[LastPlaceRocks]

Originally Posted by xshady121

You should read the book "Governing By Campaigning" , it studies the Bush presidency and how he has adopted the technique (That Obama is now implementing) of taking his message to the public rather than taking it to congress and working on compromising. He did so because if the public applied pressure to congress, they would be more willing to compromise, because polarization was so bad that he couldn't get anything done. This method worked for a bit, but even the Republicans went against him in 2004...

Sounds interesting, I'll put it on my list.

[asmolitor]

Originally Posted by xshady121

Political polarization happened after Reagans administration, under both Bush and Clinton, and more recently Bush II. However, this does NOT mean that it is purely the fault of the president.

... seriously? polarization of political parties is only 20 years old? seriously?

Originally Posted by GuitarR0cker1

The polarization of political parties has been caused by Reagan rhetoric and the movement that put him into power.

again? really?

i'd say the best catalyst for polarization in the modern era would be the congressional reforms around the early 1970's - with purging the "southern democrats" with more conservative viewpoints from the party, stemming from vietnam/civil rights fallout. not to mention the democrats subverting the committee chairmen power they held by strengthening subcommittees, which in turn increased polarization by overpoliticizing the composition of those (sub)committees. by leaving the democrats comprised of "northern" liberals, and letting the southern conservative democrats defect to the GOP, i'd say that aligned the current liberal-democrat and conservative-republican divide.

[anthonythings]

Originally Posted by asmolitor

... seriously? polarization of political parties is only 20 years old? seriously?



again? really?

No, but it is undoubtedly more prevalent in the past 20 years. I would lift the quote directly from the book, but I don't have it with me, but it was something like, when discussing Bush's Social Security reform, he thought the big hurdle would be getting the democrats on board. Under his father, the president had a list of 25-40 democratic senators and reps that would vote republican if courted, but that list dwindled down to around 8-10 during the first W. term (and even lower in the second, but Edwards didn't have any solid figures). There is no doubt that polarization has never been THIS bad.

Quote:

i'd say the best catalyst for polarization in the modern era would be the congressional reforms around the early 1970's - with purging the "southern democrats" with more conservative viewpoints from the party, stemming from vietnam/civil rights fallout. not to mention the democrats subverting the committee chairmen power they held by strengthening subcommittees, which in turn increased polarization by overpoliticizing the composition of those (sub)committees. by leaving the democrats comprised of "northern" liberals, and letting the southern conservative democrats defect to the GOP, i'd say that aligned the current liberal-democrat and conservative-republican divide.

This is what I was getting at in my post earlier.

[anthonythings]

Originally Posted by x togepi x

You are the most misinformed person on this website.

There is no doubt that in the history of politics, polarization has never been as bad as it has been in the past 15 years or so. So no, I am not "misinformed". Also, polarization is solely to blame on both parties purging itself of the liberal-republicans and conservative democrats.

[boykosaurus]

Originally Posted by xshady121

Political polarization happened after Reagans administration, under both Bush and Clinton, and more recently Bush II. However, this does NOT mean that it is purely the fault of the president.


Yes, as will the far left shun any candidate that is too far too the middle. It's Campaigning 101, you run as far to your respective side in the primaries, and back to the middle in the general.


Notice how there are no real moderates left in the Democratic Party. Or Liberal Republicans or Conservative Democrats. Your point?


No, the polarization is a result as both parties viewing the other as enemies, rather than people fighting for the same common goal. They think in terms of winning rather than compromise. Both sides are guilty, if you think it's just one OR the other, you're severely mistaken.

Blue Dogs, and I don't know of their Republican equivalent but I'm sure they're out there.

[born to expire]

You should all read Barbara Sinclair’s Party Wars: Polarization and the Politics of National Policy Making.

[anthonythings]

Originally Posted by boykosaurus

Blue Dogs, and I don't know of their Republican equivalent but I'm sure they're out there.

In the late 50s early 60s, they were a lot more obvious then they were today.

[GuitarR0cker1]

Originally Posted by asmolitor

... seriously? polarization of political parties is only 20 years old? seriously?



again? really?

i'd say the best catalyst for polarization in the modern era would be the congressional reforms around the early 1970's - with purging the "southern democrats" with more conservative viewpoints from the party, stemming from vietnam/civil rights fallout. not to mention the democrats subverting the committee chairmen power they held by strengthening subcommittees, which in turn increased polarization by overpoliticizing the composition of those (sub)committees. by leaving the democrats comprised of "northern" liberals, and letting the southern conservative democrats defect to the GOP, i'd say that aligned the current liberal-democrat and conservative-republican divide.

Of course it isn't but in the modern era of politics(which I would say starts with the Great Depression), this type of polarization is pretty new.

Well of course this is what started the end of an trend(southern democrats defecting) but Reagan rhetoric was the blow that finally won almost all of these voters over to the Republican Party. The roots of discontent were already there among southern Democrats and had been there since the 1940's. Without Reagan there would have beena much slower turnover to the Republicans among southern Democrats which would have slowed polarization down considerably. This would have led to less turnover among moderate Republicans in the northeast to the Democrats because of less social conservatism among the Republicans etc. Reagan and the modern conservative movement were what finally severed the blow to have our current alignment not the 1970's "purging".

[Machu505]

Originally Posted by boykosaurus

Blue Dogs, and I don't know of their Republican equivalent but I'm sure they're out there.

Olympia Snowe is definitely liberal, and Shelley Moore Capito and John Warner are moderates. I'll call 'em red dogs.

[GuitarR0cker1]

Originally Posted by Machu505

Olympia Snowe is definitely liberal, and Shelley Moore Capito and John Warner are moderates. I'll call 'em red dogs.

I would just call her moderate, add in Susan Collins too if you have Warner.

[Machu505]

Originally Posted by GuitarR0cker1

I would just call her moderate, add in Susan Collins too if you have Warner.

I was just naming the first ones to come to my head.

[boykosaurus]

When I visited Congressmen (almost met Nancy Pelosi to make it women) this past Summer I got the impression that you have to look at Congress in two ways: they make our country "run" and they help create and/or support policy. Of course, setting policy is part making the country "run" but in this regard there's a lot of cooperation to get it done. On th other hand, most other issues that can directly, indirectly, or not at all tied to the progress of our country (yeah somewhat of cheap catch-all way to defend this, but whatever) receive so much passion from two or more sides in addition to media attention the negative that there appears to be this partisan gridlock.

I believe that we can do better at coming together on issues but congress--not the electorate however--does a pretty fine job at a basic level in my opinion.

[x togepi x]

Originally Posted by xshady121

There is no doubt that in the history of politics, polarization has never been as bad as it has been in the past 15 years or so. So no, I am not "misinformed". Also, polarization is solely to blame on both parties purging itself of the liberal-republicans and conservative democrats.

See, what's awesome is that you claim that there's "no conservative democrats" yet you ignore the Blue Dogs, which were a huge reason the democrats won seats in 2006. who are the blue dogs? CONSERVATIVE DEMOCRATS.

and seriously? polarization has never been as bad as it is in the past 15 years? You do realize that polarization in the 1800s was way worse, to the point where people were beating each other with canes on the senate floor, and polarization in the 50s essentially included calling people traitors outright instead of just implying it and trying to get them arrested for being communist.

[anthonythings]

Originally Posted by x togepi x

and seriously? polarization has never been as bad as it is in the past 15 years? You do realize that polarization in the 1800s was way worse, to the point where people were beating each other with canes on the senate floor, and polarization in the 50s essentially included calling people traitors outright instead of just implying it and trying to get them arrested for being communist.

To quote GuitarRocker,

Originally Posted by GuitarR0cker1

Of course it isn't but in the modern era of politics(which I would say starts with the Great Depression), this type of polarization is pretty new.

You can't compare politics now to the 1800s. That's apples and oranges. In the modern era, which if you read this thread you would have known was being discussed, yes polarization is the worst it's ever been.

[x togepi x]

Originally Posted by xshady121

To quote GuitarRocker,


You can't compare politics now to the 1800s. That's apples and oranges. In the modern era, which if you read this thread you would have known was being discussed, yes polarization is the worst it's ever been.

Interesting, since I also used an example from the fifties where people were literally losing their jobs because things were so polarized that people feared that members of certain political parties ie: liberals were USSR agents. I'm pretty sure the 50s post-date the great depression. I really don't think Bush outright said "liberals are members of terrorist cells."

Your boy Reagan was polarizing. just admit it. that's what that whole morning in america bullshit was all about. to point out that the good guys won.