I heard recently that in 1992, something like 45% of the public was undecided at this point in the presidential campaign. In 2004, this number has dropped to 8% with everyone else already in one camp or the other...unwilling to budge from their views for any reason.

My questions for debate are:

Are there any benefits to a populace so polarized in their political views?

If so, explain. If not, what can or should be done to alleviate this problem?

This is an excellent question.

I don't really think there are any benefits to this degree of polarization. I tend to think that doubt about one's own beliefs is a very healthy attitude. Instead of just saying "I believe X" it's better to say "I believe X because of A, B, and C."

I don't have any idea at all how this situation can be changed. There has been a lot of animosity on all sides for quite a while now, and it doesn't look like things will change any time soon. It would be nice if more political ads were of the "Smith is good" type rather than the "Jones is bad" type, but I hold little hope of that.

Very interesting topic.

Are there any benefits to a populace so polarized in their political views?
I guess you could look at this situation as pros and cons. The pros being that Americans know the issues they are voting for and why they are voting in that way. The con of course, the people are less open minded on the issues they are not so educated in. I think in general it is bad because many people place there vote for a single issue they strongly believe in, therefore feel the need to support the other issues the candidate supports.

[B]If so, explain. If not, what can or should be done to alleviate this problem?[B]
As I stated before the issue can go both ways, yet I feel the cons outweigh the pros in many situations. This because many Americans are adamant to new issues, ideas, concepts, or facts. Though, I have no definitive concept or method to alleviate this, simply because it is a state of mind, I believe that it remains a trend, maybe simply for this election. (I have not seen the numbers for '96, '00)

I believe it is simply a trend, and maybe this year because of the way people are voting this year. Mainly, they are not voting 'pro-bush' or 'pro-kerry,' they are simply voting 'pro-bush' or 'anti-bush.'

Cable television, for some strange unknown reason started coming into my house this week, and I've had the displeasure of watching the FOX news channel off and on for the past few days....and, quite frankly, am disgusted by what passes as news on that network...which, of course, led me right to this thread...



No, not at all. Being so polarized precludes any sense of cooperation or even purposeful political debate on issues. I don't see much compromise anymore....With opinions from commentators/entertainers like Limbaugh, and Hannity, Franken, and Moore as well as O'Reilly being taken as fact has only worsened the situation. I can't really pinpoint where this polarization started, however, it seems to me that it started to really escalate during the Clinton Administration, and I fear that with such division within our own country (c'mon we're all on the same team, really), things could very possibly get worse, before it gets better.

Overall, I see the general public falling back on their ideology, rather than looking for facts.



Change starts with our political leaders.

1.) Are there any benefits to a populace so polarized in their political views?

Yes.

2.) If so, explain. If not, what can or should be done to alleviate this problem?

I think that it provides the voting electorate with a differentiated choice. In the past, Americans have complained about finding no real 'choice' between the candidates. To use this election as an example, their is clearly a difference between Kerry and Bush.

Further, the current polarized climate appears to be drawing more people into political participation. I heard a rumor in my state, Pennsylvania, that about 700 people were registering to vote each day! This increase in political awareness can only lead to good things for our country, IMHO.

Last, I don't believe that we are generally as polarized as one might expect from hearing the media drone on and on about it. I think there have been many times throughout America's history that the country has been divided evenly between the two politcal parties.

Difference of opinion is a vital part of deliberative democracy, and I am glad that our electoral system can support it.

Are there any benefits to a populace so polarized in their political views?

American political life and decision making would be healthier if politics were less polarised. The recent performance of Arnold Schwarznegger in California shows that more can be achieved through a less confrontational approach. Having said that polarization isn't necessarily bad. British politics in the early 1980s was equally if not more polarised than the current situation in America - in spite (or perhaps because of) this, Margaret Thatcher was able to transform Britain as an economy and a nation.

If so, explain. If not, what can or should be done to alleviate this problem?

The biggest reason behind the polarization of American politics is the gerrymandering of Congressional districts. We should have district boundaries drawn up along sensible geographical principles. Instead they are designed (with the help of computers) to favor one party or the other. The recent rows in Texas are only the most recent example of this. The result is very few districts which produce genuine contests between the parties. Hence if you want to become a member of congress it is more important to appeal to your own party and win the primary, than to appeal to the electorate at large. This is why there are now too many congressmen from the extremes of the two parties in the House of Representatives and politics there has become so polarised. The Senate is less polarised because senators have to win over a whole state, not a congressional district designed to favor his or her own party.

Let me just say that this polarization stuff seems more like a media concoction based on a misunderstanding of statistics than an actual trend. The political views are not polarized, in my opinion. Instead, it is the referendum on our current adminstration that is polarizing, and it has little to do with policy. I find it difficult to believe that 92% of the electorate follow Bush policy decisions close enough to make a determination one way or the other (based on the 8% undecided figure). I think his cult of personality has produced two camps -- you either see him as the glowing leader or the lying fratboy. Either he's doing the best he can in a semi-hostile Capitol or else he's manipulating the structure of government to benefit his cronies.

But since you ask a philosophical question rather than a practical one:

Are there any benefits to a populace so polarized in their political views?

If so, explain. If not, what can or should be done to alleviate this problem?

There are many downsides, but polarization brings people out to the polls. It forces people to choose sides, to answer that philosophical question of Where do you stand? This is not necessarily a bad thing, but it can feel bad when you hold your nose to make your decision realizing that neither person really represents what you believe. But we're going to have to accept that there are very few people around who believe what we do in all areas, and the President is just one person. You really have to pick what issues are most important to you. This is more than just the psychological exercise of WWJD or some such, this is actual policy decisionmaking and it's good that we have to think about these things from time to time.

The problem, in this case, is that the current administration views polarization as a political strategy. By forcing people to choose sides, and by effectively controlling the debate, they can define which side is which. There is a certain amount of "hate fatigue" on both sides that crops up from time to time. I think the Clinton administration tapped into this by appealing to what was then the broad Middle. I remember a feeling of relief when, during the debates with Bush I, Clinton suggested that there was usually a "third way" on issues that dealt with the betterment of the country as a whole rather than just one constituency or another. Unfortunately, these solutions are usually regarded with disdain by both poles, who only have a win-lose mentality to begin with, so the third way solutions are condemned by both poles, who are invariably the most vocal.

I'm adding a link which I feel is symptomatic of what i'm talking about with regards to polarization. In past elections, candidates from either side of the spectrum could expect a "bounce" in the polls after their respective party's convention. Apparently, (at least so far) this is not the case for Kerry.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/01/...unce/index.html

(As an aside, I understand that the last time this type of event occured where a candidate got no bounce (or in this case a negative bounce where the opposition closed the gap in polls after a convention) was in 1972 after George McGovern was nominated by the Democrats.)

Does anyone else agree this is the result of the "polarization" effect, or was it simply that the Democrats had a terrible convention?

Yes, this is definitely one of the effects. In "normal" elections, there are significantly more "undecided" voters at this stage from which the "bounce" could come. With only about 8% of the population considering themselves "undecided", there wasn't much room for any bounce at all.

But I certainly don't view this as a "benefit" to the country.

George Will's column yesterday had a fascinating ending:

Are there any benefits to a populace so polarized in their political views?


Sure, it gets people all fired up in places like Americas Debate .

I'm not sure that carries over into the 'real' world, though. Still thinks it bring people to the polls:



I disagree. I think it drives them away. Why? I think negative advertising is directly correlated with the polarization (symptom or cause? not sure), and negative ads drive people away. Also, since one of the impacts of polarization is that there are far fewer undecided voters, there becomes less reason to vote, since you already know there is a big block of people out there representing your view (and the outcome for your state is often known in advance, as well-or at least with very strong odds one way or the other).



Does it, really? I find that polarization causes each party to do two things. First, to formulate their policies and messages towards the increasingly smaller number of undecideds, and second to focus more on 'sound bites', and less on policy initiatives. This creates the impression of big differences when in fact they don't exist (since both parties are going after the same middle ground).



I disagree. If you look at the comments made (and camps drawn) during the Florida election, it is easy to see that the polarization had already occured long before Bush ever got in office.



Clearly spoken as a victim of polarization. Only someone viewing events through polarized glasses could single this administration out for that tactic (in fact, the Democratic party has long used this strategy to motivate their masses--I say this not as a criticism, as it has been an effective tactic). So, then, the question becomes a chicken and egg issue--which came first, the polarization, or the parties use of polarization as a political tool? Polarization is a way to sharpen your differences that becomes more important as real differences become smaller and smaller. Ring's quote indicates this has been the case since 1972 (not really sure what impact Bush's strategy had at that point).

Now, as to my stance, I think it detracts from the level of discussion, and makes it much more difficult to get anything done. Each party is more concerned with making an issue out of everything, and less likely to actually do something about it. It's become more important to score political points than it has to make progress--and polarization makes it almost imperative to protect your base, making compromise extremely difficult. What to do about it? Get mad as heck, and don't take it anymore! Wait, that's what the polarization strategy dictates; that won't work. How 'bout this--recognize polarization for what it is, and become less susceptible to its strategies. Pay less attention to sound bites, and negative advertising campaigns. Be inquisitive--listen more to people from the opposite party--you know, they just might make sense sometimes.

Interesting point.

On one hand, I agree with you. Specifically appealing is your argument that polarization creates the illusion of big differences which don't exist. I think this is true, especially on decisive, Repbulican-dominated wedge issues such as: abortion, gay marriage, etc. For these issues, the majority of the electorate is in sync, but they are made to be of issue for political purposes.

However, I still contend that we have emerged with two real, differing candidates for the Presidency. The worldview of John F. Kerry and George W. Bush do not coincide. Their entire decision-making process seems (I don't know them personally) to be different. Where Kerry is deliberative, Bush is decisive. Where Kerry would be diplomatic, Bush is unilateral and urgent. The electorate is so split because each of us identifies more strongly with that type of person--a Kerry or a Bush. This provides us with a clear choice this fall--something that we do not really get in every election (hence, low voter turnout and the complaint of 'no real choice'). This clear cut and demarcated choice gives the people a real voice in the future of our country--and that is democracy. And that is a good thing.

I don't think that we are as badly divided as the media makes it appear.

We are perhaps more evenly divided than ever before, which is not necessarily a bad thing. It is a statistical coincidence.

Division Diversions

I think so



I've been voting since the '92 election and cannot remember a time between the present and then when political discourse was such a part of common social experience. I can't remember people (including myself) being so attentive to the news and interested in the government. Now, maybe the public's newfound interest in politics is a correlative of 9/11 and the war in Iraq, in which case you could certainly make the case that it's symptomatic of a darker-than-usual period in American life. People really feel like there are important things at stake this year. But even if that's the case, I still feel like the general populace getting involved in the process is ultimately a healthy thing.

Yes, it is called how our country works some of the time. See below.



If you go by popular votes, starting in 1824 the spreads look like this (percentages rounded to nearest percent, source of info)

Close ones in bold (6% difference or less). Took the liberty to make a prediction for November.

1824 Jackson-41 Adams-31
1828 Jackson-56 Adams-44
1832 Jackson-54 Adams-37
1836 Van Buren-51 Harrison-37
1840 Harrison-53 Van Buren-47
1844 Polk-48 Clay-48
1848 Taylor-47 Cass-42
1852 Pierce-51 Scott-44
1856 Buchanan-45 Fremont-33
1860 Lincoln-40 Douglas-30
1864 Lincoln-55 McClellan-45
1868 Grant-53 Seymor-47
1872 Grant-56 Greeley-44
1876 Tilden-51 Hayes-48
1880 Garfield-48 Hancock-48
1884 Cleveland-48 Blaine-48
1888 Harrison-49 Cleveland-48
1892 Cleveland-46 Harrison-43
1896 McKinley-51 Bryan-47
1900 McKinley-52 Bryan-46
1904 Roosevelt-56 Parker-38
1908 Taft-52 Bryan-43
1912 Wilson-42 Roosevelt-27
1916 Wilson-49 Hughes-46
1920 Harding-60 Cox-34
1924 Coolidge-54 Davis-28
1928 Hoover-58 Smith-41
1932 Roosevelt-57 Hoover-40
1936 Roosevelt-61 Landon-36
1940 Roosevelt-55 Wilkie-45
1944 Roosevelt-54 Dewey-46
1948 Truman-50 Dewey-45
1952 Eisenhower-55 Stevenson-44
1956 Eisenhower-57 Stevenson-42
1960 Kennedy-50 Nixon-50
1964 Johnson-61 Goldwater-38
1968 Nixon-43 Humphrey-43
1972 Nixon-61 McGovern-38
1976 Carter-50 Ford-48
1980 Reagan-51 Carter-41
1984 Reagan-59 Mondale-41
1988 Bush-53 Dukakis-46
1992 Clinton-43 Bush-38
1996 Clinton-50 Dole-42
2000 Bush-48 Gore-48
2004 Kerry-52 Bush-46 (my prediction)

What an awesome post. I definitely agree with the idea that people should state what they believe, not just because "Bush is Hitler and his right-wing Christian buddies will..." or "Kerry is a communist and a pacifist pinko..."

I'm so sick of those arguments!

I think you are missing the point of the question, AM. It's not about whether or ot the population is split 50-50. It's about whether or not the people on one side are willing to accept to the other sides position.

Polarization: "A concentration, as of groups, forces, or interests, about two conflicting or contrasting positions."

What happens with this concentration is that there is less middle ground, making compromise difficult. Without compromise, isn't it harder to get anything done?

I agree with Hobbes in that I think polarised politics turns off more people than it turns on. Let's not forget that outside the confines of America's Debate, most ordinary people somewhat despise politics, and certainly try to ignore it much of the time. True, some people are being engaged by the presidential race, but from what I've seen and read they have tended not to be people in the middle, but people who have already decided their position being galvanised into voting against the other guy.

I haven't seen much evidence of any undecideds or prior non-voters being convinced to vote for anyone this time around, because this much polarity in an election campaign tands to make both sides focus on the weaknesses of the other side, rather than their own strengths. To an extent, this is only natural for a challenger - a sitting president has a record they can point to.

The Bush camp seems to have chosen not to do this, presumably because of the contentious nature of much of what Bush has done. (Please note I said "contentious" - I'm not trying to Bash Bush.) While this can be very effective in electoral terms, which is all that they really need to worry about, it does exacerbate the degree of polarisation; and then the Democrats do the same because it's working for the other side, and suddenly what started out clean becomes quite dirty.

Both sides need to remember, though, that in the popular vote, dollars to donuts say that non-voters will outnumber voters for the winning candidate, no matter who that is. While it's the pat response of a winner to blame this on apathy, nobody can tell for sure if it's apathy or disenchantment with BOTH sides because nobody knows. They only way they COULD no for sure would be to make voting compulsory and add a "none of the above" box, which would raise it's own problems.

I think the country is polarized because we have come to disagree so intensely on some major issues. Then there is another big factor, each side feels unjustly attacked by the other through lies and mis-representations....hence normally logical and reasonable people feel its a fight to the death to make sure the 'other side' does not win no matter what the cost.

The other day I was talking with a very reasonable conservative, both of us social liberals and fiscal conservatives as is much of the country, yet he had become a Hannity follower. I asked,' is this reasonable? Would you want to live in the world that Hannity promulgates?' His answer was,' look at the other side and the hate they have'. My take on this was that people are feeling threatened, that their values are being attacked and its a full on war between conservatives and liberals no matter what the issues at stake.
In my dealings in business ( extensively conservative) , most are not ultra right wing lovers of overt government or religious control of our daily lives, thats just Bush. As well most liberals arent wanting to take away yachts, Porches and beach houses to feed the poor, liberals HAVE those things these days and dont want to give them up either. However truths are polarizing. Conservatives are self serving capitalists and believe in keeping their money well earned, except in war scenarios which they seem to thrive on, , liberals want to feed the poor and deal with healthcare and domestic issues are wane to jump into wars since its usually theirs and the poor that go. These ARE polarizing issues, especially in times of war. Conservatives get the economic benefits and the poor get killed in action, its a truth that is the big gorilla in the room that noone talks about.

As to the questions at hand: Are there any benefits to a populace so polarized in their political views?

There could be. Under normal circumnstances it would force candidates to understand and aknowledge that if they stick too closely to their particular ideologies, pander to extremists and serve an unrelenting stringent dogma when they are only supported by a mere margin in the country, its not representative. It should open your ear if you are a reasonable human being. However that is not how politics are working these days, a win means a free-for-all, do as you will despite what the country hopes for in overall benefit. At that point you only have to make your own rich. This is damaging and polarizing people further.

When you have any party that has no desire to hear the other side, insulates and isolates itself from the concerns of half its citizens and simply works only for 49% in order to carry on with its own agenda, then we have what the Founders warned us of and hoped would never happen, corruption, self-servitude and cronyism, not representative government, you know 'by the people for the people', a lost concept.

what can or should be done to alleviate this problem?

It lies with the politicians themselves. If you want to de-polarize the country you have to listen to all the people and make some concessions to the other party, however unfortunatley this is seen as flip-flopping these days. Thats a polarizing effect. I dont think you can runnaway with your own blazen platform because you got 49% and think thats a fair shake and expect the entire country to respect your positions and not object or outright revolt against you next election. That goes for both parties.

However, I will note as AM did that the country has been polarized for a long time, its not new, it just seems hotter right now. The JFK/Nixon election was very close in popular vote, Nixon over by .2%-- Kennedy just carried the electoral votes by a landslide. 62% of the population voted.

I personallly would like to see 'in a free America' that more people take advantage of their rights to vote, however this election, as well the McCain-Bush primary serves as a huge slap in the face to thinking Americans, few they may be, that a selective few have runaway rights on our future and we may well have lost any say what-so-ever in self determination, to the selfserving mongrels that run both Congress, the Whitehouse and the political process.

Talk about polarization? I think I might speak for underlying sentiments of many that are ready for an entire overhaul and a due reckonning from our alleged representative body politic. I have ceased to be partisan, I am just nauseated, that is a by-product of polarization.

You know, I was enjoying your post and agreeing with everything you were saying Artemise, until you said that.

Saying things like that are exactly what polarizes this nation.

That statement makes it look like all Republicans are war mongering scrooges, and Liberals are the only ones who will help people. Am I the only one seeing your words this way?

Another thing, you are contrasting Republicans and Liberals... Republican, is a political party and liberal is an ideology. I can see if you had said conservative and liberal , or republican and democrat. But the way you made the statement you twisted it to make Republicans looks bad. You know there are actually liberal republicans and conservative democrats.

Edit to add After I had posted this Artemise edited her post while I was making mine. Although I do commend her on or changing of the harsh words she used before. I will point out it was a stream of conscious thought on how she views republicans/conservatives.

Sleeper, I am as polarized as the rest. Nothing that has been said or done in this nation lately convinces me that if Bush wins this year we will not go to war with several other nations with Republican/conservative blessings. To ME, this is a judgement call on both. It is warmongering in my opinion, and conservatives do LIKE IT and promote it, much more than Liberals, thats a fact. Its not exactly a theory out of the blue.
You say it makes Republicans look bad, well.. I didnt make a judgement call just stated the facts....What is the Republican party? Look at this site, AD...they are overly pro-war, anti-health care, anti-welfare and programs, anti-abortion and pro-abstinance programs, pro big tax cuts for themselves, a dog eat dog capitalist society, and recently war interventionists, you put the judgment on it that it was bad. I think most Republicans here are proud of those ideals. All for one ( and close friends) and screw the rest. Its Republican pride. Prove otherwise and Ill give in.

Why do Republicans hate Democrats so much? Oh yeah , Dems want to help the underpriveledged grow and become viable taxpaying productive citizens. Strange how personal greed vs charity can polarize a nation.

Although I do show myself as other here, I am a registered republican. I, and I am sure many other republicans would and will take you to task on your above post. You could not be more wrong about many of the republicans on this site.

The word "anti" is what we are talking about polarizing. The left is filled with so much seething anger towards the right in this country. Like calling the pro-life movement anti choice. Anti-abortion is fine cause yes they are against abortion. But the term anti-choice is much more divisive. And might I add a term created by the left to describe the pro-life side of the argument.

Conservatives and Liberals both use language to influence thought. The Pro-Lifers don't want to be called anti-choice, because it indicates a negative, but they use divisive language as well. They demonize their opposition by painting an image of "baby killers," which is highly offensive to those who do believe in the right to have an abortion. Most pro-choice people are not advocating late term abortions, and there is a fundamental difference in the way that each side views life at conception.

It's these fundamental differences that lead to polarization, and I honestly don't know if there's anything to be done to change this. It's very difficult for people to attempt to walk in someone else's shoes, and when people join political parties, the belief system is conveniently mapped out for them. I'm not saying that all people fall into this trap, but I do believe that there are a large number of people who, upon joining a party, take on the party-line, and with that comes an array of catch phrases and ideas that exclude the middle.

Edited to fix my quote.

Unfortunately in politics, the alternate to polarization seems to be apathy. During a highly polarized election like this one there will be a high turnout meaning that the almost equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats will cancel each other out and the election will be decided by a small number of undecided "swing" voters. In a normal election, most people don't bother voting at all and the election gets decided by a small number of motivated voters. Its a strange paradox that the "quality" of the voters in a low turnout election may be better than with a high turnout polarized election which gives the power to folks that can't make up their mind even faced with the big issues we have this year.

I think that is how it is viewed by the politicians, which is why it is so rampant. However, I would argue that the opposite of polarization is compromise (which, of course, can be a difficult plank to run on).



Yes, Cyan, I think this is a large part of the problem--people fall too easily into the catch phrases of their party. How many people here, upon initiating a political discussion with someone of the opposite perspective, are confronted with nothing but sound bytes? A large percentage (majority?) of the people in this country are, I think, just walking billboards for their party's slogans. Not sure what can be done about that, since candidates encourage that--sound bytes are much easier to do than policy speeches. I remember Bush Sr. once responding to a 'sound byte' question with 'We put out policy paper after policy paper--but do you report any of that? No, you only report the sound bytes.' So, I think part of the blame for this lies with the media--polarization creates controversy, and controversy drives sales. So, naturally, they will point the finger back at the consumer, and with some justification. I remember when I was growing up, the newspapers used to have long articles comparing candidates positions on all the issues--I don't see that anymore. Shame on us for not demanding it? Shame on the media for not providing it? Shame on the politicians for catering to it? I'm not sure where the process needs to change.

What a great subject! I feel the division on a daily basis and I loathe hearing the radio pundits amplify it.

Do I think the polarization helps? Not in its present form! (That being a plethora of TV shows and radio talk shows where irate, agenda-driven hosts cut one side or the other off before any meaningful dialogue can be heard.)

While I agree that major differences have been the hallmark of an ever-emerging U.S. political landscape since 1789, I believe the inability for many to foster reasonable debates in recent history are a product of 90-second broadcast media sound bytes. They accomplish little.

An example was my once weekly trip to WalMart for bird seed. I asked the 50 plus year-old checker who she liked for President. She said, "Bush because Kerry is too 'Wishy Washy'".

Now I know she was merely repeating Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, Drudge, etc., but the point was she had, in all likelihood, made her voting decision on a negative ad and a repititious characterization. Any smart person would realize each candidate has been caught red-handed "Flip-Flopping" at warp speed on numerous occasions.

In 1786, 1812, 1860 or 1918, the public would have not had access to a steady diet of the same identical charges in enough repitition to germinate the snap decision this woman had made.

The anti-draft gang riots in New York were indeed a product of "mob mentality" however there is NOW the caveat that it has NEVER been easier to bombard the populace with cleverly orchestrated single-issue hot buttons. In fact, the two parties have done an incredible job of isolating, identifying and pandering to groups who tend to be single issue-specific voters.

As my screen name suggests, I believe this country would be infinitely better off with a sizeable reduction in the number of lobbyists and PAC'S coupled with a drying up of their contributions to all politicos. And 527's? They should go the way of porch-delivered whole milk.

By the way, from what I've read, you have a great site!

Excellent point. With the 527's and other questionable "think tank" entries into the PARTISON arena, getting non-partison evaluation is difficult. Even sites like the one linked below, which DOES report BOTH parties' financial ties, has a hard time not being non-partison.

http://www.publicintegrity.org/default.aspx - it DOES have info on BOTH parties' shennanigans.

I also have trouble with "liberal" and "conservative" labels. I've voted both ways in recent years. At one time, Bush Sr. was thought to be a LIBERAL Republican (much moreso than Reagan) and GWBush seems to be FISCALLY very liberal himself judging by the size of the government he's allowed even if you don't count troop buildup and the deficit. I'm giving away my age but that is one of the reasons Nelson Rockefeller never mustered enough support for the Republican nomination in the Kennedy and Nixon years. Johnson came from a conservative Democrat background.

At least the Public Integrity site isn't one of those Swift Boat Veterans For Truth or a Swift Boat Veterans for 'the Other Truth' 527's -

Yes, as has been mentioned more than a few times: great question.

I am sick unto nausea of those talk show things: Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, Franken, Garrafalo, Rhodes. I've listened to them all and none of them are neutral, they all have something to sell. And it's not the truth, baby!

We are polarized. Then again, the political process has been polarized into what the founding fathers derogatorily called "factions" since... the election of the second president, John Adams, in 1796. His supporters in the election called Thomas Jefferson every name in the book -- though it was a much smaller book then -- and Jefferson's supporters returned the favor. I guess the difference was that both candidates were troubled and embarrassed by the kerfuffle.

Can we do anything about it?

Not as long as people believe that any position but their own is a "sin" (as witness the fundamental christians who believe life, or the soul, or some such, begins at conception, and that any interruption of the subsequent process of mytosis is "murder." Or, to be fair, the radical anti-war people who believe that any war is "sin", and any official who actually mobilizes the military is a "war criminal.").

If everyone could just step away from the chalupa, so to speak, maybe we could all calm down a little bit, but I don't see that happening.

That's part of the reason I am a libertarian. I don't have to feel defensive when a right- or left-winger starts slinging invective -- I KNOW they BOTH don't like me! I don't really even have to care, since as long as they don't try to infringe my rights I won't retaliate.

Funny thing... both major political parties these days support big government; both support social entitlements; both support corporate welfare; both support state control of every little aspect of our lives. What's there for them to get so worked up about? In the final analysis they're all just arguing about minor details.

I guess we'll all just have to become libertarians... ROFL

Just my opinion.

Peace through superior firepower,
Delta Foxtrot