Polarizing politics

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-10-11 02:37am

What do you blame for the increasingly polarized nature of politics?

Conservatives and the Bush Administration, for deliberately being divisive on every issue from national security ("you're either with us or you're with the terrorists") to the economy ("you're either with us or you're a communist") and social issues ("you're either with us or you're part of the godless heathen conspiracy to destroy Christianity and turn us all into godless liberal commie heathens").
24-hour cable news networks, for creating an environment where the ratio of supply and demand for news has been turned upside down, thus leading to massive competition where competitors must look for an "edge". That "edge" is often what advertising types refer to as "target demographics", ie- identifying a social group and deliberately playing to its prejudices and preferences. ADDENDUM: this oversupply also creates a need to produce news out of nothing, hence the proliferation of these "crossfire"-type shows where news is not even part of the equation and you are treated to an hour of two party-line idealogues bashing each other.
The Internet, for creating an environment where like-minded individuals will seek each other out and tend to communicate only amongst themselves, eventually segregating themselves to the point that they consciously avoid seeing arguments made by others. Consider the fact that most webboards do not encourage flaming arguments or consider them valuable; they value civility and consensus.
This polarization is a myth; it's always been this bad and we just believe it's getting worse.

EDIT: addendum added to item #2 based on feedback so far.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-10-11 02:43am

I think it's largely a function of increased political visibility. There have been times in the US where we've been at least as divided as we are, now, but then it drew attention only as an issue localized to a single topic of conversation, rather than a cross-spectrum division. I think that all of the factors you named are partly responsible, but I also think it was largely the inevitable result of policies enacted since the Second World War.

Petrosjko · Post by **Petrosjko** » 2004-10-11 02:52am

I blame a combination of the internet and the 24-hour news cycle.

Darth Wong wrote:The Internet, for creating an environment where like-minded individuals will seek each other out and tend to communicate only amongst themselves, eventually segregating themselves to the point that they consciously avoid seeing arguments made by others. Consider the fact that most webboards do not encourage flaming arguments or consider them valuable; they value civility and consensus.

For the internet, your views precisely parallel mine.

However, in the case of the news, I tend to blame it on the rapid growth of punditry shows that are little more than soundbite theater, where no substantive discussion takes place. I watched a bit of Crossfire one afternoon in a hotel room, and it was... disgusting. They had an item on offshore reincorporation, and the discussion went something like this...

Novak "Companies are leaving because of the horrid corporate tax, which should be abolished. They're heroes!"

(I believe it was Chris Matthews, these damn pundits are so interchangeable...)
Matthews?- "Corporate Benedict Arnolds! They should be prosecuted!"

Then they moved right on to the next item. I'm a confirmed TV-hater who rarely watches the boob tube precisely because of the lack of dialogue and exploration of issues, but I'll admit I was rather stunned. That was a discussion? That was an exploration of the issues? Two guys reciting a canned bit of party rhetoric... fuck.

When the pundits come out to play, there is no news... simply the recitation of the party line, rigid defense of party policy, and insults hurled at the opposition.

Is it any wonder this tone has passed on to the public at large?

Pablo Sanchez · Post by **Pablo Sanchez** » 2004-10-11 02:52am

A mix of 2 and 4. Politics becomes polarized at times as part of a natural cycle, it's just that we now have a lot of reporting on the subject so it can get more exposure.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-10-11 02:54am

The problem has been worsening since before the Bush administration and before the net was very big. I'll vote #2.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-10-11 02:58am

Good feedback so far; I added an addendum to the expanded description of #2 as a result.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2004-10-11 03:00am

I think it would be more accurate to blame rightist strategy think-tanks rather than the Bush Administration(which is a product of theirs), they're a reaction to Clinton's success, and......hey, wait a minute! I got it!
It's Clinton's fault!

The Cleric · Post by **The Cleric** » 2004-10-11 03:11am

I think it's always been there, but the growing inconnectivity of the world is brining it to the forefront. It's easier to argue and see divisiveness when you can instantly communicate with 10 people scattered all over the contient, if not the hemisphere or the world.

Petrosjko · Post by **Petrosjko** » 2004-10-11 03:11am

To further expand on my point, the sheer juvenalia of these shows contributes vastly to lowering the tone of discourse. Making faces, petty insults, deliberately taking statements out of context, talking over each other, the whole gamut, it tends to create a 'monkey see, monkey do' effect on discourse at large.

Being as how I've rarely had cable, I've missed a good deal of it, but I remember when I first saw it being practiced on a consistant basis, with the McClaughin (sp?) Group on PBS, back around... '90 or 91, I think it was. I had a feeling then that it was going to spread, because people love confrontational dialogues.

So we end up with politics, Jerry Springer style.

Fire Fly · Post by **Fire Fly** » 2004-10-11 03:42am

The extreme political polarization currently is the result of many things but the bulk of this polarization is in due part to the Bush Administration. I think I can safely say that the polarization started with the 2000 Presidential campaigns and the whole Florida fiasco. Although Gore won the popular vote with 51 million to Bush's 50 million, the Supreme Court ultimately made the final decision. Following Bush's victory, you can already sense an immeadiate polarization; Gore supporters felt the Presidency was stolen from them and Bush supporters said, "Too fucking bad, we won fair and square."

Polarization existed during the Clinton years and was often prevalent. Examples that further divided the two parties were when Clinton allowed gays to serve in the military (Don't Ask, Don't Tell) and an increasing role for women in the government (Albright, Reno). However, whenever Clinton did something that really made one side happy and the other, he wasn't afraid to do the same for the other side. Clinton was able to keep polarization under control through a lot of comprimises; two things that come to mind immeadiately are the ban on cloning (including stem cells) and the Federal Defense of Marriage Act.

But when you take a look at the Bush Administration, you can blantantly see there exists catering to only one side while the other is left out. Bush has never really made an attempt to masquerade what his "core values" are, as he has stated. He ran on a platform proclaiming to be a uniter, not a divider but his actions often reflected quite the opposite. He proclaimed to love the sinner but not the sin: he ignored the Byrd Hate Crime Bill where being attack because you're gay was considered a hate crime.

The Gore campaign accused Bush of trying to deflect attention from his unwillingness to push for an enhanced 1999 hate crimes bill named for James Byrd that died in the State Senate. And Byrd’s daughter, Renee Mullins, who lobbied Bush in 1999 to help pass that bill, said in an interview today that the governor pointedly told her that he would not work to do so. “I pleaded with him,” Mullins recounted of her meeting with Bush. Mullins said she was offended when she learned that Bush expressed support for hate crimes legislation, saying “I just went to him last year and he didn’t support me. So how could he support one?”

A Bush spokesman attributed the governor’s inaction on the Byrd bill in 1999 to several factors: It was not part of Bush’s own legislative package, and [strengthening penalties for one group] might weaken penalties under existing laws for [other groups which were not specified in the Byrd bill]. Advocates of the Byrd bill argued that the existing law was too vague.

Source: Analysis of Wake Forest debate, Jim Yardley, NY Times Oct 13, 2000

Adding to the polarization was the whole religiosity of much of the Bush Administration. He's never made an attempt to hide it and, in contrast to many past presidents of the United States, has made it clear the faith will be a part of his decision making. How does one take one's faith and use it as a rule of thumb in deciding how laws should be when these laws can so easily conflict with the beliefs of others? Al Gore descirbes Bush's religiosity as this:

Gore’s mouth tightened. A Southern Baptist, he, too, had declared himself born again, but he clearly had disdain for Bush’s public kind of faith. “It’s a particular kind of religiosity,” he said. “It’s the American version of the same fundamentalist impulse that we see in Saudi Arabia, in Kashmir, in religions around the world: Hindu, Jewish, Christian, Muslim. They all have certain features in common. In a world of disconcerting change, when large and complex forces threaten familiar and comfortable guideposts, the natural impulse is to grab hold of the tree trunk that seems to have the deepest roots and hold on for dear life and never question the possibility that it’s not going to be the source of your salvation. And the deepest roots are in philosophical and religious traditions that go way back. You don’t hear very much from them about the Sermon on the Mount, you don’t hear very much about the teachings of Jesus on giving to the poor, or the beatitudes. It’s the vengeance, the brimstone.”

In making religion a significant factor in his decision making, Bush has pushed forward the religious right to the forefront and it is the religious right who are the ones who are the foot soldiers of this administration. They are the ones who are out protesting at the city halls around the country when it came to the issue of gay marriage. They are the ones who are out protesting at city halls when it came to the issue of removing the 10 Commandment slab. They are the ones who are out protesting when it came to removing the words "under God" out of the Plege of Allegiance. They are the ones who are out protesting when scientists want to pursue the promising research that stem cells can yield and they are the ones protesting whenever abortion comes up. All of this action, of course, only resulted in a equal and opposite reaction. With the religious right pushing so hard, the left, who more or less are for said issues, pushed back equally hard.

And what has the President done to correct these two massive forces pushing at one another? Nothing. That's right, nothing. This polarization, naturally, permeated into the government where Democrats and Republicans are now at each other's throats because of ideology and because they want to keep their jobs for fear of displeasing their supporters. And with such a massive fire burning all across the country, Bush only continues to throw more wood into the fire with issues ranging from Iraq to gay marriage to the Pledge to stem cells to abortion to diplomacy and to foreign policies.

One way to fix this polarization is if the President would pay more attention to the other side by giving them what they want. But in doing so, he'll only piss off his supporters. With such a narrow margin of victory in 2000, is Bush going to be willing to piss off his supporters?

Sam Or I · Post by **Sam Or I** » 2004-10-11 03:48am

I see it more of a culture gap. To limit it to these 4 options. You are correct that they ALL contribute to them

1) Not just the right, but both political parties contribute to the currerent rift. From Ken Star To Al Gore to George Bush to Howard Dean. Each of them has help divide the country politically. Both Parties are taking more and more and oppisite stand to each other than in the past. The two extremes are getting louder and the silient majority is getting quiter.

2) Yes, I agree. On top of that Capatalism is at work with people like Michael Savage and Michael Moore. Playing on peoples emotions and making it feel like the "other side" has wronged them in some terrible way.

3) Yes, the internet has a little to do with it.

4) I don't think it is as bad as alot of people think, but I do believe the polarzation is increasing.

I am going to ad a few

Expanding #1) The Clinton Impeachment started a dominion effect. Despite what you believe about it, most people became black or white during this point of time. You either hated the Republicans for trying to bring him down, or Clinton for slipping the law(if you listen to most right wing rants Clinton will come up). From this point whatever Clinton did was wrong, or what ever republicans did was sneaky. Then the 2000 election hit. A very close Race. Then came Florida. Neither Gore nor Bush acted very well during this point, both sides felt like they were being cheated during this time. I remember a politcal satire saying "The Gore that Stole the Election" with Gores face P-shopped onto the grinch. From there #2, the media, has taken it to the next level. Bush is not doing the best "uniting" job in office.

I also believe there is a natural cycle of a Culture war, happening every couple generations.

Fire Fly · Post by **Fire Fly** » 2004-10-11 04:00am

To add on to what I stated, Presidents have always used religion in some public manner. Many will have prayer breakfasts and recite a passage here and there. Many will even use the G word in their speeches. But how do they still manage not to piss so many people off? Its because past presidents include religion as a part of their life but they don't make it their life, so to speak. By making relgion a very significant part of your life and a part of how & why you make decisions, you risk pissing off a lot of people because of the large diversity of the country in terms of religion and ethnicity.[/i]

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2004-10-11 04:27am

By making relgion a very significant part of your life and a part of how & why you make decisions, you risk pissing off a lot of people because of the large diversity of the country in terms of religion and ethnicity

But if you are genuinely religious, it's supposed to influence every decision you make, as it is a major factor in shaping your worldview.

A genuinely religious person may not cite God as the reason behind a particular decision, but his/her religion and its doctrines have played a part in the decisionmaking process none the less.

I think the 'problem' for GWB is that he's appeared to have adopted a very 'Old Testament' outlook, as Gore pointed out in your quote as compared to Jimmy Carter's (the other really overtly religious President of recent times) adoption of a 'New Testament' charity and forgiveness outlook.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-10-11 04:31am

Glocksman wrote:
By making relgion a very significant part of your life and a part of how & why you make decisions, you risk pissing off a lot of people because of the large diversity of the country in terms of religion and ethnicity
But if you are genuinely religious, it's supposed to influence every decision you make, as it is a major factor in shaping your worldview.

Many would argue that when it becomes more of an influence than the US Constitution (even to the point that he wants to explicitly alter the Constitution in order to suit his religion, after already having repeatedly ignored its Establishment clause), it is an unacceptable situation for the President of the United States.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2004-10-11 04:39am

Clinton was able to keep polarization under control through a lot of comprimises; two things that come to mind immeadiately are the ban on cloning (including stem cells) and the Federal Defense of Marriage Act.

Clinton wasn't a compromiser until the 1994 elections and the Republican takeover of Congress. In fact, the Republican win that year was attributable to his refusal to compromise (Gays in the military being the notable exception to this refusal) and dislike of his proposed 'Hillarycare' health care reforms and other issues.

He learned from that defeat and went on to beat the Republicans at their own game on a lot of issues. His handling of Congress during the budget disputes was masterful and he adopted a lot of Republican issues as his own.

Bush didn't have to compromise because his party already controls Congress. In a way, that's too bad as one served as a check on the excesses of the other.

If Kerry wins, I hope that the Republicans keep Congress and gridlock results.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2004-10-11 04:43am

Darth Wong wrote:
Glocksman wrote:
By making relgion a very significant part of your life and a part of how & why you make decisions, you risk pissing off a lot of people because of the large diversity of the country in terms of religion and ethnicity
But if you are genuinely religious, it's supposed to influence every decision you make, as it is a major factor in shaping your worldview.
Many would argue that when it becomes more of an influence than the US Constitution (even to the point that he wants to explicitly alter the Constitution in order to suit his religion, after already having repeatedly ignored its Establishment clause), it is an unacceptable situation for the President of the United States.

Agreed. The ethical problem for a religious President would be reconciling certain aspects of his religion with his sworn Oath of Office.

I'm sure its a conflict that Carter dealt with during his term and I *hope* its one that Bush is dealing with as well.

Fire Fly · Post by **Fire Fly** » 2004-10-11 05:30am

I think another reason why politcal polarization is so rampant is because past presidents have always been sensitive to the issues because there is such a large pool of thought and beliefs and opinons. However, Bush has made it clear that he will stick to what he believes no matter what, even if they will upset one group over another. As he's stated, he doesn't listen to what public opinon thinks of him and doesn't read the newspapers. If you want a direct answer, the political atmosphere currently is a direct result of Bush's gung ho attitude; he won't take into consideration the opinons of those across from him. Its this very attitude which has created a strong political voice for his seemingly fanatically supporters (religious or not), a very pissed off world, and a very pissed off opposition.

salm · Post by **salm** » 2004-10-11 06:37am

probably a both, the networks and the bush admin.

however, i don´t think tha internet has anything to do with it because there are just not that many people who regularily visit political debate boards.

frigidmagi · Post by **frigidmagi** » 2004-10-11 06:45am

Looking back, I think old Newt had a big hand in starting this. He lead the Republician party on it's berserker attacks on the Clinton presidentcy. Before then, I won't go so far has to say there were rules between them, but well, Kenndy did alot more than Clinton and he never got a lawyer sicced after him...

The Democrats replied in kind. It got even worst after the election because both sides felt wronged, Bush and Co felt their presidentcy had been stained by Gore's whining. Gore and his supportors felt robbed.

Despite a brief respite from 911, both sides have been hammering at other, usually for their special interest groups and I don't think it's going to slow down any time soon.

Xon · Post by **Xon** » 2004-10-11 08:50am

Darth Wong wrote:The Internet, for creating an environment where like-minded individuals will seek each other out and tend to communicate only amongst themselves, eventually segregating themselves to the point that they consciously avoid seeing arguments made by others. Consider the fact that most webboards do not encourage flaming arguments or consider them valuable; they value civility and consensus.

This is the same core issue affecting the 24 cable news networks.

Went was the last time you hear of a cable news show display any type of bias against itself and not have the poor sap who uttered it axed or shafted in record time?

What has changed is the increasing effectively of communications in delivering ideas to people. The same issues have always been there, they just havent been able to be communicated in such a raw state so fast with so much detail.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-10-11 08:55am

I would have to say 24 hour news networks myself. In America at least, they long since enforced this "us or them" attitude I now see as a basic American attribute now. The Internet may have broadened the scope, but the likes of FOX and CNN really started the ball rolling.

Sokartawi · Post by **Sokartawi** » 2004-10-11 09:25am

Combination of media and Bush administration, especially the clear stance Bush took, "you're either with us or against us".

The internet isn't a direct cause, however you do notice this polarization development very clearly on the internet, where people with a similar mindset lump together and often do not tolerate people with different ideas. But like I said, it doesn't originate from the internet, it's effects are merely very visible.

Post by **weemadando** » 2004-10-11 09:29am

I don't believe that there is an increase in political polarisation, but I think that the rapid rise of mass media and the expansion of such "non-issue mountain-out-of-molehill" media means that it certainly APPEARS to have become more polarised.

Soundbites can be deceptive. In Australia we've DEFINATELY not become more polarised as the latest federal elections results have shown. Strong votes for those who push the middle of the road policies.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-10-11 09:37am

I think it's also partially the sports team effect. People have a tendency to form groups and people in the opposite group become opposition. Once people get it in their heads that the other group is opposition, natural fanaticism makes people go from "oppositon" to "enemy". In the same way that I couldn't walk into some sports bars in Pittsburgh wearing a Cleveland Browns jersey (unless I was out looking for a brawl), people who get into politics stop seeing people in terms of "another party of the same country" to "enemy trying to ruin the country". I cannot name the number of people who get fanatical enough that they honestly believe that all Republicans are enemies out to destroy freedom, and how many conservatives think exactly the same thing about Democrats, rather than seeing both parties are two parts of the same league.

Unfortunately, the media only makes this problem worse. With network news, now the media has to provide 24 hours a day of content and need huge ratings to beat the other networks. The sad truth of the matter is that they've realized (particularly FOXNews) that objective, moderate programming is boring, and that you get the Neilsson boxes humming by putting extremists on the show, ones that set both sides against each other and don't even both to attempt objectivity. With network news, they pipe 24 hours of this into the televisions of America, shooting a million soundbytes a day at people delibrately set up to appeal to the zealot in all of us, trying to polarize us on the principle that if we are divided, we'll continue to tune in to hear the things we want to hear. As more than a few studies have shown, people will tend to believe what they are told and act as they are told as long as they preceive the person to be an authority*, people become so polarized that they stop thinking.

I don't blame conservatives for starting this trend, but I do blame them and liberals both for making it much worse by purposely and willfully joining in this phenomena, even enjoying demonizing the opposition. After all, Karl Rove wouldn't have a job if the Bush Administration didn't wholely approve of demonizing the oppositon, just in order to win a damn election. And what's more amazing is how many people willingly take this insulting display by going "it isn't personal, it's just politics". You'd think that people would be alot madder about our political leaders cavalierly spreading dishonest shit about their opposition because they believe that we citizens are stupid enough to buy it! Unfortunately, many people do, but you'd think the people who can see through it would be pissed about the insinuation about their intelligence that politicians make! Yet people just knuckle under and shrug "It's just politics." That apathy is such a major factor to why polarization of politics happened as much as the media or human pack mentality, because the people who are in a position to see through the bullshit don't care enough to make a change. It's sad.

In summary, I'm pointing my finger at human nature, the media, and apathy amongst people who can see through it all.

(*there was a scary as shit experiment called the Milgram Experiment that demonstrated exactly how fucked up people can act when when commanded by someone they believe to be an authority, not to mention Zimbargo's Stanford Prison Experiment)

The Aliens · Post by **The Aliens** » 2004-10-11 09:53am

There are a lot of factors in play here. This election campaign has been running since before the democratic candidate was even chosen, so the American public have had a massive amount of time to see the two sides taking shots at each other.

They've been able to turn on the news at any moment of the day and see these partisan platforms hammering away at each other, in an atmosphere (caused by Bush's stigma around 'flip-flopping' or 'sympathising with the enemy') in which the two can't agree on any point- if the casual viewer agrees with one side about something, he's going to feel obligated to agree with him on all things, because of Shrubby's brilliant speeches.

I also blame the 24-hour news stations for making news out of nothing, leading the candidates to attack each other ferociously over the smallest of issues so they can prove to their constiuents that they are, in fact [insert name of affiliated party here].

In the Canadian General Election, there was a debate between Jack Layton of the NDP (very left-wing) and the BQ (seperatists), and they actually agreed on a number of points about the environment. Can anyone see that happening in the American debates?

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Polarizing politics

Who do you blame for the increasing polarization of politics?

Polarizing politics

Re: Polarizing politics

Re: Polarizing politics