I found this article from 2004 in my collection. Robert Samuelson wrote that the country was NOT polarized, i.e. we citizens were no more polarized than we had ever been. But politics had changed, so as to make us seem so. He was right then, but is what he wrote still true? Or have we ordinary citizens been persuaded to despise "the other side" by the talking heads and posing politicians?

He wrote in his conclusion:

What's actually happened is that politics, and not the country, has become more polarized. By politics, I mean elected officials, party activists, advocates, highly engaged voters and commentators (TV talking heads, pundits). In his search for polarization, sociologist DiMaggio examined many subgroups by age, race, sex and education. None exhibited more polarization, with one exception: people who identified as "strong" Republicans or Democrats. That's about 30 percent of adults.

Similarly, members of Congress are more polarized: Democrats are more liberal, Republicans are more conservative and "moderates" are scarcer. Political scientist Gary Jacobson of the University of California at San Diego says that members of Congress have "moved further apart [ideologically] than . . . at any time since before World War I."
Congressional polarization has many causes. Republican advances in the South pulled the party from its moderate Northeastern tradition. In the 1950s, 37 percent of House Republicans came from the Northeast, reports Jacobson; now 17 percent do. For Democrats, the opposite has occurred. Fewer conservative Southerners make the party more liberal. Meanwhile, redistricting by both parties has created ever-safer seats. In 1992, Jacobson estimates, 281 House seats were safe; by 2002, the number was 356. Candidates appeal less to centrist voters. In Congress, both parties have adopted confrontational tactics.

The result is a growing disconnect between politics -- and political commentary -- and ordinary life. Politics is increasingly a world unto itself, inhabited by people convinced of their own moral superiority: conspicuously, the religious right among Republicans; and upscale liberal elites among Democrats. Their agendas are hard to enact because they're minority agendas. So politicians instinctively focus on delivering psychic benefits. Each side strives to make its political "base" feel good about itself. People should be confirmed in their moral superiority.

Polarization and nastiness are not side effects. They are the game. You feel good about yourself because the other side is so fanatical, misguided, corrupt and dishonest. Because real differences between party programs have narrowed, remaining differences are exaggerated. Drab policy debates become sensational showdowns -- one side or the other is "destroying" the schools, the environment or the economy. Every investigation aims to expose the other side's depravity: One side's Whitewater becomes the other's Halliburton.

Entertainment and politics merge, because both strive to satisfy psychic needs. Rush Limbaugh and Michael Moore are more powerful political figures than most senators, because they provide more moral reinforcement. Politicians, pundits and talking heads all heed the same logic: By appealing to their supporters' strongest passions and prejudices, they elevate their standing. Of course, much of this is essential to legitimate debate. But it's also a marketing strategy and a formula for power. Stridency sells, because, for many, polarization feels good.

Politics should reflect and, at its best, conciliate the nation's differences. Increasingly, it does the opposite. It distorts, amplifies and inflames conflicts. It's a turnoff to vast numbers of centrist voters who do not see the world in such uncompromising absolutes. This may be the real polarization: between the true believers on both sides and everyone else.
© 2004 The Washington Post Company

An interesting read ~ parts of the excerpt are very true, at least in my own case ~ I was very liberal as a young woman [beginning in the mid to late 60s thru at least the early 80s], then seemed to moderate bit by bit over the next few decades ~ but I easily admit that gwb's transparency and dishonesty pushed me further left again ~ and the GOP/TPers' dishonesty, cruelty, and game-playing have pushed me full-circle back to where I began this journey ~ but I need to think about this before answering your direct questions, gramps ~

Sooz

Today, Thanksgiving Day, 2013, I have received the following message.

I have been asked to respond to this post or no other "notifications" would be sent to me. I am responding. I just wanted to be sure the Team is aware that no other notifications have been sent to me, until this moment.

"admin@voic​esorchoices​.com (admin@voicesorchoices.com)
Add to contacts
7:49 PM
[Flag this message]
To: Jeannedeurk1
Picture of admin@voicesorchoices.com


Parts of this message have been blocked for your safety.
Show content|I trust admin@voicesorchoices.com. Always show content.

Hello Jeannedeurk1,

You are receiving this notification because you are watching the forum,
"GENERAL" at "Voices or Choices". This forum has received a new topic by
grampatom since your last visit, "Polarization? What polarization?". You
can use the following link to view the forum, no more notifications will be
sent until you visit the forum.

viewforum.php?f=66

If you no longer wish to watch this forum you can either click the
"Unsubscribe forum" link found in the forum above, or by clicking the
following link:

viewforum.php?uid=30&f=66&unwatch=forum

--
Thanks, The Team"

I have responded.

I hope that everyone has had a wonderful Thanksgiving and will have much to be thankful for during the coming year(s).

I am unwell, and occasionally visit this group in search of some post(s) that will clarify, or make better, what I hear from the MSM. Unfortunately, since I seem to have lost the ability to receive notifications for the past year, I have kind of lost touch.

Wishing you well.

jd

JD, your post is the first I'm learning of this practice, and I'm not sure WHY you are getting that message ~ I will ask Jabra to take a look at settings, because we did NOT set that up ~ please continue to do whatever you are comfortable doing ~ read when you want, post when you want ~ there is no requirement that anyone MUST post ~

If anyone else has received that kind of message, please let us know ~

Sooz

Sooz,

As I said, these are also the first such messages I have received.

I had three links available to me for VOC due to the changes some time back. For quite some time, I have not been able to get through on any of them, unless I was (in my dotage) clicking on the same dead link. Getting through was a hit of miss.

I have not been well recently and am having trouble with a lot of things, so I figured I might have been cancelled out as non-participating.

So, if it is news to you, it is also news to me. There may be no others receiving these instructions. If there's a problem, I'm glad I brought it to your attention. I am simply relieved to have been successful, in recent weeks, in getting to the board. My small success may have stimulated some electronic activity automatically.

jd

grampa, I totally agree with this. It infuriates me. I was really bothered that the dems did not have any kind of real discussion about Obama's first term before electing him again. I speak about the dems because I expect better from them. It has seemed to me that when Bush did something it was terrible, but whe Obama does the same thing at most there is silence from the dems.

Look at the big thing now about leaving troops in Afghanistan. Excuse me I thought we were getting out. 8000 troops there after we get out is not getting out. I hated that Bush acted like the bad guys were only in one place. Now Obama is doing the same. We have to stay there because of Al Quiada. Well they are everywhere, not just in Afghanistan, assholes. Meanwhile, we keep sending money to the miliitary coup in Egypt, Iraq is still Iraq, Syria is still Syria, Iran is still Iran. Obama's foreign policy sucks but where are the dems in the debate? Where are they when any of his promises are broken? He has horrible advisors. The best way to help a President is to be honest and to help him be the best and that is done by true discussion. He doesn't discuss. The dems don't discuss.

Of course the repubs just disagree with everything he does. Meanwhile the true conservatives have disappeared under the weight of the tea party idiots.

The majority of the people are left out by both sides. It's really sad.

Its the professionalization of the political parties that is the problem. When politics becomes a "profession" rather than a "calling" the major political institutions are taken over by careerists. And, for careerists there's only one real criteria for success - their own personal advancement. The basis for that is winning the elections they are personally involved with.

I always find it amusing when people fling "agenda" as if it was a bad thing. But a politician without something significant driving them than lining their own pockets is the real rotten apple in the barrel.

Polarisation (or what we call "wedge politics") is typically a means to that end. Of course, we also have to recognise that, by their very nature, careerists tend to be short-sighted. Its this election that counts, not what happens down the track.

Cattleman, I totally agree.

That still puzzles me.
In Germany parties election campaign ads usually start with: "Our agenda for year 20xx is this, blah blah".
People are actually comparing the parties' published agendas before voting.

Jeez, guys, you mean actually vote on issues and needs instead of parties? What a strange concept. I almost said foreign concept.

I should have said "some people". And that's only part of the decision making.
But yes, parties advertize their "Agendas" in many far, far away, foreign countries.

We have this weird thing called "party platform", of which the actual candidates are pretty much independent. The platform is the party's letter to Political Santa Claus. Dear Santa, please send us a repeal of Roe v. Wade, and mandatory semi-automatic weapons in schools, and "In God We Trust" on BOTH SIDES of our dollar bills, and etc. The platform is the circus barker's pitch to the party's extreme right or left base. The candidate affirms it with fingers prominently crossed for moderates and independents to see, if he or she truly wants to be elected.

That's one advantage of a parliamentary rather than a presidential system. When you are elected you pretty much have to conform to the party platform.
But the same sort of careerism is endemic in all systems.

Some people have argued that having limited terms is a solution but I think that's slightly missing the point and could have deleterious effects.

Its the Party bureaucracies that need to be flushed out every few years or so, but I don't know how you could go about that.