I’m not asking for a discussion or a debate, but a listing.
What things seem to be selected to divide US voters, vs what do they have in other countries?
Gun control seems to be a US issue and a non-issue elsewhere
Abortion seems to be a US issue. China of course has disputes over family size limits.
Death panels seem to be flash in the pan US wedge. I suspect the discussion will disappear by years end, one way or the other.
States rights was once a US issue and is now a minor point brought up to support other issues. In other countries, the comparable sentiment is home rule or separatism, a rather stronger break.
Gay rights seems to be an issue in a number of countries.
Women’s rights seems to have died in the US with the Equal Rights Amendment, only cropping up sometimes in the abortion debate. In other countries it’s either a non-issue or the more basic Islamic “Should women be citizens?”
Immigration is an issue in almost every country, even those losing population
Voting rules, fairness, gerrymandering and census are low-key wedge issues in the US and a fair number of the newer democracies.
I’ve found that discussing Proposition 13^^ (in California), the fairness of the home mortgage interest deduction or taxes on capital gains is a sure way to end up in an argument.
Other than that, I guess there’s the “Tastes Great/Less Filling” issue and the traditional “Ginger or Maryann” conundrum.
** Prop 13 puts limits on the rates at which homes’ assessed values can increase for the purposes of taxation, ostensibly to protect people on fixed incomes from losing their homes due to rapidly increasing real estate values. This results in situations where, for instance, someone can be paying $1500/year in property taxes while their next door neighbor pays $6000/year.
I think you’ll find that outside the US, most people are fairly politically apathetic and really don’t care about any of the political “issues” the Media is trying to hype up.
There are exceptions- the recent Expenses Scandal in the UK, for example- but generally I don’t think most people really care one way or the other about things like Gay Marriage or Logging Rights or that sort of thing.
You know what’s funny with regards to gun control? Michael Moore could have had a promising career as a populist politician if he had just left the goddamn gun issue alone. I’ve watched all of Moore’s films, and the truth is that “Roger and Me” and “Sicko” are both very populist, pro-working-man movies with strong messages that would appeal to a LOT of people. I’ve come to respect Moore as a very determined fighter for the “little guy” and despite the fact that he is a propagandist, his ultimate message is not all that far off from my own beliefs.
But then he had to do “Bowling for Columbine,” and instantly he alienated huge numbers of people who might have otherwise supported him.
This is the way in which gun control (or more accurately, gun rights) are a wedge issue. Nobody should hate the Republicans and their big-business interests more than farmers and rural people. If the Democrats were really smart they would play up their appeal to that crowd; John Mellencamp, for instance, despite being a TOTAL leftist and a huge supporter of the Democratic Party, is still immensely popular here in Indiana and in the Midwest because he has such a strong populist message. This stuff really does resonate with the farmers and the good ol’ boys. But once you start talking about “assault weapon” bans and the Brady bill and other bullshit, you alienate them completely. Because guns are a part of their lifestyle - and they don’t want people shitting all over that, especially when the people doing it don’t know ANYTHING about the guns they’re trying to regulate.
Here in Indiana, our DEMOCRATIC congressman from the 9th district - Baron Hill - received an A rating from the NRA.
Seriously. The Democrats could have a lot more traction among rural people if they completely abandoned the issue of gun control. I don’t know why the fuck they still keep it in their platforms. Seriously, what do they have to lose?
I was under the impression that a lot of democrat support comes from urban areas where the voting populace favors getting guns off the street. I think it’s one of those cases where the realities of urban and rural America vary greatly. Since I live in a pretty rural area, I don’t support any gun bans, and I feel that it is an issue best left up to local law and local law enforcement. This however presents the problem of availability of weapons in areas that do not see the same level of gun crime.
I think they just get heated up about different issues. Creationism isn’t a divisive topic in Germany, or gay rights, because 80% of sensible people will have similar opinions.
But immigration or generally, foreigners, are a topic you bring up only when you feel comfortabel with a hot debate (or are among friends who you know to have the same ethical basis).
That’s true, but immigration isn’t really a political issue here (Australia) at the moment, in that there’s no election pending an no “The Government Hates Immigrants!” stuff in the media for everyone to get worked up over.
Now, if the Government looked a changing the immigration rules so, say, anyone who felt like it could move here, then yeah, that’d count and people would be very active on both sides of the issue. But otherwise Politics is best left in Canberra where it can’t bother anyone.
actually, by any reasonable measure of ‘political apathy’ - this is plain ol’ nonsense. In a whole bunch of democracies outside the US, more people vote, more people are politically savvy and more people discuss politics. Also, while the media play a definite role in bringing issues to the attention of the people (possibly even hyping them up), the development of political issues into ‘wedges’ that separate society (cleavages, political scientists call them ) usually find there source in actual, genuine conflicts of interests among the population. The media can’t just trick the people into believing that something is an issue.
The sentiment comparable to state rights in the US is state rights somewhere else, not separatism. The US is no exception to most other federations here in that whenever there’s a division of power between state and federal authorities, there’s going to be some form of conflict between the state and the federal level. Of course, you could say that in the state rights discussion could escalate into one in which separatism is a real issue but in most federations that’s not the case (take Germany for example) and even in the federations where there is at least one member of the federation where people want to separate, there’s still a whole bunch of other members that, while not wanting to abandon the union, might still want a better protection of their rights. Canada, Spain and Russia are cases in point: there’s a lot more provinces or states or what have you than just Quebec, the Basque country and Chechnya in those countries.
I guess you could argue that it is more central to US politics than elsewhere but it is by no means exclusively a US issue. Many (esp. Catholic) European countries are still seeing fiery debates over this issue (Poland comes to mind); in many others it was ‘resolved’ (or moved of the agenda) only 10 or 20 years ago, and might resurface. In Belgium, the King abdicated for one day (resulting in major constitutional crisis) because he refused to sign the abortion bill into law. This happened in 1990, nearly 20 years ago (link). Other countries have seen similarly heated and emotional discussion over this issue so I would disagree that abortion is a US issue.
bingo. Immigration and integration, I would say, is the politically divisive issue in most of the countries that I know of, provided they have a sizeable group of immigrants. I am from the Netherlands myself and as recent as 10 years ago it was inconceivable that any would try to make any political profit out of this issue; now it’s all we ever talk about. Tires me out, really.
I’m not in Europe, but I can certainly say that many (most?) Australians have very little faith in the political system here, and it’s generally acknowledged that politicians are only looking out for themselves and really don’t give a shit what voters think unless a significant bloc feel the same way. Read the “Comments” section on any Australian political story on News.com.au and you’ll see what I mean.
If you’re a Labor voter in a Safe Liberal seat, you’re wasting your time turning up to vote as your candidate has no chance of getting elected, basically- unless there’s been a major policy change. But generally? Politics is a non-issue for most people.
Yes, they can. Believe me, they can. “Utegate” is an excellent example of the Media hyping an issue no-one gives a shit about, trying to make it an issue. The “Children Overboard” scandal a few years back is a good example of a successful media campaign to create an issue out of whole cloth.
Most people are like that everywhere in the world, it’s just your only exposure of Americans is through the SDMB.
In Australia, one wedge issue has been Internet Censorship and the Great Firewall of Australia. Another one that’s been on slow simmer has been indigenous rights. Racial tensions were briefly a huge issue after the riots in the Sydney suburb of Cronulla.
One of those (Internet Censorship) is a non-issue for the time being (ie everyone’s forgotten about it) and the other… well, let’s just say it’s not a topic that can be discussed reasonably on a US-based messageboard, unfortunately. Aboriginal Rights isn’t a day to day issue for most (non-Aboriginal) Australians, either.
how does that deal at all with my point that people are apathetic about politics in most places, including the US, in fact possibly even more so in the US than elsewhere?
I don’t fall for your simple ‘believe me, they can’ ploy, sorry. Whatever the hell utegate is, it is not an issue in the sense that it is being discussed here in this thread. What the OP is out for are long-term divisive issues that shape politics in a country over the course of decades. All the things he mentioned are examples of issues that have divided (or in some cases: still divide) countries for ages. Now when it comes to an issue like abortion, gun control, state rights, the welfare state, health care, education, war and peace and what have you, this is not some short term hype, some frenzy that the media can whip up. Sure, they play a role, but at the source of such divisions lie real-life differences in POV and in the distribution of wealth and resources.
If you would stop beating your dead horse for a minute, you would realize that Democrats don’t give a shit about new gun legislation and haven’t for a while now.
Yes, there’s still a small paragraph concerning gun control in the Democratic Party Platform (listed under “Firearms” actually). But it’s typical gun control fluff talking about gun show loopholes and following the laws we already have.
BUT! No Democratic politician is actually doing anything to forward “gun control” because it’s no where to be found in the Dem agenda… http://www.democrats.org/agenda.html
Furthermore, why would any Democrat care about gun control when healthcare is the big fight du jour? Obama knows why he won the election and it was because of a promise of providing healthcare. Dicking around on gun control laws that even the voters in your own party don’t really care about is political suicide.
Where have you BEEN the last forty or fifty years? Nobody is pushing gun control. They are all in fear of their lives from gun nuts and the gun lobby. I hate guns. Every single Democratic candidate in 2008 primaries was proudly photographed shooting with the NRA. I wish there were an anti-gun candidate anywhere, but there isn’t. It’s the Republican lie masters that keep that drum beating, and it just shows how gullible their followers are. IMHO. Present company excluded;->
) usually find there source in actual, genuine conflicts of interests among the population. The media can’t just trick the people into believing that something is an issue.