Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America

[jokerman]

The reason that America is polarized on Social issues is that those are almost the only contested issues anymore.

Democrats have moved too far to the center on economics and generally neglected those issues.

[memphis]

The reason that America is polarized on Social issues is that those are almost the only contested issues anymore.

Democrats have moved too far to the center on economics and generally neglected those issues.

I agree 100%.

[angus]

screw it.  what dazzleman and preston said.  and A18.

[Beet]

What the heck angus, I was going to type a big reply about how it isn't really that surprising but it was surprising to me last year when I first read it. Also I don't watch the talking heads.

But screw it, eh?

[TeePee4Prez]

Rich white America as you call it couldn't get enough votes to win enough elections to control the White House and both houses of congress.

Exactly, that's why it's called a "base".

And polls indicate that people who are married and raising families lean strongly toward the Republican party.  The Democratic party lost its strong hold on the average working American quite some time ago, though of course many average working Americans, though not a majority, remain Democrats.

Goes to show the effective propaganda of the Republican party where it can get millions of average, middle-class Americans to vote against their own economic interests based on God, guns, gays, and fear of minorities.

I'm sure that living in New Hampshire, you develop an in-depth understanding on the fear of minorities.  Why don't you wait until you've lived in a racially mixed urban area before passing judgment.

Well, I live in a racially mixed area which is very close to majority-minority sections.  My old neighborhood and my grandparents' is primarily African American and Latino.  I can sit here and agree with Scoonie that the GOP plays to racial fears to garner votes from white working class people (see Melissa Brown, Frank Rizzo in the 1980s), especially cops.  I can also sit here and say I'm not clueless about racial relations in urban areas.  Yes, there are times where I have come across blacks who feel the white man oppresses them and give whites a tougher attitude then they give their own, but you know what, I just take the high road because I have black friends and know a good number aren't like Al Sharpton or Cynthia McKinney.  I also know there are some whites, most especially certain cops where I live, who make Archie Bunker look liberal and need to calm the hell down.  Racism is a two way street and I have railed against people of both races plenty of times on here in the past.

Why am I a Democrat?  For many of the reasons Scoonie described for I am looking out for my own money, my own well being, and other working people like me.  I look at the overall picture and knwo full well there is no Democratic-wide bias against heterosexual white males for I am one.  I have been criticized many times in the past for being a "libbo" and "pandering to the blacks" but they are just false misconceptions people have in their heads about the Democratic party.     

[angus]

As an aside, I hadn't been following any politics for a couple of weeks.  You know, out of town for the holidays most of Thanksgiving week and generally busy with end-of-sememster work, but I watched a speech on Border Security and Immigration Policy last night by President Bush on CSPAN.  I caught most of it I think.  He demonstrated a fair command of the statistics and policies, and explained his goals well enough, but it wasn't exactly a riveting, spellbinding, uplifting speech.  Bear in mind, the audience was mostly Southwestern law enforcement types, so it can't be expected.  And at least he had that prideful, grinning fratboy moment from time to time, which some find perfectly charming and others perfectly repulsive.  But something was missing.  It definitely wasn't "compassionate conservative" rhetoric.  As for the conservative part, well, no one in his right mind any longer expects this administration to be the small government type they campaigned as, and they're bigger spenders than their predecessors for sure.  But this lack of restraint has come to be expected.  So what struck me wasn't  the lack of "conservative" but the complete lack of "compassion"   Oh, sure, he explained "interior repatriation" and talked about some innovative (and somewhat expensive) plans for border security, but there wasn't even a pretense of addressing the underlying causes of illegal immigration.  No discussion of economics.  No subjectivity whatsoever.  It smacked of the elitism of his father, albeit well-disguised with that Westerner's cowboy bravado at times.  Certainly not the sort of speech that's going to take him out of the dumps.  At best, four in ten americans lately approve of the job he's doing.  At it may get worse or it may get better.  I still contend that a president's approval ratings are a decent barometer of the national mood, since everyone blames everything from the price of a loaf of bread to the severity of their latest orgasm on the president.  Fairly or unfairly.  And I like to see my president's numbers higher.  I say that without regard to whether my president is Republican, Democrat, Socialist, Libertarian, or Green.  So I hope it gets better for this President.

Tomorrow, he has a chance to try to rally the people.  He will give a famous speech.  Well, it's not famous yet.  But it can be.  He will speak at some length about Iraq.  He needn't admit to any wrongdoing or deceit (as much as some would like to see that) since everyone basically understands that the war is about that country's vast natural resources anyway.  But he might address "faulty" intelligence, and lack of planning to assuage the People a bit.  I'm hopeful, though not too hopeful, that such issues will be addressed in tomorrow's speech.  On the other hand, he may go a different route and look for a catchy phrase such as "spark of liberation" and use it over and over.  His speechwriters seem to fancy such rhetorical flairs (e.g., "axis of evil" and "Mission Accomplished!") but those soundbites haven't been much use in rallying a nation.  In fact--if I may dare use the word--they seem to polarize the nation even more.  It is often said Bush's strong suit is delegation of authority to the best people.  If true, then by now he should have fired many a speechwriter.  I guess we'll find out tomorrow night.

[dazzleman]

I look at the overall picture and knwo full well there is no Democratic-wide bias against heterosexual white males for I am one.  I have been criticized many times in the past for being a "libbo" and "pandering to the blacks" but they are just false misconceptions people have in their heads about the Democratic party.     

I happen to disagree that these things are misconceptions.  I think they're accurate perceptions, shared by many people.  You have a right to your opinion, just as I have to mine.  What I do find difficult to take is some white people who don't live within miles of a non-white person going around called everybody else "racist" when they have no clue of things.

[TeePee4Prez]

I look at the overall picture and knwo full well there is no Democratic-wide bias against heterosexual white males for I am one.  I have been criticized many times in the past for being a "libbo" and "pandering to the blacks" but they are just false misconceptions people have in their heads about the Democratic party.     

I happen to disagree that these things are misconceptions.  I think they're accurate perceptions, shared by many people.  You have a right to your opinion, just as I have to mine.  What I do find difficult to take is some white people who don't live within miles of a non-white person going around called everybody else "racist" when they have no clue of things.

I have heard the rants of countless Archie Bunker-like Reagan Democrats saying the Democrats are the party of "the blacks, gays, and women's rights and not the working man with a family" and "I was once a Democrat until the n-ers, womens lib, etc. infested our party."  I know better!  True there are a lot of whites that have no clue of things and live in their suburban cocoons while watching MTV and BET and thinking it's all "cool".  Hey, I have been called both a "racist" by some of these rich white clowns in college and a "white libbo" by a truly racist cop kid who was once one of my better friends growing up.  I try to be as pragmatic as possible with this stuff.  I kinda got involved in politics so I can better understand this stuff. 

[dazzleman]

I look at the overall picture and knwo full well there is no Democratic-wide bias against heterosexual white males for I am one.  I have been criticized many times in the past for being a "libbo" and "pandering to the blacks" but they are just false misconceptions people have in their heads about the Democratic party.     

I happen to disagree that these things are misconceptions.  I think they're accurate perceptions, shared by many people.  You have a right to your opinion, just as I have to mine.  What I do find difficult to take is some white people who don't live within miles of a non-white person going around called everybody else "racist" when they have no clue of things.

I have heard the rants of countless Archie Bunker-like Reagan Democrats saying the Democrats are the party of "the blacks, gays, and women's rights and not the working man with a family" and "I was once a Democrat until the n-ers, womens lib, etc. infested our party."  I know better!  True there are a lot of whites that have no clue of things and live in their suburban cocoons while watching MTV and BET and thinking it's all "cool".  Hey, I have been called both a "racist" by some of these rich white clowns in college and a "white libbo" by a truly racist cop kid who was once one of my better friends growing up.  I try to be as pragmatic as possible with this stuff.  I kinda got involved in politics so I can better understand this stuff. 

With some of the sort of people you talk about, the issue is the way they say things, not necessarily what they are saying.  The Democratic party has taken what are, in my opinion, a number of hideous positions on major issues in order to pander to certain interest groups in their party.  Some people are capable of making logical arguments against these policies, while others just lash out at ni--ers and the like.  Still, the root is the same.

[Gustaf]

Dazzleman obviously has a point in that the largest groups in most divisions is the most Republican group (Whites, Protestants, Suburbians, etc). I don't think he's saying that that group is superior to others, and I wouldn't say that they are.

And it's a well known fact that parties are ALWAYS more polarized than electorates and always exaggerate differences. People in general are always fairly moderate.

[Storebought]

What a stupid conversation.

Exactly.

But the level of discussion here precisely mirrors the quality of the arguments presented in most political books being reviewed.

Most political books published nowadays are little better than Danielle Steele paperbacked harlequin trash -- appealing to the least common denominator of whichever ideology that happens to be held by the (ghost)writer. Arguments amount to repetition of cliches: if I hear the phrase "Red State" one more frigging time...

As for the current one, it is an academic book, so I will need to study if a bit more to see if the arguments are grounded or not.

If you want to study contemporary American politics, without the sleaze, then rent Larry Sabato's American government textbook, which he revises every year. Then, read all of the references Sabato cites.

[Republican Michigander]

Goes to show the effective propaganda of the Republican party where it can get millions of average, middle-class Americans to vote against their own economic interestsbased on God, guns, gays, and fear of minorities.

The reason democrats lost us working class and middle class folks is because of arrogant tripe like this.

The democrats abandoned working class America to lick the boots of rich leftists like George Soros and Hollywood $$$$$$. It was Bill Clinton that signed NAFTA and GATT. We all know that.

[True Democrat]

Goes to show the effective propaganda of the Republican party where it can get millions of average, middle-class Americans to vote against their own economic interests based on God, guns, gays, and fear of minorities.

The reason democrats lost us working class and middle class folks is because of arrogant tripe like this.

The democrats abandoned working class America to lick the boots of rich leftists like George Soros and Hollywood $$$$$$. It was Bill Clinton that signed NAFTA and GATT. We all know that.

And this is why I joined the Democratic party. . .

[Mr. Paleoconservative]

Goes to show the effective propaganda of the Republican party where it can get millions of average, middle-class Americans to vote against their own economic interests based on God, guns, gays, and fear of minorities.

The reason democrats lost us working class and middle class folks is because of arrogant tripe like this.

The democrats abandoned working class America to lick the boots of rich leftists like George Soros and Hollywood $$$$$$. It was Bill Clinton that signed NAFTA and GATT. We all know that.

And this is why I joined the Democratic party. . .

And this is why Democrats have lost America.