The stupidity of bipartisanship and America, the numbing of the global electorate and it's impact

Why is it Americans are so polarised now and have been for arguably at least 15-20 years now? Well, that's at least the Americans who I know (and no, don't presume you on here are the only ones I know).

The problem with polarisation, as I see it, is that far too many Americans take a standpoint on issues because, well, that's what they consider they are supposed to because they deem themselves conservative or liberal. There are a fixed set of debates, it seems, on both sides, but I find it very strange. I am a conservative by British standards, but I am a liberal by some American standards because on some issues I don't tolerate bigotry, religion or backward thinking. @gturner bemoaned the fact that conservative Americans get accused of racism, et al. But maybe there is a reason why that happens. It makes me laugh when someone runs those political compass surveys here and I come out as far more conservative than most of the so called conservatives on here. The fact is that in Britain and Europe political conservatism has moved on. Even bigot groups like UKIP know that can't pursue the rhetoric of the so called American right, and they're still fighting marginalisation nonetheless. Then you have those on the left, of which there are some here, that are so out of touch with practicality that they'll go well beyond rationality if it suits.

The reason I raise this is that I find it a deeply disturbing state of affairs. I think true, intelligence led democracy died in America a long time ago. Intellectuals and practical academics seem to be fighting against the tide. But it is not a uniquely American problem. The dumbing down of culture is happening here as well, at least in Britan (not least because of the import of American trends like fly on the wall reality shows). My fear is that we are seeing hints of the same political poliarisation of electorates here, and for the same reasons, and that it will only get worse. Case in point, the Labour Party here suffered a massive election defeat because Ed Miliband went off to the left. Now Jeremy Corbyn is leading the race for new leader. If he wins he'll be the most left wing Labour leader in decades. There was a reason that Tony Blair was so successful (in spite of the Iraq war) and why Cameron has really only scraped through two elections (albeit slightly better the last time). It's because people didn't have so polarised a view in the 90s and naughties. Politicians played to the centre on the basis of common sense. But now we are seeing a reaction that that because of poor political decisions like Iraq, and because of both the state of the world as it is now (partly as a result of the Iraq war) and the continuing detachment with politics. People are far more ready to jump on the rhetorical bandwagon than they are prepared to consider the actual issues. For instance, the issue of Syria and the Levant. So many leftwingers say no to boots on the ground....but why? Because of Iraq. But they don critically asses what's going on and understand that this fight is entirely different. Yet every British famous lefty under the sun is banging on about welcoming refugees in their homes for political points. That's just one small example of where the poltical left undermines itself, and I'm talking the British Guardistia generation, not even the American left. Leftwing politics is suirging even more on the continent.

In America you have massive support for the likes of Trump. Some of what he comes out with, my God. He just wouldn't be taken seriously here. But he is doing well nonetheless. He is the political equivalent of Jeremy Corbyn, even if his politics are different.

It's a fact, whether we Brits and Europeans like it or not, that in the West the American approach to doing things is having a greater impact the more globalisation there is. With the continued Americanisation of British and European media and social media, I see us moving more and more towards the same kind of political polarisation, and not so much among the political classes, but among the electorate, that is now prolific in America. I suppose the question is, where does the root of the problem lie? Should we strive to overcome these problems on our own in spite of American polarisation, or does the cancer of polarisation need to be considered on a global scale or an American one? Or perhaps this is the price of true democracy, that every idiots under the sun has an opinion and an impact?

Yeah, yeah, I know. TLDR.

I've long maintained that America could easily maintain a true third party made up of the non-insane members from both parties. I think the TEA Party in the beginning could have been a start to that (of course rabid partisans on the left scream they were all crazy racist from the start, but they are the ones we are trying to get away from). But the TEA party was eventually coopted by the loons and ruined. Occupy had some good people and thoughts in the beginning too, but the same thing happened to them, coopted by the crazies.

The only chance a third party could ever have in America is having a platform of distancing itself from the extremes and often what is considered the "party base" Tell the religious right to go fuck themselves, tell the SJWs and permanent victims to go fuck themselves. Then a platform of social liberalism and economic conservatism. Then you would go from there.

"Fat,drunk and stupid is no way to go thru life"- Animal House

Unfortunately that sums up the large majority of America.

Shut up tererun.

He is right about there being set ideological responses and anyone who dares come up with a different response gets attacked as a heritic.

Sorry. You obviously have too much to worry about now. Almost as if you were mentally bogged down...

If he had moved to the left? So you're claiming he was as centrist as New Labour? Pull the other one....

I'm not seeing the logic here. The Tories had their best victory for over 20 years, Labour lurched to the left and were destroyed and you're saying that a lurch even further to the left would've been the ticket? No. It wouldn't. What's more is that I think you're not properly assessing the reasons why the SNP swept the board in Scotland. It wasn't simply because Scotland felt let down by Labour. I suspect you've bought into the rhetoric that every Labour problem must be down to Blair and New Labour. But Miliband never offered a credible economic alternative to the uber spending of new Labour, and neither is Corbyn. In fact, if anything you're exactly the sort of polarised person I'm talking about above. Totally out of touch with what is actually happening out there. Whatever your personal views or politic are, the fact is that one can sit around dreaming of their ideal view and just keep sticking to that, or they can realise that in a practical world our first choice politics won't always win the day. That's another issue that comes with polarisation. There's a lot of idealism surrounding the likes of Corbyn, But that doesn't mean he'll win an election. A vote for him means another Tory government...and this highlights perfectly the dangers of what I was hinting at in my opening post.

As for "Blair was easy to vote for", what does that even mean?

Such as?

It's analogous to the atheist v agnostic argument. One does not dare say "I'm agnostic" without upsetting the atheists. "You're really an atheist; you just don't have the guts to say so!"

If you dare say "I'm not a Democrat. I've never registered Democratic. I'm an independent," you're told "No, you're not! You're really a Democrat!"

Which suggests that Republicans are incapable of independent thought.

Human nature.

The squeaky wheel gets the grease, so loud and polarized attracts more attention than quiet and careful.

The lazy way is the best way + thinking in terms of groups and labels, as you say, means "I'm X, therefore society expects me to take position A and treat position B as an attack on what I believe in, and I'll snap-react to everything accordingly and then go on with my life."

The lazy way is the best way + money + squeaky wheel means the news media simplifies things and plays up A vs. B to get dedicated viewers paying attention, and yet somehow society continues to take it seriously.

Increase in other things attracting attention (leisure activities, working >40-hour weeks to make ends meet) means less time researching issues, which are, as exposed to the public, far more numerous and nuanced than, say, fifty years ago anyway.

Sex sells, violence sells, conflict sells, sound bites sell; sane, in-depth thirty-minute explorations of issues that don't point fingers or use inflammatory language are great, but a lot of the guys who just came home from a nine-hour factory shift are going to click past in search of something less demanding. I'm certainly not blameless in this regard.

Popular media (commercials in particular) pushing the audience to think in terms of acting in perceived self-interest continues to develop/reinforce the mindset of lashing out against anyone who dares act against your perceived self-interest.

It's probably going to get worse before it gets better.

He's loud, he's brash, and I gather he appeals to people reacting against the establishment.

yes please

yes please

Yup.

It is more common on the right than the left as they are always on the look out for "RINOs" who vote with the party's ideology 95% of the time but are independent 5% of the time. That said, there is indeed a set of ideological positions on the American left which if you dare to challenge the prevailing assumptions, for any reason, you will get attacked. Minimum wage or immigration policies being prime examples.

Herd mentality is an issue on both sides, but your particular onus against immigration I'd put down to insufficient facts if not just snobbism.

Yet you undermine your argument with your last sentence....

Well, that I don't disagree with. But doesn't that raise another question?

We treat the electorate based on an equal standard. But are all of the electorate on an equal standing intellectually and educationally? Is charisma all it takes? The success of Nigel Farage suggests it is.

Just to troll with.
C'mon, like I'm gonna give up my only kryptonite bullet.

So I'm not the only one who caught that I guess.

It's an interesting one.

I've always held myself out as agnostic because I wasn't prepared to go as paras saying "there is not God". My my standpoint was always that "God" would only ever be something that was of nature and that it was something that humanity may not currently, or never, understand. I realised after a while that I was actually pretty much an atheist because while humanity may never get the answer to the possibility I suggest, and why I may not take the leap of faith it takes to declare no God, I realise that nonetheless my "possibility" of God was dependent on the reasoning that whole we may never understand it, it nonetheless must have scientific basis and would actually be a deity, but just a higher manifestation of nature. I realised that what I was opening the door for wasn't a being of omnipotence, but rather one of an understanding beyond humanity. I figure therefore that I am probably an atheist and my own experience of reasoning leads me to wonder the modern definition of agnosticism.

Not that any of this has to do with the thread topic, but still.

I am not against immigration. I just think we should be seeking higher quality immigrants especially ones who are higher earners and will help net contribute to the economy.

David Hume cracked that one a couple hundred years ago.
Anything that exists is natural, and anything unnatural doesn't exist, so "supernatural", is just gobbledygook.

Within the narrow confines of the RR. I've yet to see anyone on the right accuse anyone else on the right of being a RINO or whatever, but they're sure as hell eager to jump on those of us on the left. Because it seems as if they need to keep everyone in their little boxes or they get confused.

"Higher quality" - OMFG! Yup, definitely descended from royalty. We should rename this smilie for you. You're a bigger snob than @Hood, and I didn't think that was possible.

It is what Canada does. Education and skills will do more towards getting you in than anything else save marrying a Canadian or having a big bag of money to invest.

Yeah, yeah, nevermind all that, when are you gonna come out of the closet as atheist already?

Hey, hey, agnostics, when you have a Freddy dream, and you will him away, does he only HALF disappear?

Never gonna happen. Go bother somebody else.

Answer post #28, it's important.