The Unsavory Psychology of Two-Party Politics

Recent years have brought a polarization of people across the world. People who are otherwise hands off on politics are suddenly starting to join the conversation. Oddly enough, some are choosing "sides".

We could go on and on about why people who otherwise wouldn't involve themselves have. But I think we can all agree it stems from a dissatisfaction our systems have given us.

In America especially, we see a rise in productivity and wealth, but the wealth goes to the top as wages haven't risen in decades.

Here is a piece from an article from a few years back.

As I read about the evolution of political parties in the U.S., I became curious about why we have settled in on the present two-party system, especially when research indicates that a majority of Americans agree that there should be a major third party beyond the Republican and Democratic parties. Then it struck me: Perhaps a two-party system strikes a chord with our evolved tendency to classify people into one of two categories, in-group vs. out-group, or us vs. them. Research indicates that the bias toward categorizing members of our species into us vs. them has been in the primate line for at least 25 million years. The two-party system nicely fits this bias—you are either a member of my in-group (us) or you are an outsider (them). A system with three or more parties is too complicated for our primitive bias toward us vs. them thinking.

psychology today

Next we have an NPR article showing how partisan people responded to what a president is in control of, asked while their party is in control and than the opposing party.

When pollsters ask Republicans and Democrats whether the president can do anything about high gas prices, the answers reflect the usual partisan divisions in the country. About two-thirds of Republicans say the president can do something about high gas prices, and about two-thirds of Democrats say he can't.

But six years ago, with a Republican president in the White House, the numbers were reversed: Three-fourths of Democrats said President Bush could do something about high gas prices, while the majority of Republicans said gas prices were clearly outside the president's control.

The flipped perceptions on gas prices isn't an aberration, said Dartmouth College political scientist Brendan Nyhan. On a range of issues, partisans seem partial to their political loyalties over the facts. When those loyalties demand changing their views of the facts, he said, partisans seem willing to throw even consistency overboard.

[url=http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2012/05/09/152287372/partisan-psychology-why-are-people-partial-to-political-loyalties-over-facts]NPR[ /url]

So obviously when I side is picked, there is a biased when responding to questions.

We've all seen it here, a site I regard as having the most informed members on topics of current events. Most would openly admit to corruption in the conspiracy threads, but if it's a partisan charged thread I see people quick to take sides and use fallacies to argue their point.

This post is barely scratching the surface, but I wanted to start a thread that would try and uncover how in the biggest renaissance (internet) the world has ever seen, how does this archaic two party system exists(and flourishes).

Most people in different context we be very quick to say how diverse all our belief platforms are, then so willing to pick one of two sides. Yet we find ourselves in an age that when we argue, people conclude if you disagree with their side, you must represent the other. While many cases proves their are plenty of sides, that's how the partisan mind works.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

People on all sides are losing their s*** lately because partisan politics has become an existential thing.

Many people who don't support Trump sincerely believe he'll lead the US and the world into world war and hate. They see him as legitimising racial divisions and being anti-science and anti-intellectual. A 'might is right' society. That's an existence-threatening scenario.

On the other side, many who don't support Clinton and the Dems sincerely believe they would lead the US and world into world war and censored societies. They see the Libs/Dems as legitimising racial inequality and exploiting science to impose an ideal of equality that's closer to a Totalitarian society. That's a dystopic threat to life right there.

IMO.

Dont even get me started...

Recent years have brought a polarization of people across the world

I am going to somewhat disagree with this only because when one looks back through history of this country.

Left and right have always been eat each others throats. It's the nature of the beast.

'Democracy'.

Two wolves fighting over which one gets to eat the sheep.

The only real thing that is changed is the medium.

24/7 news cycle that magnifies in to idiotic proportions.

The majority of people. Americans are unplugged with it all. In favor of things like reality tv.

And make no mistake politics is a nasty business. The entire aim is to literally destroy each other.

And the sheep. The people are nothing more than collateral damage.

Which makes politics the most dangerous weapon of mass destruction mankind ever created.

Something that should never/rarely ever used. Is used gleefully.

I was so much happy when I didn't pay attention to the bullsnip.

I really was.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Unfortunately its the reason the elites get away with the crimes they do.

People are so quick to defend "their team".

Its like sports, people keep speaking of winning or losing while we all lose.

Many of them just laugh even as they know its the same old bull chit, because at least "they won".

And I know you and I are strong anti war, which will continue as planned.

You're setting yourself up as someone who "sees the fallacies" of the two-party system and the members of ATS, whom you deem to be the best-informed group of all, who use fallacies to bolster their arguments. I'm wondering how you justify placing yourself in such a lofty position. Not that these traits always make a difference, but are you brighter than your average ATS poster, or maybe better educated enough to recognize these issues? Do you see a significant difference between a two-party system, which is what you specifically called out, versus a multi-party approach such as in many EU countries? And regarding ATS posters, is there ANY objective evidence that 'we' are better informed than anyone else? You mentioned "Psychology Today." Though I risk self-incrimination here, as I understand it, many psychologists believe the "conspiracy mindset" is most attractive to those who, not to put to fine a point on it, are mildly insane. I mean "chemtrails"? Fake moon landings? Reptilians? There's some great stuff here once in awhile, but I just don't see any evidence of a superior gene pool here. Not that I could tell, being deficient myself, as my mere presence here proves.

Both sides want to put the other side in jail as a platform legitimately. It will either evolve into complex politics of multiple parties of influence, or it will devolve into fascism. What it cannot do is maintain.

a reply to: schuyler

I believe that the elite get to go on their escapades while people are distracted arguing.

Forgive me for not seeing how spreading that message(maybe I'm wrong) places me as condescending or self righteous.

Again, I may be wrong.

a reply to: schuyler

The problem I see with conspiracies is contradictions set in. Like the moon landings. I believe in that, but I've watched so much of the Apollo 11 earth footage, it blows my mind trying to understand if it's fake. I don't believe in flat Earth either for the record; but to me, the 'lost footage' does look suspiciously look fake. In view, the astronaut is speaking to control saying the Camera is against the glass of the window, himself he says this, and later in the video when the lights come on, it's clearly at the rear of the spacecraft, and even the 'black space' surrounding Earth is immediately revealed to be the inside of the ship. This brings so many questions for me it's insane. Then also speak about editing the footage and where, in the found lost footage by control and astronauts.

I love politics. The corruption, lies, nepotism, Machiavellian twists and turns, hypocrisy and the trivial arguments as the Nation goes down the **** hole.

It's surreal, entertaining and totally American.

But what I like most about politics is working as a media person during the campaigns which are now going on almost full time. I have worked for Gary Johnson, the GOP and free lanced for UPI. The pay is exceptional$$$!!

Other than my dislike for Trump and Hillary...It's just a job. Blessed to have taken a production class thru a Public access cable channel and lucked into a new profession.

I'm sure some see me as part of the problem. To ****in bad!

a reply to: olaru12

I applaud your honesty. And don't blame you if you can't beat them, cash their checks hahahaha.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

We could break out of this two party system easily enough if people would just vote 3rd party. Take this last election for instance: so many people did not really want EITHER of the two main party candidates but were convinced that voting 3rd party was just throwing away their vote, so rather than vote 3rd party or voting FOR a candidate they chose to vote AGAINST whichever main candidate they despised most by voting for the opposite main party candidate. If all of THOSE people had instead voted Libertarian, Green Party... ANTHING but Republican or Democrat.... one of those parties might have won or at the very least garnered enough votes that come next election cycle their party would have gotten equal funding, air time, press attention and most importantly would be included in all of the major debates- giving us a chance to break the two party system!

The problem with two party politics is when it gets crossed up with one's personal beliefs.

There actually isn't a party that reflects mine. There is only the party that's inimical and the party that's less hostile.

a reply to: neo96

I don't really see your version of history. There were certainly different parties and views but not so polarized.

I think after jfk was assassinated and then his brother things changed quite a bit. We haven't had a decent president since that time.

The classical liberals that created the us are all but gone today. Ron Paul and Denis Kucinich were the last two statesman in my opinion. They seemed crazy to the media bit they were opposing views that came together for liberty to solve problems.

I had hopes for Rand and Corey booker but Booker showed his true colors at the sessions hearing. (I can't stand sessions but his limelighting was perverse)

And rand plays a game he has to to even exist in that world. His father just didn't give a crap.

a reply to: luthier

I don't really see your version of history.

Look closer.



This is just the tip of the iceberg.



There is NOT ONE original argument today.

It's just been rinse and repeated ad infinitum for over 200 years.

originally posted by: GeauxHomeYoureDrunk
a reply to: CriticalStinker

We could break out of this two party system easily enough if people would just vote 3rd party. Take this last election for instance: so many people did not really want EITHER of the two main party candidates but were convinced that voting 3rd party was just throwing away their vote, so rather than vote 3rd party or voting FOR a candidate they chose to vote AGAINST whichever main candidate they despised most by voting for the opposite main party candidate. If all of THOSE people had instead voted Libertarian, Green Party... ANTHING but Republican or Democrat.... one of those parties might have won or at the very least garnered enough votes that come next election cycle their party would have gotten equal funding, air time, press attention and most importantly would be included in all of the major debates- giving us a chance to break the two party system!

Alternatively, if we all changed our affiliations to Independent that would force a whole new primary selection system. But I know it will never happen in our lifetimes. The two party system has failed us with their all or nothing approaches. It's either win or block progress. Just think how nice it would be if there were no "Teams" and everyone had to vote based on issues.

So I think you are right, a simpler way is to get enough 3rd party votes to add another team.

a reply to: neo96

Not really, no. The society was very different and rhetoric was different. The Republicans and Democrats swapped parties after civil rights.

People used to be taxed far more than they are today. The wealthy were taxed up to 70 percent in the past. So tax cuts actually were vital to the country.

Special interest completely took over once jfk was killed. He and the previous president warned quite a bit what was happening in Congress with special interests.

Now there is one party. The greed party. Run by lobby power.

They just pluck the strings and watch their stooges dance.

Obama was a polarizing racial and class president. Now we have the opposite but equally bad president. I highly doubt it was by accident or simply fed up people swinging the other way.

Modern partisanship has degenerated into cultism. People who blindly adhere to the tenets of one "side" or the other are cultists, having substituted their political ideologies in place of religion, and are each on their respective crusades to either convert or annihilate one another.

The parallels between partisanship and cultist fanaticism are striking.

originally posted by: NthOther
Modern partisanship has degenerated into cultism. People who blindly adhere to the tenets of one "side" or the other are cultists, having substituted their political ideologies in place of religion, and are each on their respective crusades to either convert or annihilate one another.

The parallels between partisanship and cultist fanaticism are striking.

I didn't even listen to your idea, once I saw your party declaration I just knew it was wrong.

The Political Brain
During the run-up to the 2004 presidential election, while undergoing an fMRI bran scan, 30 men--half self-described as "strong" Republicans and half as "strong" Democrats--were tasked with assessing statements by both George W. Bush and John Kerry in which the candidates clearly contradicted themselves. Not surprisingly, in their assessments Republican subjects were as critical of Kerry as Democratic subjects were of Bush, yet both let their own candidate off the hook.

The neuroimaging results, however, revealed that the part of the brain most associated with reasoning--the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex--was quiescent. Most active were the orbital frontal cortex, which is involved in the processing of emotions; the anterior cingulate, which is associated with conflict resolution; the posterior cingulate, which is concerned with making judgments about moral accountability; and--once subjects had arrived at a conclusion that made them emotionally comfortable--the ventral striatum, which is related to reward and pleasure.

Left/Right partisans are literally addicted like dope fiends to self-deception about their party/people!