CedricH · M
Terrific question. I think the best way to approach the issue is by trying to identify the moment when the growing divergence began to occur.
The high point of bipartisan centrism and consensus were the late 1980s, 1990s and early 2000s. Reagan had just introduced a new broad economic and foreign policy consensus. Both parties held differing views on economic, immigration and foreign policy issues, yet they were largely compatible within a broadly internationalist, globally engaged and free market framework.
Even environmental policy was an area of cooperation with George H.W Bush working towards the Montreal Convention to react to the ozone layer or George W Bush passing a bipartisan energy bill that was aimed at reducing carbon emissions.
There was also another consensus on fiscal profligacy. So if fiscal discipline had to be broken it was for one of 4 reasons. Military spending (1), economic emergencies (2) or tax cuts or healthcare subsidies (4).
Socially, there were obviously divisions because the country was culturally divided. Half of the country thought people were losing God, the other half thought America was quasi-fundamentalist. Gun owners on the one hand and people who were worried about guns on the other. Death penalty supporters and devoted death penalty abolitionists. People supporting same-sex marriage, the theory of evolution, stem cell research and abortion and people opposing all of it. The fault lines being determined by religious, personal and regional backgrounds.
It’s important to keep this pre-existing cultural divide in mind, since societies might get polarized over issues of foreign policy and economic policy, but what breaks them apart are cultural issues. Something that materialist-deterministic thinkers usually and purposefully ignore.
So despite these social divisions and the increasing ugliness of the cultural battles (epitomized by Newt Gingrich, the Lewinsky-Affair and the subsequent public backlash or Rush Limbaugh) the political status quo was principally aligned with a gradual progression of social liberalism as more Americans became more socially liberal. More states didn’t enforce the death penalty, abolished corporal punishment, legalized drug use or same sex marriage, Roe v Wade wasn‘t successfully challenged, women and minorities became more powerful through changing values and growing labor market participation, meanwhile both parties were generally supportive of legal immigration ( and irregular immigration which was tolerated de facto).
The more moderate candidates always won the Republican Party‘s primaries until 2016, that is. But more to that later.
So where did it all go wrong?
The answer to that question has to take account of how internal party dynamics drove a double wedge between this Washington Consensus, if you will.
The electorate as a whole might’ve been receptive to it and even possibly majorities in both parties. Still, the majorities in both parties for the established political directions were declining and the dissenters were rising in numbers.
ManyDemocrats were perpetually frustrated and perplexed by the fact that socio-cultural change wasn’t happening even faster than it did. A growing portion of their base rejected Clintonomics which - while electorally and economically successful - was an aberration, rather than a Democratic or center-left tradition. It was a clear pivot to the economic center and away from any semblance of social democratic policies. Finally, Democrats became increasingly uneasy about liberal interventionism in the world as they did before, after Vietnam and as a response to Reagan‘s support for the Contras.
After the Democratic Party made the opportunistic and partisan choice to go all in against the policies they once supported (namely the war in Iraq) and excoriated Bush for Guantanamo, EIT, extraordinary rendition, they unleashed a conspiratorial, anti-interventionist and populist impulse that was hard for them to contain and which would eventually turn against them since the Democratic Party largely backed the war on terror and the Patriot Act - which was abhorrent to this new group of left-wing populists.
More and more Republicans, on the other hand, were uneasy about the direction of their party leadership. Fox News and radio hosts took on an identity of their own and there was a growing disconnect between the perceived grievances of the base and how Republican politicians in Washington talked and acted.
Both Bushs (41&43) managed to irritate the two groups that were the foundation of the Goldwater-Reagan-Buckley fusion conservatism. The fusion idea revolved around harnessing both (and often contradictory) libertarian and social conservative traditions in the US to build a broad coalition. Bush Sr. was a social moderate, he didn’t resist the growing liberalization of the US society. He didn’t berate women for working, people for not going to Church, or homosexuals for being homosexuals, he signed gun control legislations. Libertarians, meanwhile were frustrated by his internationalist foreign policy and his tax hike.
And then there are the paleo-conservatives. They were livid. Reagan managed to contain them while Bush actually had to run against Pat Buchanan who gained a sizeable portion of the primary vote. Many paleo-conservatives then decided to vote for Ross Perot in the general election. Paleo-conservatives are basically social conservatives who‘re irreconcilably opposed to America‘s role in the world and to free trade, immigration and globalization.
As the country became more inclusive, tolerant and socially progressive in the early 2000s Bush jr really couldn’t do anything to appease the social conservatives either apart from cutting foreign aid for countries that allowed abortions. On top of that, paleo-conservatives were losing it. The neoconservative-neoliberal paradigm of the Reagan-Bush era was just too far from their ideological comfort zone and they were increasingly discontent with being the perpetual, marginalized fringe. Lastly, libertarians didn’t approve of Bush‘s foreign policy or of the financial bailouts or the increased spending on public education and Medicare. Two issues libertarians supported, Social Security reform and an immigration reform floundered due to Democratic (and social conservative) opposition in the case of the former, and paleo-conservative and social conservative opposition, in the case of the latter.
And then everything changed, Obama‘s victory was an absolute nightmare for the right-wing of the political spectrum. And he was certainly demonized in response to the outrage his victory caused. Kenyan-born, Muslim, communist. Un-American. One invective after another. And even those on the right, who weren’t electrified by the hate were nevertheless unsettled by Obama for one reason or another. He clearly supercharged further cultural liberalization in the US, the Supreme Court ruled on homosexual marriage and political correctness became a dominant feature of social and political interactions.
Due to the financial crisis, a socially more liberal electorate and the skepticism about Iraq, Obama‘s moderate populism prevailed twice. He ran on a grievance platform so his reforms were more radical than those of Bush or Clinton. He used EO to regulate where Clinton deregulated, passed the Dodd-Frank Act, ObamaCare and substantial stimuli (public spending) packages while prematurely withdrawing from Iraq and pursuing a less militarily activist foreign policy. Much to my chagrin. So what should be noted is a somewhat controlled policy departure from Clinton‘s triangulation in favor of moderate, center-left policies. Thus, the Democratic Party had a new ideological center of gravity and it was a pivot to the left. Many things, however, remained unchanged. The Democratic leadership remained pro-immigration, pro-tech, kept tax rates relatively low, was committed to some semblance of fiscal discipline, free trade and flexible labor laws and most of the policies were market-compatible rather than overtly statist.
What happened on the Republican side of the equation was much more explosive and turbulent. The Tea Party became the dual resistance to the Republican leadership and to Obama, simultaneously. They managed to combine a volatile and incongruent coalition of libertarians, social conservatives and paleo-conservatives. However, the majority of the Republican base was still committed to more moderate Reagan-Bush figures and policies, as the victories of McCain and Romney over alternative candidates like Gingrich, Ron Paul, Huckabee and Santorum show.
Enter, Donald Trump. After two failed attempts of the “mainstream/establishment“ Republicans to re-assert themselves, an opening presented itself to the lingering and aggressive opposition to the polished, technocratic, khaki wearing, country club Republican leadership. And the major catalyst for the change was the issue of immigration. While many Maga enthusiasts were conceivably upset about the loss of the White-male supremacy in culture and business or worried about a less patriotic and Christian and more cosmopolitan and areligious country, the central theme to fight this battle of cultural reaction was the border.
Immigrants became the unifying scapegoat. They weren’t born as Americans and many broke the law by entering the county illegally. Nativist and rule of law types naturally didn’t approve. Immigrants were also changing the demographic and ethnic composition of the country while being a symptom of “nefarious“ globalization which meant the paleo-conservatives were frightened and hostile. And finally, some libertarians or moderate Republicans were worried about the crime perpetrated by some undocumented immigrants or about welfare payments to them.
No candidate in 2016 had a more universally famous anti-immigration platform than Donald Trump. That, the lingering frustration which gave him access to a sizeable minority of all Republican voters and a weak and split Republican field enabled him to win the primaries.
That day changed the political and ideological configuration of the US. The Reagan-Bush party was dying on the right, and the slow death of the Clinton-Gore party was only accelerated by Trump‘s populist, national conservatism.
The progressives were now a formidable power center within the Democratic Party. And they knew how to capitalize on it without representing the majority of the Democratic base. It was the era of ideological transformation, things that used to be unthinkable in political and policy circles within the Democratic orbit became pervasive. Modern Monetary Theory, wealth taxes, higher corporate, income, and capital gains taxes, Medicare for all, abolishing ICE, defunding the police, bashing Israel, massive industrial policy endeavors like the green new deal or protectionism and economic nationalism were now no longer a political vulnerability for progressives but an asset - at least in their states and districts.
At the same time, the media environment was changing rapidly. People moved from a few relatively centrist television networks (however with a left-wing tilt) and reputable newspapers to a more competitive tv and newspaper environment until both became even less relevant with the emergence of social media - which made eco-chambers and information bubbles the new norm. This type of media-ecosystem, moreover, became a large digital petri dish for conspiracy theories and fake news.
Eventually, the radicalization reached a point where two distinctly different interpretations of something as fundamental as democracy itself could coexist, meaning even an attack on the constitution and on classically liberal democracy in the US by Donald Trump was shrugged off because half of the country thought the Democrats were an even bigger threat to democracy. When something like that happens, the trajectory of continuing radicalization can only end in one way. Something has to give. Either the constitutional order of the US collapses or the Trumpian Right does. Let’s see what comes first.
The high point of bipartisan centrism and consensus were the late 1980s, 1990s and early 2000s. Reagan had just introduced a new broad economic and foreign policy consensus. Both parties held differing views on economic, immigration and foreign policy issues, yet they were largely compatible within a broadly internationalist, globally engaged and free market framework.
Even environmental policy was an area of cooperation with George H.W Bush working towards the Montreal Convention to react to the ozone layer or George W Bush passing a bipartisan energy bill that was aimed at reducing carbon emissions.
There was also another consensus on fiscal profligacy. So if fiscal discipline had to be broken it was for one of 4 reasons. Military spending (1), economic emergencies (2) or tax cuts or healthcare subsidies (4).
Socially, there were obviously divisions because the country was culturally divided. Half of the country thought people were losing God, the other half thought America was quasi-fundamentalist. Gun owners on the one hand and people who were worried about guns on the other. Death penalty supporters and devoted death penalty abolitionists. People supporting same-sex marriage, the theory of evolution, stem cell research and abortion and people opposing all of it. The fault lines being determined by religious, personal and regional backgrounds.
It’s important to keep this pre-existing cultural divide in mind, since societies might get polarized over issues of foreign policy and economic policy, but what breaks them apart are cultural issues. Something that materialist-deterministic thinkers usually and purposefully ignore.
So despite these social divisions and the increasing ugliness of the cultural battles (epitomized by Newt Gingrich, the Lewinsky-Affair and the subsequent public backlash or Rush Limbaugh) the political status quo was principally aligned with a gradual progression of social liberalism as more Americans became more socially liberal. More states didn’t enforce the death penalty, abolished corporal punishment, legalized drug use or same sex marriage, Roe v Wade wasn‘t successfully challenged, women and minorities became more powerful through changing values and growing labor market participation, meanwhile both parties were generally supportive of legal immigration ( and irregular immigration which was tolerated de facto).
The more moderate candidates always won the Republican Party‘s primaries until 2016, that is. But more to that later.
So where did it all go wrong?
The answer to that question has to take account of how internal party dynamics drove a double wedge between this Washington Consensus, if you will.
The electorate as a whole might’ve been receptive to it and even possibly majorities in both parties. Still, the majorities in both parties for the established political directions were declining and the dissenters were rising in numbers.
ManyDemocrats were perpetually frustrated and perplexed by the fact that socio-cultural change wasn’t happening even faster than it did. A growing portion of their base rejected Clintonomics which - while electorally and economically successful - was an aberration, rather than a Democratic or center-left tradition. It was a clear pivot to the economic center and away from any semblance of social democratic policies. Finally, Democrats became increasingly uneasy about liberal interventionism in the world as they did before, after Vietnam and as a response to Reagan‘s support for the Contras.
After the Democratic Party made the opportunistic and partisan choice to go all in against the policies they once supported (namely the war in Iraq) and excoriated Bush for Guantanamo, EIT, extraordinary rendition, they unleashed a conspiratorial, anti-interventionist and populist impulse that was hard for them to contain and which would eventually turn against them since the Democratic Party largely backed the war on terror and the Patriot Act - which was abhorrent to this new group of left-wing populists.
More and more Republicans, on the other hand, were uneasy about the direction of their party leadership. Fox News and radio hosts took on an identity of their own and there was a growing disconnect between the perceived grievances of the base and how Republican politicians in Washington talked and acted.
Both Bushs (41&43) managed to irritate the two groups that were the foundation of the Goldwater-Reagan-Buckley fusion conservatism. The fusion idea revolved around harnessing both (and often contradictory) libertarian and social conservative traditions in the US to build a broad coalition. Bush Sr. was a social moderate, he didn’t resist the growing liberalization of the US society. He didn’t berate women for working, people for not going to Church, or homosexuals for being homosexuals, he signed gun control legislations. Libertarians, meanwhile were frustrated by his internationalist foreign policy and his tax hike.
And then there are the paleo-conservatives. They were livid. Reagan managed to contain them while Bush actually had to run against Pat Buchanan who gained a sizeable portion of the primary vote. Many paleo-conservatives then decided to vote for Ross Perot in the general election. Paleo-conservatives are basically social conservatives who‘re irreconcilably opposed to America‘s role in the world and to free trade, immigration and globalization.
As the country became more inclusive, tolerant and socially progressive in the early 2000s Bush jr really couldn’t do anything to appease the social conservatives either apart from cutting foreign aid for countries that allowed abortions. On top of that, paleo-conservatives were losing it. The neoconservative-neoliberal paradigm of the Reagan-Bush era was just too far from their ideological comfort zone and they were increasingly discontent with being the perpetual, marginalized fringe. Lastly, libertarians didn’t approve of Bush‘s foreign policy or of the financial bailouts or the increased spending on public education and Medicare. Two issues libertarians supported, Social Security reform and an immigration reform floundered due to Democratic (and social conservative) opposition in the case of the former, and paleo-conservative and social conservative opposition, in the case of the latter.
And then everything changed, Obama‘s victory was an absolute nightmare for the right-wing of the political spectrum. And he was certainly demonized in response to the outrage his victory caused. Kenyan-born, Muslim, communist. Un-American. One invective after another. And even those on the right, who weren’t electrified by the hate were nevertheless unsettled by Obama for one reason or another. He clearly supercharged further cultural liberalization in the US, the Supreme Court ruled on homosexual marriage and political correctness became a dominant feature of social and political interactions.
Due to the financial crisis, a socially more liberal electorate and the skepticism about Iraq, Obama‘s moderate populism prevailed twice. He ran on a grievance platform so his reforms were more radical than those of Bush or Clinton. He used EO to regulate where Clinton deregulated, passed the Dodd-Frank Act, ObamaCare and substantial stimuli (public spending) packages while prematurely withdrawing from Iraq and pursuing a less militarily activist foreign policy. Much to my chagrin. So what should be noted is a somewhat controlled policy departure from Clinton‘s triangulation in favor of moderate, center-left policies. Thus, the Democratic Party had a new ideological center of gravity and it was a pivot to the left. Many things, however, remained unchanged. The Democratic leadership remained pro-immigration, pro-tech, kept tax rates relatively low, was committed to some semblance of fiscal discipline, free trade and flexible labor laws and most of the policies were market-compatible rather than overtly statist.
What happened on the Republican side of the equation was much more explosive and turbulent. The Tea Party became the dual resistance to the Republican leadership and to Obama, simultaneously. They managed to combine a volatile and incongruent coalition of libertarians, social conservatives and paleo-conservatives. However, the majority of the Republican base was still committed to more moderate Reagan-Bush figures and policies, as the victories of McCain and Romney over alternative candidates like Gingrich, Ron Paul, Huckabee and Santorum show.
Enter, Donald Trump. After two failed attempts of the “mainstream/establishment“ Republicans to re-assert themselves, an opening presented itself to the lingering and aggressive opposition to the polished, technocratic, khaki wearing, country club Republican leadership. And the major catalyst for the change was the issue of immigration. While many Maga enthusiasts were conceivably upset about the loss of the White-male supremacy in culture and business or worried about a less patriotic and Christian and more cosmopolitan and areligious country, the central theme to fight this battle of cultural reaction was the border.
Immigrants became the unifying scapegoat. They weren’t born as Americans and many broke the law by entering the county illegally. Nativist and rule of law types naturally didn’t approve. Immigrants were also changing the demographic and ethnic composition of the country while being a symptom of “nefarious“ globalization which meant the paleo-conservatives were frightened and hostile. And finally, some libertarians or moderate Republicans were worried about the crime perpetrated by some undocumented immigrants or about welfare payments to them.
No candidate in 2016 had a more universally famous anti-immigration platform than Donald Trump. That, the lingering frustration which gave him access to a sizeable minority of all Republican voters and a weak and split Republican field enabled him to win the primaries.
That day changed the political and ideological configuration of the US. The Reagan-Bush party was dying on the right, and the slow death of the Clinton-Gore party was only accelerated by Trump‘s populist, national conservatism.
The progressives were now a formidable power center within the Democratic Party. And they knew how to capitalize on it without representing the majority of the Democratic base. It was the era of ideological transformation, things that used to be unthinkable in political and policy circles within the Democratic orbit became pervasive. Modern Monetary Theory, wealth taxes, higher corporate, income, and capital gains taxes, Medicare for all, abolishing ICE, defunding the police, bashing Israel, massive industrial policy endeavors like the green new deal or protectionism and economic nationalism were now no longer a political vulnerability for progressives but an asset - at least in their states and districts.
At the same time, the media environment was changing rapidly. People moved from a few relatively centrist television networks (however with a left-wing tilt) and reputable newspapers to a more competitive tv and newspaper environment until both became even less relevant with the emergence of social media - which made eco-chambers and information bubbles the new norm. This type of media-ecosystem, moreover, became a large digital petri dish for conspiracy theories and fake news.
Eventually, the radicalization reached a point where two distinctly different interpretations of something as fundamental as democracy itself could coexist, meaning even an attack on the constitution and on classically liberal democracy in the US by Donald Trump was shrugged off because half of the country thought the Democrats were an even bigger threat to democracy. When something like that happens, the trajectory of continuing radicalization can only end in one way. Something has to give. Either the constitutional order of the US collapses or the Trumpian Right does. Let’s see what comes first.
ArishMell · 70-79, M
They feed on each other. The more hard-line one lot speaks or acts, the more the other lot do.
I think what is feeding both is a widespread feeling of disillusionment and despair as the world's probmens seem worsening but the solutions not keeping up. That may be more perception than reality, but many people tend to be driven more by perception than reality so they become attracted to manipulators appearing to listen to their concerns and offer "real" answers.
Whether such people trun Left or Right is more difficult to determine.
At one time the Left liked everyone to think they were speaking up for the poor, the dispossessed, the so-called "working class" which it limited to purely manual, semi- or low- skilled work.
Whereas the Right originally favoured the idea of becoming rich by one's own (or better, one's employees') efforts, and fostered a notion that anyone can "succeed" if they only try. Success of course being at the very least a well-paid occupation and a comfortable life in leafy suburbia. Though that form of success does come only from one's efforts, often considerable such as gaining a Degree and a lot of specialist training.
Nothing wrong with that of course, but it can lead to rather heartless "If I can do it so can you" -ist thinking.
Now though?
It is very much harder to distinguish between L & R; and anyway the ideological spectrum seems specific to country. That of the USA is broadly to starboard of its wider European equivalent, whilst a Communist country like China probably regards the Scandinavian nations as hard-Right despite their comprehensive welfare-states an American Republican would likely call "Communist".
Also, in the UK and at least some other European countries, the "mainstream" Left and Right have sort of enmeshed rather than merged or agglomerated; with governments of either persuasion sharing many principles even the respective parties don't like to admit it. This seems to lead to rather wooly coalition governments, which unfortunately might be seen as continuing a cosy status quo rather than really addressing deep concerns held by their electorates.
The UK still has an adversarial rather than cosy semicircle Parliament, but even here, and with five UK-wide Parties plus independence ones; the ideological differences are not what they were. (Nostalgia was once nationalised, but has been sold off abroad...)
.
So disenchanted voters want to hear not, "We are committed to..." but to see, "We are doing..."
Not "We are reviewing the situation" but "We are putting it right". Well, trying to. (I can "review" a football match - doesn't mean I can play the game, or am playing it.)
Not "We are consulting / taking legal advice..." Well, sack the barristers and employ people who know how to do it then.
If then, some shiny new Party from the further- Left or Right comes along and talks to people properly, robustly highlights the common worries, fears and questions rather than issuing platitudinous statements; promises to get hold of the thing by the scruff of the neck and give it a good shaking... is it surprising it attracts votes?
I think what is feeding both is a widespread feeling of disillusionment and despair as the world's probmens seem worsening but the solutions not keeping up. That may be more perception than reality, but many people tend to be driven more by perception than reality so they become attracted to manipulators appearing to listen to their concerns and offer "real" answers.
Whether such people trun Left or Right is more difficult to determine.
At one time the Left liked everyone to think they were speaking up for the poor, the dispossessed, the so-called "working class" which it limited to purely manual, semi- or low- skilled work.
Whereas the Right originally favoured the idea of becoming rich by one's own (or better, one's employees') efforts, and fostered a notion that anyone can "succeed" if they only try. Success of course being at the very least a well-paid occupation and a comfortable life in leafy suburbia. Though that form of success does come only from one's efforts, often considerable such as gaining a Degree and a lot of specialist training.
Nothing wrong with that of course, but it can lead to rather heartless "If I can do it so can you" -ist thinking.
Now though?
It is very much harder to distinguish between L & R; and anyway the ideological spectrum seems specific to country. That of the USA is broadly to starboard of its wider European equivalent, whilst a Communist country like China probably regards the Scandinavian nations as hard-Right despite their comprehensive welfare-states an American Republican would likely call "Communist".
Also, in the UK and at least some other European countries, the "mainstream" Left and Right have sort of enmeshed rather than merged or agglomerated; with governments of either persuasion sharing many principles even the respective parties don't like to admit it. This seems to lead to rather wooly coalition governments, which unfortunately might be seen as continuing a cosy status quo rather than really addressing deep concerns held by their electorates.
The UK still has an adversarial rather than cosy semicircle Parliament, but even here, and with five UK-wide Parties plus independence ones; the ideological differences are not what they were. (Nostalgia was once nationalised, but has been sold off abroad...)
.
So disenchanted voters want to hear not, "We are committed to..." but to see, "We are doing..."
Not "We are reviewing the situation" but "We are putting it right". Well, trying to. (I can "review" a football match - doesn't mean I can play the game, or am playing it.)
Not "We are consulting / taking legal advice..." Well, sack the barristers and employ people who know how to do it then.
If then, some shiny new Party from the further- Left or Right comes along and talks to people properly, robustly highlights the common worries, fears and questions rather than issuing platitudinous statements; promises to get hold of the thing by the scruff of the neck and give it a good shaking... is it surprising it attracts votes?
JacksonBlue · 36-40, M
When things get worse people want something to blame. We'rr in a down time at the so people have gone wild. some people blame immigration, some people blame greed, some people blame lack of community, some people blame the unemployed.
But i think the biggest cause is the internet. Its very easy to find other people who are upset and giving you "The Answers". Then the algorithms push those stories to you because youre more likely to read them. Next thing you know youve spent a week reading awful things that confirm what you now think. The echo chamber in full effect.
Thats why people are more extreme left and right. Before it was "Well my mate says...." now its "IVE BEEN READING ABOUT DOZENS OF EXAMPLES FOR WEEKS!!!"
But i think the biggest cause is the internet. Its very easy to find other people who are upset and giving you "The Answers". Then the algorithms push those stories to you because youre more likely to read them. Next thing you know youve spent a week reading awful things that confirm what you now think. The echo chamber in full effect.
Thats why people are more extreme left and right. Before it was "Well my mate says...." now its "IVE BEEN READING ABOUT DOZENS OF EXAMPLES FOR WEEKS!!!"
dancingtongue · 80-89, M
@JacksonBlue I agree that the Internet is a major contributing force, but it is more than just the algorithms . It is a digital society that has come to believe that everything is bit-sized, either-or, black and white, good and evil issues with no room for nuance, consideration of middle grounds for common good and compromise. And it is not fueled solely by the Internet. When the FCC gutted the Fairness Doctrine and Community Service requirements on broadcast media, and 60 Minutes demonstrated you could monetize the news by making it entertainment, we started on this slippery slope led by Rush Limbaugh and then a whole network with Fox and their equivalents on the left.
JacksonBlue · 36-40, M
@dancingtongue Agreed. Context is dead. Confirmation bias is king
familyfunguy · 56-60, M
A lot of leftists online would accuse you of making the "both sides" argument, implying that you're just some embarrassed Republican. You might have noticed this already.
I think what I'm about to say has been said so far by others in different words on this thread, but all of the microaggressions that go back and fourth probably have a snowball-like effect. One side sees extremism from the other side, and they probably figure that the answer is more extremism.
I think what I'm about to say has been said so far by others in different words on this thread, but all of the microaggressions that go back and fourth probably have a snowball-like effect. One side sees extremism from the other side, and they probably figure that the answer is more extremism.
CountScrofula · 41-45, M
View 5 more replies »
CountScrofula · 41-45, M
@anythingoes477 Bernie Sanders is an independent lmao, he just ran for President as a Democrat. Some Democratic party politicians do, but it is not the position of the party in general. Obviously. They've been in power a few times.
Obama's landmark health care reform was just more for-profit health care and big bags of money for insurance companies. Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and Kamala Harris never once campaigned on it or in Joe's case, tried to implement it.
Obama's landmark health care reform was just more for-profit health care and big bags of money for insurance companies. Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and Kamala Harris never once campaigned on it or in Joe's case, tried to implement it.
anythingoes477 · M
@CountScrofula Independents and Dems align on many things.........most things. Including universal healthcare. Read a book Dems passed Medicare..........and advocate for Medicaid Expansion.........universal coverage..
And ur wrong...........again....on ur second paragraph. The ACA limits what privately owned insurance companies can charge for healthcare........by limiting charges and offering cheaper alternatives to the large carriers. So in effect the ACA does NOT give more cash to insurance companies...............it does just the opposite by stopping exorbitant over charging for procedures and offering cheaper coverage. This is why big insurance lobbied Red States to prevent open exchanges being available when the ACA was initially signing up people who needed coverage but was not able to afford regular insurance. If the ACA "fed big bags of money into their pockets".......preventing the ACA from signing up people would make no sense. Just like your comment didn't.
And ur wrong...........again....on ur second paragraph. The ACA limits what privately owned insurance companies can charge for healthcare........by limiting charges and offering cheaper alternatives to the large carriers. So in effect the ACA does NOT give more cash to insurance companies...............it does just the opposite by stopping exorbitant over charging for procedures and offering cheaper coverage. This is why big insurance lobbied Red States to prevent open exchanges being available when the ACA was initially signing up people who needed coverage but was not able to afford regular insurance. If the ACA "fed big bags of money into their pockets".......preventing the ACA from signing up people would make no sense. Just like your comment didn't.
CountScrofula · 41-45, M
@anythingoes477 I don't know what you're arguing, man.
You don't have public health care. The #1 cause of bankruptcies is medical bills.
This is despite repeated Democratic Party rule. Joe Biden never ran on it, Kamala Harris didn't run on it either.
You don't have public health care. The #1 cause of bankruptcies is medical bills.
This is despite repeated Democratic Party rule. Joe Biden never ran on it, Kamala Harris didn't run on it either.
anythingoes477 · M
Both didn't become extreme. The Republican Party did.............but not both. This is the Republican platform when Eisenhower ran for office in the 1950's. Back then both parties almost agreed on everything. They worked across the aisle to accomplish good for Americans. If you look at this platform you will see these are the things that the Dems want most for All Americans STILL............while Republicans would rather die now that hold to ANY of these goals for us. Read this and decide which party has gone so completely radical now they are no longer recognizable as the Republican party that used to be.
[image/video - please log in to see this content]
SomeMichGuy · M
The Right started on this trajectory with at least Barry Goldwater.
It continued with Reagan and esp. the people around him, but Gingrich is the one who created a list of epithets to use when speaking of Democrats / liberals, and (in the same communication?) told Republicans that they couldn't be friends or socialize with Democrats.
That created a culture of Republicans being unable to actually lead when they got power.
The "Tea Party" got started in that time, and they were extreme, but they were pale in comparison to the Fascist fringe which DJT emboldened, encouraged, holds up, saved from prisons...
DJT is actually the fruition of Nazis who have been here for a long time, Communists who have alwats wanted to destroy us, and rival powers...
And you notice the Right hasn't been talking about collusion for some time, right?
It continued with Reagan and esp. the people around him, but Gingrich is the one who created a list of epithets to use when speaking of Democrats / liberals, and (in the same communication?) told Republicans that they couldn't be friends or socialize with Democrats.
That created a culture of Republicans being unable to actually lead when they got power.
The "Tea Party" got started in that time, and they were extreme, but they were pale in comparison to the Fascist fringe which DJT emboldened, encouraged, holds up, saved from prisons...
DJT is actually the fruition of Nazis who have been here for a long time, Communists who have alwats wanted to destroy us, and rival powers...
And you notice the Right hasn't been talking about collusion for some time, right?
RisingMorningStar7 · 36-40, M
@SomeMichGuy Yea, I think there's a still a race problem.
SomeMichGuy · M
@RisingMorningStar7 ? I'm not sure what you mean...?
RisingMorningStar7 · 36-40, M
@SomeMichGuyoh nothing.
ImperialAerosolKidFromEP · 51-55, M
I think the key is to understand post truth, which I don't. I get the backlash, I get thinking you're in the right, because you don't have anyone to tell you differently... I don't get pigheaded, deliberate ignorance when it's on this scale. I suspect the incomprehensiblity of it all is most people's problem as well
ElwoodBlues · M
Depends on whose definitions you're using.
European conservatives tend to support universal health care, strict gun control, access to abortion, and carbon reduction to reduce global warming. In other words, European conservatives fit the US republican definition of left wing or democratic.
European conservatives tend to support universal health care, strict gun control, access to abortion, and carbon reduction to reduce global warming. In other words, European conservatives fit the US republican definition of left wing or democratic.
hippyjoe1955 · 70-79, M
I think the left has become much more extreme than the right as the Overton window has moved much farther left.
MasterLee · 56-60, M
When the left started actively rejecting common sense. They decided to call people names instead of present ideas.
When the universal karens started referring to everyone who slightly disagreed as nazis, fascists, bigots, racists, or whatever the intellectual conversation died.
People on the right grew tired and fatigued so some responded in kind.
In the end, the left became the enemy.
When the universal karens started referring to everyone who slightly disagreed as nazis, fascists, bigots, racists, or whatever the intellectual conversation died.
People on the right grew tired and fatigued so some responded in kind.
In the end, the left became the enemy.
bijouxbroussard · F
Pretzel · 70-79, M
very interesting question
I guess it's desperation?
and gullibility - believing the lies that the politicians say in order to get attention and votes.
I guess it's desperation?
and gullibility - believing the lies that the politicians say in order to get attention and votes.
1490wayb · 56-60, M
the party leaders have an agenda and their followers MUST support it or else...its not about what is good for you or the country
PicturesOfABetterTomorrow · 41-45, M
Well if we are talking about the USA the right has lost the plot entirely.
A big part of why that was possible in the USA has no left.
A big part of why that was possible in the USA has no left.
Richard65 · M
Wealth inequality.
To distract people from the real problem, the right created a bogus culture war that has everyone at each other's throats.
To distract people from the real problem, the right created a bogus culture war that has everyone at each other's throats.
PalteseMalconFunch · 36-40, T
SomeMichGuy · M
@PalteseMalconFunch It's a whole bigot FOREST...
PalteseMalconFunch · 36-40, T
@SomeMichGuy It’s usually that in the US 🙃
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
GerOttman · 61-69, M
Simple, the media! Sex sells, so does hatred and violence. The advertisers pay for an audience, moderate messaging is not interesting.
It's an arms race. Moves and countermoves.
NoGamesTolerated · F
@RoguishEyes exactly
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment