Correlation is not Causation: Why is the U.S. so politically divided?

sear

serene
Correlation is not Causation: Why is the U.S. so politically divided?

Rush Limbaugh and Speaker Gingrich became prominent at roughly the time hyper-partisanship paralyzed the U.S.

The obvious perjury trap and impeachment of President Clinton was rather more Republican partisanship than citizenship, the first of many similar examples.

Cause & effect or not, the commercially successful Rush Limbaugh has caused a Republican party groundswell whose mantra is:
- Throw the bums out! -
- Drain the swamp! -

Before Limbaugh / EIB, there was partisan ideological overlap in the U.S. congress. The most conservative Democrat was more conservative than the most liberal Republican.

No more.

Why not?

Because the extremes, our representatives known as "the safe seats" come from voting districts where partisan / ideological diversity is low.

In the districts where ideological diversity is greater, and congressional election victories narrower, the election victors tended to be more moderate.

And so in our THROW THE BUMS OUT political climate, it is those moderates that are expelled; now to such degree, partisan ideological overlap in congress is gone.

////////////////////// ! \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

There's more to it than that.

Presidential candidates know where the 50:50 national political ideology dividing line is.
They know what policy positions they have to take to get that magical 50% + 1 vote majority.

And so while we may have the illusion that our ideological divide is objective; defined by god, or reality, or philosophers,
the fact is it's ideological territory staked out by candidates that want a winning strategy to win the election, and the office.

So here's the insight.
If you think it's Republicans against Democrats, think again.

It's a political duopoly.

The Democins and Republicrats have a shared lock on the U.S. political process.
The 3rd parties you see on your ballots are political also rans, insignificant in the greater scheme.
 
Ingrained McCarthyism meant the working people of the US were not allowed to vote in their own interest, making them an open market for the crooks who thought it worth exploiting their deep-seated racism and sexism?
 
Wrong, the democrats controlled congress for more than 4 decades, until 1995.
 
"Wrong" #3

You mean it's NOT January 31st?!

"the democrats controlled congress for more than 4 decades, until 1995." #3

And look at how much better things were then, compared to now when Republicans control:
- the house
- the senate
- the exec, and soon,
- SCOTUS
 
it's sooo easy to point to this and that.it's not anyone thing- as you say where is the cause and effect?
It's beyond pointing to a starting point..all i really know is we have become a self fulfilling prophecy of hate towards the 'other side"
It would taker some kind of political reset. I don't see any interest in doing so.

Yes it's absolutely true politicians exploit this for their narrow gains, but we are willing pawns in their game
 
"we are willing pawns in their game" a #5

Do we have a better alternative?

a #5

Your brief but insightful post has brought a few things to mind.

Calculus for one.

But also the contrasts of different & contradictory rules of physics.

Newton figured out his 3 laws of motion. And they're still taught at college level today.

BUT !!

Einstein has eclipsed Newton. But only in astrophysics. For billiards, Newton still rules supreme.

AND !!

At subatomic level, quantum physics adheres to yet a third, and again quite different set of rules.

Your #5 addresses populations.
And thus, statistical generalizations are the most suitable tool for analysis.

But like in subatomic physics, political statistical public opinion polling doesn't predict outcomes. It predicts probabilities.

Thanks a lot Heisenberg!
 
We have never seen anything like Trump either though. Not saying it justifies it but many historical norms are out the window with him (and that's the way he likes it)
Jackson was similar populist,but he did have military experience..

the institutional manipulation by partisanship is a constant; the degree of hyper-partisanship
unmitigated throughout a presidency is new.
 
Correlation is not Causation: Why is the U.S. so politically divided?

That's an easy one to answer. For the last eight years we had an inexperienced inept partisan dunce in the White House who denounced anyone who disagreed with him and proclaimed he would act without Congress using his pen.

Idiots on the left still think this miserable failure of a President was a great guy. He did nothing BUT divide and I certainly will not miss that arrogant thug like saunter of his nor his smug partisan buffoonery.

7 policies Obama Says He'll Pursue Without Congress (State of the Dictatorship)
 
Last edited:
Jackson was similar populist,but he did have military experience..

the institutional manipulation by partisanship is a constant; the degree of hyper-partisanship
unmitigated throughout a presidency is new.

Obama started it, right from the beginning of his presidency and all the way thru.
 
Ingrained McCarthyism meant the working people of the US were not allowed to vote in their own interest, making them an open market for the crooks who thought it worth exploiting their deep-seated racism and sexism?

You're an idiot.

banging-head-on-keyboard-smiley-emoticon.gif
 
"When was this country ever not divided politically or am I missing something about the OP?" c #7

To set the historic record straight, America was politically divided before the United States of America was Founded.

Getting the 13 colonies to sign on to the DOI was no small feat.

"We must indeed all hang together, or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately."
Benjamin Franklin (1706-90), U.S. statesman, writer. Comment at the signing of the Declaration of Independence, 4 July 1776, in reply to John Hancock's remark that the revolutionaries should be unanimous in their action.


But the OP, this thread is not about simple partisanship. The term used in the opening post is "hyper-partisanship".

And in less than a lifetime it has changed ENORMOUSLY, and perhaps for multiple reasons.

Technology is blamed for several elements of this.

- Air conditioning is blamed by some.
Washington DC used to be characterized as a "sleepy Southern town". Back then Southerners used to talk differently than Northerners do. It's been a long time since I've heard a Southern drawl, the absence of which perhaps ironically attributed to television.
It was uncomfortably hot in DC back then, thus the "summer recess".
But with the advent of air conditioning, and any damn $temperature our pampered federal legislators want, with their unlimited budgets and unlimited salary / benefits packages, they can be inside our capitol in exquisite comfort 365 days a year.

- Commercial airliners.
In 1895 the MOC from Wyoming didn't have the ability to slip back to their home district for the weekend the way they can today.

SO !!
Instead they stayed in DC, and socialized with one another, and established relationships that transcended legislation. It was back then a more amicable body for the most part.

As a matter of fact as recently as the Reagan administration, Republican President Ronald Reagan and Democrat Speaker Tip O'Neill fraternized in DC.

And the result in our federal governance forms a stark if not glaring contrast with the way it has become in the 3rd Millennium.

“The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
http://www.mediaite.com/online/whit...me-the-shameless-mitch-mcconnell-and-company/


It is a bitterly sad turn of events, with ~$20 $Trillion in $U.S. $federal $debt,
and U.S. military combat troops dying in the field,
that the Republican minority leader's highest priority is political partisanship rather than humanity or citizenship.
 
"When was this country ever not divided politically or am I missing something about the OP?" c #7

To set the historic record straight, America was politically divided before the United States of America was Founded.

Getting the 13 colonies to sign on to the DOI was no small feat.

"We must indeed all hang together, or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately."
Benjamin Franklin (1706-90), U.S. statesman, writer. Comment at the signing of the Declaration of Independence, 4 July 1776, in reply to John Hancock's remark that the revolutionaries should be unanimous in their action.


But the OP, this thread is not about simple partisanship. The term used in the opening post is "hyper-partisanship".

And in less than a lifetime it has changed ENORMOUSLY, and perhaps for multiple reasons.

Technology is blamed for several elements of this.

- Air conditioning is blamed by some.
Washington DC used to be characterized as a "sleepy Southern town". Back then Southerners used to talk differently than Northerners do. It's been a long time since I've heard a Southern drawl, the absence of which perhaps ironically attributed to television.
It was uncomfortably hot in DC back then, thus the "summer recess".
But with the advent of air conditioning, and any damn $temperature our pampered federal legislators want, with their unlimited budgets and unlimited salary / benefits packages, they can be inside our capitol in exquisite comfort 365 days a year.

- Commercial airliners.
In 1895 the MOC from Wyoming didn't have the ability to slip back to their home district for the weekend the way they can today.

SO !!
Instead they stayed in DC, and socialized with one another, and established relationships that transcended legislation. It was back then a more amicable body for the most part.

As a matter of fact as recently as the Reagan administration, Republican President Ronald Reagan and Democrat Speaker Tip O'Neill fraternized in DC.

And the result in our federal governance forms a stark if not glaring contrast with the way it has become in the 3rd Millennium.

“The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
http://www.mediaite.com/online/whit...me-the-shameless-mitch-mcconnell-and-company/


It is a bitterly sad turn of events, with ~$20 $Trillion in $U.S. $federal $debt,
and U.S. military combat troops dying in the field,
that the Republican minority leader's highest priority is political partisanship rather than humanity or citizenship.

Leftist Democrats and Obama OWN the term "hyper partisan." I do wish you had a brain.
 
" For the last eight years we had an inexperienced inept partisan dunce in the White House who denounced anyone who disagreed with him and proclaimed he would act without Congress using his pen. " #11

If you're referring to Trump, and on basis of your adjective "inexperienced" I deduce you are, it's closer to 8 days than 8 years. But otherwise we are in accord. Trump's recent executive actions have clogged our news cycles, acting without Congress using his pen, just as you describe.

"Democrats and Obama OWN the term "hyper partisan.""

a) Oh.

b) Perhaps they'll loan it without charge, should you ever find need of it.

c) Dems would be the ones that need it, as they'd be the ones to describe the Republicans, the party to which it best applies.

"I do wish you had a brain." #15

I recognize a sales pitch when I see one, but no thanks. I'm not interested in a brain such as yours that is both so old, and so pristinely unused.

I guess I'll just have to get along without one.
 
Correlation is not Causation: Why is the U.S. so politically divided?

Rush Limbaugh and Speaker Gingrich became prominent at roughly the time hyper-partisanship paralyzed the U.S.

The obvious perjury trap and impeachment of President Clinton was rather more Republican partisanship than citizenship, the first of many similar examples.

Cause & effect or not, the commercially successful Rush Limbaugh has caused a Republican party groundswell whose mantra is:
- Throw the bums out! -
- Drain the swamp! -

Before Limbaugh / EIB, there was partisan ideological overlap in the U.S. congress. The most conservative Democrat was more conservative than the most liberal Republican.

No more.

Why not?

Because the extremes, our representatives known as "the safe seats" come from voting districts where partisan / ideological diversity is low.

In the districts where ideological diversity is greater, and congressional election victories narrower, the election victors tended to be more moderate.

And so in our THROW THE BUMS OUT political climate, it is those moderates that are expelled; now to such degree, partisan ideological overlap in congress is gone.

////////////////////// ! \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

There's more to it than that.

Presidential candidates know where the 50:50 national political ideology dividing line is.
They know what policy positions they have to take to get that magical 50% + 1 vote majority.

And so while we may have the illusion that our ideological divide is objective; defined by god, or reality, or philosophers,
the fact is it's ideological territory staked out by candidates that want a winning strategy to win the election, and the office.

So here's the insight.
If you think it's Republicans against Democrats, think again.

It's a political duopoly.

The Democins and Republicrats have a shared lock on the U.S. political process.
The 3rd parties you see on your ballots are political also rans, insignificant in the greater scheme.

Its not rocket science. The people are now engaged in warfare for the very soul of the United States of America. Its evil v righteousness. One one side you have the evil left (that has devoted their ideology to Satan)...on the other side defenders of liberty, truth and the constitutional rule of law. Its not complicated. As long as the left continues to support immorality and evil...there will be an even larger divide.
 
" For the last eight years we had an inexperienced inept partisan dunce in the White House who denounced anyone who disagreed with him and proclaimed he would act without Congress using his pen. " #11

If you're referring to Trump, and on basis of your adjective "inexperienced" I deduce you are, it's closer to 8 days than 8 years. But otherwise we are in accord. Trump's recent executive actions have clogged our news cycles, acting without Congress using his pen, just as you describe.

"Democrats and Obama OWN the term "hyper partisan.""

a) Oh.

b) Perhaps they'll loan it without charge, should you ever find need of it.

c) Dems would be the ones that need it, as they'd be the ones to describe the Republicans, the party to which it best applies.

"I do wish you had a brain." #15

I recognize a sales pitch when I see one, but no thanks. I'm not interested in a brain such as yours that is both so old, and so pristinely unused.

I guess I'll just have to get along without one.

You're not even an adept whiner. :rofl2:
 
#17

It's a bitter irony.

It's axiomatic that "2 heads are better than one".

But perhaps 120 million are not as good as 12. Too early to know for certain. But I suspect the People choosing Donald Trump for president was a bad choice. We'll see.

How many terrorist attacks on U.S. interests and U.S. assets do you think there'll be, before Trump leaves the presidency?
 
How many terrorist attacks on U.S. interests and U.S. assets do you think there'll be, before Trump leaves the presidency?

That's hard to say; but we do know that there have been hundreds of terrorist attacks here and abroad during the ObamaTard's Presidency.

I would guess that with someone in charge who cares about American safety and interests, there will be fewer.

You don't end terrorist attacks by hugging terrorists and releasing them from Gitmo dimwit. Yet that is what YOUR guy, the ObamaTARD, has been doing while impugning American efforts over the last few decades.
 
Back
Top