NationStates Jolt Archive

The Media is biased!

Professors make political jokes!

Liberals stole Christmas!

It takes a certain climate for that kind of thing to come up. A climate of open hostility between two sides, where conspiracy theories are ripe and whatever is bad for them is good for us.

How come? America doesn't really have the proper left-right divide that you can find in most nations. Both its parties are committed to Capitalism, both parties want to go and fight Terrorism overseas, both parties condemn welfare but both keep it alive.
The two parties are so similar that they could count as one in some places.

And yet, the USA is one of the most divided nations around when it comes to politics. Ridiculous allegations are thrown about by people who basically signed their souls to one of the two and support them no matter what.

How come?
Was it McCarthy, who has taught Americans to fear all that is different?
Is it a reaction to the pressures of a new world of globalisation, of enemies that you can't see or kill?

What are your theories, why is America so fanatical about its "Liberal vs Conservative" debate?

You know...I honestly don't know.

Lots of shit has been going on, and everyone thinks they have their own way of fixing things.
I look at each side as 6 of one and half dozen of another...

Probably with the immigration that America was blessed with resulted in many different cultures with their different ideals fracturing the American populace giving us our divided beliefs.

How come?
Was it McCarthy, who has taught Americans to fear all that is different?
Is it a reaction to the pressures of a new world of globalisation, of enemies that you can't see or kill?

What are your theories, why is America so fanatical about its "Liberal vs Conservative" debate?
The extreme partisanship that is evident these days is strictly due to the waning influence of the Dems, coupled with the inability of the Reps to handle their status as a majority party.
No, I think that the extreme partisanship, if I may put my opinion out here, is due to the invasion of Iraq. That doesn't prove that the invasion was right or wrong... but things only seemed to get really divisive since March 2003.

Probably with the immigration that America was blessed with resulted in many different cultures with their different ideals fracturing the American populace giving us our divided beliefs.
I disagree; many other countries (Canada for example,) are nearly as ethnically diverse as the US, and don't see this sort of division.

when you bring religion into politics, it gets messy.
some like to force their religion on others and some like to keep it to themselves. why is this a problem? america is supposed to be an open land.

its mainly religion in my opinion.

when you bring religion into politics, it gets messy.
some like to force their religion on others and some like to keep it to themselves. why is this a problem? america is supposed to be an open land.

its mainly religion in my opinion.

You know...That might be it.

It's not really about the economy, or even war - those are only carry-overs. It's really about social issues. The culture wars. Science v. religion, progress v. tradition, globalism v. tribalism, plurality v. heteromania. People take the party line on taxes and battles because the people who hate abortion or agree with gay marriage (your choice) say so, and because it sounds right based upon whatever side of the political spectrum they think they subscribe to, when in reality liberalism and conservativism are about economy and foreign policy and political freedoms, and only in the last half-decade have become all about abortion, same-sex marriage, ID, religion in schools, etc. etc. ad nauseam.

Most people seem to be Democrats and Republicans because of their stance on the separation of church and state, generally acquire a rock-hard, rabid stance on the war in Iraq by osmosis, and if you try to talk about the intersection of economics and politics will throw up their hands, shrug, and go with the party line.

Maybe it's the "winner takes all" system that is beeing used?

I disagree; many other countries (Canada for example,) are nearly as ethnically diverse as the US, and don't see this sort of division.

What about the addition of the Civil War? Certainly different ideals there and things have not changed to much today which you see in Republican domination in the south and west and Democrat support in populous northern states and California. The Supreme Court makes its landmark decisons without widespread support so having nationwide agreement is impossible. Different nationalities in America seem to be part of this.

Maybe we should have two Presidents, and split up executive powers based upon who got how many percantage points. "Ok, here we go...the Dem Pres gets vetoing power, the Rep Pres gets to prosecute a war, the Dem Pres gets...." :D

Maybe we should have two Presidents, and split up executive powers based upon who got how many percantage points. "Ok, here we go...the Dem Pres gets vetoing power, the Rep Pres gets to prosecute a war, the Dem Pres gets...." :D

I can see another civil war over the horizon...maybe 25 years :sniper: :mp5: :sniper: :mp5:

That long? I'd give it less than a year.

Probably with the immigration that America was blessed with resulted in many different cultures with their different ideals fracturing the American populace giving us our divided beliefs.
This does not hold water. The liberals and the conservatives are not divided over ethnic lines (in contrast to the Ukraine, where the people are divided along both ethnic and political lines).

Most people seem to be Democrats and Republicans because of their stance on the separation of church and state, generally acquire a rock-hard, rabid stance on the war in Iraq by osmosis, and if you try to talk about the intersection of economics and politics will throw up their hands, shrug, and go with the party line.
So your theory is that few Democrat or Republican supporters actually think about their ideas on the war or the economy? I don't know about that.

I fundamentally agree though. You always notice that on this very forum it's usually the abortion, gun control and gay marriage (Christ that's a non-issue I think) threads that get longest and inflame the particpants' emotions the most.

No, I think that the extreme partisanship, if I may put my opinion out here, is due to the invasion of Iraq. That doesn't prove that the invasion was right or wrong... but things only seemed to get really divisive since March 2003.
But there was a lot of pretty rabid bitching going on much before that, both with Clinton and Bush's election.

its mainly religion in my opinion.
So it comes back to the question on why the US is more religious than other places? Well, my official answer was that it isn't, but that the religious nutcases are just more vocal and actually get listened to a lot more.
But why is that then? :confused:

It's really about social issues. The culture wars. Science v. religion, progress v. tradition, globalism v. tribalism, plurality v. heteromania...
So has the Enlightenment never really evolved in the US? Would it really be fair to say that the US was isolated enough from Europe and the developments there that the two developed on completely different paths?

In Europe there are the same issues, and you'll find them in Canada, or Australia as well. And yet people don't get as hysterical about it, or so is my impression.
Perhaps NS is a bad place for me to get an impression of US political culture, but it seems like everyone's got an opinion, and everyone's willing to get quite vocal about it.
And to that you can add quite public figures alá Limbaugh and Coulter, and you get an image of a country almost at war with itself.

I can see another civil war over the horizon...maybe 25 years
That long? I'd give it less than a year.
Actually, I think such a set up would eventually result in the two parties amalgamating into one to form a dictatorship. They would soon realise that it's in both their interests to help each other to stay in power.

So has the Enlightenment never really evolved in the US?
Do you mean this? Even a quick consideration of late 18th century American literature including the works of their founding fathers shows that their ideas were a product of the Enlightenment. The USA and France were the first two countries born of Enlightenment ideas.

So your theory is that few Democrat or Republican supporters actually think about their ideas on the war or the economy? I don't know about that.

"Most people would rather die than think - in fact, they do so."
- Someone.

How many people do you know who really think about their party's position, go seriously over it, apply reason, etc.? I don't know a whole lot. Most people just seem to use arguments - whether justifying a position to themselves or others - that I've heard a million other people give, and which I'd guess they just probably heard, thought maked sense, and ran with, instead of thinking about it and coming up with their very own position and argument/reasoning.

I fundamentally agree though. You always notice that on this very forum it's usually the abortion, gun control and gay marriage (Christ that's a non-issue I think) threads that get longest and inflame the particpants' emotions the most.

Which I always find utterly amusing. Sure, any political issue is important, but the ones like that are really among the least so - really, what affects your life vastly more - the economy, governmental spending, and wars - or abortion (affects fewer people all the time) and same-sex marriage. (expecially this one; it affects no one but gay people [5-10% of population]). Even ID and religion in schools, what I'd class as the most important of the issues so vociferously chased after by the social right and so vocally reacted to by the left (who integrate their positions much better and aren't quite as much of an internally non-self-consistent "big tent" as the GOP), aren't as important as the economy, fiscal policy, and foreign policy.

This does not hold water. The liberals and the conservatives are not divided over ethnic lines (in contrast to the Ukraine, where the people are divided along both ethnic and political lines).

I thought the question concentrated on the populace at large not a few politicians. Bunch of white guys in Washington can't tell us what America is thinking. Especially the annoying fact that many people do not vote so their beliefs don't get out easily.

Do you mean this? Even a quick consideration of late 18th century American literature including the works of their founding fathers shows that their ideas were a product of the Enlightenment. The USA and France were the first two countries born of Enlightenment ideas.
I should probably qualify.
When I meant "evolved", I meant evolving onwards in the same way that it did in Europe, with the division between church and state an issue settled many, many decades ago, and questioning evolution being something people can't take seriously anymore etc.
On the other hand, it seems that the development of the US hasn't really settled some of these fundamental questions in the past, so they linger on in a time when there are quite frankly more important things to worry about. The definition of what America should be seems to not really be clear.

The USA is not divided. How can we be divided when we don't stand for anything. The only thing that we are divided on is which foolish TV/radio commentator to emulate. I said emulate, not believe in because we tend to switch sides faster that an F-14 can fly.

These commentators and yes, politicians also, don't believe in anything other than ratings, which in turn makes money.

USA.....America is a bunch of countries.... The USA is one of those countries and is the land of uneducated fools. Can't add or subtract and get very nervous when someone has retaind more knowledge than they have but are too lazy to catch up. Easy way out is to listen to a loud mouth. The loudest mouth gets the following.

Maybe this is why the rest of the world tries to emulate the USA....It is the easy way out...............

LOL

I can see another civil war over the horizon...maybe 25 years :sniper: :mp5: :sniper: :mp5:

I too see another civil war coming.

I too see another civil war coming.
Are you actually serious when you say these things? I've never actually been to the States so I can't tell any more than the image I get from the web, the TV and these fora - but do you think it's actually possible that Americans will take up their guns over this and fight each other?

No, I think that the extreme partisanship, if I may put my opinion out here, is due to the invasion of Iraq. That doesn't prove that the invasion was right or wrong... but things only seemed to get really divisive since March 2003.
No, no, no, no, no. The Great Division was in full swing by the Fall of 2000. This is where we saw an unprecedented number of challenges in an unprecedented number of close state elections. This is when the Army of the Democratic party besieged the Florida state judicial system, only to be repulsed by the Army of the Republican party.

The seeds for this battle had been planted in the 1994 elections when the Republicans took over the House of Representatives and made gains in the Senate. This was followed by more gains in each election until 2000, when one man made the difference in the Senate. For what other reason could Jim "Milk Money" Jeffords have ever become a household name, other than his decision to caucus with the Democrats.

Maybe...it could happen. If lots of decisions went the wrong way, if things got worse - this is the kind of divide that could become a secession, or a war.

I disagree; many other countries (Canada for example,) are nearly as ethnically diverse as the US, and don't see this sort of division.
Please, didn't the government in Canada just dissolve and require new elections? That sort of thing doesn't have the ring of political harmony, let alone stability.

*your signature*

Eichen is a rank plagiarist who doesn't quote his sources. That quote isn't his, it's Bill Maher's.

Please, didn't the government in Canada just dissolve and require new elections? That sort of thing doesn't have the ring of political harmony, let alone stability.

no our economy was just snagged. the liberals were withholding some tax payers money for their own use. couple million. but i think one of the american senators did the same thing but it was about 2 times more than our liberal government.

basically the way i see it is, america is lined up for a big crash comnig soon. its juts history repeating itself

I too see another civil war coming.
I wish people like this would elaborate on their opening statement!

I think it's mostly due to fear of the future. The 1990's and 2000's have been the era of economic globalization, and I think a lot of people are afraid of its ramifications...both parties want to return to the past but they can't realize that they are part of a global economy, with global innovation, ideas and competition.

As a result, these political issues become a kind of totem, providing them with a security blanket of isolation from the world. They fight all the more harder because they know that the world of only a few decades ago is gone (and for the better), and that is the world their politics were shaped to deal with.

Are you actually serious when you say these things? I've never actually been to the States so I can't tell any more than the image I get from the web, the TV and these fora - but do you think it's actually possible that Americans will take up their guns over this and fight each other?

No, in all honesty it isn't that bad. The worst I've ever seen is political signs stolen during elections, and this is speaking from the only Republican county in northeast Ohio. If it were like that, we'd be under attack from all sides...

There's some deep division in the U.S. over church/state separation, stem-cell research, evolution/creationism, national health-care, unionism, public-education vs private, the right to privacy vs nation security, to name a few.
In many cases these issues have pretty much developed into hatred between opposing factions.
In 2001 we had the closest election in the history of the U.S. for a president. Yet this administration in power has shown the least compromise of any since I've been alive. The first pres I remember was Eisenhower.

I think it's mostly due to fear of the future. The 1990's and 2000's have been the era of economic globalization, and I think a lot of people are afraid of its ramifications...both parties want to return to the past but they can't realize that they are part of a global economy, with global innovation, ideas and competition.

As a result, these political issues become a kind of totem, providing them with a security blanket of isolation from the world. They fight all the more harder because they know that the world of only a few decades ago is gone (and for the better), and that is the world their politics were shaped to deal with.
Don't you think that discussion of political issues is more rare than personal invective directed at one side from the other? I don't see many issues in "Bush is stupid" or "Kerry is a coward". In fact, even naming someone in a discussion is a guarantee, anymore, that the discussion won't be about issues, but about personal qualities.

The democrats have been pretty much purged from all levels of government at this point, and they're a bit bitter about it.. a vocal number of them, at least.. These are usually the people who moan about how "divided" we are, when we're really seeing nothing new going on in government at any level... your typical GOP supporter is cautiously optimisitic about the future, but knows that what goes up must come down, and is hoping the party can make some solid progress before the monopoly on power is altered.. that's my take on things.. political culture hasn't changed.. the press is going to call every election the most important election in the history of the World.. in '08, in '12, etc.

.. political culture hasn't changed..
Have you ever left the States?
It seems to me that it is not about either side moaning a bit (I usually get the impression though that it is radical Right-Wingers who moan the most), but about a general atmosphere of warfare, where every issue is an irreconcilable difference and where people actually debate whether political correctness is a communist conspiracy!
The divide is a lot bigger than it is in the countries I know (which, granted, is only two in any real depth).

Don't you think that discussion of political issues is more rare than personal invective directed at one side from the other? I don't see many issues in "Bush is stupid" or "Kerry is a coward". In fact, even naming someone in a discussion is a guarantee, anymore, that the discussion won't be about issues, but about personal qualities.

Personal invectives prove the point further; it's a lot easier and a lot more motivating to yell and fling insults than it is to actually discuss issues, which makes it even more accessible to people uninformed about politics. The uniformed partisans and mudslingers that exist on both sides are the worst because they simply don't acknowledge the other side's position.

Have you ever left the States?
It seems to me that it is not about either side moaning a bit (I usually get the impression though that it is radical Right-Wingers who moan the most), but about a general atmosphere of warfare, where every issue is an irreconcilable difference and where people actually debate whether political correctness is a communist conspiracy!
The divide is a lot bigger than it is in the countries I know (which, granted, is only two in any real depth).
I'm going to go way out on a limb and say that the country is not nearly as divided as the press might make it out to be. It serves their purpose to convey that impression because it sells. Normal people have more to worry about than the political state of the Union.

Two things to remember, first the media reports what is easy to report. That is usually what happens inside the Washington DC beltway. Not many normal people live there. Second, the majority of rest of the country's population would probably be happy if they never heard another opinion from inside the beltway.

It would be nice if America was neatly fractured along party lines, but it isn't. It's looking more like America has become a nation of issue voters and which side of an issue someone is on has nothing to do with party affiliation. That's why it's impossible for politicians to take a stand on anything. For every divisive issue, there are going to be two sides and being on one side of one issue does not mean it is possible to predict what side they will be on as far as other issues go. If a politician were to take a decisive stand on three hot issues, the result would be that they would alienate 88% of voters.

So nowadays, the political strategy goes like this: don't worry about loyal party supporters, alienate as many of the issue voters as possible so they don't vote, and target your campain to whomever you didn't manage to alienate yet.

Have you ever left the States?
It seems to me that it is not about either side moaning a bit (I usually get the impression though that it is radical Right-Wingers who moan the most), but about a general atmosphere of warfare, where every issue is an irreconcilable difference and where people actually debate whether political correctness is a communist conspiracy!
The divide is a lot bigger than it is in the countries I know (which, granted, is only two in any real depth).

Political culture is less volatile today than it was in the 60's and 70's, for one.. our election in 2000 was close, but that's nothing new.. I don't know who decided that close elections were something to worry about, but that's the process, and it can and does happen that way. Every election in my lifetime has been called the "most important ever," and so the rest of the ones I'll live through.

As for other countries, I'm pretty happy with ours by comparison.. I was living in the Philippines through an impeachment.. no one cared. There's a feeling of helplessness in some places, because no one has confidence in the process.. thankfully, aside from a few holdouts who believe any GOP victory was "stolen," people here know how the system works and have some confidence in it.. you might get some kids on here predicting violent revolution, but there's no chance of that happening, and we've been though much tougher times than now without violence.

It would be nice if America was neatly fractured along party lines, but it isn't. It's looking more like America has become a nation of issue voters and which side of an issue someone is on has nothing to do with party affiliation. That's why it's impossible for politicians to take a stand on anything. For every divisive issue, there are going to be two sides and being on one side of one issue does not mean it is possible to predict what side they will be on as far as other issues go. If a politician were to take a decisive stand on three hot issues, the result would be that they would alienate 88% of voters.

So nowadays, the political strategy goes like this: don't worry about loyal party supporters, alienate as many of the issue voters as possible so they don't vote, and target your campain to whomever you didn't manage to alienate yet.

Wasn't the '04 election decided by Iraq/terrorism? A divisive issue if there ever was one.

But there was a lot of pretty rabid bitching going on much before that, both with Clinton and Bush's election.


So it comes back to the question on why the US is more religious than other places? Well, my official answer was that it isn't, but that the religious nutcases are just more vocal and actually get listened to a lot more.
But why is that then? :confused:


So has the Enlightenment never really evolved in the US? Would it really be fair to say that the US was isolated enough from Europe and the developments there that the two developed on completely different paths?

In Europe there are the same issues, and you'll find them in Canada, or Australia as well. And yet people don't get as hysterical about it, or so is my impression.
Perhaps NS is a bad place for me to get an impression of US political culture, but it seems like everyone's got an opinion, and everyone's willing to get quite vocal about it.
And to that you can add quite public figures alá Limbaugh and Coulter, and you get an image of a country almost at war with itself.

think that there is one main reason why the U.S. has the tendency to turn any remotely moral issue into the issue, and why the Enlightenment didn't take root here in the same way it did in Europe: Evangelism...

Where Europe embraced Romanticism as the pendulum swung away from Enlightenment thinking, the U.S. turned towards "The Great Awakening" - the birth of that odd American plague. That sounds harsh; I know, but I think it's completely fair. An offshoot of Christianity that decided the best way to preach to people is to hit people over the head with religion-laced entertainment is what we (Americans) got instead of a far more humanistic tradition (Romanticism). What makes that so bad? Well, if the fear of God is held over the heads of the masses, telling them that it isn't enough to be pious in a corner and that they need to convert everyone and 'rid the world of sin' to be good people, the result is bound to be bad, for everyone.

Evangelism is basically religious fanaticism that is dressed up in nicer clothes, and regardless of a person's religious convictions, if they are and American, their culture has been shaped by it.

In some roundabout way, I really intended to say that Evangelism encourages issues, that may be of little practical importance, to be dragged to the front of the political scene, because, for some people, there are "higher" motivators than practicality. Ideals are important, to an extent, but they should be grounded in solid theory, not religious nonsense. I'm throwing out a lot of guesses based on my 11th grade U.S. History course, but it seems clear that it is usually religious firebrands that force debates over ethics, and force people to match shouts with shouts to try to hang on to basic human freedoms.

As for other countries, I'm pretty happy with ours by comparison.. I was living in the Philippines through an impeachment.. no one cared.

I knew plenty who didn't care about Clinton being impeached. Many don't care about politics anymore.

Seriously, America needs a major third party. American politics is very polarized ever since.

The democrats have been pretty much purged from all levels of government at this point, and they're a bit bitter about it.. a vocal number of them, at least.. These are usually the people who moan about how "divided" we are, when we're really seeing nothing new going on in government at any level... your typical GOP supporter is cautiously optimisitic about the future, but knows that what goes up must come down, and is hoping the party can make some solid progress before the monopoly on power is altered.. that's my take on things.. political culture hasn't changed.. the press is going to call every election the most important election in the history of the World.. in '08, in '12, etc.

That doesn't make any sense. Have you actually been out in society talking to people and watching the news? Politics is now a blood sport where the very act of agreeing with the other party on an issue or going across the aisle is an act that condemns you. People almost literally hate the opposition, various issues are divided into armed camps who will never change their minds about anything and who pursue any and all means of wiping out the opposition and ensuring the tyrannical dominance of their position. The party in control, the instant it gets some power, has thrown themselves into every possible use and abuse of it they can just barely get away with. The various ideologies can't even stand the idea of a media that doesn't take their beliefs as the unbiased center and go from there. All the administration and GOP care about is the politics; no matter what Karl Rove might have leaked or what bribes DeLay might have accepted, they'll fight to the death for them because of the politics.

I would put foward that the regularity of major elections in the U.S. may cause it to differ, politically, from parliametary systems, where campaigns are shorter and elections are called with a less predictable interval between. It seems like a regular schedule means that rather than having bouts of partisanship that release the resentment, especially during a vast paradigm shift, does not occur, meaning that tension builds between parties with no release for 2 to 4 years.

It could also be because people are just contradictory that way.

Seriously, America needs a major third party. American politics is very polarized ever since.
Yea..
No one here was alive the last time 3 different parties got electoral votes. a third party would make me care.

That doesn't make any sense. Have you actually been out in society talking to people and watching the news? Politics is now a blood sport where the very act of agreeing with the other party on an issue or going across the aisle is an act that condemns you. People almost literally hate the opposition, various issues are divided into armed camps who will never change their minds about anything and who pursue any and all means of wiping out the opposition and ensuring the tyrannical dominance of their position. The party in control, the instant it gets some power, has thrown themselves into every possible use and abuse of it they can just barely get away with. The various ideologies can't even stand the idea of a media that doesn't take their beliefs as the unbiased center and go from there. All the administration and GOP care about is the politics; no matter what Karl Rove might have leaked or what bribes DeLay might have accepted, they'll fight to the death for them because of the politics.

Welcome to U.S. history.. elections today are more civil than in the past, believe it or not, with fewer personal attacks made by candidates, whether private citizens are rude or not.. I'm well aware of some liberals' Karl Rove fetish, but he's only one in a long line of strategists with big plans, and not much different than the last. Both parties have obsessed over their media image since there was a media.. at one point, they would literally buy newspaper editors, so no, I don't consider today much different than any other time in our history.

Well as much as I like to cry everything is going to hell; I have to say that politics today is a little more "polite" if I can use that word.

In the past, people would actually rumble in the streets over elections. People would get killed over elections. Today's use of "lib" and "con/neocon" as dirty words are rather tame for weighing if the nation is divided.

Karl Rove is the devil for many people. Karl Rove will fall simply because as good as he has gotten, he will get sloppy as he will start to think he is invincible. However, in the past, strategists were far worst. I can't remember the Presidency but there was the claim that one candidate had an illigitimate black daughter which was a blatent lie with no evidence that would suggest "well he might"

Kerry the war hero vs Kerry the opportunist is rather tame.

So are we any more divided then before? No. The stage and tools have changed but the overall message is still the same....

I'm well aware of some liberals' Karl Rove fetish,

Meh. The libs have Karl and the cons have the Clintons.....

I tend to see this as an unfortunate confluance of serveral trends in American history: primarily rural vs. primarily urban, traditional vs. avant guard, pseudo-intellectual vs. anti-intellectual, true believers vs. secularists ... the list is long.

For many years, there was very little difference between the major parties in the US. Some of the well-springs of the current divisiveness in the US lie ( this time ) in the '60s when the so-called "Baby Boomers" ( sons and daughters of WWII veterans, primarily ) began to feel their oats, discovering sex, drugs and rock-n-roll. They also discovered that they could be rebellions without consequence, at least not immediately.

Other tributaries of the current divisiveness go all the way back through American history: the divisions over how to overcome the Great Depression ( government as activist vs. government as supporter of business ),The Civil War ( South and West vs. Northeast ) and even further to the very beginning of the Republic ( rural vs. urban, federalism vs. states rights, etc. ).

What has apparently created a hightened sense of divisiveness is the convergence of several of these tributaries within each party. People use to complain that "there's no difference between the Republicans and the Democrats" and even used it as an excuse to not vote. Now, with the realignment of political trends within each party, there finally is a major difference, at least to many American eyes. Many people feel as though they are fighting for their vision of what American should be, and that makes for "interesting" politics.

The Media is biased!

Professors make political jokes!

Liberals stole Christmas!

It takes a certain climate for that kind of thing to come up. A climate of open hostility between two sides, where conspiracy theories are ripe and whatever is bad for them is good for us.

How come? America doesn't really have the proper left-right divide that you can find in most nations. Both its parties are committed to Capitalism, both parties want to go and fight Terrorism overseas, both parties condemn welfare but both keep it alive.
The two parties are so similar that they could count as one in some places.

And yet, the USA is one of the most divided nations around when it comes to politics. Ridiculous allegations are thrown about by people who basically signed their souls to one of the two and support them no matter what.

How come?
Was it McCarthy, who has taught Americans to fear all that is different?
Is it a reaction to the pressures of a new world of globalisation, of enemies that you can't see or kill?

What are your theories, why is America so fanatical about its "Liberal vs Conservative" debate?


Like you said, both the parties are in reality cookie cutters of each other in the pocket of corporate interests. The parties rely on the diatribes and accusations to differentiate themselves in the eyes of the public. An interesting side effect is the vitrial serves to alienate the public so only the most ardent supporters of the parties actually bother to vote.

The election laws are stacked against third parties. A third party has to meet a threshold of votes in one national election to be eligable for federal money in the next. The states have inordinately high signature requirements to get on the ballots. In the 2000 election the Republican party forgot to meet the deadline to get Bush on the ballot in California, but the election commission waived the deadline. Would they have done that for a third party candidate?

Look at the vote in Iraq, at least 70% of the eligable populace voted because there is a difference in the parties and every vote counted. When was the last time this beacon on democracy had anything approaching a 70% turnout?

Genghis Khan once said that the key to ruling the Mongol Empire, the largest empire ever seen by history, was to keep the government united and the people divided.

He wasn't that bad a guy, though, but still. A good man could just as easily use the same principles in governance as an evil, corrupt system could.

*Cue creepy music.*

I live around Houston, and the reason you see such divided politics around here is that the Democrats are seen as wanting to lead us towards a more European welfare state model, whereas the Republicans want to lead us to a modern "Gilded Age". While both parties are capitalist, the republicans are more free market, and the democrats are more in favor of regulation.

Socially, the democrats are winning. From my perspective in the south, the idea that Christians have the right to legislate morality in a country with alleged separation of church and state and freedom of religion is losing favor.

The real hot button issues are simply representative of social or economic opinions on the whole. They're microchasms of bigger debates.

I don't think the two parties have ever been that far apart, it's just now being seen. The country is divided almost 50/50 between the two major parties, and people are looking for reasons. The similarity of the two parties is being cited as a reason.

I don't think the two parties have ever been that far apart, it's just now being seen. The country is divided almost 50/50 between the two major parties, and people are looking for reasons. The similarity of the two parties is being cited as a reason.
Well, there is this thing called the "Median Voter Theorem", which says this:

There are two (or more) parties. They want to win elections, which means that they have to get as many people to like them as possible.
If you use a simple left v right scale, it might look something like this:

Left-------------------------Centre-----------------------------Right

Along this line are the voters. Now, if you want to win people over, both parties will converge to the centre, as at any point, you will win all the voters that are more extreme than you.

Of course what this scale looks like will be different from country to country, but essentially, this would mean that all political parties essentially converge to the same centrist platform that will catch as many voters as possible. And they call that a "political failure" (like "market failure"), because there is no real choice and the outcome does not reflect the actual feelings of the population.
Which sounds fair enough.

Of course what this scale looks like will be different from country to country, but essentially, this would mean that all political parties essentially converge to the same centrist platform that will catch as many voters as possible. And they call that a "political failure" (like "market failure"), because there is no real choice and the outcome does not reflect the actual feelings of the population.Which sounds fair enough.

That theorem assumes that a party considers "being appealing" more important than "promoting its ideals". While that IMO is a fair assumption if you are talking about the US "winner takes all two-party system" - it is often not the case in countries where 10+ parties participate in elections with a serious chance of at least getting *some* seats in a coalition government. The smallfry knows it will not become the major party - but they know they will be heard. In such a system merges mostly occur if several parties have very similar ideals.

-snip-
Agreed - although I have seen in Germany, a country with a lot of parties, that niche parties will start up, but as soon as they have success, they begin to "go mainstream" in order to keep being successful.
It happened to the Greens, it sorta happened to the FDP (although that's a different "mainstream" alltogether) and I suspect it'll happen to the new Socialists as well.

Actually, I think such a set up would eventually result in the two parties amalgamating into one to form a dictatorship. They would soon realise that it's in both their interests to help each other to stay in power.
I'm being reminded of 1984... kind of appropriate

What the U.S. really needs (although its entirely impossible) is a complete overhaul of the existing government and re-education of the people. Black people are not all theifs and rappers, gays aren't all bad some are even Christian! (OMFG!!!), people from other countrys are only taking your jobs because you are too imcompletent to do them. Just think about it before installing notions in your head. Read about the Monkeysphere (www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/monekysphere.html) and then realise!

The Media is biased!

Professors make political jokes!

Liberals stole Christmas!

It takes a certain climate for that kind of thing to come up. A climate of open hostility between two sides, where conspiracy theories are ripe and whatever is bad for them is good for us.

How come? America doesn't really have the proper left-right divide that you can find in most nations. Both its parties are committed to Capitalism, both parties want to go and fight Terrorism overseas, both parties condemn welfare but both keep it alive.
The two parties are so similar that they could count as one in some places.

And yet, the USA is one of the most divided nations around when it comes to politics. Ridiculous allegations are thrown about by people who basically signed their souls to one of the two and support them no matter what.

How come?
Was it McCarthy, who has taught Americans to fear all that is different?
Is it a reaction to the pressures of a new world of globalisation, of enemies that you can't see or kill?

What are your theories, why is America so fanatical about its "Liberal vs Conservative" debate?The fact that America is Divided is not a sign of Weakness but a testiment to her strength. we can disagree on any and all issues, fight about it and bicker till the cows come home.

the proof that America is still standing strong is that one can still (yes, even with all the wiretapping) voice their dissent and still make the government hear them. and even change the direction of the government.

when you have the USA totally and fully committed with no flak, no debates, no dissenting voice, that is when all Americans (and citizens living in other countries) should worry.

It's the North and the South again. The South wants to move backwards again and North wants to move forward. I think in a few years it will be homosexuality legislation and intergeneration legislation that will divide us. Although we did some how manage through the black civil rights movement and mixing blacks in with white students in schools in the south.

It's the North and the South again. The South wants to move backwards again and North wants to move forward. I think in a few years it will be homosexuality legislation and intergeneration legislation that will divide us. Although we did some how manage through the black civil rights movement and mixing blacks in with white students in schools in the south.
There was a helluva lot of terrorism during the movement really.

both parties condemn welfare but both keep it alive.
I dont condemn it. I suppose that makes me a commie..doesnt it?

Well, there is this thing called the "Median Voter Theorem", which says this:

There are two (or more) parties. They want to win elections, which means that they have to get as many people to like them as possible.
If you use a simple left v right scale, it might look something like this:

Left-------------------------Centre-----------------------------Right

Along this line are the voters. Now, if you want to win people over, both parties will converge to the centre, as at any point, you will win all the voters that are more extreme than you.
I think thePolitical Compass Test (http://politicalcompass.org/) Is much more effective at stereotyping people than Left and Right ever will.

Whatever started it the problem is factionalism, its the I'm a democrat or republican instead of I'm an American. Part of the reason that it is getting worse is the fact that both sides have to be willing to meet in the middle and i don't see that happening. Personally, it looks to me that the republicans are the ones most at fault with their 'if you're not with us you support terrorism' bull, but i live in a very democratic state so my information is is probably one-sided

Whatever started it the problem is factionalism, its the I'm a democrat or republican instead of I'm an American. Part of the reason that it is getting worse is the fact that both sides have to be willing to meet in the middle and i don't see that happening. Personally, it looks to me that the republicans are the ones most at fault with their 'if you're not with us you support terrorism' bull, but i live in a very democratic state so my information is is probably one-sided

I live in an all-too-republican state, and you're right on the spot about the rabid republicans. If you even so much as hint at being even partially socialist, you're blacklisted.

You know what happened to me back in the 3rd grade? My music teacher was making us sing religious songs, and I refused to go along with it. "I don't go to church, and we shouldn't be doing this anyway... It's a public school." --- The entire fucking class erupted. Kids were screaming at me: "OH MY GOD HE'S NEVER BEEN TO CHURCH" "OOOOH DEMOCRAT RWAAWFRH" (funny, because I've never been a Democrat, and I don't intend to ever become one). Even the teacher was outraged. She thought better of it, though, and I was told I could stand and not go along with the music if I wanted. I stood there for thirty minutes with my arms folded, getting cold stares from the other kids.

You know something's terribly wrong when eight-year-old children buy into the partisan bullshit.

when you have the USA totally and fully committed with no flak, no debates, no dissenting voice, that is when all Americans (and citizens living in other countries) should worry.
I'd agree, and some division is of course necessary in a democracy. But, the point I'm trying to make is the way it is conducted - both sides literally accuse each other of everything under the sun, and both sides actively claim that the other wants to destroy America.
Patriotism is introduced into the fray time and time again as well, pretty continuously declaring it "unpatriotic" to be of one side or the other.

Debates are fine, and they can be found everywhere. It's the way the debates are conducted, by whom, and in what manner that seems way over the top in the States sometimes.

I thought the question concentrated on the populace at large not a few politicians.

The American populace at large is not politically divided over ethnic lines.

That doesn't make any sense. Have you actually been out in society talking to people and watching the news? Politics is now a blood sport where the very act of agreeing with the other party on an issue or going across the aisle is an act that condemns you. People almost literally hate the opposition, various issues are divided into armed camps who will never change their minds about anything and who pursue any and all means of wiping out the opposition and ensuring the tyrannical dominance of their position. The party in control, the instant it gets some power, has thrown themselves into every possible use and abuse of it they can just barely get away with. The various ideologies can't even stand the idea of a media that doesn't take their beliefs as the unbiased center and go from there. All the administration and GOP care about is the politics; no matter what Karl Rove might have leaked or what bribes DeLay might have accepted, they'll fight to the death for them because of the politics.
Hyperbolic but basically correct. Neither camp is armed. (Well, some may have guns, but not for the purpose of killing Democrats/Republicans.)

For many years, there was very little difference between the major parties in the US.

...

Now, with the realignment of political trends within each party, there finally is a major difference, at least to many American eyes. Many people feel as though they are fighting for their vision of what American should be, and that makes for "interesting" politics.
This is one of the best posts in the thread, but I still don't believe that there is that much difference between the two parties. The differences are mostly percieved and exaggerated. People look at the most right-wing members of the Republican party and the most left-wing members of the Democratic party and they get scared and think that they represent the mainstream policies of each party.

For example, most on the right wing of NS seem to think that all Democrats want to pull out of Iraq and stop fighting terrorists. Why? Because they think that the very very anti-war Democrats represent all Democrats.

when you have the USA totally and fully committed with no flak, no debates, no dissenting voice, that is when all Americans (and citizens living in other countries) should worry.
THat's where you're wrong. Nobody is lamenting that there is disagreement. People are lamenting that the disagreeing parties are no longer about the issues, but more about personal attacks. They are unwilling to compromise even if the other side is partially right.

What are your theories, why is America so fanatical about its "Liberal vs Conservative" debate?
America is one big open-air funny farm :D

America is one big open-air funny farm :D

I think reality is one big funny farm.

This is one of the best posts in the thread, but I still don't believe that there is that much difference between the two parties. The differences are mostly percieved and exaggerated. People look at the most right-wing members of the Republican party and the most left-wing members of the Democratic party and they get scared and think that they represent the mainstream policies of each party.
Thank you. I'm glad at least one person read it. :)

Unfortunately, when I try to be calm and rational few pay attention, but when I raise hell about something all the roaches come out of the woodwork and accuse me of being a neo-conservative in centrist's clothing. Sigh.

I dont condemn it. I suppose that makes me a commie..doesnt it?


I think thePolitical Compass Test (http://politicalcompass.org/) Is much more effective at stereotyping people than Left and Right ever will.

My score

Economic Left/Right: -1.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.15

No wonder I dislike George Bush policy so much
He is ++ while I am -- exact opposites on economical and social scales.

My score

Economic Left/Right: -1.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.15

No wonder I dislike George Bush policy so much
He is ++ while I am -- exact opposites on economical and social scales.
I just took this damned test again, for about the tenth time, and my scores have shifted a tad but not significantly from the first time I took it:

Economic Left/Right: -0.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.03

I just took this damned test again, for about the tenth time, and my scores have shifted a tad but not significantly from the first time I took it:

Economic Left/Right: -0.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.03
It's been a while. Last time I took it was in September and I got about

Economic Left/Right: -2.93
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.90