See this July 2013 study from the Pew Research Center.
Ironic or not, what if it’s true? What if the partisan shift does largely have to do with the right wing collectively going off the deep end?
Well, it has nothing to do with the LW going off the deep end, anyway. The most high-profile expression of the American LW these past 10 years has been OWS, which is not at all connected to the Dems the way the TP is connected to the GOP.
If you put stock in the Pew study cited by BrainGlutton, the shift has affected both Republicans and Democrats alike. Pubs are getting more conservative, and Dems more liberal, both the voters and the Congressmen they elect, per that same study.
Except that what we define as “liberal” has changed, and self-defining as liberal doesn’t mean going further to the left. I mean, the defining “liberal” idea of the USA today is an idea that is completely ubiquitous in most of the rest of the first world, and was actually a republican idea a few decades ago. There’s been a massive shift over the past few decades to the right, and far too many paint this as if there’s been some movement from the middle, when in reality, the democrats have shifted right, the republicans have shifted way right, and now are complaining about the hyperliberals who are further to the right than they ever should have been.
The rise of the internet and information age, and the decline of the big 3 networks controlling the news.
The rise of the internet allows more people with extreme views on both sides of the political equation to be in contact with one another; therefore they have a bigger ability to form groups that that will influence certain elections to candidates with their views. Then the candidates become elected and are beholden to these groups. This is true on both the left and right.
The opposite side of the argument is the decline of the big 3 networks. In previous years they had the monopoly to disseminate information and forced candidates to the center in order to be heard. In effect they pushed the marginal groups to the margins. That enforcement to the center is now gone forever.
Ok, set aside the self-identification of voters part if you must, and focus on the analysis of Congress:
If the whole nation has been tacking right, then, using a constant scoring system, then Congress could be getting more conservative, or at least holding steady. That’s not what was found, though. Rather, they found that moderates were disappearing from Congress:
…that is, moderates were replaced by increasingly radical right-wingers and increasingly radical left-wingers.
Which runs quite contrary to this. Huh.
It doesn’t, actually, unless you can point me to where. That article is referring to the same research. From the UGA magazine piece linked to in BrainGlutton’s cite:
From yours:
They even use the same graphs.
So, both parties have moved away from the center, but the Republicans have moved further. I don’t contest that.
The UGA piece has a sensible explanation, as well: the parties became more homogenous when the South switched from conservative Democrat to conservative Republican, and the North’s moderate-to-liberal Rockefeller Repubicans were replaced by liberal Democrats. With this done, coalitions and compromise became less important to the process, and polarization increased.
I think part of the reason you don’t seem more actual physical clashes is because in the past 20 years we’ve sorted ourselves out geographically into politically homogeneous enclaves. In earlier times it would be more common for people to interact with people from the other side of the aisle, that’s not as true anymore.
It’s not just politics, but a symptom of our society as a whole. We live in a society where it is not uncommon for parents to come to blows at their kids’ little league games.
Competition has crossed over to where it is unhealthy in many arenas, so it’s no surprise that it would happen in the political arena as well.
I could be one of those guys who erroneously pine for olden days that never really existed, but it seems to me that sportsmanship, losing with grace and competing honorably and civilly were important virtues at some point. Whereas now, everyone has to win at all costs and even compromise is considered a loss to many.
As we did just before the Civil War? 
The Constitution is, in fact, an anti-democratic document. The elite (we the people were all white, propertied males) wrote it and signed it in large part to protect what they owned from the predations of the 99%. The original electoral system of indirect elections of the Senate assured that the state oligarchies remained firmly in control and scattered indirect House elections in voting districts drawn by the elite scattered dissent into manageable homogenous factions, much more so today given that 435 of the well-healed bought-and-paid-for represent 300 million people in gerrymandered districts.
Divide and conquer, the motto of the 1%. Election reform? Don’t hold your breath.
Aloha
The Constitution doesn’t contain any voting requirements, it says:
Further, if the motive of the framers was to “protect what they owned from the predations of the 99%”, all they’d have to do is create a system of hereditary peerage. Instead, they specifically prohibited this:
And instead created a system of elected leaders. Calling the Constitution an anti-democratic document is senseless.
Well, that makes my point, thanks.
That’s right, it was a Republican oligarchy without a king. The Hereditary Peerage were the rich. Look around, my friend.
Any document that denies full representation to 99% of its people is in no way democratic.
Aloha
What part of the Constitution says that? Mahalo.
So, if every state legislature in 1789 had implemented universal suffrage, would the Constitution still be an anti-democratic document?
[QUOTE=jsutter]
That’s right, it was a Republican oligarchy without a king. The Hereditary Peerage were the rich. Look around, my friend.
[/quote]
The rich aren’t a stable group. Hereditary peers are. Thomas Jefferson, who died in poverty and deep debt, could have told you all about that. Seems awfully foolish of the framers to risk their power on the basis of their finances, if their goal is what you say it was.
[QUOTE=jsutter]
Any document that denies full representation to 99% of its people is in no way democratic.
Aloha
[/QUOTE]
It doesn’t deny representation to anyone, it simply doesn’t define whom exactly may vote. Further, ‘not democratic’ isn’t the same as “anti-democratic”. An anti-democratic document is something like this:
They couldn’t have sold it to the populace and expect them to pay taxes and to use them as cannon fodder in their wars among themselves if they did, but that’s the way it’s always been practiced.
Call me a cynic if you will, but it seems to me that most nation state governments are simply the legal face of organized crime. Even the best intentioned republic is by it’s nature going to prove corrupt.
Too few reps for too many people insures that nobody personally knows who is representing them in the back room.
Anyone who doesn’t understand that needs to develop a little critical thinking, imho. Aloha
How would I know? Would politicians be more honest?
I think the Founding Fathers are turning over in their graves at what’s going on today. While they enjoyed their wealth, they were also men of mind and appreciated education for its own sake. We’ve become a meritocracy of money in the world’s most powerful kleptocracy.
But it does say who chooses who you can vote for.
I disagee.
Alohahaha. Things have changed since 1840. That said, Hawaii is a special case, the only state not on the continent consisting of eight island counties. In Kauai, the CEO is known as the The Mayor of Kauai and everyone knows him or someone who does. He is responsible to his constituents. If wasn’t, he’d be out on his ear. We can talk about it elsewhere if you like.
Aloha
All i saw was “they”, “Republicans”, and “Fox” and a whole lot of wah wah
As Marley already stated, pretty ironic.
“Men, all this stuff you hear about America not wanting to fight, wanting to stay out of the war, is a lot of bullshit. Americans love to fight. All real Americans love the sting and clash of battle. When you were kids, you all admired the champion marble shooter, the fastest runner, the big-league ball players and the toughest boxers. Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser. Americans play to win all the time. That’s why Americans have never lost and will never lose a war. The very thought of losing is hateful to Americans. Battle is the most significant competitions in which a man can indulge. It brings out all that is best and it removes all that is base.”