# Fascinating article- why politics is so insane lately. **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [June 29, 2016, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fascinating-article-why-politics-is-so-insane-lately/758720 "2016-06-29T16:41:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Merneith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/57b2e6/32.png) [@Merneith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merneith)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2016, 11:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fascinating-article-why-politics-is-so-insane-lately/758720/21 "2016-07-01T11:03:43Z")
> [@dracoi](#): > > Right, because promising to abolish Wall Street and to back out of NAFTA, and saying that the Democratic Party has a rigged nomination system are all par for the course? First off - there are in fact reasonable discussions to be had about NAFTA and Wall St. Bernie wanting to make changes does not rise to level of outrage of Donald casually announcing that he wanted to abandon NATO or wondering if a plane flying above him is Mexico getting ready to attack. It is not possible to draw a serious comparison between the two candidates in terms of their outrageousness. But the main point is that it _didn’t pay off_ for Bernie. The author is claiming that Donald’s outrageous behavior which led him to win and Bernie’s outrageous behavior which led him to lose are both evidence that _both parties_ have abandoned enforceable rules and norms. In reality, Bernie’s loss to the Democratic Party’s establishment candidate prove that the Democratic Party’s norms are firmly in place. > [@Johnny\_Ace](#): > > The article is about the erosion of Congress’ ability to govern effectively, and by extension the entire government’s. Not Republican, not Democratic, all of Congress. Yes, well, even if you’re correct that the article is essentially about Congressional malfeasance, it doesn’t change my argument that the malfeasance is essentially a Republican problem, not a general political problem. > [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > You might find [this article](https://newrepublic.com/article/134667/conservatives-groomed-perfect-suckers-trumps-epic-scam) interesting; it focuses on why the Republican party specifically is falling apart. Hah! Now _that’s_ an enjoyable article. I hadn’t heard Donald’s nonsense called a “scampaign” before but it’s perfect! ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2016, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fascinating-article-why-politics-is-so-insane-lately/758720/22 "2016-07-01T14:08:41Z")
> [@Johnny\_Ace](#): > > The article is about the erosion of Congress’ ability to govern effectively, and by extension the entire government’s. Not Republican, not Democratic, all of Congress. I suspect \*\*Merneith \*\*and the others haven’t really read the article, since they’re busy frothing at the mouth, bloviating and pointing partisan fingers at the Republicans. Kind of ironic when the article in question is talking about how the fringe and loons got to have a say in things, and that’s the problem with Congress as a whole. ---
**Author:** ![Merneith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/57b2e6/32.png) [@Merneith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merneith)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2016, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fascinating-article-why-politics-is-so-insane-lately/758720/23 "2016-07-01T14:38:41Z")
I told you upfront that I didn’t read the whole article. Perhaps you can quote the part that explains how it is that Republicans have controlled the House for 18 of the last 22 years and the Senate for 12 of the last 20, and that means that the “insanity” is a bipartisan problem? ---
**Author:** ![dracoi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/90db22/32.png) [@dracoi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dracoi)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2016, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fascinating-article-why-politics-is-so-insane-lately/758720/24 "2016-07-01T16:58:28Z")
> [@Merneith](#): > > I told you upfront that I didn’t read the whole article. > > Perhaps you can quote the part that explains how it is that Republicans have controlled the House for 18 of the last 22 years and the Senate for 12 of the last 20, and that means that the “insanity” is a bipartisan problem? OK, four examples from the article: democratizing Presidential primaries to minimize party insiders, transparency by making committee votes part of the public record, the 2002 campaign finance reform bill and the 2011 restriction on earmarks. All of these reduce the power of parties to influence candidate selection and make it harder to broker a compromise in Congress. Which of those laws/rules apply only to Republicans? ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2016, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fascinating-article-why-politics-is-so-insane-lately/758720/25 "2016-07-01T18:41:57Z")
> [@Merneith](#): > > I told you upfront that I didn’t read the whole article. > > Perhaps you can quote the part that explains how it is that Republicans have controlled the House for 18 of the last 22 years and the Senate for 12 of the last 20, and that means that the “insanity” is a bipartisan problem? The article specifically talks about how a series of legislative decisions to enhance transparency and alleviate perceived corruption have basically crippled the strata of professional political hacks and party functionaries that basically brokered deals, distributed political patronage and generally made sure things were stable and things got done in years gone past. The author’s contention is basically that this strata of unelected party-based political functionaries had a vested interest in making sure things stayed stable and things got done, as this was their livelihood. But once they were effectively removed from doing their behind-the-scenes stuff, then it basically removed the ability for the parties to control their own via patronage and pork, and without that control, it allows fringe people like Ted Cruz, Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump to work against their own party for their own political gain. In years gone by, they’d have been basically suppressed by their own parties via the mechanisms that they had in place. But with the dismantling of those mechanisms, there’s nothing preventing Bernie Sanders from suddenly deciding he’s a Democrat, and then actively working to subvert the party’s goals by being an irritant and counter to Hillary Clinton. Same goes for Trump and Cruz, just on a larger scale. It’s not a partisan article at all. ---
**Author:** ![robby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robby/32/11048_2.png) [@robby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robby)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2016, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fascinating-article-why-politics-is-so-insane-lately/758720/26 "2016-07-01T19:54:39Z")
> [@dracoi](#): > > OK, four examples from the article: democratizing Presidential primaries to minimize party insiders, transparency by making committee votes part of the public record, the 2002 campaign finance reform bill and the 2011 restriction on earmarks. > > All of these reduce the power of parties to influence candidate selection and make it harder to broker a compromise in Congress. Exactly. And all of these changes were made as well-intentioned reforms that had unintended consequences. ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2016, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fascinating-article-why-politics-is-so-insane-lately/758720/27 "2016-07-01T21:09:24Z")
While that was a good article, it left a lot to be desired. I didn’t see much mention of gerrymandering and it’s role in creating this process. Just a blurb, but it seems like that is a big factor, at least in the house. Also no mention of the media. Both sides have their own echo chambers now and am not as exposed to unbiased news sources. Instead we get emotionally manipulate half truths that support our agenda. Also, no mention of the fact that politiphobes, as the author calls them, may have a point. Gun control for example. The majority of the public supports some gun control reform, but special interests block it. People think politicians are in the pocket of wealthy, established interests for a reason. Letting Medicare negotiate prescription drugs. The vast majority of the public support it, politicians oppose it. The drug war is very unpopular but it keeps going. There are reasons people think politicians ignore good ideas because they offend the wealthy and powerful, and reduce their reelection chances. Also, was bush Sr the last president treated with respect? Clinton, Bush Jr and Obama are all treated pretty bad by their opposition. I don’t think bush or Reagan or Carter got it that bad. Also no mention of the fact that people are scared and broke. Wages have stagnated, fewer jobs pay a living wage and expenses for health care, housing, retirement and education keep going up. When people get desperate they turn to radical politics. That is where the rise of fascism and communism come from. Trump and Sanders are just very weak versions of these two ideologies. The more people feel their wants and needs are ignored by the political class, the more they will support extremist politicians. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2016, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fascinating-article-why-politics-is-so-insane-lately/758720/28 "2016-07-01T23:32:19Z")
Ridiculing our Presidents is (and has been) a cottage industry since Watergate. Ford was a klutz, Carter was called ‘milquetoast,’ Ronnie was the Alzheimer’s poster boy, and Bush Sr. was painted as out of touch with real people. Not as bad as Clinton, Dubya or Obama, but it was definitely there. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2016, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fascinating-article-why-politics-is-so-insane-lately/758720/29 "2016-07-02T01:14:52Z")
> [@Wesley\_Clark](#): > > While that was a good article, it left a lot to be desired. > > I didn’t see much mention of gerrymandering and it’s role in creating this process. Just a blurb, but it seems like that is a big factor, at least in the house. > > Also no mention of the media. Both sides have their own echo chambers now and am not as exposed to unbiased news sources. Instead we get emotionally manipulate half truths that support our agenda. > > Also, no mention of the fact that politiphobes, as the author calls them, may have a point. Gun control for example. The majority of the public supports some gun control reform, but special interests block it. People think politicians are in the pocket of wealthy, established interests for a reason. Letting Medicare negotiate prescription drugs. The vast majority of the public support it, politicians oppose it. The drug war is very unpopular but it keeps going. There are reasons people think politicians ignore good ideas because they offend the wealthy and powerful, and reduce their reelection chances. > > Also, was bush Sr the last president treated with respect? Clinton, Bush Jr and Obama are all treated pretty bad by their opposition. I don’t think bush or Reagan or Carter got it that bad. > > Also no mention of the fact that people are scared and broke. Wages have stagnated, fewer jobs pay a living wage and expenses for health care, housing, retirement and education keep going up. When people get desperate they turn to radical politics. That is where the rise of fascism and communism come from. Trump and Sanders are just very weak versions of these two ideologies. The more people feel their wants and needs are ignored by the political class, the more they will support extremist politicians. The author’s argument would be that these criticisms wouldn’t exist, if politicians could work together and compromise. Say that all of the cases of trying looser drug laws, in Europe, are proving successful. Lower crime. Fewer deaths. Better school grades. But, your electorate is almost completely composed of people who think that Europeans are atheist, anarchist liars who wallow in muck, and wouldn’t believe any such report, even if they could be expected to read it. They think that drugs are bad, people who sell drugs must be hung from their toes, and we should be bombing every country that’s producing drugs, just to get rid of all of them. Politically, it would be suicide to approve legislation that legalized drugs, because there would be no way to keep it secret from your electorate. Historically, you could have voted in secret, and given the people what made the most sense, according to the data. Now, you can’t do that. It’s worth noting, for example, that an African American could marry a white person 30 years before the majority of the population approved of it. Same Sex Marriage only gained popular approval in 2011. Legality came after. > **[Marriage](https://xkcd.com/1431/)** ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2016, 5:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fascinating-article-why-politics-is-so-insane-lately/758720/30 "2016-07-02T05:37:08Z")
IT’s true that transparency has made things tougher, but that just means we need a better electorate that will be vigiliant and provide oversight over those we elect. Transparency has little value if voters don’t take advantage of it. What’s discouraging is how even a place as interested and educated as this board, i see little interest in actually keeping an eye on the things that matter. Most people here just want to see things get done and don’t really care much how they are done. So I guess Rauch is right: maybe corruption was a good thing. I hold the opposite view: if transparency and honesty means things can’t get done, then maybe things shouldn’t get done. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2016, 6:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fascinating-article-why-politics-is-so-insane-lately/758720/31 "2016-07-02T06:33:05Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > The author’s argument would be that these criticisms wouldn’t exist, if politicians could work together and compromise. > > Say that all of the cases of trying looser drug laws, in Europe, are proving successful. Lower crime. Fewer deaths. Better school grades. > > But, your electorate is almost completely composed of people who think that Europeans are atheist, anarchist liars who wallow in muck, and wouldn’t believe any such report, even if they could be expected to read it. They think that drugs are bad, people who sell drugs must be hung from their toes, and we should be bombing every country that’s producing drugs, just to get rid of all of them. > > Politically, it would be suicide to approve legislation that legalized drugs, because there would be no way to keep it secret from your electorate. > > Historically, you could have voted in secret, and given the people what made the most sense, according to the data. Now, you can’t do that. I don’t suppose you have a cite for any of this? I read the article in _The Atlantic_ that motivated the thread. It’s a good, intelligent article. Your summary of the author’s argument totally misrepresents it, and has no connection to realty. Congress never “voted in secret”, neither 5 nor 15 nor 50 years ago. ---
**Author:** ![Merneith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/57b2e6/32.png) [@Merneith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merneith)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2016, 12:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fascinating-article-why-politics-is-so-insane-lately/758720/32 "2016-07-02T12:07:05Z")
> [@bump](#): > > But once they were effectively removed from doing their behind-the-scenes stuff, then it basically removed the ability for the parties to control their own via patronage and pork, and without that control, it allows fringe people like Ted Cruz, Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump to work against their own party for their own political gain. In years gone by, they’d have been basically suppressed by their own parties via the mechanisms that they had in place. > > But with the dismantling of those mechanisms, there’s nothing preventing Bernie Sanders from suddenly deciding he’s a Democrat, and then actively working to subvert the party’s goals by being an irritant and counter to Hillary Clinton. Same goes for Trump and Cruz, just on a larger scale. 1. Again - Bernie Sanders lost the nomination to the Party Establishment’s chosen candidate. It is irrational to point to this as an example of the Party Establishment being powerless to enforce its own norms and preferences. 2) There’s never been anything preventing anyone from deciding to be a Democrat or a Republican. People have always switched parties. Back in the civil rights era, lots of people changed their party affiliation because they had different visions for what they wanted in a party. Remember the Reagan Democrats? Remember the Clinton Republicans? Remember Lyndon LaRouche - Democrat and Lunatic? Remember Ross Perot and John Anderson? Michael Bloomberg has waffled on his Party choice for a decade now. People have always been free to swap parties and parties are free to redefine themselves - leading to more party swaps. It’s not new; it’s always been like this. 3) It is a strength of our political system that people are entitled to attempt to change the Party’s point of view. Bernie’s gadfly status has performed a valuable service to the Party. By offering a competing vision what he wants for the Party, Bernie has forced Hillary to articulate her vision to people that might have blown her off. Similary Ted Cruz and Donald Trump - their vision for the Party is madness but the fact that they have a vision and they can influence their Party with it is a sign of the signal strength of the American Political System. Calling this political insanity shows the author’s fundamental confusion of how American politics work. 4) Finally, and the reason I will continue to believe that this is typical conservative attempts at false equivalency, there is simply nothing happening on the Democratic side to compare with the lunacy of allowing Donald Trump to flourish on the Republican side. One can have rational, philosophic arguments about whether Bernie’s vision for America would be helpful or harmful. But Bernie is not arguing for religious bans, widespread torture, abandoning security treaties and naked racism. The Republicans didn’t have to allow Donald to participate in their nomination process. They could have shut him down the way they did David Duke. They could have established hard cut offs for people to participate in their debates, like for example making everyone release their taxes up front. But the truth is - the Republican Party has no fundamental disagreement with Donald’s antics. They’ve embraced birtherism, racism, torture and unfair tax schemes for years. Even now … they’re trying to control Donald by condemning some of what he says and sitting on the purse strings, but they’re not abandoning him. In the end, the Republican Party agrees with what Donald wants and - crucially - wants to attract Donald’s supporters. Bernie challenged his Party’s assumptions and lost. Donald caters to his Party’s assumptions (he’s born again!) and won. Bernie _lost_. Donald _won_. Donald Trump will be the Republican Presidential candidate and the vast majority of the Republican Establishment will support him. Fundamentally, the author’s contention that Bernie and Donald both work against their Party Establishments is false. Furthermore, the author’s assertion that Bernie’s loss to the establishment candidate is the same as Donald’s embrace of his party’s establishment in proving that both Party’s are helpless to establish their own norms is laughable. In the end, this article is nothing but an attempt to whitewash the Republican’s choosing a racist madman as their candidate by pretending that Party’s are helpless in establishing their candidates and that Donald Trump is just like other Democratic candidates. It’s fundamentally dishonest and factually incorrect. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2016, 12:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fascinating-article-why-politics-is-so-insane-lately/758720/33 "2016-07-02T12:51:30Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > So one option is to just bundle spending on most of the governments discretionary programs into big bills, and let Congresscritters use earmarks and other dishonest and undemocratic methods to sneak in spending privileges for themselves and their friends and allies. This makes sure that the budgeting process goes smoothly for the most part, but it leaves the taxpayers paying for all kinds of junk that they shouldn’t be paying for. This makes the taxpayers angry, and rightfully so. But if you try to eliminate all the processes whereby Congresscritters use federal spending for their own benefit, then you get the problems described in the article. Sounds like the taxpayers shouldn’t complain. By trying to get rid of “wasteful spending”, they have broken the system. Expecting to have a thrifty budget that runs in a smooth, bi-partisan manner is not realistic. Choose one. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2016, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fascinating-article-why-politics-is-so-insane-lately/758720/34 "2016-07-02T13:13:27Z")
The post-earmark system has worked very well at keeping spending down. Since the earmark ban, total spending hasn’t increased at all. Spending in 2011: $3.6 trillion: > **[2011 United States federal budget](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_United_States_federal_budget)** > > The 2011 United States federal budget was the United States federal budget to fund government operations for the fiscal year 2011. The budget was the subject of a spending request by President Barack Obama. The actual appropriations for Fiscal Year 2011 had to be authorized by the full Congress before it could take effect, according to the U.S. budget process. > No budget was passed by the September 30 deadline, and the government was funded by a series of seven continuing resolutions continu... Spending in 2015: $3.6 trillion. The US has never seen that kind of spending restraint, at least not in our lifetimes: > **[2015 United States federal budget](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_United_States_federal_budget)** > > The 2015 United States federal budget was the federal budget for fiscal year 2015, which runs from October 1, 2014 to September 30, 2015. The budget takes the form of a budget resolution which must be agreed to by both the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate in order to become final, but never receives the signature or veto of the President of the United States and does not become law. Until both the House and the Senate pass the same concurrent resolution, no fina... The process is a LOT uglier, but you can’t argue with the results. Total spending has risen something like 0.7% per year. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2016, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fascinating-article-why-politics-is-so-insane-lately/758720/35 "2016-07-02T14:38:11Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > The post-earmark system has worked very well at keeping spending down. Since the earmark ban, total spending hasn’t increased at all. Spending in 2011: $3.6 trillion: > > [2011 United States federal budget - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_United_States_federal_budget) > > Spending in 2015: $3.6 trillion. The US has never seen that kind of spending restraint, at least not in our lifetimes: > > [2015 United States federal budget - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_United_States_federal_budget) > > The process is a LOT uglier, but you can’t argue with the results. I can, and I do. The spending reduction came at the expense of Congress doing anything in a bipartisan way. Horsetrading is part and parcel of negotiation; if you ban all the horses, the process grinds to a halt. Without any mechanism to persuade opponents, polarization became even worse as each side went to their corners and threw bombs at each other. Obstructionism is a direct result of a broken budget process that cannot get anything done. The budget savings are not worth the cost to the regular working order of Congress. Congress needs to make sausage, no matter what you think of the recipe. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2016, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fascinating-article-why-politics-is-so-insane-lately/758720/36 "2016-07-02T14:48:18Z")
An unpersuasive article in a lot of ways. The timing of its publication undercuts its central thesis, as the British political system goes off in a direction the author would surely consider insane, despite having gone through none of the disintermediation he cites in US politics. Australian politics has hardly been very stable lately, either. The atomizing effect of campaign finance reform upon political power and the shift in funding toward private sources may have been unintended, but they were certainly predicted from the outset by opponents of such laws. Citing changes from 50-100 years ago doesn’t really have much explanatory power over things that are happening now, and it forces him to put way more freight on minor events than they can sustain. Perching civil rights law upon a single earmark is an absurdly reductive account of a legislative logjam that took many years to break. And that leads into my main problem with this article: It’s devoid of any historical context. The structural changes he cites didn’t happen in a vacuum. They came about because the people of that time were dissatisfied. They concluded back then that, contra to this article, the system wasn’t doing a good job of meeting their needs. Nostalgia for the way things were done in the old days ignores why we moved away from those old ways. ---
**Author:** ![Stately\_Greek\_Automaton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aca169/32.png) [@Stately\_Greek\_Automaton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stately_Greek_Automaton)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2016, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fascinating-article-why-politics-is-so-insane-lately/758720/37 "2016-07-02T17:37:34Z")
> [@Merneith](#): > > The reality is that the DNC worked very hard to get their chosen candidate nominated. Hillary Clinton likewise worked very hard to create allies within the Democratic Party. Hillary won - and won soundly - because she and her allies worked _with_ the system and DNC establishment. It was basically a masterclass in how to create and dominate a political candidacy with the full support of the party officials. > > And it worked! It worked beautifully! Hillary got the nomination and the DNC is delighted about it. Most Democrats are, if not enthused, perfectly willing to agree that she’s the best option this time out. It seems to me that if you replaced Clinton with Romney and replaced Democrats with Republicans in that comment, you’d have a pretty sound comparison to 2012. Winning the election where Romney lost may placate some, but not all and not indefinitely. The Democratic Party may not end up where the Republicans have, but they’re not treading a completely unfamiliar path. ---
**Author:** ![Stately\_Greek\_Automaton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aca169/32.png) [@Stately\_Greek\_Automaton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stately_Greek_Automaton)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2016, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fascinating-article-why-politics-is-so-insane-lately/758720/38 "2016-07-02T17:55:36Z")
The article only touches on it briefly, but I think it’s understated about how technological change, especially in communications, has really thrown a wrench into political workings. Look at how many countries, democratic or not, are having significant political heaves due to the ability of any random person to reach a wide audience in a near instantaneous manner. Technological change has certainly bumped up against the existing political order before (telephone use allowing widespread polling in 1948 and the televised debate in 1960 spring to mind) but computers, the internet, smartphones and all the rest seem to be a whole different beast in terms of their impact. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2016, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fascinating-article-why-politics-is-so-insane-lately/758720/39 "2016-07-03T04:15:35Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > I can, and I do. The spending reduction came at the expense of Congress doing anything in a bipartisan way. Horsetrading is part and parcel of negotiation; if you ban all the horses, the process grinds to a halt. Without any mechanism to persuade opponents, polarization became even worse as each side went to their corners and threw bombs at each other. Obstructionism is a direct result of a broken budget process that cannot get anything done. > > The budget savings are not worth the cost to the regular working order of Congress. Congress needs to make sausage, no matter what you think of the recipe. Horsetrading national policy issues is fine. Getting someone to vote for a spending bill they find objectionable just because they got an earmark is corruption. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2016, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fascinating-article-why-politics-is-so-insane-lately/758720/40 "2016-07-03T05:35:48Z")
> [@Merneith](#): > > I don’t have time to read all that right now. > > Do they cover the part about how journalists today are all garbage people who are paid to look pretty and please their corporate masters by pretending that both parties are equally to blame? > [@asahi](#): > > Or that anyone with a blog and a YouTube channel can be called a “journalist”? No. The only way to argue that the article doesn’t absolve media of any role in the process that led us to where we are today is by pointing out that it never mentions the media doing anything at all. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fascinating-article-why-politics-is-so-insane-lately/758720.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fascinating-article-why-politics-is-so-insane-lately/758720.md?page=3)