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.
I am a pessimist, but not because I think the Crazy will remain forever. The problem I think is that the constitution doesn't allow for victory: our system of checks-and-gridlock and division of powers assumes a basic degree of consensus and prevents one side from simply beating the other.
Most Americans cleave to the party line on this: the system forces compromise, which forces the pols to work together, and that's a good thing. Unfortunately, it's mostly myth: the American system of government has no mechanism to force positive cooperation, only the means to force stalemate.
The assumption is that pols will work together rather than accept stalemate - but there's nothing in the system which requires this outcome, and as we've seen repeatedly in the last twenty years, there is no guarantee the pols in any particular time will choose compromise over intransigence.
What has historically promoted compromise, outside times of foreign war, was at base a gentleman's agreement to play the game - or to call it by another name, "comity". In effect, comity or civility in our system of government was a part of our unwritten constitution: thou shalt not obstruct presidential appointments just because you don't like the particular president; thou shalt not abuse the filibuster; thou shalt not shut down the government.
The extremity of Republican ideology won't last because it can't. The GOP can't win national elections. But it isn't allowed to die either, because just like the Democratic Party, it's sealed into the mortar of the system by state laws governing primaries and party registration. Which leaves it no choice but to modify its crazy and become electable. Which in turns means, sooner or later, a more moderate ideological stance among GOP congressmen.
But that alone isn't enough to restore the gentlemanly comity and civility which made the system work: once the unwritten rules of parliamentary restraint are broken, the precedents are set and it's very difficult - often impossible - to return to the old rules without a political cataclysm. In the last generation, the curtain has been torn away; no one can force themselves to believe in a Wizard whom they know isn't there.
So I think we're stuck with gridlock, even if both parties move away from hair-singeing extremism and toward the center. Moderate politicians can and will play parliamentary games for advantage, just as much as extreme ones.
For most Western nations, this isn't an issue, because they are geared to the temporary but total victory of one party or another. Win a majority in parliament, form the government, legislate as thou wilt, and then face the voters' verdict at the next general election. But ours almost never produces such a decisive result, and when it does, as in 2009-10, it's usually a brief aberration. In the past, comity promoted compromise the rest of the time - but comity has been broken.
If I'm right, the country will essentially go ungoverned for a long period - right, wrong or simply insane, neither party will be able to solve the nation's problems, which will fester and worsen until the situation is intolerable. I hope the next step in that case will be a second peaceful coup, just like the first one which began in Annapolis and finished in Philadelphia and wrote a second constitution for the republic in baldfaced defiance of the prescribed method of amendment. Because the alternatives at that stage would be far worse than a quiet coup and a third republic.
The right has the edge in the clash of ideas, but the left has the edge in the clash of interests. Collectivism is a proven failure--to wit, the USSR, California, and Amtrak with its $16 inedible cheesburgers. But because of Olson's principle of 'concentrated benefits, diffuse costs'
'The Logic of Collective Action - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
collectivists/leftists have a decided edge when it comes to the clash of interests. In the very long run, I think ideas trump interests, but the very long run is not 3 or 4 election cycles.
There has never been civility in politics, and the States have never been united. You are hoping for a fantasy that has never been true. The divide will continue to grow, particularly when we elect extremely divisive politicians like Obama. America will continue to disintigrate until it ceases to be. There is absolutely no hope of ever coming together to resolve anything.
You are a mindreader are you! some people just have it, and that intutive nature, which by all means your right. Fantasy is good for some, but so is reality. There has never been more of a division of the people then now.
Obama loves playing divisive, and does it well. America has already begun to disintigrate, and dismantnle.
I doubt truly, the two sides will ever see eye to eye, i see a storm a brewing!
Location: The Land Mass Between NOLA and Mobile, AL
1,796 posts, read 1,663,643 times
Reputation: 1411
Quote:
Originally Posted by to570717
Over the next three or four election cycles, do you see a return to civility and more United States of America? Do you see continuing divide among the two sides of the Isle??
Please do not tell me why one of the parties is worse than the other. I am curious if you think we will come together as a nation of problem solvers or split....
If we continue to divide, what will happen to America??
If we carefully read history, I'm not sure that we can conclude that there were ever "two sides of the aisle" from which to choose. While according to some people, it seems that the U.S. is more divided than it has ever been, that's a hard premise to sustain when looking back given the historical changes in the electorate that have rarely followed a clear logic of picking one side or another.
For example, in 1968, Nixon won, but George Wallace was basically the only third-party candidate in recent American history who ever won Electoral College votes in any states, period. The "segregation now, segregation forever" slogan that Wallace touted in his 1963 Alabama speech likely helped him win the popular and thus the EC votes in AR, LA, MS, AL, and GA. Humphrey clearly lost, but without Nixon's southern strategy and Wallace's campaign Humphrey likely would have won.
What we are seeing now is the end of the southern strategy. The GOP simply can no longer foment resentment among white male voters and expect to win; they have to give people something to vote for rather than against because their base is receding. I'm a well-educated female, I am very well-paid, and the GOP has never given me a good reason to vote for their candidates. Other than minimal student loans which were very well-supplemented by scholarships, I have never taken a hand-out in my life. What does the GOP have to offer me except for restrictions on the freedom of who I can love, who I can associate with, and really dumb stances on well-established principles of science?
If we carefully read history, I'm not sure that we can conclude that there were ever "two sides of the aisle" from which to choose. While according to some people, it seems that the U.S. is more divided than it has ever been, that's a hard premise to sustain when looking back given the historical changes in the electorate that have rarely followed a clear logic of picking one side or another.
For example, in 1968, Nixon won, but George Wallace was basically the only third-party candidate in recent American history who ever won Electoral College votes in any states, period. The "segregation now, segregation forever" slogan that Wallace touted in his 1963 Alabama speech likely helped him win the popular and thus the EC votes in AR, LA, MS, AL, and GA. Humphrey clearly lost, but without Nixon's southern strategy and Wallace's campaign Humphrey likely would have won.
What we are seeing now is the end of the southern strategy. The GOP simply can no longer foment resentment among white male voters and expect to win; they have to give people something to vote for rather than against because their base is receding. I'm a well-educated female, I am very well-paid, and the GOP has never given me a good reason to vote for their candidates. Other than minimal student loans which were very well-supplemented by scholarships, I have never taken a hand-out in my life. What does the GOP have to offer me except for restrictions on the freedom of who I can love, who I can associate with, and really dumb stances on well-established principles of science?
And the Democrats have their Northern Strategy of fomenting division through constant false accusations of racism, which remains fully in place. Rahm Emanuel and the Politics of Race in Chicago
What does the GOP have to offer you? Maybe a future where most of your 'very well paid' salary does not go to service $16 trillion in national debt.
And the Democrats have their Northern Strategy of fomenting division through constant false accusations of racism, which remains fully in place. Rahm Emanuel and the Politics of Race in Chicago
What does the GOP have to offer you? Maybe a future where most of your 'very well paid' salary does not go to service $16 trillion in national debt.
You are a mindreader are you! some people just have it, and that intutive nature, which by all means your right. Fantasy is good for some, but so is reality. There has never been more of a division of the people then now.
Obama loves playing divisive, and does it well. America has already begun to disintigrate, and dismantnle.
I doubt truly, the two sides will ever see eye to eye, i see a storm a brewing!
So do I. My only real regret is I will not live long enough to see how it all shakes out. Damn shame.
Over the next three or four election cycles, do you see a return to civility and more United States of America? Do you see continuing divide among the two sides of the Isle??
Good luck keeping this thread from disintegrating into a mud throwing display.
The departure from civility is not anything recent. In the 90s, many Republicans felt a hatred for Pres. Clinton followed by Democrats feeling a strong disdain for Pres. Bush. Many people complain about the gridlock and the lack of civility in Washington DC, but the politicians are mostly just extensions of the populace who sent them to DC.
I think the internet and the expansion of cable tv news have both contributed to the polarization. Conservatives and liberals now get their news from different sources. Both sides can go on-line to find "news" that fall in line with their prejudices. In the foreseable future, I don't see any mechanism that will change this.
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.
