what are the effects of political polarization

[timmy o'tool]

Its seem to me that we live in an era of extreme polarization. The differences between the left and right, religous and non-religous, the haves and have nots are ever widening. How do you think this will play out? Will it blowover or spill out into the streets? People see the same things and yet come to completely different conclusion and it seems to me that getting along with those on the other side might be impossible.

[THT]

Originally posted by timmy o'tool
Its seem to me that we live in an era of extreme polarization. The differences between the left and right, religous and non-religous, the haves and have nots are ever widening. How do you think this will play out?

We don't live in era of extreme polarization. It just seems that way because we are actively living it. The polarization has existed since the very first election.

American politics run in approximately 30 year cycles between conservatism and progressiveness. We are currently in a conservative cycle, nearing the end I think.

[timmy o'tool]

Then why were the last two elections so evenly split. They are hardly ever as close as they have been the last two elections. I am nearly thrity years old and can never remember people beening as passionate as they are now. A great many people have called this past election the most important one for this generation. I realize that some of that is just political dogma but, still I feel a growing rift in this country.

[bunge]

I think the 30 year cycles are over, or at least changed. With information moving so rapidly most paradigms are going to go out the window. Short term, this is bad. People are more easily mis-informed. As we as a society learn how to read these new "tea leaves" the situation will improve.

[Towel]

I was thinking about this, and I think that the polarization, while it certainly has underlying causes, seems so stark only because one side is actively playing it to get and keep power. What would our country look like if McCain had won the SC primary in 2000, and went on to win the Rep nomination? Would the electoral map in 2000 and '04 have looked so stark? Would we be talking so much about red vs. blue? I kinda doubt it.

But one side...not even a "side". One group has based its rise to power on magnifying and exploiting these differences. The result, I think, is a situation unique in our country since 1860. Yeah, few states went more than 60/40 in either direction, and a bunch are very nearly 50/50, but the overall pattern is geographically coherent and awfully stable - stable because they're based on religion and metaphysics, not policy. I think if these differences remain the basis of our political discussion, there's going to be some very serious long-term consequences.

Edit: I don't think this is part of a 30-year cycle, at least not anymore. (Neo)Conservatism has lucked into co-opting the Third Great Awakening of the US. The first two were in the early 1700s and the mid-1800s, so it's more like a 150-year cycle. It'll take a while to run its course.

[bunge]

Originally posted by Towel
Edit: I don't think this is part of a 30-year cycle, at least not anymore. (Neo)Conservatism has lucked into co-opting the Third Great Awakening of the US. The first two were in the early 1700s and the mid-1800s, so it's more like a 150-year cycle. It'll take a while to run its course.

I'm not up on my "Great Awakenings", but it sounds good to me. I do think the 30 year swings are on the outs and we're into a new phase.

[Scott]

Evenly split doesn't seem like "extreme polarization" to me. Some crossed the line to vote for Bush and others crossed to vote for Kerry.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by Scott
Evenly split doesn't seem like "extreme polarization" to me. Some crossed the line to vote for Bush and others crossed to vote for Kerry.

wouldn't evenly split be the evidence of polarization?

[Scott]

Would people voting for one or the other? A two party system engineers polarization into the system.

I think the rabid left see things through their own lens that make it seem that all Kerry voters are rabid Bush haters and all Bush voters are neo Christian jihadis.

Then you have the media saying "polarized polarized polarized" over and over.

I just don't buy it.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by Scott
Would people voting for one or the other? A two party system engineers polarization into the system.

I think the rabid left see things through their own lens that make it seem that all Kerry voters are rabid Bush haters and all Bush voters are neo Christian jihadis.

Then you have the media saying "polarized polarized polarized" over and over.

I just don't buy it.

Yes, but if Bush had won 70% of the electorate, we wouldn't be talking about the US as polarized. The country is pretty evenly divided right down the middle, give or take 3.5 million. That, to me, is pretty clear evidence of a polarized electorate. Or bad candidates. ;)

[Scott]

I just don't think it's so black and white. It's not like 50% would never vote for Bush and 50% would never vote for Kerry. A lot of people are in the middle and could go either way.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by Scott
I just don't think it's so black and white. It's not like 50% would never vote for Bush and 50% would never vote for Kerry. A lot of people are in the middle and could go either way.

Record turnout. You have said as much in another thread. That means half of the people had the option to vote for one candidate and didn't. And these people in the middle, as you put it, had the chance to go either way and did. I take your point, though, and I think it's a good one—that we cannot use the staunch wing of each party and use them as a measure for the rest. But the fact remains that country went half and half when presented with, in most places, three options.

[Towel]

Originally posted by Scott
I just don't think it's so black and white. It's not like 50% would never vote for Bush and 50% would never vote for Kerry. A lot of people are in the middle and could go either way. Not 50%, but I think you can safely say that at least 40% would never vote for Bush and 40% would never vote for Kerry. Check out CNN's exit polls (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html), especially party affiliation, 2000 vote, the favorable/unfavorables (including "Kerry says" and "Bush pays"), and anything to do with evaluating the Bush presidency (including anything to do with Iraq). It's all 90/10, or at best 80/20. For whatever reason, there is very little middle ground right now.

[bunge]

Originally posted by Scott
Evenly split doesn't seem like "extreme polarization" to me. Some crossed the line to vote for Bush and others crossed to vote for Kerry.

Polarized doesn't have anything to do with how many people voted for who. It's about how much the two sides disagree.

[jimmac]

Because of the division in this country ( which appears to be about even ) I think this is going to be a tough 4 years to get through.

[Outsider]

Here is a fun poll to take : http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/special/president/press.pundits/

[Towel]

Thomas Friedman, like many of us in the "reality-based community", has come to realize (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/04/opinion/04friedman.html) that we didn't understand the reality we live in:At one level this election was about nothing. None of the real problems facing the nation were really discussed. But at another level, without warning, it actually became about everything... I felt as if I registered to vote, but when I showed up the Constitutional Convention broke out.

The election results reaffirmed that. Despite an utterly incompetent war performance in Iraq and a stagnant economy, Mr. Bush held onto the same basic core of states that he won four years ago - as if nothing had happened. It seemed as if people were not voting on his performance. It seemed as if they were voting for what team they were on.

This was not an election. This was station identification. I'd bet anything that if the election ballots hadn't had the names Bush and Kerry on them but simply asked instead, "Do you watch Fox TV or read The New York Times?" the Electoral College would have broken the exact same way.

[tonton]

How about reforming the election system so that we can choose "in the middle but leaning toward..."?

One way this could be implemented would be to have voters rate each candidate 1 to 10 according to their personal choice. That would give the undecideds a more appropriate voice.

[BuonRotto]

Isn't this forum a perfect example of the effects of polarization? I mean, isn't it great?!

[Harald]

Polarisation of the people was one fact of life in German life that gave rise to the Nazi's popular success. We were tought that in school.

With the virtual collapse of the German economy due to hyper-inflation and economic depression, the German people looked to other solutions. They found them in the polarisation of the political parties. However due to smart alliances and tactics by Hitler the Nazi Party was able to gain greater popularity and succeeded in becoming a major political force.

Source. (http://www.planetpapers.com/Assets/4537.php)

All it would take in the us is a major financial crash; something that lead to hyperinflation. But hey, it's not like the dollar is overvalued or anything ... no impending oil crises or fiscal crises on the horizon ...