Here is a blog post from the economist.
http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13496418
The last two presidents have split the country. I think most people would agree with that. Bush was undoubtedly polarizing (pre-911 with stem-cells launched that) and Obama, by the polls is really polarizing. The tea parties this past April 15th had close to 200,000 plus people marching in every corner of the country, and they were angry just like the Bush protests. People have said that this country is the most divided it has ever been. I always pointed out, jokingly and with seriousness, that the Civil War was more divided. But I've begun to rethink this. Issues like abortion, gay-marriage, health-care, and government spending are beginning to become divisive issues like slavery was in the 1840s-1860s. The country is divided. In addition there is a lack of faith in Washington to fix the problems. I think this is why dan has a desire to have some leader or party that has some mandate, so that the at least ideas of solutions can be attempted to fix the problems. This is a serious issue, because stark divisions cause radicalization. I even find this with myself. "A house divided cannot stand."
To what extent do you see division in america? What are the main dividing issues and people? What can be done with closing this divisional gab?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
First, Dan, read the article. Its great.
ReplyDeleteI can't stand this bullshit! I really enjoy politics and i think one of the reason is my friend scott (awww). We are able to have healthy and intelligent discussion about issues while maintaining views and supporting different politicians. But it drives me up the wall 1) when people reduce themselves to single party sound bites. They just regurgitate garbage from Michael Moore, Rush, Olbermann, Beck, et al. It drives me insane. Like the girl i know who said she doesn't have to a have a reason to believe something. That is asinine! 2) When 24 cable news and talk radio (i guess just the news media in general) employs apocalyptic wording to describe politics. Its the end of the world if Bush does x, its the end of the world if Obama does y. That kind of dramatic stagecraft sells ads but it does not foster healthy discussion about issues which is what is going to get things accomplished. Especially because it spreads like wildfire from the first group of people who are just sound bites.
I think one reason that Comedy Central's news is so successful is because they present themselves as entertainment. People are able to enjoy it but also look past the entertainment and see the news and information that is there as well. But regular news has turned itself into a sideshow as well but they don't admit to it. So people buy their melodramatic portrayal of the news and issues presented by them as unadulterated. It is easy to see this fact when we look at the kind of people that are the most watched/listened to (o'reilly, olbermann, moore, beck, limbaugh, that stock guy with the noises).
all of that puts the blame on the media but it doesn't rest solely with them. The government itself plays the game. Power and control are big issues but it has reduced out system to an us vs. them battle. Maybe i am naive about this part but i feel like our political party system should be everyone with the same goals but with different opinions about how to achieve them. I feel like we don't share the goal anymore, its not about our country succeeding, our citizens living good lives. It is about power and money and so we have people wishing our president to fail. I think that is awful. (i'm sure people wished that about Bush as well an it is equally awful)
I'll get down from the pulpit in a second. I would like to close in prayer (just kidding). I'd like to end with a Ben Franklin quote. When they were signing the Declaration of Independence, some guy whose name i can't remember said to the delegates, "We must all hang together." He meant we must all stick together. Franklin then famously amended it saying, "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately." I feel that that still applies and we have definable lost sight of it. Doesn't need to be a unity of opinion in our country for us to succeed but there does need to be a unity of purpose. Without that we will assuredly hang separately.
I've thought a lot about this issue the past couple of years. I read a good book by Paul Krugman called "Conscience of a Liberal". You guys should check it out. It is of course liberally bias, but Krugman makes the case that the large gap between rich and poor is one of the root causes of our current polarization. You throw religion into that mix and a dynamic issue like abortion and you've got yourself a wild ride.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I really think that at some point, we're going to come to some kind of consensus. I just don't understand how these religious extremists don't realize that abortions are going to happen whether or not its legal. Wouldn't protecting the lives we do have trump protecting potential life. I know its off topic, but I wanted to make that point.
I feel we've been much more divided during previous eras in history. You shouldn't give up your belief Scott that we were the most divided during the Civil War. Remember, the Civil War started pretty much right after we won Independence. It was just a matter of time before the North decided to stand up to the South's political dominance and finally put an end to slavery. The two regions were just so economically, socially and politically different that a conflict was inevitable. Especially when you had polarizing politicians such as Henry Clay, Daniel Webster and John C Calhoun.
We also were very divided during the Depression. We forget that Roosevelt did not have an easy time putting some of his initiatives into law. He was dealing with a hostile Congress for much of his last two terms. He dealt with a recession within the Depression after some economic growth that almost got him kicked out of office. Had WW2 not happened, it would have interested to see how Roosevelt would have governed against an even stronger Republican opposition.
Now, I think the media does play a role in creating more division. However, I think a lot of the country is middle of the road. Remember, like I said before, this election just proved that the religious minority in this country no longer has the influence it had 4 years ago. The conservatives can't seem to agree on a strategy other than just saying no. I agree that there should be strong minority opposition, but until the Republicans come up with ideas to counter what Obama is selling (which most of the country is tolerating at the moment) then we're stuck in the opposite position we were during the Bush years. Add to the fact that the media will never go back to equal time, so the divisions are going to seem all the more disparate.
I couldn't agree more with Nathan. The American Dream has gotten out of control. Money and power has just pervaded everything in our culture. And we are seeing now where that gets us. Which is why I was so made when I learned the government was giving more money to GM. We had a chance for real change and we are trying to keep the old system in place.
I really think when we get a grip on how to really understand this new media environment and iron out some of the problems we've inherited (also a good point, Obama did inherit a million sick chickens from his predecessor) we'll get back to where we were in the 60's and 70's.
you make some good points dan. this might be a little revisionist of me (though i do understand divisions in the country before the last 20 years, i feel like they were not as widespread given that the dissemination of information was slower less available) but i would say there is a difference between opposition and rivalry. I enjoy a match that is heated, difficult and sportsmanlike. In the end, even if i lost, it is still the most enjoyable way to play. In a situation like that there are obviously two opposing sides. But it doesn't need to be insidious and malicious. Now a rivalry (at least as far as i am using the term) is different. Its no longer about the game you are playing but the team. I feel like that is the case in our current political climate. Sunday Sunday Sunday! For one night only! It's a steel cage match to the death: Republicans vs. Democrats!
ReplyDeleteAgain, i may be revisionist in my assessment but it seems that the issues were at the heart of the divisions in earlier times.
great points by both of you.
ReplyDeletedan wrote, "the large gap between rich and poor is one of the root causes of our current polarization. You throw religion into that mix and a dynamic issue like abortion and you've got yourself a wild ride." I think that hits it on the head. And like what nathan was saying, you throw in today's media that likes to fuel the flames, if not start them, and you really have a mess.
I want to talk more about this, but I want to think it over some more.
The more I thought about this, the more I came up with this theory. Is there really a divisive politics between republican and democrat or the left and right? The more I thought about it, I think the reason why so many people have been drifting towards the extremes is the division between the government and the people.
ReplyDeleteWe should ask oursleves if there really has been any change of command in the past 29 years. And in a way, the answer is "not really". During Reagan we were involved in Afganistan, and each president has been involved in Iraq. Government spending increased under Reagan and has increased ever sense. The power shift from the states to Washington has increased. I think when Obama started talking about change he was right. The american people wanted change, but they didn't get it. Just how the people in 2006 wanted change and voted in a democratic congress. But did anything change in those 2 years? I think the real issue in divisive politics is the division between the government and the people. The people's voice is no longer beening heard. You have the moores shouting for this and that, but don't get it. You have the Hannitys shouting for this and that, but they don't get it.
Let me know if this is making sense. becuase of this distance from the government and the game of the Republic the Public have shifted towards more extreme measures. It's kind of like a child that doesn't get his parents attention. He start screaming louder or doing more damaging actions. For 29 years the government really hasn't changed. What do you guys think?
interesting theory and probably a good discussion by itself. As it pertains to divisive politics, i will have to disagree. That is i don't think it is a substantial contributor. There is probably some of the effects of a distant government on this issue but not enough. I feel like if the gov't/people gap was significant, we would see the government not necessarily fighting themselves. They would be efficiently and effectively putting through legislation, etc. But id we put the government in a vacuum and look at them without regard to the people, we still see them bickering, infighting and voting along party lines.
ReplyDeleteObama is an optimist (or so it seems based on his campaign slogans) so its no surprise that he vowed to change the way washington works. My guess is he didn't realize that it would be such a daunting task not to mention it is hardly a promise he can keep by sheer fact that it cannot be done by one man's will.
Now i'm off to start an open monday topic!
You maybe true, that my comment was a little off topic. But is our government really fighting itself? The congress gave Bush jr. full power after 9/11. Only a handfull of dems were against the iraq war at the start. Then when the people voted in a dem majority, we didn't pull out of iraq and instead we increased spending in iraq. Then when the people voted in a guy who said he would leave in 16 months the government still have him over 130 billion for the war in iraq and now they are saying they might have to stay for a lot longer. Gore was even in power and he didn't do anything about it. The Kyoto agreement was under Clinton and not Bush. Then Bush got in and did nothing for the cause. Then obama is in and he says he is going to do something but there really hasn't been much push, except talk about a cap and trade on carbon. If the world is going to end, and the people keep voting people in to help the environment, you would think something was done in the past 20+ years, but nothing. Then you go to spending, Clinton had a surplus, which was great, but that was mainly do to a strong economy that he then deregulated allowing for this crisis to happen. When Bush got in, as a fiscal conservative, he started spending like mad. When the first tarp came out, people on both sides were screaming on high the spending was, so they voted in obama who said he would cut back programs, but his spending is through the roof.
ReplyDeleteSo they do all this fighting but I think it is for show. Maybe you could point out areas where the government's fighting has stopped the presidents will.