Red and Blue, or Red and Normal?

June 23, 2004 5:37 PM

Perverse Polarity: Bipartisanship is another name for date rape?An examination of all of the talk about how polarized we are as a people, and what the facts actually are. Yet even when journalists' own evidence plainly shows that one party has become more moderate and the other more ideologically extreme, they can't bring themselves to say so.
posted by amberglow (17 comments total)

"[N]o Texan need grow up thinking that being a Democrat is acceptable behavior"

the John Aloysius Farrell article mentioned.

good piece. when i worked in periodicals, Washington Monthly was a big fave. very well written.
posted by mrgrimm at 6:17 PM on June 23, 2004

What if the date decides to start packing mace, a straight razor, and a wee large caliber handgun?

Just asking.
posted by troutfishing at 7:35 PM on June 23, 2004

What if the date decides to start packing mace, a straight razor, and a wee large caliber handgun?

That's one hell of a fetish.
posted by Stynxno at 7:49 PM on June 23, 2004

...a fetish called "reality" ?
posted by troutfishing at 8:18 PM on June 23, 2004

This is not a big problem. It seems that GOP was - and still is - creating some sort of fad, and soon people started behaving alike - not because their actions are the result of independent thinking, but just because they influence each other. When the fad is over, both parties will migrate to center, as the clasic theory dictates. Think Howard Dean, on a real time scale, not internet years.

My main concern is what happens to the social institutions which support independent reasoning: information resources (biased information is not as bad as total lack of information), education and science. If these suffer during the fad, they would have to be rebuilt, a time consuming process.

There is also the possibility that what the article describes is not a fad and people know with certainty the GOP platform is right. [/"on the other hand"]
posted by MzB at 8:31 PM on June 23, 2004

is it a fad when business isn't being done because of partisanship, as in the veteran's vote today? or the shutting down of government entirely in the 90s? I think there are tons of examples like this that actually hurt people.
posted by amberglow at 8:47 PM on June 23, 2004

Maybe I should have used "fad".

amberglow, I understand your concern, "fad" is dismissive and does not reflect the scale of the phenomenon. However, in my view, it does capture the essence of the article. And, fads do waste resources and time, including missed opportunities - in this case the losses are greater. If you find a better word containing all the above meanings, please let me know; personally, I prefer to focus on characterization, not on semantics.
posted by MzB at 4:59 AM on June 24, 2004

This is an excellent, well written, and completely fleshed out article. Translation= Very few will read the entire thing.
posted by bas67 at 8:11 AM on June 24, 2004

I believe that "moderate" Republicans like Specter are being attacked by Republicans because they don't necessarily support Republican positions (they're called RINOs - Republicans in Name Only). Given the animosity between the two sides in the Senate, party discipline is important, and many Republican supporters view anyone who doesn't toe the party line askance.

As to whether the Republicans have become more ideologically extreme vis-a-vis the Democrats, I can't say. The article mentions that Kerry was chosen over Dean in the primary to support the idea of Dem. moderation, but the Democrats are trying to oust Bush and probably chose the person they think is most palatable to moderates. Additionally, although Kerry served in Vietnam, he also protested against it and has the most liberal voting record in the Senate, factors that indicate he is a very liberal candidate.

Democratic intransigence in the Senate is also pretty extreme from my perspective, when they levy across the board filibusters of Presidential appointments. I suppose the cause of increasing partisanship in DC is basically seen through the prism of your political beliefs.
posted by CRS at 8:39 AM on June 24, 2004

Democratic intransigence in the Senate is also pretty extreme from my perspective, when they levy across the board filibusters of Presidential appointments. I suppose the cause of increasing partisanship in DC is basically seen through the prism of your political beliefs.

Since when is blocking 6 out of 177 judicial appointments "levying across the board filibusters"?

[Source]
posted by ewagoner at 9:29 AM on June 24, 2004

"In return, Democrats, who had been holding up action on all of Bush's judicial choices since March to protest the recess appointments, agreed to allow votes on 25 mostly noncontroversial nominations to district and appeals court posts over the next several weeks. "

[Source]
posted by CRS at 2:25 PM on June 24, 2004

If the GOP is heading extremely rightward and leaving the rest of the country behind, then they'll soon extremify themselves right out of office. I assume you don't have any problem with that.

On the other hand, if both the rightward-heading GOP and the less-and-less-lefty Dems are merely following where the voter base is leading, which is entirely possible, then once again you don't have any problem with the parties; your problem is with the people.

In general I think that puts the little self-regarding Movement picnic consisting of nofundy, Michael Moore and Stormin' Noam Chomsky (and a handful of others, now numbering in the hundreds in New York City alone) in a nutshell. They have a problem with the damned people.
posted by jfuller at 4:12 PM on June 24, 2004

On the other hand, if both the rightward-heading GOP and the less-and-less-lefty Dems are merely following where the voter base is leading, which is entirely possible, then once again you don't have any problem with the parties; your problem is with the people.

rightward-heading GOP? Did you even read the article?
posted by amberglow at 8:03 PM on June 24, 2004

to clarify: a rightward-heading GOP would have allowed the veteran vote this week to go thru, regardless of who else it helped, because it would have reaffirmed their principles of supporting the troops. That didn't happen, because it was more important for them to hurt Kerry than to help veterans.
posted by amberglow at 8:11 PM on June 24, 2004

The article was biased. If the writer had been a right-winger rather than left, the article would have said exactly the opposite with supporting examples exactly reversed.
posted by CRS at 6:51 AM on June 25, 2004

In general I think that puts the little self-regarding Movement picnic consisting of nofundy, Michael Moore and Stormin' Noam Chomsky (and a handful of others, now numbering in the hundreds in New York City alone) in a nutshell. They have a problem with the damned people.

Thank you ever so much for including me in such a fine group (and first, no less!) of individuals.
I'm flattered.
Other than that, you're full of shit.
My beliefs are much closer to those of the majority of citizens than the radical right wingers.

If you can't recognize, handle, or accept that then you are in a nutshell and need help.

And if you are one of the esteemed "damned" people you speak of, I have no trouble with you, I pity you.
posted by nofundy at 7:30 AM on June 25, 2004

I'm going to keep my opinion on whether nofundy represents mainstream opinion all to myself, thank you, but boy I sure have one!

But on the question of whether this is a self correcting trend, FWIW I'll share my data point: much as I felt that the Democratic party deserted me after 1972, I'm increasingly alienated from the Republicans and their ideological extremism.

In the last six Presidential elections I've voted Democratic exactly once. But I'm contributing to John Kerry this year, and since my state is a Democratic lock am considering taking some time off to work for Kerry in a state that's in play. Of course, President Bush is a 'perfect storm' of incompetence, but still....
posted by mojohand at 12:29 PM on June 25, 2004