NationStates Jolt Archive

Seriously:

In U.S. politics, why is there no longer any reasonable middle ground?

Democratic partisans: Do you truly believe that every single thing that George W. Bush does is wrong? Is every action that he takes really evil? Why can you not concede even the most basic point to him?

Republican partisans: Is every person who publicly criticizes Bush truly a lying partisan hack? Can you really think that every single member of the administration is possessed of a superhuman virtue, that they are incapable of error?

Please, I would like to hear what you have to say, because I don't understand.

Yeah, thats pretty much it. I have voted both ways, but I tend to vote Democrat. Or anti-Federalist, they are a neat party too. So is Green, actually.

I know people that try and take a middle ground in politics. I try and stay out of political discussions myself, ESPECIALLY on ideology.

I think it's difficult because people tend to be social creatures, and it's very difficult to "stray from the herd" so to speak, so they take a side. And then they're indoctrinated by the people around them, whether it be left or right wing, and then they pass this on to other people, so that there are very few middle grounders out there.

I try to be impartial in my political opinions. I try to make my decisions on sound information and a well considered analysis of said information.

The fact that more often than not I seem to fall on one particular side worries me a bit. I may myself be deluded, or the majority of people out there may be. Either way, it's a matter of some concern.

Scorched earth. That's the party politics atmosphere these days, if its not working for YOU, destory it utterly so no one else can use it to their advantage.

Its impossible in this atmosphere to argue about idealology, not that its ever EASY to argue for or against an idealological position. But right now "My way or the highway" is what we're dealing with. The two parties have lost the ability to compromise, but if they work together they can ignore a problem.

Its tainted everything these days. Soon it may become hard to have friends who don't agree with you politically...simply because there will be too much pressure to hate the "other". But for now Policy discussions on what actually WORKS and what is mere rhetoric are still occasionally possible, so there's still hope.

Personally, I don't think this will "quiet down" or go away on its own, the two parties have to clean house of they WILL destroy America eventually.

I luv partisanship and punditry! It makes for great entertainment...just not great policy...

I'm as partisan as they come, but I try to seek middle ground more often than not, simply because I understand that there are a lot of people who have very real differences of opinion with me. As long as those peope are willing to be reasonable, I am as well.

But what's happened lately is that the right--the loudmouth wing, not the general majority--has taken to calling anyone who disagrees with them unAmerican. They've left civil discourse in favor of bomb-throwing, and for a while, it has worked, electorally speaking, largely because the mainstream Democratic party didn't fought back. They just took it.

The reason the partisan divide seems so much greater now is because the left-wing has decided to fight back, to call people like Limbaugh and O'Reilley and, more importantly, politicians like Santorum and DeLay and Rove and the rest of them on their bullshit.

I look at it this way--you want to have a discussion on a topic, on a piece of legislation, even an animated one, I'm cool with it, even if we never reach an agreement. Just don't question my patriotism or attack me personally, because if you do, it's on, and I will come at you with whatever I can. I'd rather not, and I certainly won't start anything like that, but I will fight back.

Usually I do see both the good and bad that politicians do. But in this case, it is very difficult to find anything good Bush has done. Even if I could find a good thing here or there, the bad outweighs the good to such an extent that it drowns it out completely. Its like trying to identify the water hitting you from the squirt gun when theres a fire hose squirting you at the same time. Clinton, Bush I, and Raegan were much easier to find agreements and disagreements with. The current Bush really is so terrible that finding some point in which to agree with him is a truly daunting task.

There normally is a very large middle ground. It's just that it's not represented by anyone in power. We have no politicians that care about reason or the middle ground (you have to be crazy to be a politician anyway). In order to be moderate or reasonable, a politician would have to alienate his existing voting base. This is inherently risky, therefore, no politician would ever do it.

The powerful people in the media, no matter what they say, only care about their ratings and the continuation of whatever show they are on. This is because, quite frankly, a media pundit that was reasonable and moderate simply would not be entertaining enough to hold his/her audience.

I look at it this way--you want to have a discussion on a topic, on a piece of legislation, even an animated one, I'm cool with it, even if we never reach an agreement. Just don't question my patriotism or attack me personally, because if you do, it's on, and I will come at you with whatever I can. I'd rather not, and I certainly won't start anything like that, but I will fight back.

I agree with that completely. The thing is, a lot of politicians probably started like that, and then all it took was but a single asshole to start the domino effect...

Middle-ground people are so middle-ground they don't draw too much attention - even though middle-ground, or compromise, is usually the best answer for a lot of problems. For example, the "middle-ground" and best answer between "tree-hugging" and "factory-building" is "sustainable development". Brilliant middle ground idea. But who cares? It's either you're tree-hugging or factory building, or else you won't get heard.

In the politics of Hong Kong, it's the same. It's either you're a pro-democratic wild activist = traitor of China, or you're a pro-Beijing suck-up style eunuch.

Dumb.

I consider myself as having a centrist philosophy. If you think everyomne in this country is one extreme or another you fallen into the media's trap. Also, i've found this forum not to be a place to have a centrist philosophy. I will admit I am not fond of many of the thing GW has done while in office but I certainly don't think every decision he has made is bad. Just the ones I disagree with.

Seriously:

In U.S. politics, why is there no longer any reasonable middle ground?

because the one side is completely batshit insane, and the other only stands up to the insanity strongly on a tiny number of often irrelevant issues?

For example, the "middle-ground" and best answer between "tree-hugging" and "factory-building" is "sustainable development". Brilliant middle ground idea. But who cares? It's either you're tree-hugging or factory building, or else you won't get heard.

i don't know what its like where you live, but in my neck of the woods it was the 'tree-huggers' who invented sustainable development and it is largely the 'tree-huggers' who favor it today.

I am middle ground:

Right between hard-core conservative (economy) and fundamentalist Christian (social issues) :p


It's quite simple though, really. You can't be middle ground between far-left and far-right, in the same way, there was no middle ground states when it came to the last civil war. You either were, or were not, going to be able to put up with the other side anymore, there was no way to compromise.

How CAN I allow you steal away the liberty of myself (abortion, same-sex marriage) Vs. How CAN I look the other way while you kill babies and twist the entire nation into atheistic secularism in your drive to remove all social morality from society?

As Jim Hightower says: There is nothing in the middle of the road except yellow stripes and dead armadillos.

I think one major issue is escaping this debate: It's just not cool to be in the center at present. Because there are some very vocal polarized persons in this country, they tend to pull the crowd along with them to one end or the other. It's just like social life, most people go where the crowd is the biggest.

There is a great middle ground in US politics occupied by many politicians on the national stage, you just doen't hear about them often. I belive the problem is that press has discovered that moderate politics, like good news, doesn't sell newspapers. Far more interest (and entertainment value) can be found in a Kennedy rant or a Santorum flippancy than will be ever be found in a reasoned argument by Spectre or an astute observation by Liberman. I also am somewhat suspicous of the claims that politics in the US has become polarized although I have seen an increase in partisanship, I see too many members of the major parties who reject large chunks of their party ideology to believe the ideologies have become polarized, nonetheless they tend to vote the party-line instead of their ideology (Democrats far more than Republicans, but the GOP is catching up in enforcing party discipline).

I supect most of this is due to the realignment of the major parties and their coming to terms with their new statuses. The Democrats have finally realized that they are the minority party, they need to keep all the party on the same page in order to have any significant amount of power (a problem with the winner-take-all form of democracy used throughout most of the US). The Republicans are trying to unify the coalition of interests which became the majority and make it a party, now that they finally have a majority they have realized that they no longer have to accept anyone who can win an election and isn't a Democrat. Both of the major parties are trying to help their efforts to unify their parties by creating bogiemen out the opposition, and old and sucessful technique.

I really do not see either party as being more or less guilty of this, both are doing it and both have their reasons for doing it. Throw in the wealening of the parties' financial hold on canidates with the recent spate of Campaign Finance Reform and one can see why they are looking for ways to enforce party discipline.