"Americans talk about politics all the time"

I was talking to someone from the UK who commented that politics isn't a big deal over there, while Americans seem to be discussing it constantly. This may seem odd to anyone who doesn't live here. My understanding is that in the UK, campaigning is limited to six weeks before an election. That tends to limit discussion as there's nothing to discuss most of the time.

Here, campaigning is almost continuous as we are always in the leadup to an election. The presidential election was a little over a year ago, in November 2024, and now we're deep in midterm season. The midterms, which determine control of Congress, will be in November of this year, and campaigning has been underway for months as the first primaries were yesterday.

If you're wondering what a "primary" is, those are the elections where voters choose their party's nominees for the general election in November. This is normal for Americans, but sounds batshit crazy to everyone else. Most Americans aren't aware that in other countries where elections are held, they don't have primaries because voters trust their party leadership to pick the nominees. The US is one of the few, maybe the only country where voters don't trust their leaders to do that, so we have this interminable primary season. This requires candidates to first run against everyone in their own party who wants the job before they even face their opponent in the other party. This makes no sense in other countries where, if you're, say, Labor or Tory or whatever, you assume that whoever the party bigwigs pick as the nominee will at least represent the party's values, so whoever the specific person is doesn't really matter much.

The upshot of the American system is that after a bitter primary battle, half of a party's voters will hate their own party's nominee because they wanted the other guy. In 2008, when Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were duking it out for the Democratic nomination, after Obama won the primaries, some Clinton supporters refused to support him, calling themselves PUMAs (Party Unity My Ass). The same thing happened in 2016 when embittered Bernie Sanders supporters refused to vote for Clinton and even voted for Trump.

In 2024 when Joe Biden dropped out after the first debate and Kamala Harris was nominated at the convention, many people complained that she hadn't won a single primary vote, without realizing that this would have been normal in most other countries, and was even normal in the US up through the 1960s when candidates were chosen at their party's conventions, with the voters only having a say in the general election.

So all year we will be subjected to campaigning, and traditionally, once the primaries are over, the 2028 presidential campaigns will begin. So of course we discuss politics a lot here since it's always campaign season.

Top | New | Old

dancingtongue · 80-89, M

Its not just the short election cycles. It didn't use to be this way. We had a two-party system, but once the election was over the campaigning largely stopped and those elected came together to find mutual interests, areas of compromise in order to govern. The two parties were that not far apart, so it wasn't that big a challenge. Then Cable TV, Talk Radio and shortly after the advent of social media began pushing ideologies to the two extremes, driving the gap wider and wider between the parties because conflict sells (just look at any social media algorithm) and it became year round campaign cycles because it sold.

Meahwhile, back at the ranch, critical thinking was becoming extinct and the few places where it was still taught have been targeted by those who don't have the foggiest idea what it means.

Theyitis · 36-40, M

@dancingtongue It’s a common talking point that American politics is increasingly polarized and that the left has gotten more liberal and the right more conservative lately; however, while that may have happened a little bit, the much bigger change in politics is not the parties getting more extreme, it’s that the parties are much better sorted than they used to be. There used to be liberal and conservative Democrats and liberal and conservative Republicans, and split ticket voting was much more common. Now the Democrats are the party of the liberals and the Republicans are the party of conservatives; furthermore, it used to be that most Americans had some mixture of liberal and conservative views on the issues, but now liberals are liberal on almost everything and likewise conservatives are conservative on almost everything. So the two parties are not that much farther apart than they used to be 30 or 50 or even 70 years ago, it’s just that they have much less in common, which makes people from opposite parties more mistrustful of each other and leads to less civility.

Handfull1 · 61-69, F

@Theyitis I think one man is responsible for much of this. He promotes division every chance he gets. Get the people to turn on each other. I think many still have mixed feelings on policies but too afraid to admit it.

dancingtongue · 80-89, M

@Theyitis I would agree that the parties are better "sorted", as you put it. Regrettably, they also have gamed the electoral system where it is practically impossible for other parties to gain any traction on the ballots, in debates, in the media although the majority of voters now declare themselves as independent, or do not declare, and polling on issues tends towards the big gray area between extreme right and extreme left. The middle where the two parties used to reside. And for that, I largely blame the changes in media -- and the extremes exploiting it -- as I stated. But then I was trained and educated as an objective journalist, spent half-a-century in it or working with it, and deplore what has happened to a once noble profession.

SunshineGirl · 36-40, F

It has been a generation or so since people in the UK viewed party membership as an extension of their personal or professional identity in the way that Americans apoear to do. Campaign spending is also limited and tightly regulated. I think most Brits would rather disclose their religious faith (or lack of) than who they vote for.

Picklebobble2 · 61-69, M

I get that U.S politics is...different.
But i always wonder when I see sycophantic supporters attending rallies waving their flags while listening to prospective politicians lie, live, in front of them, while 'raising money' (either for themselves or party) why they aren't holding placards or wearing t-shirts defining what THEY expect/want of those people.

That's something else.
In the UK folk KNOW how venal and dishonest MOST candidates up for election at ANY level of politics can be.
Trust me, local newspapers are often full of their exploits (for good or ill. Along with a little newspaper bias thrown in for good measure)

whowasthatmaskedman · 70-79, M

Not only is politics different in America. But Americans are different about politics. Many Americans view politics in the same way British view Soccer. Which club you support defines who you are and how you feel about everyone else. The highs and lows of the club matter. Your loyalty and the pain it causes matter. And how you respect or dont respect other people hinges on who they support..Its personal and emotional. And stupid of course. But thats a different argument.😷

Theyitis · 36-40, M

@whowasthatmaskedman

And stupid of course.

Sometimes yes, but it makes much more sense to me to look at politics, or at least what we call “politics,” that way than soccer.

Now I’m a little confused because I’ve seen memes on Facebook that draw a distinction between politics and morality. They say that politics is things like what the tax rate should be, whereas things like how we should treat people of different skin color or legal status are issues of “morality.”

But then MethDozer corrected me recently, saying that politics and morality are inseparable, indistinguishable, and it reminded me of things I’d read in college like Moral Politics by George Lakoff.

So I guess if you’re in the MethDozer/Lakoff school of thought, then it makes some sense to respect or judge people by their politics, because what better criteria to judge people by than morality? Makes more sense to me than to base it on support of a sports franchise with arbitrarily interchangeable players that aren’t really organized around any particular ideals.

But then, I don’t know much about soccer, especially outside the US. Maybe in Britain and/or Europe and/or the rest of the world soccer teams are, in fact, organized around ideals worth fighting for.

whowasthatmaskedman · 70-79, M

@Theyitis Meth has a point. I mean the first government of a sort was religion. And the Ten Commandments for the core of the legal system. However. I prefer to divide politics and religion. Being an Atheist. Politics is the art of navigating this world and thins mortal life. Religion is concerned with everything on another plane that comes after. And forming any government is a serious process of addressing the needs of people on this life. Not a belief system based on good and evil. I wouldnt have a problem with Trump being everything he is. (except dishonest) as long as he ran the country well. But there is no likelihood of that..😷

This comment is hidden. Show Comment

Add a comment...