I'm only 32 and I've seen the left wing become extreme left and i've seen the Republican party become fractured. There is no compromise any more. Everything with these people is a battle and nothing gets done. What the hell happened?
__________________ QUANCHI112:In between the passes Khan will tear out the orca teeth and use them as an offensive weapon. Khan has crushed a skull before so tearing a tooth off a whale should be no issue.
This is a graph of the difference between the Republican and Democratic Party means on the first DW-NOMINATE dimension from the end of Reconstruction through the the first session of the 113th Congress.
(please log in to view the image)
Polarization has been increasing steadily over the past 25 years, with Congresses 100–113 marking an acceleration of the trend, especially in the House of Representatives, which is now at the highest level since the end of Reconstruction.
In addition, the percentage of moderate Republican Representatives and Senators continues to plummet. In the House the percentage of moderates (-.25 to +.25 on the first DW-NOMINATE dimension) has declined to about 10 Percent in both Chambers.
As you can see, Democrats have remained largely the same while Republicans have moved sharply to the right.
come on dude. how do you even gauge this enough to do this.
__________________ QUANCHI112:In between the passes Khan will tear out the orca teeth and use them as an offensive weapon. Khan has crushed a skull before so tearing a tooth off a whale should be no issue.
Re: Why have the political parties become so divisive
Well, in short, someone thought that obstructionism was a great tactic. It's, largely speaking, done as a tactical call, originating from one side.
And it worked! For a little bit. But it doesn't stop the other side entirely, and the other side began doing it back, so they upped it. Then they found the other side still persisted in getting some stuff done, and decided to up it again. And you get the impression.
In short, it is a short-term, short-sighted tactic, that as it's increased for decades, is really just a millstone around the necks of the proponents at least as much as the targets.
Here's a chart of filibusters, one of the easiest-to-track ways of stopping-something-from-getting done:
(please log in to view the image)
Note how the spikes in usage are associated with one side, and then the other side simply sticks to the new level. And that's just raw numbers on who does it.
Remember how Obama ran on trying to work with the other side and the Republicans declined and decided, instead, that they'd try and sink the effort which he was elected to do (campaigning heavily on healthcare) via a very wide popular vote.
To be entirely straightforward, the data shows that most obstructionism and compromise has come from the Republicans initiating it, because they feel that that is the proper way to get things done.
And when it doesn't get things done/the other side gets things done anyway (as they were elected to do- properly working, both sides are supposed to get things done), rather than change strategies, their approach is to double-down on it.
Why? Because they have bad advisors, and they've had the same advisors advising it for decades.
This guy advised obstructionism in the 90s, and then when it kinda-worked then, he kept with it. When Obama took office, he advised that they shut down everything. He's not alone, but you get the idea.
There is a very bad group of tacticians who have way too much sway, who have constantly been saying "The way to win is to not make tactical compromise, trading this bill for that bill, but to stop everything more harder."
And they have driven the GOP into the ground, and made them not only really good at stopping the Democrats from doing things that the populace voted Democrats to do, but even better at stopping Republicans from doing anything they were voted to do. Which in most cases, is the same thing- run and help the country.
Citing things like turning 100% routine, never before took any time appointments into 'fight every one, filibuster on principle, actually raise the number of votes required' fights.
And they didn't do this in response to anything- they decided this was a good tactic.
And when the 50% say they don't want to be controlled, then the Republicans get annoyed and try and block any attempts to give people more rights. They got *especially* furious when told they couldn't control which adults could marry, and really seem to want to control stuff having to do with our bedrooms.
For all that the Republicans complain about the Democrats wanting to take over, they're the ones who insist on trying to get into our lives and bodies, and meanwhile cite things like... more healthcare coverage by private companies as the attempts of Democrat 'control.' Even though Republicans have not only proposed but enacted similar programs before, and the first such program in the US was launched in the 70s- and was highly successful ever since, the best healthcare in the country.
Note also that we are not in a time of unprecedented government spending, nor are we in a time of unprecedented taxes, or government services. There's been times when the government is more active in all these things, so the calling of 'they're trying to control everything' for the Democrats pushing for a return to levels we've been at before.... speaks, at minimum, of not looking at our country's history.
One, I blamed the Republican's tacticians, their advisors, for being shortsighted, and posted three separate sources showing how they escalated the obstructionism on multiple occasions.
Two, you.... just blamed the Democrats, the post before mine.
Your "Oh come on, you can't blame the Republicans!" rings really hollow when you try and blame the Democrats, without something like graphs covering decades of political history showing who's doing what and where the spikes in usage happen.
Note also how 'you're just blaming the Republicans' neatly sidesteps addressing any of the data on filibusters or Republican tacticians calling for total shutdown of policies before Democratic candidates even did anything and without attempt to make negotiation.
So, once again, the short of it: The Republican party has been following bad advice from think-tank people who are too short-term in their planning
The Republicans would be much more able to make deals to stop specific things, if they would stop trying to stop literally everything.
The division is simply a tool both parties use to leverage control. One of the biggest reasons its such a point today is the use of 24 hour media outlets and opinion blogs.
Then folks instead of looking to broaden their views look for information to support their views it seems and there we go.
It's interesting how Justice Scalia did not share the same view on divisiveness. He would rather have a really sharp liberal on the branch opposed to him, than a dull not-so-liberal.
Well, that's a sudden change of topic that you didn't actually mention before. There is no national ban on large sodas. A ban on it isn't liberty... but it's also, like, incredibly minor?
It's a considerably less important to liberty than, say, marriage, or discrimination, for example.
Ok. So, are you referring to different people split between both parties, 50% mixed around some, some Democrats, some Republicans, some independents, who each have designs to control others based on their respective ideals?
Or are you referring to a specific party being the 50% who wants to control?
Because if you're implying the 'democrats,' are that 50%, then that's exactly what I responded to because, well, I have heard you talk on the subject before, the 50% comment didn't arise from a vacuum and I find it curious that you think we think you aren't referring to the democrats.
You said, specifically,
'Oh on with this "blame the republicans"
Can you seriously find some new material. '
You are asking here for me to say something other than the specific parties responsible for something are responsible, because it's not new material.
When talking politics, and specifically the politics between parties, where someone caused something, there's not many possible answers and a large portion of the time- like I have shown with abundant evidence, this time- it's going to be the Republicans.
Heck! Haven't you yourself complained that John Boehner (Speaker of the most obstructive house in history) let too much stuff through? You're pro-obstructionism! I'm not actually sure why you object to being told the Republicans are responsible for the rise of something you've often encouraged.
I really don't see how you think so... you brought up Liberty in the form of large sodas... in response to a post about liberty in the form of marriage, as well as graphs charting precisely who helped shut down the cooperation in government.
Then you think you got me before I even replied...? Honestly not sure where you're going here.
In terms of liberties, I think 'right to marry' rather trumps 'soda sizes,' and I don't think soda sizes have anything to do with why the parties are so divided- but fighting over who can marry does.
KMC Community Forums
Feb 14th, 2016 11:49 PM
