Hey, maybe he really is a lawyer:
Why have political parties become so polarized that they fail to address the concerns of most Americans?
 |
To parse: The question assumes that A. political parties are failing to address most Americans’ concerns (I agree), and that B. That’s because the two major parties are too polarized against each other.
This is stupid. I remember times in elementary school when some bully would pick on a weaker kid, there would be a scuffle, and the clueless teacher would just punish them both. Waterston is using a similar (non-existent) degree of insight and discernment.
Maybe instead of B., the problem is that our political process is absolutely dominated by one pole, that of moneyed special interests. And if the parties are busy doing their bidding (yes, Democrats too), they can’t possibly do right by jes’ folks.
Please share widely!
Opposition seems to take the form of “slappy fights”. Lots of noise, but little benefit to the voters. Pandering to the public while being dutiful to their real masters is the game played by these guys. I always want to gag when the politician speaks of their “Leadership” abilities.
<
p>
Maybe people are waking up. The interest in Mike Gravel and Ron Paul by the public is a good sign.
what’s with all the “gas|house|stock|pickled herring prices reach new record” articles all the time? They rarely account for inflation, and are therefore rarely informative in any way.
<
p>
Grr.
..and they are thoughtful, not dumbass. Dumbass.
Hey, I said Waterston’s question was dumbass, not that he was dumbass. That I’m not qualified to assess.
<
p>
Anyway, do tell.
Than, say, 20 years ago. a) Between the parties? b) Within the parties?
BTW – I think Sam Waterston is smary and unctous, a worthy successor to Alan Alda. But the Unity 08 movement is not him.
Well, I checked out their website:
http://www.unity08.c…
<
p>
“Unity08 believes that neither of today?s major parties reflects the aspirations, fears or will of the majority of Americans. Both have polarized and alienated the people. Both are unduly influenced by single-issue groups. Both are excessively dominated by money.”
<
p>
Okay, pretty good so far…
<
p>
“Unity08 divides issues facing the country into two categories: Crucial Issues ? on which America?s future safety and welfare depend; and Important Issues ? which, while vital to some, will not, in our judgment, determine the fate or future of the United States.”
<
p>
Not bad…
<
p>
“In our opinion, Crucial Issues include: Global terrorism, our national debt, our dependence on foreign oil, the emergence of India and China as strategic competitors and/or allies, nuclear proliferation, global climate change, the corruption of Washington?s lobbying system, the education of our young, the health care of all, and the disappearance of the American Dream for so many of our people.”
<
p>
That’s actually pretty good! I’m on the edge of my seat!
And then…
<
p>
Well, almost nothing.
<
p>
There’s one paragraph on lobbying reform, with a pledge to take only “small-dollar” donations from “everyday Americans.”
Other than that, zero.
<
p>
Yep! Global terrorism sure is a problem! Too bad the major parties don’t care about it! Someone should really do something about that! Climate change and nuclear proliferation too!
<
p>
It’s a shame, really, that claims that the two parties do not serve the people-which is so on the mark!-insist on devolving into Broderisms.
(curtain opens)
<
p>
that would be CLASS WARFARE !!!!!
<
p>
in other words . . . SOCIALISM !!!!!
<
p>
(cue democrats to sit down and shut up)
<
p>
(close curtain)
Because it sure seems like politics is as polarized as it been in my lifetime.
<
p>
I think when people refer to this, they are expressing frustration on both sides of the culture war, which is used effectively by both sides to rile up the true believers over what are generally perceived to be very minor issues in the grand scheme of things.
<
p>
On both sides, many of the culture war events are little more than performance art, intended as much to poke the other side with a stick as to rally one’s own side.
As most in years past don’t really care what their contituents think unless it’s getting close to an election.
<
p>
Politicians like, Romney, Travaglini, and Meehan have only one worry: themselves.
<
p>
So what else is new? Is this a new revelation?
Because Democrats and Republicans suck, let’s elect the Unity Party! woohoo! World Peace!
<
p>
We can’t even find unity is solidarity. Take the immigration overhaul bill. It was written and supported by a bi-partisan group of senators. It is opposed by a bi-partisan group of senators. Our government can’t even get shit done when we work together!!!
<
p>
I am once again renewing my calls for a monarchy.
My conservative Catholic friend who believes in restoring feudalism once made a great point that Kings who are corrupt can be forgiven since they did not seek the power it was the misfortune of their birth that thrust it upon them.
<
p>
Yet I then think that if Bush was my King I could not possibly get rid of him in my lifetime, and his successor would be quite similar being of his stock and blood. Also our country tried monarchy once and it didn’t quite work.
<
p>
That said to be fair the country is more polarized and partisan and thats a bad thing, although my biggest criticism of Unity 08 currently is that it has no candidates or positions so it can’t be judged as much of anything.
<
p>
Also we aren’t nearly as divided as we once were, a lot of this nostalgia for Republicans and Democrats having a drink at least after a long day of rhetorically fighting one another forgets that we are in fact living in a more cordial time. Remember one of our Senators was once beaten near to death with a cane for his opposition to slavery, not by a crazed mob but by a fellow Senator. In the early days of the republic Congressmen would bring guns to the chamber, and who could forget the Hamilton-Burr duel. Things by any stretch aren’t nearly as bad as they once were. That said this still doesn’t mean that they couldn’t be better but some of this nostalgia is really campy and absurd, not to mention just plain wrong.
…My conservative Catholic friend who believes in restoring feudalism once made a great point that Kings who are corrupt can be forgiven since they did not seek the power it was the misfortune of their birth that thrust it upon them.
<
p>
Apparently your “conservative” Catholic friend had never heard of abdication. There is no requirement that a king, corrupt or not, serve as king merely because of his misfortune of birth.
<
p>
On the subject matter of the post, Waterston really is a dumbass, but not for the reason that the poster mentions. The question is…
<
p>
Why have political parties become so polarized that they fail to address the concerns of most Americans?
<
p>
In point of fact, they do address the concerns of most Americans, to the extent that it suffices them. They do not address the minority concerns, because most Americans are not sufficiently affected, or, more importantly, they do not believe that one or the other party will sufficiently address the concerns to effectively affect them. That is the real problem that Dems have in their competition with the Reps. Remember Ross Perot’s “gigantic sucking sound” regarding NAFTA, which was supported by Dems as well as Reps? Remember the fact that both parties supported the last round of international trade talks GATT? Remember that both parties support subsidies to agribusiness (including farms). Remember that both parties are beholden to the military-industrial-congressional complex, and quite frankly to the prison-industrial-state complex?
<
p>
I’m sorry to have to tell you this, but the fact is that the Republicans have learned how to play the game that they previously accused the Democrats of playing: welfare, redistribution of income (not wealth, income, and there is a difference). And that is why the Republicans keep harping on the social issues, because those are really the only ones that divide the two parties, but not by much. The sad fact that you Dems have is that, by and large, Republicans have taken away your distinction based on government spending and how to raise the revenue to spend.
<
p>
I expect that you are too young to remember the “Ev and Charlie” shows in the 1960s where Rep. Sen. Everett Dirkson and Rep. Charlie Halleck would get on the airwaves decrying the fact that “a billion here, a billion there, and soon, you’re talking real money.” Republicans got away from that mentality with Nixon, and viola! they started winning federal elections. They bought into the Dem’s tax and spend thing, but replaced it with a borrow and spend policy, and the rest is history. The only real thing that the Dems have going for them in 2008 is the war on Iraq, and even that is dubious, given the absence of a draft. Good luck.
Rep. Sen. Everett Dirkson and Rep. Charlie Halleck
<
p>
should be read as Republican Senator Everett Dirksen and (Republican) Representative Charlie Halleck.
Is that one party is responsible for this uptake in incivility and the other isn’t. For the party that is, I say over the next few elections we get it down to the size that we could drown it in the bathtub.