Why Is the Republican Field So Extreme? (Read 2137 times)

Trent


Good Bad & The Monkey

    Once-upon-a-time Colin Powell was considering a run.  I don't recall the same level of polarization then.

     

    We sure.  That's cuz he isn't really black.  Plus, he was born in the USA.


    Feeling the growl again

      Among the more moderate people, don't you think anyone will tend to see a president of the opposing party as more polarizing than one of their own?  I know I'm guilty of this.

       

      I pledge allegiance to no party but I do vote Republican more often than not.

       

      I did not like Clinton but I do not feel it was because he was especially polarizing.

       

      I voted for Bush, one of my biggest frustrations with him was that he built an administration around him that was polarizing.

      "If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does.  There's your pep talk for today.  Go Run." -- Slo_Hand

       

      I am spaniel - Crusher of Treadmills

       

      xor


        Question.

         

        What do each of you mean when you throw out the P word??

         

        I suspect that not everybody is using the P word in the same way.

         

        Shocking, I know.

         

          Except that Bush did it during VERY different economic times. Ignoring that difference is missing everything entirely.

           

          Doug brought out one point, but I guess I was also trying to illustrate the hypocrisy of the outrage expressed when the "other side" uses words like "unpatriotic". "missing everything entirely" is a pretty strong statement, and could also be used to describe forgetting the economic impact of September 11th and Katrina.

          That being said, after my last post I realized I haven't contributed anything other than criticism of my President to this thread.


          Why is it sideways?

            Sorry.  I didn't mean to diminish your thoughts by using dismissive language. 

             

            I understand your point.  I still believe that saying something like that in a speach is adding to the polarization.  Those particular images just seem so far beyond reality that I had classified them as "a stupid thing to say" in my book.  Others may be inspired.  I hope they were.  I hope they are acting to bring those things about.  Any one of those would be good things to work towards. 

             

            I guess I'm just not looking for that kind of inspiration.  I want action.  I can inspire myself. 

             

            Also, I think we all realize by now that if you have a "side" you are always going to think the leader on the other side is the one who is being polarizing.  That is the nature of things.  What I am trying to do is see the other side and understand how a conservative can see Obama as a polarizing figure.  Because if he's going to be an effective leader he needs to lead more than half the country. 

             

            That's a fair take. I guess what I was trying to show was that the remarks are understandable if you understand the history and experience that they rise out of and echo. But this is part of the problem, right. Increasingly, we do not share the same historical touchstones, the same discourse, the same forms of life.

             

            But we still have to live together.

            Trent


            Good Bad & The Monkey

              Increasingly, we do not share the same historical touchstones, the same discourse, the same forms of life.

               

              But we still have to live together.

               

              Sounds like my kids.

                P word

                 

                to me:

                 

                not able to lead or accomplish anything because your very being is contributing to dividing the country.  it makes political focus about who can position for the next election. 

                 

                Is the media often to blame?  yes.  Are we often to blame for just listenting to what our "side" says?  yes.  Are the politicians themselves often to blame?  yes. 

                 

                 

                 

                 

                LedLincoln


                not bad for mile 25

                  I don't know dude, I heard a lot of nasty things said about Bush.  As far as personal nasty stuff goes, Bush got as much if not more than Obama.

                   

                  Not convinced, but it's hard to check.

                  Trent


                  Good Bad & The Monkey

                    SRL, polarizing is defined as actively (through words and/or actions) dividing people into dichotomous camps.  For example: "Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists."


                    Feeling the growl again

                      Not convinced, but it's hard to check.

                       

                      I don't know dude.  Obama's whole campaign was "I'm not Bush".  Lotta demonizing going on there.

                      "If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does.  There's your pep talk for today.  Go Run." -- Slo_Hand

                       

                      I am spaniel - Crusher of Treadmills

                       

                        SRL, polarizing is defined as actively (through words and/or actions) dividing people into dichotomous camps.  For example: "Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists."

                         Monkeys are polarizing and have been known to be involved in terrorist-like activities.


                        Feeling the growl again

                           Monkeys are polarizing and have been known to be involved in terrorist-like activities.

                           

                          I'd be pretty polarized if someone ripped my face off.

                          "If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does.  There's your pep talk for today.  Go Run." -- Slo_Hand

                           

                          I am spaniel - Crusher of Treadmills

                           


                          Why is it sideways?

                            Question.

                             

                            What do each of you mean when you throw out the P word??

                             

                            I suspect that not everybody is using the P word in the same way.

                             

                            Shocking, I know.

                             

                            Ha. Good point. I think I was using it to mean: "an expression of a position I don't like." A politician is polarizing, then, if I don't like his views.

                             

                            (Obviously a total misuse of the word.)

                            Tramps


                              Agreed, anyone who dares hint at criticism of our President is obviously a racist.

                              Of course not.  Most criticism has nothing to do with race.  But it's also silly to deny that, for some--including some Tea Party leaders-- racism is part of what fuels the hatred of Obama.  I just have to talk to my neighbors (here in the South) to confirm that.

                               

                              To the OP, IMHO:

                              1.  Winning a primary involves stirring up the hard-core base (who volunteers and votes) who usually do not represent the party as a whole or the broader electorate.  That's one of the reasons why Bachmann, Palin, and probably even Perry don't stand a chance in the long run--at least not without some moderate makeover.  After the primaries are over, candidates always back-track from their more extreme positions to appeal to the moderate majority. 

                              2.  #1 has always been true but, for better or worse, the nation's political spectrum has moved significantly rightward in the last few decades.   (Go look at the things that Richard Nixon supported...environmental protection, rapprochement with China, etc; he would be called a socialist by today's Right.)  This shift has skewed political debates significantly.  Obamacare--protecting corporate profits through the purchase mandate--is not that different from what Republicans were advocating a few years back.  The idea that Obama is a leftist is silly and can only be made in this skewed context. (Anyone remember the single-payer option?) Heck, some Fox News yahoo was calling Warren Buffett a socialist last week!  Orwell must have had a good laugh at that one. In this context, the Right must keep pushing the envelope to be ideologically pure, thus producing what some see as more extremism.

                              3.  The massive influx of unaccountable corporate money in politics (in part as a result of the Citizens United case) is part of what fuels this trend too.  The corporate takeover of the Tea Party (remember when the Tea Party briefly protested against corporate bailouts and for holding Wall Street accountable?) via the Kochs and others represents the new electoral strategy that is more libertarian than in the past.  Previously, the Republicans were a party of coalition between the business conservatives (who are relatively small in number but have the $$ to bankroll campaigns) and the social conservatives (who are large in number but don't necessarily have big $$$).  The genius of Rove and his ilk was to figure out how to mobilize social conservatives to vote against their economic interests, while making sure they paid no attention to the corporations behind the curtain pulling the strings.  But that is no longer effective..abortion is still legal, support for gay marriage is growing, and social conservatism and religion in general has declined in popularity.  So in its place,  the new Republican coalition is more more libertarian--keep the government out of the doctor's office, away from my guns, and, most of all, away from my paycheck. That's something the corporate sector can fully endorse:  reduce the ability of government to regulate or otherwise interfere with maximizing profit.  The message is a simply and effective one: the government is the source of all your troubles.  The massive increase in economic inequality made possible, in part, by globalization, "free trade," "free market" principles, and the virtual disappearance of private sector unions gets swept under the carpet.  "Government Sucks" fits more easily on a bumper sticker.

                              4. It's also useful to remember that some 40 percent of eligible Americans don't vote, even in presidential elections--for whatever reason.  (They tend to be poorer, less educated, and more supportive of government than the population as a whole.)  Whoever wins elections, therefore, is always elected by a minority of the eligible electorate. 

                               

                              Unlike most, I think it's good that a running board occasionally has a political discussion.  It's a chance for people to practice rational debate and the exchange of ideas. 

                              Be safe. Be kind.

                                Unlike most, I think it's good that a running board occasionally has a political discussion.  It's a chance for people to practice rational debate and the exchange of ideas. 

                                 

                                Socialist!