The Divided States of America

The United States is sadly becoming more and more polarized:

http://www.survivopedia.com/americas-ever-increasing-polarization/?source=newsletter

Not at all surprising- though obviously the article there has a different slant at the causes.

I mean, just look at your sig, Star. You *really* hate Democrats!

And Democrats are aware you hate us and don't want to work with us even if we offer. And Obama did offer, and the Democrats still try and work with the Republicans on a number of things- heck, the recent budget deal is almost certainly going to pass with some Republicans + most or all democrats in congress, while other Republicans will go after Boehner and similar for daring to compromise. We're still willing to work with you on the areas where we don't disagree, if you'd let us.

Thirty years ago there were both conservatives and liberals in both parties. But today, the Democrat Party is purely liberal, while the Republican Party is a mixture of true conservatives and “moderates.” Of course, what is considered moderate today would have been considered extremely liberal 30 years ago.

Eh, sorry article, the Republican party has been steadily moving to the right, with them openly lambasting how their candidates weren't far-right enough during the last two presidential campaigns despite both being further right than the last Republican president, while the Democrats have largely stuck to running centrists. I mean, Hillary was politically active said 30 years ago.

Really, it's more, the old Republicans have been re-defined as moderate, the new ones are called 'true conservatives,' by the article, and the Democrats are 'everyone else'- which, is a bit to the left of the party during, say, Bill Clinton's time, but not too much so, Obama would fit in back then fine.

Though one can argue what one calls 'moderate' is fairly arbitrary, and thus to the article-writers, the less-right of their party is 'moderate,' while to outsiders, the Republicans are all to the right.

While the article does say liberals have changed more, I do point out that the Republicans have gone through an obvious, significant party revolution- the Tea Party, which visibly changed the character of the party, and resulted in in-fighting between the two camps, so I think it fairly safe to say that the party that had a revolution has changed more than the party who's running people who were major in the party 20 years ago and have only shifted a little since.

And I do find it funny that... lesse, I'll get the quote:

Perhaps that is because the issues we are battling over today are much more serious than they were a generation ago. Today’s issues are over same sex marriages, elimination of our rights, the loss of our two-party political system to illegal immigration and massive redistribution of wealth.

That it starts with complaining about people getting more rights, then claims the opposite, then overlooks we're a nation that has had heavy immigration for it's entire lifespan, and then it goes into the redistribution of wealth thing, Aka 'going back to the level of redistribution of wealth we had 50 years ago,' naming the last two as a threat to the two-party system- which, it isn't, though btw parties have fallen before without breaking the system, a political party falling out of favor with enough of the populace has happened before and no, it's not been a major problem for the country when it happens.

Anyway, it draws the lines weird and has a clear right-wing-inside-the-Republicans angle- Not just a Republican angle, mind you, but written by someone on the right side of the Republican party, but yea, there's definitely a notable divide there, everyone can agree on that.

This part is a classic:

So, while the progressive politicians and the mainstream media are constantly blaming the right for the divisiveness in our government, it is clear where it is coming from. But then, in the eyes of the left, we on the right no longer have a right to our opinion; nor do we have a right to our freedom of expression. We have a right to agree with them or we have a right to keep quiet.

There is a tendency to conflate 'not getting their way' with 'not having the right to speech'. Note that they, in the article, named every liberal platform, supported by the party that won the majority two presidental election years running, must be opposed without compromise. It is, ironically, saying a failure to win without compromise is the only way they speech counts as counted, while wanting to not let the rest of the voters have their say.

In reality, they have the right to disagree, but that's not the same as the right to have their way if they're outvoted. That's how Democracies and Republics, and Republican Democracies, work.

And the article even finishes with a clear example of why the divide is happening:

The political left is set on their ideology and they are determined to do whatever is necessary to take over the country. But those on the right aren’t as committed. All too many are willing to compromise, for whatever reason, rather than stand on principle.

'There's a divide, and we must fight it by not compromising with the other side'? Way to go on lacking self-awareness, article ^^

Ironically, the way to get more say and get more of what you want is to do the opposite of what they say. Trade some of what you want for some of what we want. Then we both go home semi-happy, and try and come up with stuff to trade for the rest, and try and rally more votes so we have a better trade position next time. That's how the two-party system is supposed to work.

Not a complete topic match but still relevant I think (and less partisan):

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34650710

Analysing the split in the Republicans and relates that to what parties were winning what over the last few decades.

Frankly, it's hard to see the US as more polarised now than it was in the 60s.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Not a complete topic match but still relevant I think (and less partisan):

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34650710

Analysing the split in the Republicans and relates that to what parties were winning what over the last few decades.

Frankly, it's hard to see the US as more polarised now than it was in the 60s.

That is a good point, it's not like this is the only time we've been highly divided.

And the hippie movement has a lot of analogies to the Tea Party movement- save for not being let into their party's halls of power.

Good article, too.

Originally posted by Q99

And the hippie movement has a lot of analogies to the Tea Party movement- save for not being let into their party's halls of power.

It can be done people.

I pray every night for White Utopia, a southern land free from the political influence of liberals, brown people and women.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
I pray every night for White Utopia, a southern land free from the political influence of liberals, brown people and women.

You could always try to get a job working for Hillary Clinton.

LOL.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
I pray every night for White Utopia, a southern land free from the political influence of liberals, brown people and women.

Originally posted by long pig
Sounds like heaven.

Do you already know who your boyfriend would be?

Originally posted by Flyattractor
[color=]Yeah. The RIno's in power really have fought like monsters to keep the Tea Party out in the cold.

Nowadays yes, but in the early days? They welcomed in all the Tea Party representatives and Senators, funding their campaigns and such. They even picked someone who'd appeal to the tea party to be VP candidate out the gate.

The Tea Party was, of course, a Republican funded movement.

Also, there is irony in calling the establishment Republicans 'Rinos' when, y'know, they were almost the entirety of the elected party til recently, and still make up the most. What makes you think the new faction can shove 'em out of their long-held name?

And this whole topic just bring to mind my solution to this problem.

POLITICALLY SEGRAGATING the COUNTRY!

It can be done people. [/color] [/B]

It's reeeeally hard to do that when the divide isn't on geographic lines 🙂

No it isn't. I would link to my old thread but I don't recall what I titled it and have no idea how many pages it is buried under by now.

The left is the reason for the split. The average person sees lefties as naive at best, and just dumb at worst. The left thinks the average person is evil and thinks any compromise is wrong and evil. You can't be logical with a progressive. Some psychiatrists actually think liberalism is a mental illness.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Do you already know who your boyfriend would be?

Originally posted by long pig
The left is the reason for the split. The average person sees lefties as naive at best, and just dumb at worst. The left thinks the average person is evil and thinks any compromise is wrong and evil. You can't be logical with a progressive. Some psychiatrists actually think liberalism is a mental illness.

I don't believe that the split within the GOP occurred because of the political left. Rather, internal party politics caused some in the GOP to swing further right than the majority, and their approach gained popularity with the masses, and ergo the movement grew.

I don't think that has anything to do with the left, aside from how these factions within the GOP respond to progressive policies and ideals.

Hardly a mental illness...

Originally posted by long pig
The left is the reason for the split. The average person sees lefties as naive at best, and just dumb at worst. The left thinks the average person is evil and thinks any compromise is wrong and evil. You can't be logical with a progressive. Some psychiatrists actually think liberalism is a mental illness.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
I pray every night for White Utopia, a southern land free from the political influence of liberals, brown people and women.

To White Jesus, I assume?

Originally posted by long pig
The left is the reason for the split. The average person sees lefties as naive at best, and just dumb at worst. The left thinks the average person is evil and thinks any compromise is wrong and evil. You can't be logical with a progressive. Some psychiatrists actually think liberalism is a mental illness.

It's interesting how you try and co-opt the anti-compromise point- even though the Republicans have been openly the party of no, and the Democrats have tried much harder to work with them, and when there is a compromise that happens, like over budgets, it's the Dems leading the way and pushing to work with Republicans. Your party openly crows about how little it compromises proudly. The big complaint about Boehner was he compromised too much, even though there was a record level of things-not-getting-done-by-congress under him, and he bragged about how many laws he didn't pass, ironically enough.

It's like cargo-cult arguing. Because people on the left use it against the Republicans, you think you can use it back, even though it makes no sense.

And frankly, "the left wants some left-ist things done like healthcare, the right decides the way to handle this is to throw all efforts into taking down the Democrat President and throw compromise out the window, even though he's offering to hear from them and take their input," is not exactly what I'd call the left being the 'reason' for the split.

Flyattractor
No it isn't. I would link to my old thread but I don't recall what I titled it and have no idea how many pages it is buried under by now.

It isn't a movement the Republicans encouraged and welcomed in? You must've seen a different Sarah Palin and similar than I did.

They loved the Tea Party back when they thought the TP would let them take down Obama, even if it meant using all the birther nonsense and such.

Here's a chart that has lines showing how much more conservative the Republicans have become over the last 30 years.

Jeb, who's doing poorly because he's not conservative enough now and is certainly in the group you're lumping as 'Rinos,' would be notably-right-of-most-republicans back in 1980.

How can republicans claim to be 'moderate' when republican policies from the 50s and 60s are being labelled wildly socialist?

Both sides are moving into fringe madness and certainly further away from core lefrist or rightwing ideals.

This doesnt seem like a battle between left and right but rather two warring factions of batshit

It does make one interesting point. Why DID it take 3 friggin years before Hilary was questioned or whatever? The article attributes this to foot dragging and Hilary intentionally hiding emails to drag it out further.

Which if true amuses me because she liked to jump on people like McCarthy for going after her for the wrong reasons, so it'd make her look silly if she was at the same time purposely hiding emails to drag this out.

Originally posted by Surtur
It does make one interesting point. Why DID it take 3 friggin years before Hilary was questioned or whatever? The article attributes this to foot dragging and Hilary intentionally hiding emails to drag it out further.

Which if true amuses me because she liked to jump on people like McCarthy for going after her for the wrong reasons, so it'd make her look silly if she was at the same time purposely hiding emails to drag this out.

Because if anyone can drag their feet its the Clintons, they use their influence and power to convolute the truth and make anyone who challenges them, look like the bad guy, while making themselves look like angels. Its genius actually, its sad people here like Q99 and the American People are so stupid to fall for their tricks over and over. But like Q99 said, she doesn't have to say anything to Trump the republicans, as long as sh says she is progressive thats an auto vote for her.