Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Like most of the regulars here at C-D, I subscribe to some strong beliefs. But I can set these aside for the moment, in recognition, and fear of the fact that increasing polarization, coupled with the proliferation of single-issue constituencies, is threatening the ability to function of statecraft based upon realpolitik, rather than ideology.
My principal concern lies in the apparent desire of both major-party Presidential candidates to so thoroughly discredit their opponent that the stage will be set for one-party rule -- with the various components of their opposition so thoroughly fragmented and marginalized that an increasing portion of the day-to-day function of the political process will be characterized by executive orders and/or bureaucratic fine-tuning.
In addition, with ideological camps both well-defined and increasing in number, the electoral process appears to be degenerating into a contest for the "swing voter", who is increasingly "guided" by both short-sight and a narrow focus on personal gain -- the personification of 19th Century French statesman Frederic Bastiat's observation that "The State is the Great Fiction by which everyone tries to have his way -- at the expense of everybody else".
We can forget the fantasy parroted by some of the more juvenile here that this dilemma will lead us into a new Civil War; the Spanish conflict of eighty years ago will likely go down in history as the final example of the population of a reasonably well-developed nation settling differences on the battlefield.
But I can envision our society approaching a fork in the road -- at which we can choose between emulating former European powers which have been eclipsed, or recognizing irreconcilable differences between "red" and "blue" America, and that the merits of each of the two approaches can only be tested and compared, after a fair, competitive, and hopefully temporary separation, and peaceful analysis of the two. It won't be easy, even to formulate the ground rules -- but the alternative is to sink into stagnation, and yield the mantle to someone else -- as Great Britain did to us seventy years ago.
Democracy, and the Enlightenment which gave rise to it, remains a fragile institution; and it is becoming increasingly clear to me that both sides of the current electoral circus are willing to compromise it in the pursuit of power, and while on the cusp of its establishment, and refinement as demonstrated by continued peaceful transfer of power, in a growing number of nations beyond the small club of Western European, North American and Anglo-Saxon-rooted states where it all began.
I think people overestimate how much the average American cares about anything. I think 99% of the population is pretty apathetic about politics and government. We see the extreme crazy left and right on TV but they're not going to drum up support for a revolution. This isn't Civil War era. Bernie supporters, Trump, Tea Part, BLM etc can get some people to show up to a march or protest but once they get to the point of picking up arms and going to war with the government most people are going to decide to stay home on their couch and watch TV.
There is no doubt we are going to have one of the worst presidents in history in a few months (unless somehow Gary Johnson wins) but the beauty of our system is that you only have to wait 4 years to hit the reset button (that and the fact that the who is president doesn't really matter). The reason countries revolt is because they know their crappy leader is going to be in office until they die
There is a great advantage to power when the masses are politically polarized. Real power, i.e., money and those who control monetary policies, will continue to rule in the midst of a democracy, and few can lift up their heads up from the party feuding to see the ruse of the two party system as a long ago merged construct of phony ideals and shallow social issues. I've lived through a ton of both parties puppet presidencies and the continuous criminal perp walk we call congress.
I don't subscribe to either party at this age, and I'm sitting here wondering how long it will take the average citizen to quell his zeal for this charade of democracy carried out in the usual circus like atmosphere we have become accustomed to. I'm sick of seeing Clinton and Trump acting as though they really care about anyone but themselves and their personal enrichment. We're fools in America, and the whole world is watching, I'm ashamed of how we hold onto "our candidate" fiercely defending all their crap, being "true to the party" instead of being true to ourselves as citizens of what used to be the best country on the planet. Answering the question: We will continue to be a divided nation, to our own detriment, and to the advantage of those who made it this way..
The stark ideological and political divisions in this country won't stop until the Republican Party kicks out its crazies. Before the right wing tea party types became so strong there were certainly differences between left and right, but they were manageable differences. But the radical no-nothing Tea Party types have pushed the GOP so far right that many GOPers and independents are either alienated from the party or afraid to take a definitive role in restoring it too normalcy--or at least normal enough to prove it can govern.
This polarization is squarely on the GOP. No one-time fringe movement like the Tea Party has become as strong among Democrats. Not Occupy, not Black Lives Matter, not the Bernie Bros. Center and center-left Democrats are still dominant and IMO truly want to govern rather than being the party of No. It would also be hard for anybody to really deny that both Tea Party and larger GOP intransigence has occurred under a black president, and has done so at least since Donald Trump tried to persuade the country in 2008 that the first black president wasn't even an American, and Mitch McConnell vowed in 2009 never to work with that president. Yeah, race still matters. A lot.
There used to be liberal and conservative wings in both parties. But that's impossible now in the GOP, and will be until the party kicks out the crazies and is unequivocal in doing so. If they do, there may be a chance again for serious bi-partisan policy out of DC. (Though I'd guess that the deep polarization might continue for a while in some state and local elections.)
Last edited by citylove101; 08-09-2016 at 05:45 PM..
Well, to maintaine that circus TV show called election campaign, you sort of must have at least two to chose from. it's rather hard to do with one party. So no, they will always have two clowns to point at. You are intelligent person, OP, you should know better than seriously treat this show.
Currently, the existing major-party candidates represent the culmination of the polarization of American.
But don't worry, I'm sure that unless things drastically change the next pair will be even worse.
I just cannot stress how much a third voice is needed in the upcoming debates. If it's just Clinton and Trump it will be a shout and point fest. We need an adult up there to show how bad the other two have become.
I dunno, I can't help thinking that maybe it would be good if Trump were to win this year, then spend four years screwing things up so badly that all of the people who have been slavering over him will put their tails behind their legs and shut up in 2020.
Or, more hopefully, this election will cause the demise of the two party system, and we'll move forward with three or four weaker parties that will have to work together to accomplish anything because they won't have the numbers to act alone.
Currently, the existing major-party candidates represent the culmination of the polarization of American.
But don't worry, I'm sure that unless things drastically change the next pair will be even worse.
I just cannot stress how much a third voice is needed in the upcoming debates. If it's just Clinton and Trump it will be a shout and point fest. We need an adult up there to show how bad the other two have become.
It would be nice if they would stop attacking each other and talk about issues.
What If Polarization in America Continues to Intensify?
In all honesty, I expect that it will.
Drumpf is trying to insult his way into the White House and so many of his followers approve of his loudmouth bluster and know-nothing approach. They also hate Hillary with a venomous passion, much as they hate Obama.
When they see their "hero" go down in flames on Nov 8th, they'll ratchet up the rhetoric and we'll be in for another term of ridiculous irrational sore loser behavior from the right.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What If Polarization in America Continues to Intensify?
