Sometimes I have to wonder if the concept of irony is lost upon certain people.
More media coverage, more ways to connect with your fellow tribesmen, more methods for self-fulfilling and reinforcing behavior.
Harry Reid’s nuclear move last week, changing rules that went back to just after WWII, is a good example.
Not that it was smart - reducing Senate minority rights, right before he’s about to become minority leader, but then again, he isn’t the brightest bulb out there.
Religion: The Republican party reached out and embraced fundamentalist Christians in order to recover from the Nixon fiasco and get Ronald Reagan elected. This branch of the party has since come to dominate, and they brook no compromise, because God said so! Don’t believe me? They all hate Obama, not for anything he has done, but because he is The Anti-Christ. Rick Perry launched his campaign with a prayer rally organized by The New Apostolic Reformation for Christ’s sake. (heh!)
My suspicion is that as the internet became more popular, the political discourse became more polarized and acrimonious as well.
When I was in high school (1987-1991) and college, I was fairly informed on political issues, and I don’t recall the level of shrill anger and accusatory statements being so high for Bush the Elder’s term or Clinton’s first term (1993-1997).
I do remember it ramping up quite a bit once I was out of college, which is coincidentally when the internet really started taking off among the general population.
Before the internet, our access to information was filtered by the broadcast and print media; if one of the major networks or the newspapers didn’t carry a story, those of us outside of Washington might never hear about it.
Today, if some political figure farts while getting up from his chair at a restaurant, it’s on a half-dozen partisan blogs within ten minutes.
When politicians have to continuously play to that audience, it’s hard to actually compromise without seeming like a traitor. Back in the day, they didn’t have that particular handicap.
I, too, want to know where those extremist Democrats are hiding out. So I can contribute to their re-election campaigns…
I recall something I read about some Young Democrats granted an audience with JFK and complaining about how ideologically false/confusing was the partisan divide of the day, when a given Democrat could be more conservative than a given Republican. JFK replied, in effect, “That’s all for the best, you don’t want a system where there’s a clear ideological division between the parties.” And now I guess I see what he was driving at: The more ideologically homogeneous the major parties are, the harder it is for them to reach compromises – you don’t compromise with Evil, after all.
This is it. The major effort of the two large political parties has been to clearly delineate each issue as ‘us’ and ‘them’ positions. There is no clear majority to support either side, and their behavior deters independents from choosing a side. The current situation makes the Republicans appear to be the obstructionist force, but actually both parties operate on the principle of maintaining their base and avoid any appearance of cooperation.
I assume the 200+ year experiment has reached its conclusion. Perhaps all for the better, recent cooperation between the political parties has given us the disaster of two pointless wars, economic collapse, and punching eye holes in the Constitution so we can see the boogey man coming while we read it.
You’ve seen some of it in this thread.
There is a continual blame that the other side are the obstructionist/non-compromisers while MY party is completely blameless for the impass. The Rep obstructionist policy is quite clear but when the Dems held the House and the Senate 60-39-1 (so no Rep filibuster possible) they still couldn’t pass UHC. The Dems gridlocked themselves!
But on the other hand, both sides have shown themselve willing to compomise. The Dems gave Bush Jnr carte blanche in his war in Iraq even after it was clear that it may not be the best policy to continue the war. A group of Rep representatives decided not to block the stimulus budget. The Dems voted for everyone of Bush Jnr’s spending cap increase even if the junior Senator from Illinois said
I think the Dems cause gridlock by taking advantage of the Rep strategy to vote along party line on major issues. By offering an ALMOST acceptable bill to the Reps but not compromising on a few key points, they force the Reps to take an ideological stand that kills the bill and makes the Reps the more obvious of the gridlockers, but at the same time, there is some signs that the two groups can work together such as linking the spending cap increase to spending cuts.
Hey, my own rep is a member! Sheila Jackson Lee ain’t that bright but has plenty of spirit.
However, I wouldn’t describe any of them as “extremist”–to the same extent as the Teabaggers.
This is the answer to your question right here.
Some (not all) Republicans (apparently including RR) WANT gridlock, they care about one thing and one thing only, subverting anything the president tries to do in order to paint him a failure. They are happy to sit on their hands to make a political point at the expense of the country.
They had a filibuster proof majority for 14 weeks. And unlike the Republican party, the Democrats are a coalition from liberal to conservative. Ben Nelson, Lieberman (to the extent that he’s a Dem vote) and that silly cunt Stupak were conservative enough that getting stuff passed with them was a big deal.
People from both sides voted against the increase, but never when it would have not passed. Because until this year, no one has been stupid, selfish and self-destructive enough to seriously threaten the world economy to get their way.
The increase wasn’t a mutual compromise. If you need heart medicine and I take the bottle and say, “Buy me a motorcycle or I’ll flush these down the toilet.” It’s not compromise when I drive away on my motorcycle and you take a pill.
The Republicans are historically obstructionist. They filibustered and delayed more than ever before. Claiming that both sides are equally at fault is utter nonsense.
It may be hard for you to believe, but once upon a time Congressmen tended to vote in what they thought was the country’s interest. Many Democrats are still like that.
Thus, if 95% of Democrat Senators support an idea, it will get 57 votes in your example and fail. Several of the Republican Senators might have thought it was also a good idea, but as a matter of course they unite in opposition.
I agree, if it’s what you’re trying to say, that it may be best for Democrats to also adopt the GOP’s brainless always-vote-the-other-way policy in the present climate. Still, when some Senators prefer to vote their conscience it seems simplistic to pretend GOP intransigence is “normal” and accuse the Democrats of self-inflicted gridlock.
Well, at least the “My opponents are evil because they demonize us!” theory has the virtue of ironic humor.
Actually, no…the Republicans are evil because they are (as a party) heartless, stupid, lying, greedy, grasping assholes. Not ALL of them, mind you, but the party as a whole. There’s a serious bigoted streak in there, too.
… Right.
And you know what’s worse? Those heartless, stupid, lying, greedy, grasping racist assholes keep demonizing the opposition. Man, someone oughta do somethin.
I honestly have no idea what you’re getting at here. In consideration of your past history, I assume you’re trying to make some kind of witty comeback that defends your personal political choices or at least tries to convince people that you’re nonpartisan or something ridiculous like that, but what you wrote doesn’t really make any kind of point to me.
Oh, and it’s not demonizing if you’re telling the truth.
This was already addressed in post 13.
You are operating from the assumption that both tribes are equally guilty of any flaws. Therefore, you relieve yourself of any cognitive dissonance that comes from any (real) negative that someone points out that comes from your blindly partisan behavior. It’s a coping mechanism.
You have no room in your worldview for the idea that your side may be worse than the other in some ways, that there are harmful things that your side does that have no equivelant on the other side.
So when someone suggests that to be the case, you rule it out on the spot, not even considering the evidence or argument, and just assume that to have come to their conclusions through their own flawed partisan mentality rather than anything that could be true. So it seems ironic to you - this person who must be equally partisan and blind to you, just on the other side, sees you as too partisan and blind. Herp derp, what a hypocrite! Because there’s no way he can have a valid point - I’ve already ruled that possibility out as part of my basic assumptions about the world. So he must be just a little more blind, and a little less clever, that he can’t see how ironic his position is.
Except it’s bullshit. There’s an objective reality. There can be neutral observers. One side can really take measures that are more harmful than the other side, with no real equivelants. And someone can observe this without merely being a blind partisan hypocrite.
It’s entirely obvious to anyone reasonable and not completely in the republican camp that they have gone off the deep end over the last few years as a deliberate strategy. They kick up the insane rhetoric, make it an official party platform to do anything to obstruct and cause the failure of the other side, even if it harms the country in the process, etc. The democrats have no real equivelant to this - they’re always trying to broker compromise and bipartisanship long after the other side has shown themselves deliberately completely unwilling to even consider that. They’re, quite frankly, way too compromising to the point of being pussies - they keep addressing a hostile, oppositional spoiled brat as if they were still a reasonable entity.
So to have this childish idea that all sides are equal blah blah is to think that the democrats are just as shut down, just as fiercely oppositional, just as crazy with the over the top rhetoric, just as willing to let the country suffer so that they can score political points - and there’s absolutely nothing in reality that supports this. They simply do not act in a similar fashion. If you didn’t pre-suppose that they did for reasons of ideology or cognitive bias - if you were remotely a neutral observer - this would be plainly obvious because it’s not subtle.
So don’t pat yourself on the back and feel too clever over this one. You only see irony because you’ve chosen, deliberately, to view the world in an extremely warped way - because you’ve decided to be utterly devoted to your tribe.
As I’ve said before in another thread…
I used to vote primarily Republican. I’m not sure I will vote Republican again. I know I won’t for the near and intermediate future.
My MIL, who has ALWAYS voted Republican, actually brought this up out of the blue. She said that she couldn’t vote Republican in 2012 and probably never again until the Republicans change.
I know, just an anecdote about 2 people. However, Republicans are losing some of the their moderate supporters.
The point is that you immediately display much of the same behavior you accuse your perceived enemies of.
As for me (not that it’s relevant), I’m prefer to be the John Adams between your Jefferson and your so-called enemies’ Hamilton.
:smack: You know, I’m sure they say the same thing more or less the other way 'round?