OP/ED: The Evolving Political Polarity

The evolving polarity of politics within our federal government seems to be at an all-time high. I can remember following politics ever since Bill Clinton came into office and the big issue was the morality of Clinton; mass-media and the masses of people seemed to be unconcerned with other issues.

But, recently with the Bush administration I have noticed a great line dividing the two big parties, GOP and Democrats, in an even greater extent than Clinton. Mass protests, support/criticism in media and journalism, tv ads, scandals, and much more seem to occur almost on a daily basis now. Even fights occur based on people who watch the movie of Michael Moore, who is a democrat in one state he registered in. While the GOP defends the administration, and Democrats largely oppose it, the people seem to be getting more and more separated in political beliefs. Bush now is associated as the poster-boy of the Republicans, and we have Democrats who, although are not in office, are equally guilty of the same propaganda to divide the people.

Bush states "You are with us or against us," and Moore states "The Bush administration are criminals." So, you have this very well defined line emerging between Bush Administration-supporters and Bush Administration-opposers. In the minds of most, this forms the line between a Republican and a Democrat. Those who end up falling in this category frequently, though not all of them, have reduced to name calling. At least, this is the view seen within mainstream media and journalism. Abstract ideas are presented and the policies are largely untouched.

I was reading a thread recently, this one here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

The article in this thread talked about the effects of mainstream media upon the minds of its listeners. So, we essentially take in these daily feeds of scandals, protests, support, and all of it is meant to engrain in our minds a sense of polarity between Democratic and Republican lines based on the Bush Administration. All of this is based on the sense of morality and conspiracy. Bush claims that those who believe in conspiraces are wrong and guilty of whatever, and the morality reduces to name calling. In the sense that those who believe in the greater good are arguing those who believe in all-around peace. Once again, it reduces itself to Democrats and Republicans in the minds of most.

The issues, in particular our domestic issues, are being left out of the loop. Gore defends more environmental protection, but does so in a way that focuses wholly on criticising the Bush adminstration. So the picture we see on main-stream media is a short clip of Gore being passionate and insulting the Bush administration. Bush turns around and uses this clip to show members of the Republican party that Gore displays "hateful rhetoric."

So where does the conspiracy fit in? Republicans and Democrats are exemplefying a beast of insults and deception. They would both like us to split ourselves between party lines and forget why we even chose the party we joined in the first place. This will have a widespread effect on the younger population. They will remember hearing all the time about Bush/Republicans and Democrats to form their view of the party based on the ACTIONS of one administration, the Bush Jr. Yet, the older and/or more focused will remember it. The mass media and journalism are unwitting (or they might know?) partners in this intentional deception on the part of both the parties. 1. They want to take focus off of the issues, which really make up the parties. 2. They also want to take away votes of third parties so as to erase them.

What will this accomplish? 1. By taking focus off the issues, the parties will be able to coordinate with each other on a COMMON CAUSE. The masses supporting the two parties will be reduced to name-calling and deception based on the daily occurences in mass media on Bush's administration. The two parties will essentially be able to run the country together, perhaps through the Illuminati? This could only be good as far as allowing things to run more smoothly, but who would ever want to centralize the power of the two biggest political parties in the US, its absurd.

2. More people will follow along the lines of Democrats and Republicans. People will be swayed by such talk as, "I'll do anything it takes to get Bush out of office..." and they will join the Democratic party. Republicans get stronger by people who defend what the Bush adminstration does in office. And here's the important part, there is no definite evidence to prove a conspiracy in the Bush Administration. If there were, members would be going to trial. So, those who don't believe in the conspiracy theories based on the lack of evidence will be swayed by the outcomes and intentions of the policies of the Bush adminstration.

3. How did this happen? This whole debacle started with September 11, 2001, one of the biggest tragedies on American soil, certainly it is the most recent. Many people have begun to focus on terrorism as a result. We have Bush talking about the "war on terror" and Democrats criticising how we handle the case. Nobody is even asking key questions about 9/11 anymore. 9/11 has been used as a ticket to attack any country that may harbor terrorism or possibly be supportive. Don't be fooled, Democrats too will use 9/11 to further causes and emphasize schisms with Republicans. The other domestic issues have totally fallen off the map. Nothing has happened since 9/11, its not like this is a frequent thing, yet the Bush administration wants to emphasize the possibility of attacks. Democrats focus solely on how the war on terror is faught. Neither seems to want to ask if there is any credible threat anymore. We hear about how the CIA manipulated data for the Iraqi War, then we turn around and rely on the CIA for the intelligence telling us another terror attack is immenent. Maybe it will never happen again no matter what else we do!

Of course, there will be exceptions as there always are. Many people will realize that neither party is totally in the right. They will focus on the issues and determine their party lines there. Another option is that people realize they are in a third party or even no party whatsoever based on the issues. One thing for sure is that noone can defend the tactics of both the parties, while third parties may be guilty of the same cause, they are not as prevalent.

I'm concerened with the masses though who will wholly be affected by the recent tactics of the two parties to sway votes and establish a good dividing line between the two. I believe we will see mass voter turnout with this election based on those who like what's going on and those who don't. This will ultimately be aided by mass-media, journalism, and corporations. Corporations such as shown in this thread:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The basis of choice for ketchup is being established by party lines. Theresa Heinz is the wife of John Kerry, Democratic Presidential Candidate, so if you are with the GOP, don't buy Heinz ketchup. Once again, this engraining of party lines: Democrat and Republican.

Here's another good example I found on BTS:
www.belowtopsecret.com...

What I'd like to ask you is if you think this is a conspiracy between the two parties to take the focus off other issues so they can work together on a common goal? Whether you think mass-media and corporations help this out and in what ways? Can you ever remember when American politics have been divided to such a degree? And what do you think will be the ultimate benefit to the parties assuming they are working towards a common cause?

[edit on 25-7-2004 by Jamuhn]

[edit on 7-26-2004 by Valhall]

The article in this thread talked about the effects of mainstream media upon the minds of its listeners. So, we essentially take in these daily feeds of scandals, protests, support, and all of it is meant to engrain in our minds a sense of polarity between Democratic and Republican lines based on the Bush Administration.

i dont think this is because of the bush administration although it is a convenient excuse. and it would explain why this "concept" if you can call it that isnt engrained in my mind. i dont watch the news. i hardly watch anything that has to do with scandal and who said what today yesterday or last week so i'm not inundated with all this negativity about politics. most of what i do "see" is on this board mostly and what i do see sickens me to no end.

noth sides are polarizing every issue. they have done this long before bush or clinton but bush and clinton have been used as pawns/tools to polarize these issues even more.

now why is this being done? well for one if you convince people to see things in only one of two different ways third parties have very little chance of getting a foothold into the political arena. secondly it keeps people divided. what better way to conquer a people than to polarize issues and let/encourage through the use of pundits to get the people to fight among themselves as you then swoop in during every election and convince them to blame "the other side" the problems we ALL face and the only way to make those problem go away is to vote for them? thirdly its keep them where they want to be and it keeps us where they want us to be, under their thumb making sure ew rely on them more and more to fix all the problem we face. surprisingly very few have caught on to the observation that relying more and more on the government and those who run have only made things worse not better.

i have said it for months and i wil continue to say it as long as my body draws breath, these two parties dont give a damn about us any longer and havent for a long time. they fight argue and bicker and when things dont get done or when things go wrong they blame "the other side" for the problems. well thats only 1/3 of the the actual problem...2/3 of the problem is the party themselves, each carrying a 1/3 of the blame. the ramining 1.3 rest on our shoulders for being duped into believe they can do and have done thigns for us when they simply havent.

what does it say about a person when all they can do is smear their opponent? it tells me the person has nothing else to say and has nothing to add or contribute to the system. it tells me they're only looking out for themselves and getting the office, not looking forward to helping us. what does it say about a politician when all they can do is spew the same "campaign promises" we've heard countless times before but never really lays out in short blunt words how they plan on making those things happens in minute detail? what does it say about us when we buy into that BS and vote for them anyway? who's really to blame? them for doing these things to us or ourselves for allowing them to do these things to us?

they arent taking our rights and freedoms away we're giving them away everytime we run to them and say "please mr politician makey all better! only YOU can save us and this country.


jamuhn i agree with a lot of what you say. they prefer we attack each other and "the other candidate" rather than attacking the issues, the REAL issues, not the perceived issues they want us to fight about.



nice post!

[edit on 10-7-2004 by ThePrankMonkey]

they arent taking our rights and freedoms away we're giving them away everytime we run to them and say "please mr politician makey all better! only YOU can save us and this country.

That is a very good point PrankMonkey. I think the reason we do this is because we have a "jump on the bandwagon" attitude towards the two parties, especially with the next election. I reported here... Green Party VP won't vote for herself...that even third parties are being swayed to vote for one of two parties. The Green Party VP wouldn't vote for herself if the race was close between Kerry and Bush in her state.

This bandwagon mentality is inflitrating the third parties in the form of "anything, but Bush." As well, the Green Party VP is relying on exit polls, which encourages the Band-Wagon attitude even more.

Voters should decide what is important to them when making their decision. And when I say what is important to them, I mean in the form of the real issues down to the minute detail like you said PrankMonkey. No more selling out to other parties, everyone has individual views and if they aren't represented in the the parties, don't vote for them. Don't become victim to this band-wagon attitude.

I for one, think a big problem with both parties is that they both want a bigger, stronger federal government. A large federal government will have a hard time representing the views of 250 million people. You can say that Republicans don't want this, but its simply not true anymore, I can safely say that the one thing both parties agree on is expanding the federal government. We lose our sense of communities within the country and instead submit to this foreign, impersonal bear of a government.

Just wondering if anyone else had an opinion about this one. Whether this divide might be getting stronger by the day, or if it is not as bad as during the Nixon administration?

It seems the focus of the dividing line is being take away from the scandal in politics, which can be attributed to individuals. Rather, the dividing line in policies and non-criminal actions (those unproved) seem to be at an all-time high.

Originally posted by Jamuhn

Voters should decide what is important to them when making their decision. And when I say what is important to them, I mean in the form of the real issues down to the minute detail like you said PrankMonkey. No more selling out to other parties, everyone has individual views and if they aren't represented in the the parties, don't vote for them. Don't become victim to this band-wagon attitude.

Voters haven't got a clue by the time the election comes around what the hey is the truth, especially in terms of what is really important to them. The spins and misrepresentations spewed forth for way too long before the election - it's just a mess. There is a divide and it's getting bigger for sure, and clearly it is caused by the media (whether news or flat out advertising). People can say anything they want on any issue and spin it to look true and other people will believe it.

The amount of time and research needed to work through the bull to get to the truth is not going to be expended by your average overworked, plain old tired man/woman.

It's disheartening to see the low voter turn out in most instances, but almost frightening to think of the misinformed masses pulling a lever.

Originally posted by Jamuhn
Just wondering if anyone else had an opinion about this one. Whether this divide might be getting stronger by the day, or if it is not as bad as during the Nixon administration?

No divide here, I view both parties with equal contempt. While still finding several members each worthy of being held in high esteem, unfortunately none of these are in my area.

The problem with the demopublicans is that they wish to set the agenda rather making any attempt to respond to the will of the people. While never a howard dean supporter, I have empathy for his scream. Neither do I have any love of kerry, however I find the bush administration so vile that I am being drawn into the anybody-but-bush camp which I must admit is influenced to some degree by the false patriotism of bush supporters attempting to silence any opposition with obnoxious rhetoric.

If I vote for kerry, it will be the first time I have voted either a democrat or republican since 1976. I am really tired of taking crap from bush republicans.
.

Originally posted by Jamuhn
Just wondering if anyone else had an opinion about this one. Whether this divide might be getting stronger by the day, or if it is not as bad as during the Nixon administration?

Dude, we're about as civil as America has ever been. One of my favorite little research hobbies is looking into old Hillbilly Feuds. All political, all bloody, all Democrat versus Republican.

But it didn't start there. Whoever thinks the old powdered wig forefathers were cordial is about as drunk as they were all the time. They were awful. A thousand times worse than now. No mass media, so they just travelled around and LIED with impunity. And where ever they didn't go they sent what was called "riders" to spread lies about the opponent.

Disprove this negative: Someone comes to your town before the election and says Thomas Jefferson is Dead. So vote for Adams or your vote doesn't count. I mean do you log onto the Internet to check? It's 1796!

Adams people did that! And that's nothing. The muckracking yellow papers of early publishing were cut throat LIARS. Smear propaganda, pure and simple. So and so is dying. So and so has a wooden leg. I'm totally serious. Every town used to have two papers...a Democrat and a Republican. There was no such thing as an unbiased press.

Today's "polarized" environment? Child's play.

Thanks, RANT. I was totally unaware of how political campaigns worked that far in the past. You bring up a good point though, if we do have all this information, we should be able to focus more on the issues.

The internet allows us to look up and study every single detail our Republican and Democratic candidates have said. But the truth is, only a small minority of the hundred(s) of millions bother to research all the issues. Even mass media and journalism seems to be greatly lacking on how issues stack up and what they mean for the people.

The Internet is a relatively new concept, it wasn't implemented in a widespread format until Clinton took office in 1992.

But still, mass media and many of the major newspaper outlets focus solely on scandal, muck-raking, and so forth rather than where than all of the issues. We get a partial light on Bush cutting taxes, thats pretty much all that is said on mass media. Democrats turn around and complain that the government has less many to spend and services will be cut. And thats pretty much all you here in mass media, it goes a little more in-depth in newspapers.

But most people watch these mass media news channels and become wholly ignorant of all the consequences, pros and cons.

It seems that we are even getting closer to back in the 1700s with media forming biases. They form bias in subtle ways: the type of news they decide to report, the frequency in which they report certain news, whether the news appears as a headline or as a small snippet in a ticker, and through opinions of the people that come on these channels.

Although it is nowhere near what it was in the 1700s, I can see similarities in all respects. I would say, yes it is more civil, but that is because the ways in which bias and polarity is produced is much more subtle. With the advencement of electronic communication, people have the ability to become more knowledgeable so that new political tools must be used.

Originally posted by Jamuhn
Although it is nowhere near what it was in the 1700s, I can see similarities in all respects. I would say, yes it is more civil, but that is because the ways in which bias and polarity is produced is much more subtle. With the advencement of electronic communication, people have the ability to become more knowledgeable so that new political tools must be used.

All true. But as a people, we fail in that challenge.

Granted we all have the ability to be much more informed than previous Americans, but we simply don't take advantage of it. And those that DO take advantage of it, don't seem to do so with an eye for impartiality.

All the Internet has really accomplished, is offered innumerable outlets for partisan consumption and often times even more meaningless debate under the guise of informed discussion.

Though they were bad a couple hundred years ago, I think that was more personal rivalies for power grabs and less partisanship. So your premise that the divisions are deeper now may hold. Now we clash over hot button issues, and less about public personalities. Sure, Bush is stupid and Kerry is a Commie remain the more prevalent themes. But the lines are drawn more on "philosophies" today rather than geography or any of the old divisions of personality.

I think what the right has accomplished in particular (mostly as a result of 90's efforts by people like Gingrich and Limbaugh) is MOVE the philosophical divide right. That anyone should even consider Bush mainstream and the whole of moderate America "a radical left leaning faction" is telling.

I don't think we've had a real liberal in office since Kennedy, if you can even count a guy that selects LBJ as his running mate a true liberal. SO what's happened over the years, as the left concedes ground attempting to close the partisan gap like "welfare reformer Clinton" or "maybe I'll pick McCain Kerry" the right draws the divisions deeper making a mockery of bi-partisan efforts and moving further right.

I say let them go. They can march reicht off the cliff for all I care. Some liberal "suckers" take the bait and follow them right. Others do the opposite and move further left in revolt. Meaning there are now TWO LEFTS. It's divide and conquer. And I credit the right's strategists for the plan. I mean, it's brilliant.

But from what I can tell being involved in left leaning politics, the left has no unified subversive agenda...and that's their downfall. I'm sure someone is laughing or getting angry right now reading that, but it's the truth from where I sit. Ironically, the BEST thing to happen to the left in 30 years is Geroge W. Bush. He's a great rally point for defining what an otherwise factioned left is not about. So in that sense, Bush's cultural war may be HIS downfall.

But I'm probably getting off topic from your intent Jamuhn. The world is so complex, with so many issues...we all are forced to make sacrifices on something by siding with a particular philosophy. I see alot of two party backlash these days because everyone wants more options. Basically al a carte politics...

I want Osama Bin Laden, but not Saddam, and abortion rights, but also prayer in schools, and less taxes, but cheaper healthcare, and so on and so forth.

But guess what? NOT GONNA HAPPEN. Thus we have political parties based on particular philosophies that guide decision making as a whole (when it works). What screws it up is when the ever increasing financial aspect of politics (corporate and special jnterest contributors) buy contrary and hypocritical positions within parties. So that's a huge problem.

But back to the partisan divisions. Being that the parties are now predominantly PHILOSOPHIES and not issue based per se. The debates become meaningless. It's like arguing with a person speaking a different language. From a different mindset. Literally IN a different belief SYSTEM.

And why this set up is particularly dangerous to the "left" as I see it, is they have at the core of their philosophy see the other person's view, and try to reason with them while the right says my view is the a priori truth and anyone that disagrees is insane! Basically.

I don't think I'm oversimplifying the basic premise behind the division too much. That's pretty much how it is IMO.

I just wanted to say a little about where the Bush Administration (poster boy of Republicans) is taking the country. I am not going to agree or disagree because both parties do it. But the Bush administration is doing something that I thought was totally foreign to the party. They have been making the Federal Government bigger and stronger. It seems we are taking the focus of community structures and systems of government and replacing it with some random people miles and miles away from us who are supposed to be our saviors...it just doesnt seem realistic.
I thought expansion of government was opposed by Republicans. Not only that, but the Bush Administration is overturning State's rights issues.

I thought that was the Democrats' platform to expand the federal gov and advocate fed gov over state. Are they trying to confuse us or something?

And why this set up is particularly dangerous to the "left" as I see it, is they have at the core of their philosophy see the other person's view, and try to reason with them while the right says my view is the a priori truth and anyone that disagrees is insane! Basically.

I agree with you, but the republican philosophy of government size and power seems to be in the left arena. Like two circles that overlap, where the middle is their common ground. Both parties want a bigger, stronger centralized government rather than local ones. Its kind of scary to see where this will lead over the years as each party adds something to it.

This thread just got moved to an editorial. A lot of people have been relaying similar sentiments. I think this will be a good exercise for those people of my similar thoughts. While others, there may be something new I presented that they would like to discuss.

But all in all, this is just a bump.

But the Bush administration is doing something that I thought was totally foreign to the party. They have been making the Federal Government bigger and stronger.

I used to be republican until I realized that for the last few decades they have been saying one thing and doing another. They say they want small government and yet grew it like crazy.

Does anyone know about the history during the civil war? Weren't there assaults on the senate floor? Didn't we go to war with ourselves? Wasn't a president assassinated?

I don't know that the politics today are more partisan, but the stakes are higher. We and other nations and groups around the world have nuclear capabilities. If we can't find some common ground within the country and with the rest of the world the consequences could be much more severe.
.

It just gets worse and worse. This has extended beyond the political proponents of a party. There are more and more people of America that are becoming the soldiers of Democrats and Republicans, fighting each other and those inbetween at the same time. I believe we are in the middle of an ideological war.

Well, the results are in, and this election shows a polarized country hovering between two dualities. Third parties including Badnarik and Nader have been left to the crumbs of the pie as the country rallies around only two candidates. This election year has focused more on the person rather than issues and encouraged such catch phrases as "Anybody but Bush" or "Anybody but Kerry." Yet for the average person no two choices are adequate, so the lesser of the evils remains.

I've already seen threads here on ATS and even articles elsewhere hinting that the non-Bush voters should move to Canada. There are two Americas forming and most likely already formed, yet the definitive dividing issues remain a blur, whether it is moral values or security, or both. But my question is how long will this remain, and what both parties will offer to produce similar results throughout the years. If Bush and Kerry will continue to define politics and policy as we know it?

But the way I see this election is of two polarities, Bush and Kerry, both with the same charge unknown to the average voter. And that is broadening the power, size, and scope of the federal CORPORATE government. Only two particles of the same charge will repel each other in the minds of the voters as we have seen this election.

Due to the recent discussion about political polarity, I thought it appropriate to reintroduce this thread I created back in July. I believe my own introduction and the discussion that follows provides valuable research for those looking towards the origins and mechanisms of this duality.

As you can see Jamuhn it has gotten worst and most of us has fallen for it, the "move to canada" change to more hostile and hurtful names callings.

The disastifaction of many Americans is just to ovelwhelming, certain groups and people are taking advantage of all this.

I forget which writer first said it, but I do believe it. Left to their own devices the voters of America will vote for two things, Bread and Circuses. As long as you are not rocking their particular boat, they act as if they simply don't care. Fight amongst yourselves all you want, its entertaining, but don't mess with my pocketbook.

You think you have problems now, just wait until the government fixes them for you.

Most of the inflamed rhetoric comes from the young people of America, those who still see things as black or white. Give the youngsters time and they will see that everything is mostly just a different shade of grey.

[edit on 11-8-2005 by Astronomer68]