Why such a deep political divide in the U.S.?

[Scout]

There are only two major parties: Democrats and Republicans. This has been true for many years, yet the divide between the two becomes ever wider. Why do you think this is? Do politicians' constituents drive this? Did it start with the Tea Party movement?

[Matthew]

Good question, but I remember seeing hyper-partisanship long before them. To me, it all started with Rupert Murdoch and the emergence of conservative media and radio talk shows. They set out to convince an aging generation that liberals were the enemy and that all social problems were due to minorities, socialists, secularism and over-legislation.

[Philip]

Matthew wrote: "Good question, but I remember seeing hyper-partisanship long before them. To me, it all started with Rupert Murdoch and the emergence of conservative media and radio talk shows. They set out to con..."

Think that is too simplistic and misses certainly for the UK the deep divides seen in the 1950s and 60s between socialism and capitalism - not that they are opposites. Go back further and the rise of communism and fascism from end of First World War and Russian Revolution to the activities globally post WWII and Iron Curtain.

I think the divide now is exaggerated by Social Media. It is rare now to see critical reasoned argument before mud-slinging is used whilst single opinion is reinforced on social media. When chief protagonists involved on either side resort to the same name calling its very difficult for moderate reasoned views to get any air time.

For example the recent spat at the White House Press Conference - was Trump wrong and antagonistic - yes. Was the CNN correspondent rude and discourteous to the Office of President - yes

From my watching from afar since the late 1990s (I was resident 95-98) of US politics I can see connections to the Tea Party but I also see problems with Metropolitan elites and some so-called liberal policies. In the UK this has been obvious in the deeply divided Brexit debates where mud slinging is the norm on all sides.

If Trump does something right is that ever acknowledged? In the same press conference apparently Trump answered questions for 90 minutes an almost unheard of level of access for the press. I have no idea what questions he did or did not answer as nothing but the row got reported. If there were lots of strong responses on other subjects we have no idea what he said. He may have kept to his normal aggressive approach to all press with cries of fake news every 30 secs but who knows unless watching live on C-SPN.

This then becomes the the failure of the so called liberal elite press. You can see it on virtually every news report - "Sources have told me x" source not named and could be entirely made up. This is passed off as news. The we have The President said or will say, without showing or playing back what the President (or Prime Minister) actually said. If I wanted reporter opinions I'd read a newspaper editorial. I expect our reporters to report facts. But that is another thing that's gone.

[J.J.]

Truth is, this country has been divided since the beginning. Think back to the Revolution, and remember that we had a significant number of colonists who fell in the Tory category. A lot of these people weren't just sitting at home and hoping the British would win. They were actively supplying the troops. Many of them were out burning their neighbor's property for being "Patriots." In my genealogical research, I've come across a book called "Genealogy of the Allen Family" that, at various points, documents this kind of activity in Southern Rhode Island. But don't forget, the Tories were treated viciously after the war, and that's why most had to leave the new country.

Fast forward to the Civil War, and our country was so divided, we fought a war to keep it together. I think as divided as we are now, and we're nowhere near the point of going to war with each other over it.

Maybe for us in the US, the key to surviving our differences is to remember that each region of this country is different from each other. I think people have to remember that other parts of the country don't have the same issues. For every urban city, there's a rural community. For the Rust Belt, there's a Silicon Valley. For every Texas, there's a California. Our government was designed to run slowly so that we don't have politicians from one "region" gaining control and asserting their beliefs and agendas on the rest of the country.

[Graeme]

Social division is a necessary feature of democracy, and democratic 'politicking.'

I.e. Politicians thrive on social division. The more divisive a topic is, the more politicians love it.

Divisive topics allow politicians to galvanize and capture supporters, enabling the acquisition of influence, which can be a goal in its own right, or subsequently monetized, or traded for personal advantage.

[Holly]

It's the inevitable result of putting the public into a situation where they can be endlessly manipulated with divide and conquer tactics. It won't change until people smarten up and figure it out.

The US will be fine until our government finally collapses beneath its own cumbersome, monolithic weight. In places like Wayne County (Detroit) the percentage of people employed by federal, state, county, city governments and government agencies (school districts, public colleges, etc) is outpacing the number of people employed in the private sector. Clearly a system that can't support itself.

[Nik]

Not sure having two major parties is so very unique. And it's still better than having only one, like in some other places -:)

[Graeme]

Historically, democracy doesn't last. It gets replaced by the default political system - tyranny.

[Graeme]

Holly wrote: "It's the inevitable result of putting the public into a situation where they can be endlessly manipulated with divide and conquer tactics. It won't change until people smarten up and figure it out...."

That's my view too.

[Graeme]

I'd also suggest that the dominant topics that divide the US population can be characterized as follows.

[1] They solicit strong personal engagement, and are

[2] Systemically irrelevant.

Or put another way, no matter how any of these issues were to resolve, the system itself would persist or even harden.

The system, characterized by the concentration of wealth and power into the hands of a small cohort of people. A concentration, which of necessity, instantiates pervasive hierarchy and social inequality, is unaffected by the personally important but systematically trivial topics that absorb people's attention span, and exhaust their discretionary energy, facilitating a lack of awareness of their actual oppression and powerlessness.

This is more broadly the case around the world.

[Matthew]

Philip wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Good question, but I remember seeing hyper-partisanship long before them. To me, it all started with Rupert Murdoch and the emergence of conservative media and radio talk shows. The..."

We're talking about the divide in the US, not the UK. And were talking about the current political divide, not ones that were common in the last century. You say my argument is simplistic, but from your argument, it is clear that you simply don't agree and would rather delve into this fiction about "both sides". But in the context of Trump, that is just asinine.

The current divide in the US was born of a "neo-conservative" revolution in politics, which sought to erase the legacy of the New Deal and the Civil Rights and Feminist movements. Politicians from Reagan onward pushed tax cuts for the wealthy, corporate tax cuts, rolled back economic regulations, and cut spending to social programs, all the while vilifying feminists, minorities, organized labor, liberals and progressives.

They also relied on a national media that was increasingly owned by fewer and fewer people to push the narrative that America's faltering economy, waning international influence, and growing economic divide was somehow the fault of "socialists" and minorities who were dividing America. This trend has inevitably resulted in an extremely corrupt, white supremacist-backed president, as many predicted it would.

How was the correspondent rude or discourteous? He asked hard questions which were entirely valid, and resisted attempts to be silenced. Trump not only refused to answer his questions, attacked him personally, and told the aid to take the mic away, they then fabricated an excuse to revoke his credentials. There was no justification for this beyond extreme pettiness and Trump's usual hostility and violent attitude towards the media.

And you're characterization of the rest of the press conference, I have to wonder if you've seen a single instance where Trump spoke to the press. You also confess a lot of ignorance of what went on, so how are you able to make any judgements?

Trump got into rows with several reporters at the conference, with any one of them who asked him direct and challenging questions. As usual, he declared them "fake news", insulted them personally, and even threatened to walk out. And he's had nothing but a hostile relationship with the press from the beginning.

Have you failed to notice that he's denounced every network besides FoxNews and even attacked reporters personally, in person and via social media? He's even openly called them "the enemy of the people". This is not the behavior of a man being misrepresented, its the behavior of a petty stupid dictator.

And it's clear you agree with Trump on some of his talking points, from the way you keep talking about "the elites" and the "elite press". They've done nothing but report what he had said and done. And every time Trump has gotten through a single speech without making a gaff, the press acts like it's a huge deal and that this was something to be proud of. This is hardly their fault, it's entirely the fault of Trump for being the hostile and extremely volatile person he is.

So please don't pretend he's being villified or we don't know what's going on because the media is not reporting it. That's the same kind of weak excuse-making and media blaming Trump engages in, and all for the sake of deflecting from his hateful statements, his immense incompetence, and his countless lies.

[Matthew]

J.J. wrote: "Truth is, this country has been divided since the beginning. Think back to the Revolution, and remember that we had a significant number of colonists who fell in the Tory category. A lot of these p..."

The Tories were also treated viciously during the war, which included tarring and feathering "loyalists" and anyone representative of the colonial government.

[Philip]

Matthew wrote: "Philip wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Good question, but I remember seeing hyper-partisanship long before them. To me, it all started with Rupert Murdoch and the emergence of conservative media and radio ..."

Matthew I an a very long way from being a Trump supporter - I refer you to the One Day in the Office thread or my blog, not that it would matter if I was. I based my comments on an interview given to the BBC, by I think a CBS White House Correspondent, who sat next to the CNN journalist. By my estimate from TV coverage there were some 50 journalists in the room. TV coverage here showed only the incident and not much of that. Are you saying they were all insulted by Trump and he answered no other questions in the 90 minutes? I was complaining that I did not know because nothing else was reported by the very media in the room. What else was he asked about and refused to answer? What else did he dismiss as 'fake news'.

Simplistic in that you referred to Rupert Murdoch as being a cause or did I misunderstand your point. Murdoch certainly had a role to play in the editorial approach of his newspapers in the Reagan and Thatcher era

Trump is a bully and disrespects his own office, that is no excuse for others to disrespect the Office of President. Yes ask hard questions but also know when to stop thus exposing his failings. Continuing to shout and demand answers to the same question you've failed to get an answer about is just stupidity and smacks of the same grandstanding we saw in the Supreme Court affirmation hearings. The media seem to think they are more important than elected officials (Not just an issue with this President) whilst never standing or holding political office with all its difficulties. Senior politicians of all persuasions sometimes have exceptionally difficult decisions to make. I am not excusing their stupidity or pandering to lobbyists. Just asking for a little more understanding and respect. Journalists can still expose, probe and report. I don't want their opinion being pushed as news.

As for specifics. Your criticism of me for quoting last century seems misplaced when you bring up Reagan (1981-89) and the rise of feminism (1900-1970s) which seem to be very last century or were you referring to the 19th Century when Marx (1818-83) wrote his socialist diktats.

As for UK view - I was making a comment in the spirit of this forum. I had not realised that this thread was for Americans only or was not allowed to discuss comparisons with other countries. I even stated I based my view on living in the US between 1995 and 1998 when I watched Bill Clinton retain the Presidency and fully expected Al Gore to win in 2000. Even back then, the Washington elite and the mainstream media were criticised for failing to address middle America issues and that was before the failings in foreign policy, wars, and the financial crash of 2008/9.

Despite my dislike of Trump he has nevertheless won election (Under the US collegiate system) and now his party has a larger majority in the Senate. Clearly some people are voting for him. Why? What policies is he proposing that resonate with enough of the electorate to win? Are they all white supremacist idiots?

The subject of this thread (which I clearly will no longer be taking part in as an ill-informed, Trump loving, racist, foreigner) is - Why is there a deep divide in the US? Your own post demonstrates why. If the first reaction is one of anger and dismissal of contrary opinions then no common ground can be made.

Respect is a two way street. It's not an I'm right and you're wrong. Trump does this. Reporters should report. They should not shout and refuse to give up a microphone. Yes I did see the faked video - rightly reported. After the incident the rest of the press acted courageously by joining the law suit to get the pass re-instated. I would have more respect for them, if they had all got up and walked out of the press conference - as a protest against the approach of the man currently in Office.

In other posts, Graeme makes an interesting point about the use of propagandist tactics to hide other issues. Worthy in my worthless opinion for further thought but not here.

Enjoy the rest of the thread.

[Graeme]

This article is relevant to this topic, and points out that the majority of Americans are not polarized.

REF: Miami Herald (Exhausted Majority): https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nati...

REF: PRN News Wire: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-relea...

REF: More In Common: (Hidden Tribes): https://www.moreincommon.com/publicat...

Worth reading.

[Graeme]

The above articles imply that some of the 'social division,' is media induced perception.

After all, give an editor/producer two optional stories. One in which 2 people are shouting angrily at each other, and another where they are quietly discussing their common ground, and which one gets published?

A media system that lives and breathes 'if it bleeds it leads,' will exacerbate the appearance of division.

This is not to say that social division doesn’t exist. Of course it does.

[Ian]

I suspect there is increasing division/polarization throughout the world and the reason lies in part on increasing inequality, and also in diminishing opportunity. In some ways, the inequality was always in Europe, but because it was "old inequality" the privileged made some effort not to flaunt it too much, and the non-privileged accepted it because it was always like that. WW1 ended that, and the masses started to get to feel they were not simply going to accept it like that any longer.

The US is a special case because there was always the thought there that it was the land of opportunity. Basically very underpopulated, people could start from nothing and get rich, and in my generation, make an effort and you could always live well. However, that is no longer the case for many. The wealthy have shipped jobs offshore, and while there might be a low unemployment, many are in jobs that do not pay sufficiently to ensure good healthcare (which is out of hand in cost) and a number of other things.

So, around the world, things are starting to get harder. When that happens, people start to think "something has to be done" and fast, but they can't all agree on what. Worse, those with something desperately want to hang onto what they have, and suspect the government is going to shaft them. They think whoever gets in is going to look after their own "tribe" more, so they have to keep that "tribe" out. Everything just gets more and more polarised, and in the US case you have almost three countries - two coasts separated by an opposite middle. I know that is over simplistic, but maybe you see my point.

[J.J.]

Matthew wrote: "J.J. wrote: "Truth is, this country has been divided since the beginning. Think back to the Revolution, and remember that we had a significant number of colonists who fell in the Tory category. A l..."

I might be misremembering...I thought the retaliation against the Tories came after the War when the "Patriots" didn't have the British around to breath down their necks. The British were stationed in Narraganset Bay, so the pro-independence citizens couldn't exactly misbehave.

[J.J.]

Philip wrote: "Respect is a two way street. It's not an I'm right and you're wrong. Trump does this. Reporters should report. They should not shout and refuse to give up a microphone. ..."

Honestly, I thought they were very disrespectful back when Obama was in the White House. With as many reporters as there are covering the White House, there's something wrong when any one reporter tries to monopolize the time. I don't know how many times I've seen reporters mask an entire slate of unrelated questions as multiple parts to one question. I'm honestly surprised no one's ever put rules in place to limit that in order to give everyone more of a chance to ask their questions.

Not to defend Trump in that incident, but what strikes me is that that reporter is supposed to be covering the President of the United States. Interpret the video however you want, but when he was asked to give up the microphone, and then when the staffer approached to take it away, he resisted. Honestly, I'm surprised his behavior didn't raise the Secret Service's threat meter up a notch. Maybe he didn't intend to, maybe it was just a reflex, but his hand did go on that staffer when she reached for the mike.

[Scout]

I think one thing that causes the divide between political parties in the U.S. is money. The middle class that works hard every day and supports this country with its taxes doesn't have a lot of discretionary income. They want to see their money spent well. They want government to spend tax money on important things like defense, Medicare and Social Security (which they've contributed to all their lives), and education and infrastructure. Money spent on social programs should have oversight and accountability. Then you have the other faction composed of the underprivileged (Welfare recipients, et. al., who aren't worried about taxes), the over-privileged (those who have so much money that they're not worried about taxes), and those who are willing to sacrifice to pay taxes for programs with no oversight.

[J.]

Fun fact, the US Constitution requires a census to be regularly performed so that House seats can be allocated to states by population. The most recent census shows us nearly evenly split between urban and rural living. Strangely, when you break down election returns by county, Democrats tend to win urban counties and Republicans win everywhere else.

If you are part of the rural half: your water may come from a well; your sewage goes to a septic tank; odds are good that there is game in your freezer; there is no public transit; and if you call for something with flashing lights it'll be at least half an hour before anyone shows up. (I remember when I was a kid, we had a prowler. The deputy who showed up an hour and a half later told my mother, "If he shows back up, just shoot him and bury him in the backyard. Nobody will come looking for him.") In this situation self reliance is the ultimate virtue.

If you live in the city: your utilities come from the city; you can rely on relatively quick emergency response; and you probably need public transit to do anything. In this situation you need government to do everything just to get through your day.

There's the sociological divide.

[Ian]

Great legal advice from a deputy :-)

As for the electorates, are the boundaries gerrymandered to keep this divide going?

[J.]

It was pragmatic advice for a single mother who had three small children and nobody closer than an hour away to call for help.

Citing Time magazine for the raw vote count, http://amp.timeinc.net/time/4608555/h... , Clinton took 65,844,610 votes and Trump got 62,979,636 votes giving Clinton a popular victory by 2,864,974 votes. A little basic math gives us a total turnout of 128,824,246 voters which means that the difference represented only 2.22% of the electorate, a statistical coin flip. While her loss in the Electoral College indicates some vote dilution, the partisan divide is obvious. And independent polling confirms that break occuring between urban and rural counties.

[Ian]

In any representative system, there are always some electorates that you can pick who will win because there are substantial margins each time. My first election I actually had the possibility of two electorates - where I had basically lived or where I lived as a student. The first was rural and went 75% one way; the other was at the lower social end of city life, and the votes went 90% the other way. There is nothing remarkable about this.

I discount the fact that Hillary won 3 million more votes; to me it suggests Trump did not waste effort in electorates he had no chance in. That happens here. In the two electorates I mentioned above, top party people from the "minority" party in that electorate simply ignored the electorate - they would never win it, so why waste time and money?

You could always change the electoral system. We did, but I am not convinced it really gained much, although we have more minor parties.

[J.]

Ian wrote: "In any representative system, there are always some electorates that you can pick who will win because there are substantial margins each time. My first election I actually had the possibility of t..."

You are correct that there is nothing remarkable about the difference between rural and urban. The interesting bit is the new balance. Until recently the censuses routinely showed that the USA was a mostly rural population. Our values and politics reflected this, so both parties had to court rural voters just to break even. The most recent census shows that we are shifting to an urban society. By doubling down on issues that are attractive to urbanites the Democrats can break even without addressing rural values. While they currently need to pick off some rural districts to take the lead as our population urbanizes that may cease to be the case. This is a revolution in American politics, and revolutions have a bad habit of birthing fundamentalists. So the snowflakes and the fascists are spilling out of Reddit and into the streets.

[Nik]

Not hinting at anything, just amused, how it turned out that a New Yorker is supposed to represent and promote rural values, and a guy from a small town in Arkansas - urban

[Ian]

Maybe the guy from Arkansas swung enough rural votes to get in. As for the New Yorker, does he represent anyone???

[J.]

Yeah, it's kind of odd. It's as if successful politicians are habitual liars who tell the voters whatever will get them elected. But if that were true, their biggest decision would be who to lie to.

[Ian]

Not a problem for a habitual liar: everyone, at random :-)

[J.J.]

J. wrote: "This is a revolution in American politics, and revolutions have a bad habit of birthing fundamentalists. So the snowflakes and the fascists are spilling out of Reddit and into the streets...."
I would argue you saw the same thing happen during the Arab Spring, that the masses of protestors which toppled a lot of governments represented a minority of the total populations. I think of Egypt where they held elections after Mubarek stepped down, and the voters elected a slate of candidates representing the Muslim Brotherhood. After a time, the protestors returned and the military backed them in removing the elected leaders...

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion...

Studies are revealing a surprising number of millennials don't see democracy as important. I don't think it's surprising that young people aren't voting in the elections, but put so much effort into the whining, complaining, and disruption when they're not happy with the results.

[Ian]

J.J. wrote: "J. wrote: "This is a revolution in American politics, and revolutions have a bad habit of birthing fundamentalists. So the snowflakes and the fascists are spilling out of Reddit and into the street..."

Anyone can protest, and it is easy for many to see what is wrong with their society; it is even easier to think they see but come up with the wrong answer. However, even if they see what is wrong, invariably they have no idea at all how to fix it. If they actually get around to revolting, as in the Arab spring, they have no idea how to control what happens, and invariably what results is worse than what they had.

AS for the young not voting, maybe they don't like the candidates, or they recognise neither candidate stands for what they believe in. One could argue the choice Hillary/Trump offered nothing for the millennials. Who do you vote for if you believe in gun control and more taxes on the wealthy to reduce inequality?

[J.]

J.J. wrote: "J. wrote: "This is a revolution in American politics, and revolutions have a bad habit of birthing fundamentalists. So the snowflakes and the fascists are spilling out of Reddit and into the street..."


There are some surface similarities, but the core differences are dramatic.

The USA is experiencing a political rift that has been driven by a demographic shift. Naturally, there is some disenfrachisment of conservatives and an ego trip for progressives, resulting in acrimony.

The Arab Spring is a leak in a dam that sprung when the West reacted to a bee sting. The Middle East is the sight of a millennium of murder, repression and tyranny begun by a disagreement over whether it should have been Mohammed's nephew or his brother in law and empowered by petro-dollars. The well of hatred and resentment is deep and muddled with religion.

The USA is experiencing growing pains. The Arab Spring is a lit fuse on a powder keg.

[J.J.]

J. wrote: "J.J. wrote: "J. wrote: "This is a revolution in American politics, and revolutions have a bad habit of birthing fundamentalists. So the snowflakes and the fascists are spilling out of Reddit and in..."

Considering myself a conservative, I would say the disenfranchisement is as much a fault of the Party as it is a result of the societal shift to the left. How are you going to convince the country as a whole that conservatism is good if you promise your own base one platform, then act on an entirely different platform when you're in office? How do you convince the country smaller government is better if you support bigger government for your donors? There is a very good argument to be made for smaller government, or for one that's fiscally responsible, but the Republican Party doesn't make it anymore.

Set aside all the noise about Trump for a moment, and look at the support he has from the Republican voter base. Then look at the Republicans in Congress who oppose him in some way, shape, or form...they're all part of that establishment that the voters are sick of. They're the ones on their way out because they only gave their voters lip service when an election rolled around. If you can't get your own voters behind you, how do you expect the rest of the country to shift their opinions back to center-right?

[J.J.]

Ian wrote: "Who do you vote for if you believe in gun control and more taxes on the wealthy to reduce inequality?
..."

A lot of people threw their votes behind the 3rd party candidates, Johnson and Stein, even if to send the message they were sick of the main two parties...It's similar to the attitude you expressed in your thread on Venezuela, you can't challenge the results if you didn't vote...Millennials need to grow up and do what everyone else does when they vote - pick the lesser of two evils. Better yet, get more involved in the primary season to force the candidate they do agree with onto the party...Many in the Democratic party came close to upsetting the primary by voting for Bernie, and the Republican base succeeded in forcing Trump onto the party leaders.

Personally, though, maybe it's time to place another option on the balance...maybe we should seriously take a page out of the movie Brewster's Millions, and put "none of the above" on the ballot, forcing a do-over with entirely new candidates if enough people choose the option.

[Scout]

I can see that urban areas vote for Democrats and that rural areas vote for Republicans. You're saying, J., that the reason for this is that urban areas are more dependent on government than rural areas, and I can go along with that to a point. But urban areas also have larger concentrations of very rich and very poor people who tend to vote Democrat, whereas rural areas have smaller populations of very rich and very poor, thus a larger middle class that tends to vote Republican. I do think income influences the vote.

[J.]

Scout wrote: "I can see that urban areas vote for Democrats and that rural areas vote for Republicans. You're saying, J., that the reason for this is that urban areas are more dependent on government than rural ..."

The middle-class numbers from the 2016 Census are open to interpretation. For instance, rural middle-class home ownership is higher but home values are lower.

[J.J.]

It's easy to make the broad generalizations about who lives where, but you still still have niches that don't fit those generalizations...here in NC, we have some rural areas that are majority black. It's been one of the sad aspects about the hurricanes that have hit in the last few years, that these black communities don't see quite the same amount of help that the whiter communities see when they're flooded out.