The Poisoning of American Politics

[Emperor_Mike]

As an outsider (i.e. Canadian) looking into the current maelstrom that is US politics, I cannot help but notice just how venomous and divisive the subject has become for the ordinary American citizen. The intense rivalries between Conservatives and Liberals, Republicans and Democrats have reached an almost feverish pitch in the post-Clinton era with average, every-day folks practically going out of their way to denounce this side or that side of treasonous conduct, unpatriotism, and other such unpleasantries. True, freedom of expression is a core democratic value, but I've honestly never seen a "First World" populace so divided and so polarised over national and international policies. For those of you who may be in tune with American political trends, can you name another Presidency since the Civil War when citizens adopted such a partisan outlook on state politics? If such intense wrangling is common then, of course, there's nothing left to discuss. But if this is a first, then perhaps the issue requires further examination. How can a country ensure its continued survival if its population cannot be counted on to provide their support to the current executive at the head of the ship of state?

[Chester]

For those of you who may be in tune with American political trends, can you name another Presidency since the Civil War when citizens adopted such a partisan outlook... Just jump back to the Vietnam War era.

[achtungbaby]

As an outsider (i.e. Canadian) looking into the current maelstrom that is US politics, I cannot help but notice just how venomous and divisive the subject has become for the ordinary American citizen. The intense rivalries between Conservatives and Liberals, Republicans and Democrats have reached an almost feverish pitch in the post-Clinton era with average, every-day folks practically going out of their way to denounce this side or that side of treasonous conduct, unpatriotism, and other such unpleasantries. True, freedom of expression is a core democratic value, but I've honestly never seen a "First World" populace so divided and so polarised over national and international policies. For those of you who may be in tune with American political trends, can you name another Presidency since the Civil War when citizens adopted such a partisan outlook on state politics? If such intense wrangling is common then, of course, there's nothing left to discuss. But if this is a first, then perhaps the issue requires further examination. How can a country ensure its continued survival if its population cannot be counted on to provide their support to the current executive at the head of the ship of state?
I've always been a big believer in compromise. It's not sexy, it won't sell tickets (especially when people like to root for the guy who sticks to his guns).

But I'm of the firm belief that this year is very different from even other hotly contested races, primarily I think because Republicans are so terrified of the idea of a super liberal in the White House, they're simply choosing to believe one reality over another. Kind of like Joe Pantoliano's character in The Matrix -- ready to do his dirty deed and then get sent back into the Matrix to believe the lie.

Sorry, I think i'm rambling...it's been a long day...

[Emperor_Mike]

Just jump back to the Vietnam War era.

Was the partisanship among the general populace comparable to what it is today? We have people like Ann Coulter and Michael Moore out there driving a wedge between Americans who differ in politics and it doesn't take much to see that such behaviour will sooner or later have a terrible effect on national morale. I'm not very familiar with post-World War II American history, but from what I see today, this can't be a good thing in the long run.

[achtungbaby]

Was the partisanship among the general populace comparable to what it is today? We have people like Ann Coulter and Michael Moore out there driving a wedge between Americans who differ in politics and it doesn't take much to see that such behaviour will sooner or later have a terrible effect on national morale. I'm not very familiar with post-World War II American history, but from what I see today, this can't be a good thing in the long run.
Michael Moore is a pissed-off American. He gets a bad rap because he's basically willing to be the guy who stands on the street corner to evangelize -- but have you heard the substance of his message...? I haven't read Ann Coulter much but I did catch her most recent column (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/coulter1.asp) -- Jesus Christ lady, make an argument or get outta the way! I'm willing to listen to a serious Republican argument about why we need four more years of exploding deficet, unemployment, war....corruption, but mostly what I've heard is shit talking from conservatives: "John Kerry is so borrrrrrring"...."John Edward's wife is fat!"...and so on.

Oh, anyway, to answer your question...it wasn't solely partisanship that divided the country. Plenty of liberals out there at the time were also professed commie-haters. The difference between Vietnam and Iraq -- we stood to gain very little by providing aid to the Viet Cong but we decided to go with the Hail Mary pass anyway because there were quite of few people who were indeed fixated on containing communism.

[Emperor_Mike]

Michael Moore is a pissed-off American. He gets a bad rap because he's basically willing to be the guy who stands on the street corner to evangelize -- but have you heard the substance of his message...? I haven't read Ann Coulter much but I did catch her most recent column (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/coulter1.asp) -- Jesus Christ lady, make an argument or get outta the way! I'm willing to listen to a serious Republican argument about why we need four more years of exploding deficet, unemployment, war....corruption, but mostly what I've heard is shit talking from conservatives: "John Kerry is so borrrrrrring"...."John Edward's wife is fat!"...and so on.

Oh, anyway, to answer your question...it wasn't solely partisanship that divided the country. Plenty of liberals out there at the time were also professed commie-haters. The difference between Vietnam and Iraq -- we stood to gain very little by providing aid to the Viet Cong but we decided to go with the Hail Mary pass anyway because there were quite of few people who were indeed fixated on containing communism.

Perhaps, perhaps. The reason why I decided to ask this question was because I spoke with a few American friends of mine in addition to making my rounds on a few politically charged message boards and I noticed that a lot of the diatribe being tossed around by both camps border on being hate-filled. Of course, this may be a common thing that only appears so shocking on the account that we have the Internet to broadcast these ideas.

A friend of mine met Ann Coulter. Apparently the woman's as much of a rabid demagogue in person as she is in her books and articles.

[Chester]

Was the partisanship among the general populace comparable to what it is today? I think so. Consider that, today, even anti-war protestors take great pains to express support for the troops as individuals. Contrast that with the demonization of Vietnam-era soldiers.

Just consider how much polarized the discourse would be in the United States if the draft were to be reinstituted.
We have people like Ann Coulter and Michael Moore out there driving a wedge between Americans I wouldn't necessarily interpret this as an accurate barometer of true, societal polarization.

There has been plenty of societal divisiveness in the United States. As AB alludes, consider the McCarthy Communist-witchhunt era...or the polarities presented by the Civil Rights movement. I think, all things considered, things are pretty civil right now.

[Emperor_Mike]

...
I wouldn't necessarily interpret this as an accurate barometer of true, societal polarization.

There has been plenty of societal divisiveness in the United States. As AB alludes, consider the McCarthy Communist-witchhunt era...or the polarities presented by the Civil Rights movement. I think, all things considered, things are pretty civil right now.

Yes, that's correct I suppose. The only reason why this sort of thing has gained such prominence may have a lot to do with the fact that information and opinions travel so quickly nowadays.

[Mr.Lum]

We have people like Ann Coulter and Michael Moore out there driving a wedge between Americans

Ann Coulter needs to die. Shes a racist bitch, she smells like an old folks home, she is openly bigoted in public and seldom has something to say that her angry male counter parts are saying with out the racism. Plus she give folks in Connecticut a bad rap. Dumb bitch.

[nola]

I've always been a big believer in compromise. It's not sexy, it won't sell tickets (especially when people like to root for the guy who sticks to his guns).
So wise, so true. The truth is somewhere in between. Like when Kerry said Americans don't want wasting money on welfare or defense. Real Americans are somewhere in between welfare vs. defense/two parties/Coke vs. Pepsi, that is, smoke screens which rarely change anything. It's been said that Democrats and Republicans are the Mommies vs. the Meanies/women vs. men/red vs. blue. There's gotta be middle ground or we'll never get anywhere.

[Mr.Lum]

So wise, so true. The truth is somewhere in between. Like when Kerry said Americans don't want wasting money on welfare or defense. Real Americans are somewhere in between welfare vs. defense/two parties/Coke vs. Pepsi, that is, smoke screens which rarely change anything. It's been said that Democrats and Republicans are the Mommies vs. the Meanies/women vs. men/red vs. blue. There's gotta be middle ground or we'll never get anywhere.
I agree.But I think as educated as these asses are they should be able to come up with an effective and just welfare system by now. Thats the problem I have with them. They seem to be welfare defent.

[nola]

Yeah there's a middle ground that's really smart and real like average Americans are. Like liberals can do better and not be so inefficient and wasteful with tax money.

Washington is completely out of touch with the common man.

[Kuchana]

Quite an eloquent thread. Kudos to you Mike. I agree with your message.

What is that quote that says the 2 party system will be the death of America?

The man who asks of freedom anything other than itself is born to be a slave.
-Alexis de Tocqueville

Politics is for people who have a passion for changing life but lack a passion for living it.
-Tom Robbins


Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.
-Benjamin Franklin

Liberty is the only thing you cannot have unless you are willing to give it to others.
-William Allen White

[SunWuKong]

we seriously need a third party that has some ideas that are at least realistic.

[nola]

how about democratic socialism? we can learn from comprehensive welfare state of sweden, canada's national health are system, france's nationwide childcare program and Nicaragua's literacy programs though no country has fully instituted democratic socialism yet.


democratic socialists of america: http://www.dsausa.org/dsa.html
young democratic socialists: http://www.ydsusa.org/


A VISION OF SOCIAL JUSTICE
YDS is the youth section of the Democratic Socialists of America. We are the only US members of the International Union of Socialist Youth, the largest political youth coalition in the world. With members and local organizations across the US, YDS works to transform our society - on the job, in the streets, in the classroom. We are a broad, diverse network of young activists who share a vision of a more humane future. Instead of waiting for some final, magical instant when a utopia appears, we organize and struggle every day to redistribute power. Building democratic socialism is a long struggle, and we take it one step at a time.

DEMOCRACY AND SOCIALISM
Socialism is one of the most misused words in the American political vocabulary. Contrary to misrepresentations by both conservatives and liberals, socialism is not about breadlines, fur hats, or police states. Rather, we fight for the extension of democracy into all aspects of social life, including the economy. We are proud of the relative democratic freedoms enjoyed by US citizens. But without economic democracy, this political liberty is weak and incomplete. People must have a voice in the economic decisions which affect their lives. Democratic socialism also means fighting non-economic inequalities of power- including racism, sexism and heterosexism in all their forms. A radical democracy is the only way to ensure a world in which class, race, and gender do not decide our futures.

[Mr.Lum]

france's nationwide childcare program

From what I hear theirs sucks and it's incomprehensivness has been blamed for the growing radicalism amongst the Arab/African youths there. France isn't a good model. But, Sweden and Denmark are. But I don't think most Americans would go for that. It means caring about other people and paying more taxes. Goes against "freedom" and "individualism"<which I find retarted.

[nonamerasian]

From what I hear theirs sucks and it's incomprehensivness has been blamed for the growing radicalism amongst the Arab/African youths there. France isn't a good model. But, Sweden and Denmark are. But I don't think most Americans would go for that. It means caring about other people and paying more taxes. Goes against "freedom" and "individualism"<which I find retarted.

I heard their childcare system get praised. Especially since they supposedly start free childcare more than a year early in disadvantaged neighborhoods in an effort to get those kids up to par before real school.

[nola]

no in france, the mothercare, childcare and breaks for children are amazing but i don't doubt at all the racism towards arabs and blacks.

ah yes, great childcare for lovely white french children.

[Mr.Lum]

I heard their childcare system get praised. Especially since they supposedly start free childcare more than a year early in disadvantaged neighborhoods in an effort to get those kids up to par before real school.

I read an article the other day talking about how it was half assed and it wasnt far enough reaching throughout France and missed a whole lot of Arabs and blacks and was making lots of annomocity as the Arabs and Africans are excluded form the French mainstream working the worst jobs, going to the worst schools and living in third world like conditions and becoming more and more radical and militant. The article basically said that France needs to improve it and work off the ones that are set up in Scandinavia who has a similar population (as in minorities) and without nearly as much poverty and militancy as France does. It's considered a dire situation by some standards as it's a breeding ground for terrorists. Plus there are lots of people in France who want to erode the system (sounds like America too me in many ways). There were some articles on BBC a while ago about it as well. But this one was from the French government.

[nola]

France is fucking racist!!!!

[Mr.Lum]

^I had relatives who lived there for a while (theyer Algerian) they siad its the worst part of Europe to not be white. They think of them as "dirty colonials" from what I gather and the "assimilation" idea doesn't work because the French in general, will not integrate with the Arabs. The politicans say "they should become French when they come to FRance! they must integrate" and the Arabs look for housing in white areas and the French say "no we dont want their kind here" and either leave or don't let them move in or have the jobs. I hear its the same way in Belgium. They get pressured to integrate and when they try, they are denied. Theres acctually a Belgian political party that is a hard line ant assimilation Arab party that has memebrs all over Western Europe. Ill try to find something and send it to you. Europe is really pretencious I think. But I have to go there before I say that.

[nola]

europe is racist against asians. europe is so racist. if they were algerians in france that's trouble.

[kuilong]

europe is racist against asians. europe is so racist. if they were algerians in france that's trouble.

For all that Europe is associated with liberal democracy, those anti-immigrant right-wing views are pretty popular. Witness the popularity of the likes of Jörg Haider, Jean-Marie Le Pen, etc. I'm not sure whether to add Pim Fortuyn too.

Then again, from what I'm told, Indonesians are well accepted in Dutch society. And lots of people filed lawsuits against Fortuyn when he made anti-Islamic remarks ("[Islam is] a backwards culture", etc).

[Mr.Lum]

I'm not sure whether to add Pim Fortuyn too.



You can. I think it was him who advocated sending all the non-citizens out of the NEtherlands or something like that.

[kuilong]

You can. I think it was him who advocated sending all the non-citizens out of the NEtherlands or something like that.

No, he didn't advocate any such thing. He just didn't want to allow any more immigrants.

On 9 February 2002 he made further controversial statements in a Dutch newspaper, this time the Volkskrant. He said 16 million inhabitants of the Netherlands was enough, and allowing 40,000 asylum-seekers into the country each year had to be stopped. He guaranteed that if he became part of the next government, he would pursue an exceptionally restrictive immigration policy. He also said that he considered article 7 of the constitution, which asserts freedom of speech, more important then article 1, which forbids discrimination. However he distanced himself from Hans Janmaat of the Centrumpartij, who in the 1980s wanted to remove all foreigners from the country and was repeatedly prosecuted for discrimination and hate speech. Fortuyn said that everybody who was already in The Netherlands would be able to stay. He said that he rejected all violence and had nothing against immigrants as a group, but would not allow anymore Muslims to enter the country if it were legally possible.

[Mr.Lum]

No, he didn't advocate any such thing. He just didn't want to allow any more immigrants.

OK then, that was a different guy.

[AliBabaIncorporated]

Pim Fortuyn's basic piece was that he didn't want Muslims from highly religious countries immigrating and not assimilating cuz they would be socially conservative and so opposed to gay marriage. Don't quite see how that would be called a "rightist" position under any stretch of the definition.

[mr. x]

was pim fortuyn the guy who got killed?

[AliBabaIncorporated]

was pim fortuyn the guy who got killed?
Yeah. IIRC, the assassin was an animal rights activist, of all people.

[mr. x]

Yeah. IIRC, the assassin was an animal rights activist, of all people.
well you got all kindsa shades of liberal down there

[kuilong]

Pim Fortuyn's basic piece was that he didn't want Muslims from highly religious countries immigrating and not assimilating cuz they would be socially conservative and so opposed to gay marriage. Don't quite see how that would be called a "rightist" position under any stretch of the definition.

Yeah, apparently Khalil el-Moumni's anti-gay rhetoric really pissed him off. But calling Islam a hostile society (vijandige samenleving) and a backwards culture (achterlijke cultuur) is going a bit far.

[AliBabaIncorporated]

Yeah, apparently Khalil el-Moumni's anti-gay rhetoric really pissed him off. But calling Islam a hostile society (vijandige samenleving) and a backwards culture (achterlijke cultuur) is going a bit far.
Well, I simply see that as fighting fire with fire. Besides, liberals use the same language all the time with reference to another religious group who aren't well integrated into the broader urban society and who express opposition to gay rights.

[kuilong]

Well, I simply see that as fighting fire with fire. Besides, liberals use the same language all the time with reference to another religious group who aren't well integrated into the broader urban society and who express opposition to gay rights.

Yes, but being anti-Semitic, for instance, is Nazi. But being anti-Christian is just progressive.