The problem of polarization

It seems to me the greatest problem we're facing is the extreme polarization of modern politics. I'm sure most of you have seen the data on this—if you haven't I can link some studies. For example, a few decades ago it was much more common for people to be somewhat conservative but have a liberal stance on a fair number of issues, or vice versa. Now it is much easier to predict a person's stance on all kinds of issues based on whether they're a republican or a democrat. Everyone seems to have fallen into one track or the other, and now we're fighting each other. If you listen to Fox, you're taught the problem is the liberals. If you listen to MSNBC, the problem is the conservatives. While we're divided, we cannot get anything done. It's like we're connected by a rope and pulling in opposite directions. We'll never go anywhere.

So for a moment, let's take a rest from trying to prove that our side is right. Let's take a rest from trying to tear down Trump or applaud him. Such debates rarely change peoples minds anyway. So, let us focus on a more fundamental problem. How can we stop the polarization? How can we see eye to eye? Only then will we be able to have a sober conversation, and decide what to do.

a reply to: thesearchfortruth

On polarization, you are correct because if Trump supports or promotes anything, the Democrats will go completely opposite.

Now, on the issues. News has nothing to do with it.

The Democratic Party supports and promotes 80-90% of the issues I am opposed to and the Progressive wing of the Democratic Party is completely Authoritarian.

I fully oppose them and will never vote for any of their candidates until they stop trying to trample everything I hold dear and stop trying to shut anyone up that doesn't agree with them.

a reply to: thesearchfortruth

Polarization is purposeful in governance, its called "dialectics." Hegelian, Machievellian..its the method for control through creating 2 factions, while getting away with whatever your perpetrating behind the scene.

a reply to: thesearchfortruth

I like to think I'm more common sense than polarized.

I don't see how gay marriage diminishes the standard definition of marriage.
I don't see how controlling the flow of people across a border is racist.
I still haven't figured out how anyone can vote for someone that has never done anything to be qualified to be in charge.

I've been around long enough to know that right about the time bill clinton got elected was when "personality" was becoming more important that ability.
Not saying bill wasn't qualified either.. He ran a state and was just fine qualification wise.
But that's when it started to snowball.

a reply to: thesearchfortruth

I agree with you Mr. Truth. The blatant adherence to party does us no good.

a reply to: Bluntone22

Gay marriage - It never used to. Every different religion/spiritual tradition had slightly different ideas of what marriage was, but then someone had the bright idea to let government define it and let that one definition stand for every marriage and then force everyone to accept that one idea.

The border - It never used to be until politicians decided those who came across illegally could be pandered to for votes and blocked in with their legal counterparts.

Experience - College degrees are counted as experience, so is your ethnic background because certain ones confer "the struggle" on you.

When people start to realize that their problems with the "other side" are all just projections of their own negative traits that they refuse to awknowledge about themselves. The further to the left or right someone is, the more they are just trying to separate themselves from their own negative traits which is why they then project them onto the other. This sub is full of hypocrites who do nothing but talk horribly about the opposing political side and they are literally describing themselves to a T everytime without even realizing it. Narcissism caused by extreme shaming in childhood is the culprit here.

a reply to: ketsuko


Religious opinions aside, marriage is a civil rights issue.
Insurance, beneficiaries and many other legal rights are dependent on marital status.

But pretty much everything else is about political favor.

Good post.

I found myself thinking this past weekend about how I carry myself regarding politics these days and any time I go into any kind of introspective thinking, I generally beat the hell out of myself. This was no different. I found that the things I’ve been doing or writing are not lending themselves to the outcome I want to see and I decided that I’ll no longer partake in the “Oh, look what Trump did now!”, or waste time trying to convince someone that Trump is an idiot or Biden’s senile, etc.

Ultimately, I want our country to to be awesome. I want our presidents to be awesome. I want both sides of the aisle to be awesome and do what’s in our interest.

For the majority of my life, I stayed blind to politics because I thought it was all a crock of sh!t. When I say blind, I mean I couldn’t even tell you what separated a democrat from a republican. Around 2012 I started paying attention a little more and it progressed through the years. I still believe it’s all a crock of sh!t, if anything, it just cemented that for me. But still, I want our country to be awesome and these are the cards we’re dealt with. I can either fold and quit or I can keep playing with the hand I have, but pointing out how some of my cards are bent and faded isn’t going to win me the pot.

I think our political system needs an enema and we certainly can’t leave it up to politicians to self-administer. I think it’s highly important to be critical of each side, especially when it’s the side you’re a part of. I was pleased yesterday when I made a post about Ken Bunker committing voter fraud and several right-leaning members spoke of their unhappiness with it. No more letting things slide because it’s the side you’re on, especially to come out with guns blazing when it’s the other side doing the same thing or similar.

I think the sooner we the people put an end to the divisiveness, the better. If we take that away from the politicians, they’ll have nothing to play off of and they can get back to doing what we pay them for.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: ketsuko


Religious opinions aside, marriage is a civil rights issue.
Insurance, beneficiaries and many other legal rights are dependent on marital status.

But pretty much everything else is about political favor.

All those things could be conferred with or without the word marriage. By choosing to use the word marriage in the license, they opened up all the can of worms we see right now.

The hard truth is that marriage means different things to different people and different religious/spiritual groups. It always has. A Muslim marriage is not a Christian marriage is not a Buddhist marriage is not a Jewish marriage is not a Native American one and so on and so forth. Some are very similar, but none are the same, and for some the only thing that matters is what the government confers on a couple.

And for some, a couple is not a marriage, and that holds even for some religious traditions, too.

Muslims, for example, do not hold with the idea that marriage is just two and neither do certain segments of Mormonism.

So you're going to have a hard time convincing me that we weren't better off before we got the government mixed up with the word "marriage" on several levels. How do you apply the legalities equally when different ideas of what a marriage are not equal? Who do you decide wins and who loses and how do you violate their rights on that matter?

The system works. Nobody is suppose to have all the power. There is a quote of Obama saying something to the effect of his administration tried too hard to consolidate power. The system fought back against it and stripped him of it. People can bash Trump all they want but if Obama was so amazing how did his party manage to lose all three branches.

It's something the pundits rarely if ever acknowledge. They did get back the House but that almost always happens. Rarely can a President retain all three branches very long. The polarization is actually a good thing. What is not good is the opposite. Things are getting done it just take a while to haggle something that doesn't work perfect but, it kinda works for most. As the saying goes it's the best form of government and the worse form of government. Very messy. Messier the better.

How can we stop the polarization? How can we see eye to eye?

a reply to: thesearchfortruth

Well this current climate won;t be helpful. (with social distancing) but I would say that we need better communication skills. and the ability to truly listen to what anothe rperson is saying. To actually have an investment in what another person is saying. And obiously get out of our own echo chambers that we each have.

I've been around long enough to know that right about the time bill clinton got elected was when "personality" was becoming more important that ability.

a reply to: Bluntone22

well wait a minute what about Reagan wasnt he an actor before he was president??

Everyone seems to have fallen into one track or the other, and now we're fighting each other.

No. Just no.

As of February 2020, Gallup polling found that 29% of Americans identified as Democrats, 30% identified as Republican, and 39% as Independent.

Political Party Strength in U.S. States

Despite there being far more Independents than either Democrats or Republicans, their voices are the ones that are not even considered! Instead, we are presented with a left/right paradigm of wannabe tyrants. Even in public opinion polls and surveys, Independents are often asked to define themselves as "left leaning" or "right leaning", with their answers grouped with the party they lean towards, rather than evaluated and cited independently... no pun intended.

Polarization infers two extremes with Independents and third party voters either blurred within the left/right paradigm OR completely left out of the equation. It is exactly this refusal to even recognize and acknowledge any other position that defines the ever-present partisan "bubbles" and "echo chambers" that are paralyzing the nation. And that's the real problem.

We don't want to be ruled by the tyrants on the left or the right.

originally posted by: American-philosopher

I've been around long enough to know that right about the time bill clinton got elected was when "personality" was becoming more important that ability.

a reply to: Bluntone22

well wait a minute what about Reagan wasnt he an actor before he was president??

Yes he was.
He was also the governor of California for eight years making him qualified.


As for personality.
Look at the debate between Nixon and Kennedy.
The first televised debate.
Nixon looked nervous and sweaty while Kennedy looked cool and calm.
Personality affected that one also but it didn’t really take hold until Clinton’s era.

a reply to: ketsuko

Marriage is a legal contract.
The religious definition is irrelevant.

When benefits are giving to a spouse such as a joint tax return it becomes a civil rights issue.

Personality affected that one also but it didn’t really take hold until Clinton’s era.

a reply to: Bluntone22

I dont know I kind of disagree. I think you have to have some amount of personality to be president. I mean you have to have persoanlity to cnnect with people and to have them vote for you. I am not a super history buff and can;t detail if all of the presidents had super personalities or not. But to capture a voters attention you have to have some personality.

a reply to: American-philosopher

Well since television and now social media a candidates personality is more important than in the past.
Roosevelt hid his handicap from the public so well that most people didn’t know he was on crutches from polio.

My point was that a candidate today doesn’t have to be anything more than a celebrity.
Actually having the ability or experience to govern is not required.

a reply to: ketsuko

All those things could be conferred with or without the word marriage. By choosing to use the word marriage in the license, they opened up all the can of worms we see right now.

But why? How? What makes the word "marriage" the problem?

I've never understood this, or found a satisfactory answer.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: ketsuko

All those things could be conferred with or without the word marriage. By choosing to use the word marriage in the license, they opened up all the can of worms we see right now.

But why? How? What makes the word "marriage" the problem?

I've never understood this, or found a satisfactory answer.

The only answer I ever found for that question was that it was all based off of religious standards.
I would have no issue with that viewpoint if it didn’t discriminate on the legal level.