to do?

And the question to both sides: What is the expected gain from slanderous attacks and spewing incorrect or irrelevant information by the boatload? Especially when done by intelligent people who would/could/should be expected to know better...

We can't get along because nobody is prepared to tell the truth and be honest.

If either leader were to actually explain that a particular issue is really really in a bad way and can't actually be fixed, "because this is the real world and beaurocracy and red tape and general human selfishness prevents us from putting in place a workable solution that doesn't cost more money than we have," then they would never be allowed to come to power.
We're only interested in solutions, not reality.

So, instead of being honest and truthful we're told what we want to hear. Just because we want to hear it we then disregard what we know to be the reality and believe it.

Humans suck. Shallow, selfish, greedy and pretentious runs right through us and that's not a good recipe for "getting along".

So we are seeing a bi-polarization as it were?

That would explain some of the extreme swings that are evident.


Sadly I think G_Beee may have a point, perhaps if people realized that in politics 'beating the other side' is not the sole (nor is it the best) definition for 'winning'.

That is a very very small percentage of the total Tea Party movement.

Except for the socialist part, that I think most people in the Tea Party believe to be true.

Every part, Democrats and Republicans included have their fringe elements. The Tea Party is no different. But most of the people in that party are honest people who want less government ruling their lives.

The best person who I have found that meets this criteria is Paul Ryan.

http://www.roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/

Liberals will decry this roadmap but everyone is going to be required to make a sacrifice. Even those in the 47% of American that pay no federal income tax.

In America we are almost at a tipping point where more people get from the government than give. At that point it is almost impossible to get the larger % (those paying no federal taxes) to want to sacrifice given their "free ride".

Yes, of course, some people do need help especially in this economy. However, when we currently have people making 50k and paying no federal income taxes, there is a problem a brewing.

i was more interested in what you guys think of the article linked in the original post. i had realized some of these things on my own throughout the years but had never really thought about the different types of morality and how that plays into the different viewpoints.

Well a large part of the polorization is the media.

A main stream station such as CNN is seeing massive losses in viewership while MSNBC and FOX (mostly the latter) gain viewers.

Also, the media can be very biased in their news coverage.

An example of course is the tea party.

http://dailycaller.com/2010/04/13/media-research-center-coverage-of-tea-parties-is-disparagingly-biased/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=ping.fm

I see that as part of the "go, team, go" mentality of having a side to root for. Sadly, it seems only a small percent of the populace care about finding unbiased truth. People want black and white, and they want to be right. Plus, they want it fed to them in entertaining snippets between dinner and before going to bed.

The ratings are effects of people wanting to hear others agreeing with them. Those who are frustrated and confused by the government can either read boring documents and sift through un-entertaining, "unbiased" shows to educate themselves and discern their own beliefs, or they can just turn on Glen Beck and watch a rant about just how right they are.

Even CNN is caving to the ratings. They recently hired their own nutjob extremist (sorry, forgot his name) to pull in viewers.

Think back to when Jerry Springer managed to destroy his daytime talk show competition by giving up normal content for a freak show performance. It was highly successful, and it's happening with the news.

I have no idea what news channel ratings had to do with any point you were making Ranger, were you saying that CNN is biased and that Fox News was not? Anyways, I think the best way to get news is to read it on the internet from a bunch of places, not to watch TV News. I think wearing a badge of honor that you watch X or Y TV news network is dumb anyways, almost all of those news networks only cover the most popular crap in the world anyways.

While I was in California recently, I was watching the TV News while in the breakfast area in the hotel. They had it turned to some news network (I can't remember which one, probably fox or cnn or something) and I thought that this crap was ridiculous, they were covering Tiger Woods like he was the second coming of Jesus or something. I would much rather read news that was important and relevant than popular crap portrayed as more important then it actually is.

G Bee wins! ;)

I've had a long running debate with my Dad going about an old Idea of his "Vote for None of the above" and his policy of just abolishing parliament when he gets into power.

He's actually worried it would work, the Miltary would step in, and the next day he'd wake up to a 'massive coronery'.

I still feel all parties should stop the pointless schoolyard name calling, focus on posotive aspects of *thier* campagins, and not negative aspects of others, and be held liable, in contract, to promises made at election time.

You promise not to raise taxes, then get elected and raise taxes, you're out. New general election please.

Of course, this leads to the problems on *no* political party being able to be open and honest, or pormising realistic ideals, as they have no idea of the mess being left for them they inherit.

But, the only way for our society to proceed, is open honesty.

Othrwise, we'll just carry on as is, until someone with all the guns steps in, or people forget that anarcy *can't* work...

Oh for a benevolent dictator...

Read what I type, do not read into what I type.

CNN is the most neutral of all the stations and is hemorrhaging viewers. People now are very polarized and therefore a middle of the road station is losing viewers.

Polarization gets viewers. Stuipd people watch TV and often think take the views presented.

Yes, and that makes me sad.

Sorry, I'm on a rant now.

I'm insulted by the current Tory campaign. I'm angered that not only can they do it, that's it sucseeful enough to do...

They have plastered posters for voting for the Conservative party all over the place, with the face of Gorden Brown, and various negative things that has happened over his time in office.

Like "I trippled the national debt, vote for me", or "I increased the gap between the rich and the poor, let me do it agian".

With tiny writing of "Vote Change, Cote Conservaive" at the bottom.

I'm incensed that while the message given *might* be true, they are implying that they should be voted for as they will make all this better.

No. Change it they might. But it might be change *for the worse*. On which they give absolutley no information about.

Their change might even be no change...

But it works, people are shammed by this type of advertisement, and they are allowed to do it.

/sigh

The sad fact of the matter, that often here in Canada (and so it seems in the US and the UK) parties and politicians get voted out, not voted in.

So basically the equation of politics is a negative sum process. When out of power you can't really do anything but attempt to drag down the perceived 'score' of the party in power. When in power you have to hope to lose few enough points to preserve your position.

You see less of people campaigning on good things they have done rather than the bad things they haven't done....

God this is thoroughly depressing.

Completely agree unfortunately. I'd like to think this polarization is largely manufactured as I think most people can agree we have the same over arching goals.

Personally, I try my best not to get emotionally attached and to try and see things from the other side, and I still find it incredibly difficult to admit my first reaction was wrong. People are inherently tied to their emotions, and the media plays to that to get viewers. It's not a simple problem.

With regards to the article dudemus, I thought it was spot on. Not that I think conservatives and liberals are very different. The way I interpret it is certain personalities/groups of people tend to choose one side and then as they follow the media more they get more polarized.

the article did make me remember the gay marriage discussions we had in the past here on cb. those for it were usually of the mind that what others do that hurt no one is totally up to them while those against it had various reasons including tradition and values.

the morality triggers do seem to work and would explain a lack of understanding of the other viewpoint which is then exacerbated by a media that feeds on that polarization.

what disturbs me is that due to the morality triggers, the conservative side may be more emotionally attached to their issues and more willing to go to more extreme measures for their cause. i know we have crazies on both sides, but it does seem that in many societies the extremists on the conservative side will push things farther. if the observation is accurate, the moral triggers might be what is causing this?