American politics is so polarized....

[All Along The Watchtower]

Yeah, there are  a handful of "centrists" in both parties, but for the most part, the Republican Party is dominated by it's hard-line "conservative" faction and the Democrats are dominated by...well, the Democrats aren't dominated by anyone except people who are opposed to the Republicans.

What happened to the days of "bipartisan cooperation" on issues, particularly on issues that didn't result in really bad outcomes? What happened to the influence of Congressional Committees?

[Wonkish1]

Yeah, there are  a handful of "centrists" in both parties, but for the most part, the Republican Party is dominated by it's hard-line "conservative" faction and the Democrats are dominated by...well, the Democrats aren't dominated by anyone except people who are opposed to the Republicans.

What happened to the days of "bipartisan cooperation" on issues, particularly on issues that didn't result in really bad outcomes? What happened to the influence of Congressional Committees?

Nice job in not seeming partisan while decrying the lack of bipartisanship

[Franzl]

What is it with the American fascination with "bi-partisanship"? I mean, ok....the system is designed to make it near impossible to pass anything of importance. That means you need both parties to vote for things....but I don't quite understand why people think it's to be desired that there be a broad consensus on everything.

[republicanism]

Many people say that it is the polarization that causes the deadlock in American politics.

I'd say it is the combination of a bicameral, consensus-oriented system with a polarized political system. In the Westminster system for example the polarization wouldn't be a problem. One of the parties would just implement their politics.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Many people say that it is the polarization that causes the deadlock in American politics.

I'd say it is the combination of a bicameral, consensus-oriented system with a polarized political system. In the Westminster system for example the polarization wouldn't be a problem. One of the parties would just implement their politics.

Exactly. We have had (exaggerated by the electoral system, but it's the practicalities that matter, so let's ignore that) polarised politics in Britain since 1935, but there are no comparable issues with deadlock.

[Beet]

Many people say that it is the polarization that causes the deadlock in American politics.

I'd say it is the combination of a bicameral, consensus-oriented system with a polarized political system. In the Westminster system for example the polarization wouldn't be a problem. One of the parties would just implement their politics.

I don't see how that would end polarization as a problem. It would just unbalance the policy regime. The last time that happened was during the Civil War.

[republicanism]

Many people say that it is the polarization that causes the deadlock in American politics.

I'd say it is the combination of a bicameral, consensus-oriented system with a polarized political system. In the Westminster system for example the polarization wouldn't be a problem. One of the parties would just implement their politics.

I don't see how that would end polarization as a problem. It would just unbalance the policy regime. The last time that happened was during the Civil War.

The point is that you wouldn't have a deadlock.
The society could be as polarized as ever, but you would have a one-chamber.parliament that decides which way the country goes. On most most issues, 250 Dems would raise their hand, 200 Reps would be outvoted, and it is done.
No Senate, no President, etc. But you know all this.

[Beet]

Yes, I understand how it works, but given the state of the present GOP, I think I'd rather have deadlock with all its 'checks and balances' than the prospect of a unitary government (even if it means some deadlock when Democrats are in the majority as well).

[Roemerista]

Deadlock isn't a bad thing, it keeps from my ideal America, or your Ideal America occurring. And I suspect neither of us wishes to live in the other's.

[anvi]

"Political polarization" is now, in fact, to a large extent, about deciding whose pockets tax revenues go into.  In this, society is divided between different groups, large and small, each seeking their own interests.  The better funded and more influential the group is, the better chance it has to compel a party or a politician to secure its interests.  

"Checks and balances" were designed to prevent one branch of government from usurping the powers of the other, and not to prevent parties from dominating the political process.  That is why the founders, having established checks and balances, still worried about the rise of political parties in the United States.

Those who decry polarization (and I am one of them) assume that politicians can, if not often, at least sometimes when it's important, be statesmen and stateswomen and work out solutions that are the commonest good that is realistically attainable, and strive for the best of all of us and not just one or a few groups of us.  As nice as that ideal might sound, the assumption it is based on is unfortunately too often unaware of the world in which we're now living.  Politicians can only get elected and hold their offices to the degree that they represent some groups' interests against other groups' interests, and hoping that "the common good" can somehow magically arise out of this agonistic framework is turning out to be an evermore forlorn act of "faith."  If the game is merely one of representing distinct interests, then a commonly agreed-upon set of facts is no more to any of the players' use than is a solution that might trade some of one player's interests for those of another.  

But, in the end, this is not just a problem with politicians.  Individuals don't willingly surrender too many of their own interests to others either, not unless keeping a relationship with the other is more important that a limited interest of their own, or unless both are faced with an immanent threat.  If nothing more can be expected of individuals, expecting more of the politicians who represent them and the groups into which they coalesce will be in vain.  

We are not really one nation anymore; we are instead the 53% of these guys vs. the 47% of those guys, or the group with this amount of wealth vs. the group with that amount of wealth, or the group with this labor skill vs. the group with that labor skill, or the group in this industry vs. the group in that industry and so on.  A system, and a culture, founded on the conviction that self-interest is the most important human motivation and the only perspective from which decisions should be made in the face of every conceivable circumstance is, sooner or later, bound to end up like this.  What we now call "polarization" wouldn't be nearly as big a problem for our country if so many of us didn't like it so much, since it is the means by which we all continue to fight for what we want...for ourselves and our preferred groups.

[memphis]

I don't see that we're so polarized. The two sides dislike each other, but the things they argue about are frequently so small. Should we raise a tax rate 3%? Really, that's the polarizing issue? Let's go back ninety years and have a conversation between the IWW and the KKK. Now, that's some polarized stuff.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I disagree with your premise.  I question that the GOP is really made of up hard-liner conservatives.  You claim the Democrats are functioning as the party that just opposes their opposite, but I think that's the GOP.  I'll give the Democrats this credit--I think they believe what they support.  Right now, a lot of what the GOP has advocated is just done to oppose the Democrats.

[memphis]

I disagree with your premise.  I question that the GOP is really made of up hard-liner conservatives.  You claim the Democrats are functioning as the party that just opposes their opposite, but I think that's the GOP.  I'll give the Democrats this credit--I think they believe what they support.  Right now, a lot of what the GOP has advocated is just done to oppose the Democrats.

The party out of power is always going to oppose the administration. That's just how it works. But the Dems were really crappy at opposing Bush, partly because we used to have so many Blue Dogs who represented Bush districts. Although some swingback is possible, I believe the sun has set on that era permanently. The next GOP prez is going to have more trouble than Bush did with the Dems.
All that said, the GOP is much more of a hard-line party. A lot of that is that there are a hell of a lot more self-identified conservatives than there are liberals in America. And part of it is that the GOP is full of authority-loving followers, while Dems have much of a wishy washy let's hold hands, split the difference, and sing Kumbaya culture. Alan Grayson aside, the Dems don't have many warriors these days. It's a shame because we used to. Bernie Sanders is as close as you get to a liberal warrior, and he's not even officially a Democrat. The GOP is chock full of warriors.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

The best Democrat you guys had was Feingold in my opinion - I had a heck of a lot of respect for him because he voted how he thought - he was principled.

[Wonkish1]

The best Democrat you guys had was Feingold in my opinion - I had a heck of a lot of respect for him because he voted how he thought - he was principled.

I actually had respect for Feingold. I mean at least the guy set a results based priority as his primary priority and that was the national debt. Practically every other major Democrat just sets their primary priority at more government which isn't even results based its an ideological goal.

I also have respect for Lieberman, but I doubt many Dems on here do.

[All Along The Watchtower]

The best Democrat you guys had was Feingold in my opinion - I had a heck of a lot of respect for him because he voted how he thought - he was principled.

I actually had respect for Feingold. I mean at least the guy set a results based priority as his primary priority and that was the national debt. Practically every other major Democrat just sets their primary priority at more government which isn't even results based its an ideological goal.


I also have respect for Lieberman, but I doubt many Dems on here do.

I could say the same about Republicans and "less government."

[Wonkish1]

The best Democrat you guys had was Feingold in my opinion - I had a heck of a lot of respect for him because he voted how he thought - he was principled.

I actually had respect for Feingold. I mean at least the guy set a results based priority as his primary priority and that was the national debt. Practically every other major Democrat just sets their primary priority at more government which isn't even results based its an ideological goal.


I also have respect for Lieberman, but I doubt many Dems on here do.

I could say the same about Republicans and "less government."

But it wouldn't necessarily be accurate. Many, many GOP politicians are very results oriented and will back any proposal that looks like it will produce better results. I wouldn't call advocating for Charter Schools(which are public) or for example Universal Health Records as officially "less government" positions.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

The best Democrat you guys had was Feingold in my opinion - I had a heck of a lot of respect for him because he voted how he thought - he was principled.

I actually had respect for Feingold. I mean at least the guy set a results based priority as his primary priority and that was the national debt. Practically every other major Democrat just sets their primary priority at more government which isn't even results based its an ideological goal.


I also have respect for Lieberman, but I doubt many Dems on here do.

I could say the same about Republicans and "less government."

But it wouldn't necessarily be accurate. Many, many GOP politicians are very results oriented and will back any proposal that looks like it will produce better results. I wouldn't call advocating for Charter Schools(which are public) or for example Universal Health Records as officially "less government" positions.

Charter Schools are very much an ideological construct because they tend to subvert unionization (95% of charter schools aren't unionized) and promote uniforms/"christian conservative" values.

They also don't perform well:

[Wonkish1]

The best Democrat you guys had was Feingold in my opinion - I had a heck of a lot of respect for him because he voted how he thought - he was principled.

I actually had respect for Feingold. I mean at least the guy set a results based priority as his primary priority and that was the national debt. Practically every other major Democrat just sets their primary priority at more government which isn't even results based its an ideological goal.


I also have respect for Lieberman, but I doubt many Dems on here do.

I could say the same about Republicans and "less government."

But it wouldn't necessarily be accurate. Many, many GOP politicians are very results oriented and will back any proposal that looks like it will produce better results. I wouldn't call advocating for Charter Schools(which are public) or for example Universal Health Records as officially "less government" positions.

Charter Schools are very much an ideological construct because they tend to subvert unionization (95% of charter schools aren't unionized) and promote uniforms/"christian conservative" values.

They also don't perform well:

Actually they do perform well hence why Democrats Arne Duncan, Al Sharpton, and Michelle Rhee support them. Its a purely results based pick...conservatives have more "ideological" picks at their disposal.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

The best Democrat you guys had was Feingold in my opinion - I had a heck of a lot of respect for him because he voted how he thought - he was principled.

I actually had respect for Feingold. I mean at least the guy set a results based priority as his primary priority and that was the national debt. Practically every other major Democrat just sets their primary priority at more government which isn't even results based its an ideological goal.


I also have respect for Lieberman, but I doubt many Dems on here do.

I could say the same about Republicans and "less government."

But it wouldn't necessarily be accurate. Many, many GOP politicians are very results oriented and will back any proposal that looks like it will produce better results. I wouldn't call advocating for Charter Schools(which are public) or for example Universal Health Records as officially "less government" positions.

Charter Schools are very much an ideological construct because they tend to subvert unionization (95% of charter schools aren't unionized) and promote uniforms/"christian conservative" values.

They also don't perform well:

Actually they do perform well hence why Democrats Arne Duncan, Al Sharpton, and Michelle Rhee support them. Its a purely results based pick...conservatives have more "ideological" picks at their disposal.

I couldn't post the graph from the results Stanford study (which I'm sure you've heard about) which show that while brighter children tend to do better at charter schools, average children tend to struggle. On the whole, students are charter schools perform worse on test scores. If you want a link, I'll post it.

You've shown no evidence that they perform better though. I don't care about the opinions of a fake Democrat, a centrist Democrat and a politician I don't care about.

[Marokai Backbeat]

American politics isn't so much "polarized" as it is just really, really stupid and media-driven.

[Wonkish1]

The best Democrat you guys had was Feingold in my opinion - I had a heck of a lot of respect for him because he voted how he thought - he was principled.

I actually had respect for Feingold. I mean at least the guy set a results based priority as his primary priority and that was the national debt. Practically every other major Democrat just sets their primary priority at more government which isn't even results based its an ideological goal.


I also have respect for Lieberman, but I doubt many Dems on here do.

I could say the same about Republicans and "less government."

But it wouldn't necessarily be accurate. Many, many GOP politicians are very results oriented and will back any proposal that looks like it will produce better results. I wouldn't call advocating for Charter Schools(which are public) or for example Universal Health Records as officially "less government" positions.

Charter Schools are very much an ideological construct because they tend to subvert unionization (95% of charter schools aren't unionized) and promote uniforms/"christian conservative" values.

They also don't perform well:

Actually they do perform well hence why Democrats Arne Duncan, Al Sharpton, and Michelle Rhee support them. Its a purely results based pick...conservatives have more "ideological" picks at their disposal.

I couldn't post the graph from the results Stanford study (which I'm sure you've heard about) which show that while brighter children tend to do better at charter schools, average children tend to struggle. On the whole, students are charter schools perform worse on test scores. If you want a link, I'll post it.

You've shown no evidence that they perform better though. I don't care about the opinions of a fake Democrat, a centrist Democrat and a politician I don't care about.

I've seen the Stanford study. But look the highest performing inner city schools are charter schools. Its pretty much across the board true and they are minority in quantity in comparison of district run schools. And they operate with smaller budgets.

Your party is in the process of turning on this issue. You can be whatever side you want, but you will be in a very small minority of the population within a short period of time.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

The best Democrat you guys had was Feingold in my opinion - I had a heck of a lot of respect for him because he voted how he thought - he was principled.

I actually had respect for Feingold. I mean at least the guy set a results based priority as his primary priority and that was the national debt. Practically every other major Democrat just sets their primary priority at more government which isn't even results based its an ideological goal.


I also have respect for Lieberman, but I doubt many Dems on here do.

I could say the same about Republicans and "less government."

But it wouldn't necessarily be accurate. Many, many GOP politicians are very results oriented and will back any proposal that looks like it will produce better results. I wouldn't call advocating for Charter Schools(which are public) or for example Universal Health Records as officially "less government" positions.

Charter Schools are very much an ideological construct because they tend to subvert unionization (95% of charter schools aren't unionized) and promote uniforms/"christian conservative" values.

They also don't perform well:

Actually they do perform well hence why Democrats Arne Duncan, Al Sharpton, and Michelle Rhee support them. Its a purely results based pick...conservatives have more "ideological" picks at their disposal.

I couldn't post the graph from the results Stanford study (which I'm sure you've heard about) which show that while brighter children tend to do better at charter schools, average children tend to struggle. On the whole, students are charter schools perform worse on test scores. If you want a link, I'll post it.

You've shown no evidence that they perform better though. I don't care about the opinions of a fake Democrat, a centrist Democrat and a politician I don't care about.

I've seen the Stanford study. But look the highest performing inner city schools are charter schools. Its pretty much across the board true and they are minority in quantity in comparison of district run schools. And they operate with smaller budgets.

Your party is in the process of turning on this issue. You can be whatever side you want, but you will be in a very small minority of the population within a short period of time.

Evidence? Because the Stanford study shows that across the board, that isn't the case.

Nope, false. Adrian Fenty was defeated in DC based on the issue (I still would have voted for him Gray though), charter schools don't work. I went to one. There is a total lack of accountability at charter schools and they're a dumping ground for right-wing dogma.

[Wonkish1]

The best Democrat you guys had was Feingold in my opinion - I had a heck of a lot of respect for him because he voted how he thought - he was principled.

I actually had respect for Feingold. I mean at least the guy set a results based priority as his primary priority and that was the national debt. Practically every other major Democrat just sets their primary priority at more government which isn't even results based its an ideological goal.


I also have respect for Lieberman, but I doubt many Dems on here do.

I could say the same about Republicans and "less government."

But it wouldn't necessarily be accurate. Many, many GOP politicians are very results oriented and will back any proposal that looks like it will produce better results. I wouldn't call advocating for Charter Schools(which are public) or for example Universal Health Records as officially "less government" positions.

Charter Schools are very much an ideological construct because they tend to subvert unionization (95% of charter schools aren't unionized) and promote uniforms/"christian conservative" values.

They also don't perform well:

Actually they do perform well hence why Democrats Arne Duncan, Al Sharpton, and Michelle Rhee support them. Its a purely results based pick...conservatives have more "ideological" picks at their disposal.

I couldn't post the graph from the results Stanford study (which I'm sure you've heard about) which show that while brighter children tend to do better at charter schools, average children tend to struggle. On the whole, students are charter schools perform worse on test scores. If you want a link, I'll post it.

You've shown no evidence that they perform better though. I don't care about the opinions of a fake Democrat, a centrist Democrat and a politician I don't care about.

I've seen the Stanford study. But look the highest performing inner city schools are charter schools. Its pretty much across the board true and they are minority in quantity in comparison of district run schools. And they operate with smaller budgets.

Your party is in the process of turning on this issue. You can be whatever side you want, but you will be in a very small minority of the population within a short period of time.

Evidence? Because the Stanford study shows that across the board, that isn't the case.

Nope, false. Adrian Fenty was defeated in DC based on the issue (I still would have voted for him Gray though), charter schools don't work. I went to one. There is a total lack of accountability at charter schools and they're a dumping ground for right-wing dogma.

If you look at the list of the best innercity public schools the top of the list is dominated by charter schools. That is what I'm pointing out.

Not all charter schools are created equal, but the reason why they get better over time is because if a charter school isn't doing well they either get replaced by new control and a new model or another one comes in and takes away its base of students. At least charter schools allow for different models to occur and the better one to win out. In district run public schools they are allowed to just stay $hit holes forever.

[Хahar 🤔]

I disagree with your premise.  I question that the GOP is really made of up hard-liner conservatives.  You claim the Democrats are functioning as the party that just opposes their opposite, but I think that's the GOP.  I'll give the Democrats this credit--I think they believe what they support.  Right now, a lot of what the GOP has advocated is just done to oppose the Democrats.

If the Democratic Party stands for something, I have yet to learn what it is.