Extremism In Congress: 'Even Worse Than It Looks'?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

There's something to be said, though, for the idea that the electoral process should be a sort of hieratic realm in which leveling is allowed to occur to a greater extent than it would otherwise, as a matter of democratic bona fides.

I don't understand what you mean here at all. Layman's terms, please?

When it's election time, there's something to be said for relatively tight oversight of the process to level the playing field of political influence, in the interests of the spirit of democracy. (There are also things to be said for not doing this, but there is something to be said for doing it.)

[All Along The Watchtower]

Latino's and Asians can only relate to moderates in my opinion.

On which issues, specifically? Because "Latinos" and "Asians" are both very diverse groups of people, with different interests depending on economic status, nationality, region, gender, etc.

I do think it's an interesting hypothesis, though, that America's fault lines in politics have evolved as the demographic composition of the country have changed. Historically, the all or mostly "white" electorate was divided more directly by economic class and the type of work one did, with working-class laborers ("blue-collar whites", especially unionized ones), public policy and academic intellectuals, small farmers (though this depended heavily on regional political particularities and history), debtors, immigrants, and poor whites in the rural South and West voting heavily Democratic, while white-collar middle class workers, businessmen, professionals, managers, employers, etc. were heavily Republican. A lot of this also varied heavily  by region and religion.

Nowadays, with the mass political enfranchisement of non-white Americans, the systematic decimation of unions, and the shift of many whites (and Americans in general) in employment from agrarian or manufacturing based industries to service industries, as well as many whites moving from urban or rural poverty into the suburban middle classes,  the white population is much more right-wing in practice, overall, than it used to be.

It should come as no surprise, therefore, that whites who live in urban/metropolitan areas and tend to have more of a diverse population to deal with (both culturally as well as economically) are much more Democratic than those who live in the outer suburbs, exurbs, and rural areas (more specifically, in the South, West, Great Plains region, and parts of the Midwest), where there's either less people overall (rural areas) or the people are mostly "birds of a feather" (outer suburbs and exurbs).

If the Democrats are now the urban, metropolitan, "cosmopolitan" party in demographics, it follows that the Republicans are the small-town/exurban, "middle American" party. Since these are two quite different (and often opposed) environments, it's not surprising that the parties have become more polarized in recent years.

[Vosem]

There's something to be said, though, for the idea that the electoral process should be a sort of hieratic realm in which leveling is allowed to occur to a greater extent than it would otherwise, as a matter of democratic bona fides.

I don't understand what you mean here at all. Layman's terms, please?

When it's election time, there's something to be said for relatively tight oversight of the process to level the playing field of political influence, in the interests of the spirit of democracy. (There are also things to be said for not doing this, but there is something to be said for doing it.)

Ah, I understand what you mean. Though I don't think there should be some sort 'maximum say' someone could get, and no more influence on the system. It's undemocratic.

[Badger]

I know just what we need to make things better:

1. more private money in elections/campaigns
2. more supermajority requirements (raise the filibuster to 2/3 and implement a 3/5 vote to pass a budget or raise taxes)
3. more gerrymandering

Let's do this!

The first one won't make it better, but it will make it more open and free. The latter two are hideous.

How, exactly, has Citizens United made the American political system more open and free?

Now you can spend your money to influence politics more openly and freely.

Come on, I'm sure you realize how ridiculous this sentence is.

Well, I've read enough of your posts to understand why you think this sentence is ridiculous. But I think if you want to spend your money to promote a cause or candidate, its undemocratic for someone, especially the government, to prevent you from doing so, even if you're (gasp!) a billionaire. So, yes, now you can spend your money more 'openly' and 'freely' (that is, spend more of it for whichever candidate or cause you choose).

OK. Apparently you DON'T realize how ridiculous that is in the world of reality.

When you say "you" can spend your money more freely, who exactly do you think you were referring to? 99.99 percent of "us" had no problem limiting our pre-Citizens contributions to several thousand bucks an election--and again, in REALITY, far, far, far less then that in almost every case. By "you", one is clearly referring to multimillionaires and up who can now legally buy elections no differently than the Gilded Age.

You, sir, have a myopic view of "wealth = freedom" so divorced from reality, than even Ayn Rand would point and giggle.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I know just what we need to make things better:

1. more private money in elections/campaigns
2. more supermajority requirements (raise the filibuster to 2/3 and implement a 3/5 vote to pass a budget or raise taxes)
3. more gerrymandering

Let's do this!

The first one won't make it better, but it will make it more open and free. The latter two are hideous.

How, exactly, has Citizens United made the American political system more open and free?

Now you can spend your money to influence politics more openly and freely.

Come on, I'm sure you realize how ridiculous this sentence is.

Well, I've read enough of your posts to understand why you think this sentence is ridiculous. But I think if you want to spend your money to promote a cause or candidate, its undemocratic for someone, especially the government, to prevent you from doing so, even if you're (gasp!) a billionaire. So, yes, now you can spend your money more 'openly' and 'freely' (that is, spend more of it for whichever candidate or cause you choose).

Democracy means "one man, one vote", not "one dollar, one vote". It is legitimate that an individual wants to financially contribute to an electoral campaign with a certain amount of his money. However, when some people are so rich that they would be able to significantly affect the financial capabilities of a campaign, letting him do would mean subverting the core principles of democracy.

[King]

The tangent Vosem is taking this thread on is the perfect example of what is wrong with the Republican Party right now.  

I have no problem with people taking conservative stances on issues, but recently it appears conservatism is supposed to be some sort of lifestyle where you take conservative stances on everything.  They invent a "conservative side" to every fact whose author might have voted Democrat at one point in his life.

There is no reason to debate Vosem on the "issue" of the morality of caps on campaign fundraising because it is not an issue.  There is no right or wrong side.  There is the fact that the campaign fundraising system is broken due to corporate spending and SuperPAC influence.  There is no opposite side.  

On campaign financing, like on all the subjects, the Republican vs. Democratic debate should be on how best to fix these loopholes.  

But there are no "hows" to compare.  The problem with the Republican Party is that they've turned politics into a series of Yes or No questions.  There's no option A or option B.   That's where things went south for me in my ability to support the party.  

On Obamacare, the debate was never "which plan is best suited to give our populous universal health care coverage?"  The debate was "do you believe the populous has a right to universal health care coverage?" That's a ridiculous question; a question where I'm forced to say yes because no is such a stupid response and therefore support the Democrats not because I believe in their plan but because it's the only plan.

Yeah, that's my moderate rant.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

There's something to be said, though, for the idea that the electoral process should be a sort of hieratic realm in which leveling is allowed to occur to a greater extent than it would otherwise, as a matter of democratic bona fides.

I don't understand what you mean here at all. Layman's terms, please?

When it's election time, there's something to be said for relatively tight oversight of the process to level the playing field of political influence, in the interests of the spirit of democracy. (There are also things to be said for not doing this, but there is something to be said for doing it.)

Ah, I understand what you mean. Though I don't think there should be some sort 'maximum say' someone could get, and no more influence on the system. It's undemocratic.

Whereas I think it's undemocratic to give some more say than others based upon how successful they are at whatever behavior (or background) our economy happens to reward at any given time.

[Vosem]

I know just what we need to make things better:

1. more private money in elections/campaigns
2. more supermajority requirements (raise the filibuster to 2/3 and implement a 3/5 vote to pass a budget or raise taxes)
3. more gerrymandering

Let's do this!

The first one won't make it better, but it will make it more open and free. The latter two are hideous.

How, exactly, has Citizens United made the American political system more open and free?

Now you can spend your money to influence politics more openly and freely.

Come on, I'm sure you realize how ridiculous this sentence is.

Well, I've read enough of your posts to understand why you think this sentence is ridiculous. But I think if you want to spend your money to promote a cause or candidate, its undemocratic for someone, especially the government, to prevent you from doing so, even if you're (gasp!) a billionaire. So, yes, now you can spend your money more 'openly' and 'freely' (that is, spend more of it for whichever candidate or cause you choose).

OK. Apparently you DON'T realize how ridiculous that is in the world of reality.

When you say "you" can spend your money more freely, who exactly do you think you were referring to? 99.99 percent of "us" had no problem limiting our pre-Citizens contributions to several thousand bucks an election--and again, in REALITY, far, far, far less then that in almost every case. By "you", one is clearly referring to multimillionaires and up who can now legally buy elections no differently than the Gilded Age.

You, sir, have a myopic view of "wealth = freedom" so divorced from reality, than even Ayn Rand would point and giggle.

I'm fairly confident Ayn Rand, during her life, had exactly the same viewpoint I do, so clearly she wouldn't. But what I disagree with in your post is your claim of elections being bought by billionaire spending, because they're not. You choose to listen to political advertisements; you choose your political views, and whether you agree or disagree with those advertisements. No voter is being bribed. Nobody is forced to vote for anything.

So, of course it is different than the Gilded Age. I do believe that the right to be wealthy is a key freedom, so in that sense, I suppose I do think "wealth = freedom".

I know just what we need to make things better:

1. more private money in elections/campaigns
2. more supermajority requirements (raise the filibuster to 2/3 and implement a 3/5 vote to pass a budget or raise taxes)
3. more gerrymandering

Let's do this!

The first one won't make it better, but it will make it more open and free. The latter two are hideous.

How, exactly, has Citizens United made the American political system more open and free?

Now you can spend your money to influence politics more openly and freely.

Come on, I'm sure you realize how ridiculous this sentence is.

Well, I've read enough of your posts to understand why you think this sentence is ridiculous. But I think if you want to spend your money to promote a cause or candidate, its undemocratic for someone, especially the government, to prevent you from doing so, even if you're (gasp!) a billionaire. So, yes, now you can spend your money more 'openly' and 'freely' (that is, spend more of it for whichever candidate or cause you choose).

Democracy means "one man, one vote", not "one dollar, one vote". It is legitimate that an individual wants to financially contribute to an electoral campaign with a certain amount of his money. However, when some people are so rich that they would be able to significantly affect the financial capabilities of a campaign, letting him do would mean subverting the core principles of democracy.

No, it wouldn't. The system that I am advocating and which is currently in place is "one dollar, one vote." It is "one man, one vote." Contributing to a campaign is not voting. If you want to spend your money to significantly affect the financial capabilities of a campaign, you should under a fair system have the right to do that because it is after all your money to spend as you wish. I believe the right to spend money however you want is a fundamental right.

I have no problem with people taking conservative stances on issues, but recently it appears conservatism is supposed to be some sort of lifestyle where you take conservative stances on everything.  They invent a "conservative side" to every fact whose author might have voted Democrat at one point in his life.

This is true, but that this is true does not mean you should not be allowed to take a conservative position.

There is no reason to debate Vosem on the "issue" of the morality of caps on campaign fundraising because it is not an issue.  There is no right or wrong side.  There is the fact that the campaign fundraising system is broken due to corporate spending and SuperPAC influence.  There is no opposite side.

Clearly there is an opposite side because that is the side I have taken. 

But there are no "hows" to compare.  The problem with the Republican Party is that they've turned politics into a series of Yes or No questions.  There's no option A or option B.   That's where things went south for me in my ability to support the party.

This isn't true. The Republican option on healthcare, for instance, was 'don't change anything.' That is an option. Which I supported. And I still support reversion.

On Obamacare, the debate was never "which plan is best suited to give our populous universal health care coverage?"  The debate was "do you believe the populous has a right to universal health care coverage?" That's a ridiculous question; a question where I'm forced to say yes because no is such a stupid response and therefore support the Democrats not because I believe in their plan but because it's the only plan.

How is no (my response) a stupid response? On the contrary, it's the logical response.

[King]

How is no (my response) a stupid response? On the contrary, it's the logical response.

Because believing that all people should not have access to quality healthcare, or nutritious food, or adequate housing, in this country or any country is a stupid response.  

It's one thing to believe Obamacare or any "liberal solution" is the wrong plan for universal healthcare.  It's another thing to believe that universal healthcare is a wrong goal.

Thank you for proving my point.  I cannot support a party that has become "do you believe in healthcare, yes or no? do believe in taxes, yes or no? do you believe in education, yes or no? etc"  Yes, all of these things are issues.  Now state a position other than "ignore the problem and do nothing."

But please, continue down this road.  I look forward to 2020 and reading about the "conservative stance" on the law of gravity.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

How is no (my response) a stupid response? On the contrary, it's the logical response.

Because believing that all people should not have access to quality healthcare, or nutritious food, or adequate housing, in this country or any country is a stupid response.  

It's one thing to believe Obamacare or any "liberal solution" is the wrong plan for universal healthcare.  It's another thing to believe that universal healthcare is a wrong goal.

It depends on what is meant by "universal healthcare".  If by that one means that everyone can receive every possible medical treatment that would reasonably improve their quality of life or prolong their lifespan,then it is the wrong goal.  As admirable as it is, it is not sustainable.  By removing the price signal, and not instituting any other signal in its place, the resulting system has no incentive to reduce costs and every incentive to develop ever more expensive treatments that suck more and more of the economy into the healthcare segment.

Universal five-star healthcare is the wrong goal.  Universal adequate care is likely achievable, but our current system won't allow for it.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

How is no (my response) a stupid response? On the contrary, it's the logical response.

Because believing that all people should not have access to quality healthcare, or nutritious food, or adequate housing, in this country or any country is a stupid response.  

Saying all people should have access to something, and saying it is a right to be ensured by the government, are not the same thing.

[Badger]

OK. Apparently you DON'T realize how ridiculous that is in the world of reality.

When you say "you" can spend your money more freely, who exactly do you think you were referring to? 99.99 percent of "us" had no problem limiting our pre-Citizens contributions to several thousand bucks an election--and again, in REALITY, far, far, far less then that in almost every case. By "you", one is clearly referring to multimillionaires and up who can now legally buy elections no differently than the Gilded Age.

You, sir, have a myopic view of "wealth = freedom" so divorced from reality, than even Ayn Rand would point and giggle.

I'm fairly confident Ayn Rand, during her life, had exactly the same viewpoint I do, so clearly she wouldn't. But what I disagree with in your post is your claim of elections being bought by billionaire spending, because they're not. You choose to listen to political advertisements; you choose your political views, and whether you agree or disagree with those advertisements. No voter is being bribed. Nobody is forced to vote for anything.

So, of course it is different than the Gilded Age. I do believe that the right to be wealthy is a key freedom, so in that sense, I suppose I do think "wealth = freedom".

Ah, this explains so much. I merely thought you'd struck your head soundly before typing such fantastic drivel. In fact, your views are simply devoid of reality. Thanks for clarifying.

[Vosem]

How is no (my response) a stupid response? On the contrary, it's the logical response.

Because believing that all people should not have access to quality healthcare, or nutritious food, or adequate housing, in this country or any country is a stupid response.

It doesn't look good when someone asks you to justify your position, and all you can come up with is 'what you think is stupid.'  

It's one thing to believe Obamacare or any "liberal solution" is the wrong plan for universal healthcare.  It's another thing to believe that universal healthcare is a wrong goal.

Well, I don't think everyone having access to healthcare is the wrong goal -- I think everyone having access to money to pay for healthcare is the wrong goal. Anyone should be able to enter a hospital and be treated. But then, you should have to pay for your own healthcare. If you meant the first thing, then of course I support universal healthcare, but if you meant the second (that's what most people mean when they refer to 'universal healthcare') then of course I am against.

Thank you for proving my point.  I cannot support a party that has become "do you believe in healthcare, yes or no? do believe in taxes, yes or no? do you believe in education, yes or no? etc"  Yes, all of these things are issues.  Now state a position other than "ignore the problem and do nothing."

I don't think that's what the Republicans have been saying. Republicans have been saying, on certain issues (not, for instance, taxes) that their position is 'keep it the way it is now' and then clearly enunciating why they think so.

But please, continue down this road.  I look forward to 2020 and reading about the "conservative stance" on the law of gravity.

I find it vaguely interesting that many American leftists (and the European leftists that pay attention to American politics) believe that if the Republican Party drifts further to the right it will lose support. On the contrary, Republican moves to the right have generally coincided with shifts of public opinion to the right. It seems logical that the Republicans would still keep half the voters even if they do continue moving right.

And, to clarify, of course there would come a point where I abandon them. But few Americans are as tuned in to politics as members of this forum, and it's doubtful Republicans would really lose much support.

OK. Apparently you DON'T realize how ridiculous that is in the world of reality.

When you say "you" can spend your money more freely, who exactly do you think you were referring to? 99.99 percent of "us" had no problem limiting our pre-Citizens contributions to several thousand bucks an election--and again, in REALITY, far, far, far less then that in almost every case. By "you", one is clearly referring to multimillionaires and up who can now legally buy elections no differently than the Gilded Age.

You, sir, have a myopic view of "wealth = freedom" so divorced from reality, than even Ayn Rand would point and giggle.

I'm fairly confident Ayn Rand, during her life, had exactly the same viewpoint I do, so clearly she wouldn't. But what I disagree with in your post is your claim of elections being bought by billionaire spending, because they're not. You choose to listen to political advertisements; you choose your political views, and whether you agree or disagree with those advertisements. No voter is being bribed. Nobody is forced to vote for anything.

So, of course it is different than the Gilded Age. I do believe that the right to be wealthy is a key freedom, so in that sense, I suppose I do think "wealth = freedom".

Ah, this explains so much. I merely thought you'd struck your head soundly before typing such fantastic drivel. In fact, your views are simply devoid of reality. Thanks for clarifying.

Well, I disagree with Ayn Rand on many things; I was just pointing out that you were misrepresenting her views. As for the second statement, I'm willing to defend it right now if you would post a legitimate criticism instead of 'you're stupid.'

It doesn't look good when the only criticism you can think of for the other person's position is 'it's stupid.'

[Badger]

OK. Apparently you DON'T realize how ridiculous that is in the world of reality.

When you say "you" can spend your money more freely, who exactly do you think you were referring to? 99.99 percent of "us" had no problem limiting our pre-Citizens contributions to several thousand bucks an election--and again, in REALITY, far, far, far less then that in almost every case. By "you", one is clearly referring to multimillionaires and up who can now legally buy elections no differently than the Gilded Age.

You, sir, have a myopic view of "wealth = freedom" so divorced from reality, than even Ayn Rand would point and giggle.

I'm fairly confident Ayn Rand, during her life, had exactly the same viewpoint I do, so clearly she wouldn't. But what I disagree with in your post is your claim of elections being bought by billionaire spending, because they're not. You choose to listen to political advertisements; you choose your political views, and whether you agree or disagree with those advertisements. No voter is being bribed. Nobody is forced to vote for anything.

So, of course it is different than the Gilded Age. I do believe that the right to be wealthy is a key freedom, so in that sense, I suppose I do think "wealth = freedom".

Ah, this explains so much. I merely thought you'd struck your head soundly before typing such fantastic drivel. In fact, your views are simply devoid of reality. Thanks for clarifying.

Well, I disagree with Ayn Rand on many things; I was just pointing out that you were misrepresenting her views. As for the second statement, I'm willing to defend it right now if you would post a legitimate criticism instead of 'you're stupid.'

It doesn't look good when the only criticism you can think of for the other person's position is 'it's stupid.'

Oh no, little man. It's not that I can't think of anything to respond--wuite the contrary. It's that you've proven in this apt summation of your inherent myopic silliness that you are not worth seriously engaging. You appear to be a classic "ivory tower conservative" for whom reality is no more apparant than a page from "The Fountainhead".

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

How is no (my response) a stupid response? On the contrary, it's the logical response.

Because believing that all people should not have access to quality healthcare, or nutritious food, or adequate housing, in this country or any country is a stupid response.  

Saying all people should have access to something, and saying it is a right to be ensured by the government, are not the same thing.

If the government isn't to ensure that all people have access to something, whereof would all people have access to it?

[All Along The Watchtower]

How is no (my response) a stupid response? On the contrary, it's the logical response.

Because believing that all people should not have access to quality healthcare, or nutritious food, or adequate housing, in this country or any country is a stupid response.  

Saying all people should have access to something, and saying it is a right to be ensured by the government, are not the same thing.

If the government isn't to ensure that all people have access to something, whereof would all people have access to it?

The benevolent, rational free market, of course!

[tpfkaw]

How is no (my response) a stupid response? On the contrary, it's the logical response.

Because believing that all people should not have access to quality healthcare, or nutritious food, or adequate housing, in this country or any country is a stupid response. 

Saying all people should have access to something, and saying it is a right to be ensured by the government, are not the same thing.

If the government isn't to ensure that all people have access to something, whereof would all people have access to it?

The late, great Murray Rothbard had an excellent answer to this very question in Chapter 10 of For A New Liberty, the whole chapter (and book) is worth reading but the most relevant portion is excerpted.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

How is no (my response) a stupid response? On the contrary, it's the logical response.

Because believing that all people should not have access to quality healthcare, or nutritious food, or adequate housing, in this country or any country is a stupid response.  

Saying all people should have access to something, and saying it is a right to be ensured by the government, are not the same thing.

If the government isn't to ensure that all people have access to something, whereof would all people have access to it?

It depends on what is meant by access.  Government would have a necessary role to stop some sort of absolute monopoly on a basic good, but that's not what the context of this discussion is.  If by access, we mean actual provision of services, such as healthcare coverage, food, housing, etc. then in a free society there's no reason government has to be the provider of these needs, or to make a law to enforce that someone else provides them.   I don't have an alternative singular institution or mechanism in mind here, but I don't believe it is necessary or even possible for any single institution or mechanism to be the thing to make these things happen.

[Torie]

Over 90% of House Republicans today are to the right of 90% of House Republicans were from 1939-1975 or so.

While it seems that Congress is more polarized in its voting patterns (per yes a linear regression analysis) than normal at the moment, that says nothing as to why. Are the Dems moving left, forcing moderates to vote against them, or the Pubs right forcing the same thing the other way, or both getting more extreme, or both getting more liberal even?  All is not always what it seems  vis a vis these little regression lines, as Sean Trende points out.  

On this one, one can have a long and acrimonious debate as to who is to blame for what with respect to a polarized and dysfunctional Congress. Heck, for that matter Obama should be brought into the picture. How clean are his hands?  Where has he reached out his hand in compromise, particularly lately, but really for his whole Presidency?  There are a lot of suspects here, and the pity is that so many of them are the usual suspects, in that more and more the behavior becomes more and more typical.

[Vosem]

OK. Apparently you DON'T realize how ridiculous that is in the world of reality.

When you say "you" can spend your money more freely, who exactly do you think you were referring to? 99.99 percent of "us" had no problem limiting our pre-Citizens contributions to several thousand bucks an election--and again, in REALITY, far, far, far less then that in almost every case. By "you", one is clearly referring to multimillionaires and up who can now legally buy elections no differently than the Gilded Age.

You, sir, have a myopic view of "wealth = freedom" so divorced from reality, than even Ayn Rand would point and giggle.

I'm fairly confident Ayn Rand, during her life, had exactly the same viewpoint I do, so clearly she wouldn't. But what I disagree with in your post is your claim of elections being bought by billionaire spending, because they're not. You choose to listen to political advertisements; you choose your political views, and whether you agree or disagree with those advertisements. No voter is being bribed. Nobody is forced to vote for anything.

So, of course it is different than the Gilded Age. I do believe that the right to be wealthy is a key freedom, so in that sense, I suppose I do think "wealth = freedom".

Ah, this explains so much. I merely thought you'd struck your head soundly before typing such fantastic drivel. In fact, your views are simply devoid of reality. Thanks for clarifying.

Well, I disagree with Ayn Rand on many things; I was just pointing out that you were misrepresenting her views. As for the second statement, I'm willing to defend it right now if you would post a legitimate criticism instead of 'you're stupid.'

It doesn't look good when the only criticism you can think of for the other person's position is 'it's stupid.'

Oh no, little man. It's not that I can't think of anything to respond--wuite the contrary. It's that you've proven in this apt summation of your inherent myopic silliness that you are not worth seriously engaging. You appear to be a classic "ivory tower conservative" for whom reality is no more apparant than a page from "The Fountainhead".

lol, "I can think of so many ways to reply to that that I won't say anything"

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Over 90% of House Republicans today are to the right of 90% of House Republicans were from 1939-1975 or so.

While it seems that Congress is more polarized in its voting patterns (per yes a linear regression analysis) than normal at the moment, that says nothing as to why. Are the Dems moving left, forcing moderates to vote against them, or the Pubs right forcing the same thing the other way, or both getting more extreme, or both getting more liberal even?  All is not always what it seems  vis a vis these little regression lines, as Sean Trende points out.  

That Sean Trende article answers some things I've been wondering about DW-Nominate ever since I first came across it.   I think a lot of what these regression lines are showing is that the parties have lined up more neatly ideologically, and have become so much more important than things like regionalism or intraparty/transparty factions. You don't have the Dixiecrats and the Northeastern liberal Republicans like you once did, but that doesn't (necessarily) mean that the actual people in Congress are more extreme than ever before.