Interesting point of view. Polarization has always existed, but I think that it's the relative degree today that's the danger.
How I came to my concern is based on a theory on which I've expounded before, at typically great length, so I'll try to keep it brief (this time).
The American electorate seems to self-organize into right/center/left segments. Most of the time, neither left nor right has enough power on its own to dictate the government's agenda, requiring them to sell the center. This has made the center the true source of power in American politics, and I believe it's a strength, preventing ill-advised extremes from prevailing. An independent center can pick and choose from the best offers from each group of partisans. I can't prove it, but I have a suspicion that it's by design--an anticipated consequence of the visible institution and their chex-n-balances.
Far less speculative is the assertion that politicians have deliberately fostered extreme polarization in order to narrow the center--that is, weaken it--to make it easier for them and their parties to gain a free hand in implementing their agendas without effective opposition. Instead of convincing the 20-30% of the population that's undecided, they can focus their energy and resources on swaying single-digit percentages; in most recent elections except the last, it's been a matter of statistical noise: 1-2%.
The consequence for the country is more political and policy volatility, and more opportunity for decision-making based on ideology untempered by a skeptical center. The "base" is larger and tends to be unquestioning; while an out-of-power opposition, even one that got 49.9% of the votes, is impotent to oppose the ruling party. We've seen how the winner presumes to declare 50.1% a mandate, and rampages accordingly.
So, that's why I think it matters. If I'm wrong, no worries, mate. Am I wrong?
Flame » in reply to re: Clearly, a long term project
re: Clearly, a long term project
The whole thread (126 posts)
- Polarization
- Follow-up -- does NPR lurk at HZ?
- LOL (n/t)
- A thought on all of this from an observer
- TB vs 7 leftists...and the winner is...
- re: Why ? Because...
- "why there is such polarization?"
- re: "why there is such polarization?"
- re: "why there is such polarization?"
- I think I've got the answer.
- Yes?
- re: Yes?
- Yes
- understood (n/t)
- Yes
- Okay, I get it. (n/t)
- This is clearly a longterm project
- re: Clearly, a long term project
- This is clearly a longterm project
- re: Yes?
- Yes?
- Hogwash
- And yet...
- re: And yet...
- re: Isn't that the problem?
- No, it wouldn't be productive.
- "Providing so many rich examples of polarization isn't addressing the question, it's only reinforcing the need to answer it. "
- I'll throw you one clue...
- In other words...
- No.
- "I watch good! Red light stop, green light go, yellow light go very fast."
- re: No.
- No.
- In other words...
- re: And yet...
- re: And yet...
- Buchanan sidebar
- Follow-up -- does NPR lurk at HZ?
