Growing Partisanship

[TGHusker]

http://news.yahoo.com/growing-partisanship-splitting-u-two-191000316.html

 

I wanted to start a new thread specifically on this topic when I saw this article. In one of the other threads (I believe the one on the Tea Party vs Establishment Repubs), I noted that I thought the repubs were moving more right and the dems more left. After discussion wt Carl and Jr, I concluded that the Dems were always left (just had a few more pro-military people back in the 80s) but that the Repubs were the ones who moved to the right - thus expanding the gap.

 

This concerns me as I know it does many others that we have entered an era of dysfunction as a national family. We've seen it under GWB and now under Obama (interesting that another poll came out showing Obama was just as unpopular as GWB is now: But that isn't the point of my post. It seems the best gov't have been in the Reagan, GHWB, Clinton years. When compromise was part of what made things work. It wasn't always smooth - we had gov't shut downs, presidential investigations, and broken promises - Read My Lips- no new Taxes - but at least we had a growing economy and respect in the world.

 

Guys - how do we get back to it. I know I can be a 'purist' like the next guy - want the president, congress to be as close to my views as possible - but that doesn't work. It is making me think about the primaries next week in Okla. I was leaning towards one guy who would be new to Congress, but now I'm leaning a bit more moderate - just because we need
Washington to work. (Hey everyone here in Okla is pretty conservative but some try to out conservative the incompetent who is already conservative. )

 

So my $1000 question is - How do we get back to a functioning Congress/President and create less of a divide between the 2 sides?

 

This article & the Pew poll it reports on seems to show that both parties have moved.

 

Several Quotes:

The evidence is compelling, according to the exhaustive study, based on nationwide interviews with 10,000 adults between Jan. 23 and March 16.

Today, 92 percent of Republicans are to the right of the median Democrat on core issues and beliefs, while 94 percent of Democrats are to the left of the median Republican.

By contrast, 20 years ago, 64 percent of Republicans were to the right of the median Democrat on a set of political values, while 70 percent of Democrats found themselves to the left of the median Republican.

 

This profound shift reflects movement on both sides of the political divide, with more Republicans shifting farther to the right and more Democrats embracing far more liberal views. At the same time, partisan animosity has mushroomed to the point where partisans genuinely believe the opposing party’s policies “are so misguided that they threaten the nation’s well-being,” the report states

 

“The overall share of Americans who express consistently conservative or consistently liberal opinions has doubled over the past two decades from 10 percent to 21 percent,” the study said. “And ideological thinking is now much more closely aligned with partisanship than in the past. As a result, ideological overlap between the two parties has diminished.

 

Murray added that while many Americans “in the middle of the ideological spectrum want compromise” by the two parties in Washington, those in the middle tend to be “less active and influential” than the highly motivated ideologues on the far right and far left.

[TGHusker]

I copied this from Carl's post on the Who will win the 2016 Presidential election. I thought this was applicable to this thread and I found it pretty revealing.

By the look of the below, it seems those of us on the right who want gov't to work, need to work at our ability to work with others. I don't know the deeper #s behind the poll (how many of each type of voter

was interviewed) but it is interesting nevertheless

 

From Carl's post:

Lots of talk in this thread about who wants compromise and who doesn't. Here is some data:

 

http://www.vox.com/2...on-to-governing

 

Might help clear some things up.

[BigRedBuster]

Hold the media accountable when they try to feed is a load of crap.

 

The only faith I have in the American people is that if they have true information they will make the right choices.

 

Right now that isn't happening.

 

Change that and the world changes.

[tschu]

Lots of peoples' jobs are to make sure that others don't have true information, so yeah, it'll never change.

[AR Husker Fan]

The single biggest problem with achieving bi-partisanship is money. What I mean is that, particularly since Citizens United, extremists on both sides can and will spend virtually unlimited amounts to support only those candidates that will follow a specific platform - and to rally against those that dare to even consider compromise.

 

What results are politicians that are singularly wedded to special interest group. To obtain funding and backing, they must strictly adhere to the desires of the special interests. While this is true for both parties, it seems to be more prevalent with the Republican party. That's why we see primaries that result in fringe candidates that lose in the general election.

 

It isn't that these problems did not exist prior to Citizens United; it's that Citizens United exacerbated and magnified the problem.

[carlfense]

The single biggest problem with achieving bi-partisanship is money. What I mean is that, particularly since Citizens United, extremists on both sides can and will spend virtually unlimited amounts to support only those candidates that will follow a specific platform - and to rally against those that dare to even consider compromise.

 

What results are politicians that are singularly wedded to special interest group. To obtain funding and backing, they must strictly adhere to the desires of the special interests. While this is true for both parties, it seems to be more prevalent with the Republican party. That's why we see primaries that result in fringe candidates that lose in the general election.

 

It isn't that these problems did not exist prior to Citizens United; it's that Citizens United exacerbated and magnified the problem.

And this is why the president's power to nominate Supreme Court justices is arguably the most important aspect of the presidency.

[carlfense]

[TGHusker]

Let's take one issue that strikes a partisan cord more right vs moderate/left than Repub vs Dem - immigration reform. I don't want to highjack my own thread and make this about immigration reform now but here is my question 2 questions:

1. Could we get immigration reform if we worked at it 'piece meal' - one issue at a time instead of 'comprehensive'. Create a list of issues (border security, path to citizenship, etc) , rank them by priority and then work them one issue at at time. It seems that 'comprehensive' is too broad and just opens the door for more partisanship.

2. Could it be that both parties really don't want to settle the issue completely as it is a campaign issue each side? I think of abortion as a similar type of topic. It is not as much of a hot button item as it was before, but even when the Repubs had control of all branches of govt - nothing was settled definitively. A lot of lip service but no comprehensive action to follow up the lip service. It, like immigration reform, become emotional collars around voters necks to keep them in the fold. ie: "I'll never vote for a dem because they aren't pro-life." Or "I won't vote for a repub because they are anti choice"

[carlfense]

1. Could we get immigration reform if we worked at it 'piece meal' - one issue at a time instead of 'comprehensive'. Create a list of issues (border security, path to citizenship, etc) , rank them by priority and then work them one issue at at time. It seems that 'comprehensive' is too broad and just opens the door for more partisanship.

Only in theory. In practice what would happen is that the lowest hanging fruit would be addressed and no hard choices would be made.

 

2. Could it be that both parties really don't want to settle the issue completely as it is a campaign issue each side? I think of abortion as a similar type of topic. It is not as much of a hot button item as it was before, but even when the Repubs had control of all branches of govt - nothing was settled definitively. A lot of lip service but no comprehensive action to follow up the lip service. It, like immigration reform, become emotional collars around voters necks to keep them in the fold. ie: "I'll never vote for a dem because they aren't pro-life." Or "I won't vote for a repub because they are anti choice"

Sure.

[AR Husker Fan]

1. Could we get immigration reform if we worked at it 'piece meal' - one issue at a time instead of 'comprehensive'. Create a list of issues (border security, path to citizenship, etc) , rank them by priority and then work them one issue at at time. It seems that 'comprehensive' is too broad and just opens the door for more partisanship.

As Carl said, only in theory. I differ with him only in the sense that in reality, IMO, even the low-hanging fruit will lead to division, particularly after Cantor's defeat. That sent a signal that nothing short of complete opposition to any kind of immigration reform - short of deporting every illegal immigrant, building an impenetrable wall and the like - will be tolerated.

 

2. Could it be that both parties really don't want to settle the issue completely as it is a campaign issue each side? I think of abortion as a similar type of topic. It is not as much of a hot button item as it was before, but even when the Repubs had control of all branches of govt - nothing was settled definitively. A lot of lip service but no comprehensive action to follow up the lip service. It, like immigration reform, become emotional collars around voters necks to keep them in the fold. ie: "I'll never vote for a dem because they aren't pro-life." Or "I won't vote for a repub because they are anti choice"

Perhaps. I can certainly see why. But it's a zero-sum game for Republicans. With the changing demographics in this country, their stance is ensuring that, very soon, the new majority will consist of those that resent that party's stance. So why not get ahead of the tide? Dicker and get some strengthening of immigration laws and reforms but also accept some kind of path to citizenship and lessening of unnecessary restrictions such as denying education to those already in the country.

[carlfense]

. . . So why not get ahead of the tide? Dicker and get some strengthening of immigration laws and reforms but also accept some kind of path to citizenship and lessening of unnecessary restrictions such as denying education to those already in the country.

Probably because the biggest immediate threat to any GOP politician is angering the old white folks who form their base. Sure the demographics look grim over the next decade or so . . . but that's a couple of elections away and if the current pols vote for anything that is labeled as amnesty they won't make it to the next decade.