• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How important is the issue of partisan polarization to you?

How important is the issue of partisan polarization to you?

  • Yes, this is an issue we need to fix

    Votes: 25 67.6%

  • Yes, but there's not much we can do to fix it

    Votes: 9 24.3%

  • No; this is a non-issue

    Votes: 3 8.1%
  • Total voters
    37
radcen said:
I don't think I am as old as you, but I do have a pretty decent memory that goes back to the early/mid-1970s.

Partisanship has always been there, absolutely. And that, in an of itself, is natural and probably even a good thing. Almost anything is good in moderation. Nobody should be expected to give up their beliefs entirely. Partisanship puts a brake on going too far in one direction or the other.

But the polarization, or "hyper-partisanship" as I call it, that we are seeing now seems to be 'partisanship-on-steroids', and it's not serving us well at all. From my perspective it started to take off in the 1990s during the Clinton administration, and it has gotten steadily worse.

I can't decide it it's the politicians responding to us, or us responding to the politicians, or each feeding off each other, but IMO it's probably the foundational problem with our governing today. Most of our other problems are exacerbated by it.
Click to expand...

The 1990's, that is also my beginning point for polarization. As I saw it anyway. It's interesting to note that Pew Research puts party affiliation, the average for the 1990's at Democrat 33%, Republican 28%, Independents 32%. Today Gallup places party affiliation at Democrat 28%, Republican 25% and independents at 45%. Although party affiliation/identification is dynamic and changes all the time. I think this does show the the moderates of both parties, the center, center right and center left have been fleeing the two major parties. Leaving only the hard core left and right. The rise from 32% to 45% of the electorate is huge.

The Democratic Party's affiliation at 28% is a record low for that party since Gallup and Pew Research started keeping track of these things back in 1939. The Republican Party has been lower, 21% in 1975 and again in 1979. The Democratic Party has also been over 50% of the electorate in 1961 and 1964 at 51%. The Democratic Party was above 40% of the total electorate from 1939 through 1984 when it finally fell below 40%.

http://www.people-press.org/interactives/party-id-trend/

You can compare party affiliation at the above URL. Today with the hard core left and right in charge of both parties, this plays out in the nomination process for their candidates to congress. Our two party system let's the two parties choose whom we will vote on in any November election. Since it is the hard core, the die hards of each party that votes in the primaries, the only choice they give us is one hard right and one hard left candidate which the winner will only add to the polarization of Washington. It is the lost of the moderates by both parties that has us where we are today. Neither party's leaders wants the moderate in their party. They're happy to see them go. That gives both party leaders the hard left and right candidates they want and hold dear.

I always thought the growth in independents was a good thing. Now I'm not so certain. By vacating each party especially in our two party system, they have left the choice of candidates put forth in the nomination process to the hard core of each party. Look at last year's presidential election, 60% of all Americans didn't want Trump as our next president, 60% didn't want Clinton. Yet one of them had to win. I'm going by their unfavorable ratings. I think candidates like this is what this nation has to look forward to in the future. I also think this nation won't last long if those choices of candidates are as bad as these two were. My personal opinion.
 
Perotista said:
The 1990's, that is also my beginning point for polarization. As I saw it anyway. It's interesting to note that Pew Research puts party affiliation, the average for the 1990's at Democrat 33%, Republican 28%, Independents 32%. Today Gallup places party affiliation at Democrat 28%, Republican 25% and independents at 45%. Although party affiliation/identification is dynamic and changes all the time. I think this does show the the moderates of both parties, the center, center right and center left have been fleeing the two major parties. Leaving only the hard core left and right. The rise from 32% to 45% of the electorate is huge.

The Democratic Party's affiliation at 28% is a record low for that party since Gallup and Pew Research started keeping track of these things back in 1939. The Republican Party has been lower, 21% in 1975 and again in 1979. The Democratic Party has also been over 50% of the electorate in 1961 and 1964 at 51%. The Democratic Party was above 40% of the total electorate from 1939 through 1984 when it finally fell below 40%.

Trends in Party Identification, 1939-2014 | Pew Research Center

You can compare party affiliation at the above URL. Today with the hard core left and right in charge of both parties, this plays out in the nomination process for their candidates to congress. Our two party system let's the two parties choose whom we will vote on in any November election. Since it is the hard core, the die hards of each party that votes in the primaries, the only choice they give us is one hard right and one hard left candidate which the winner will only add to the polarization of Washington. It is the lost of the moderates by both parties that has us where we are today. Neither party's leaders wants the moderate in their party. They're happy to see them go. That gives both party leaders the hard left and right candidates they want and hold dear.

I always thought the growth in independents was a good thing. Now I'm not so certain. By vacating each party especially in our two party system, they have left the choice of candidates put forth in the nomination process to the hard core of each party. Look at last year's presidential election, 60% of all Americans didn't want Trump as our next president, 60% didn't want Clinton. Yet one of them had to win. I'm going by their unfavorable ratings. I think candidates like this is what this nation has to look forward to in the future. I also think this nation won't last long if those choices of candidates are as bad as these two were. My personal opinion.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, rather than hoping for a 3rd party, independents need to join an existing one and work to change it.

Because our system doesn't really allow for a 3rd party, whether that is good or bad...
 
The Mark said:
Perhaps, rather than hoping for a 3rd party, independents need to join an existing one and work to change it.

Because our system doesn't really allow for a 3rd party, whether that is good or bad...
Click to expand...

The problem today is both major parties are happy as a lark to be rid of their moderate factions. They don't want the center, center right or center left folks back. They, the two major parties have developed for the most part an ideological litmus test. Anyone who disagrees with their ideological pureness are labeled an RINO or a DINO.
 
Perotista said:
The problem today is both major parties are happy as a lark to be rid of their moderate factions. They don't want the center, center right or center left folks back. They, the two major parties have developed for the most part an ideological litmus test. Anyone who disagrees with their ideological pureness are labeled an RINO or a DINO.
Click to expand...
I see the Democrats as a center-right party. And the republicans as a hard-right party.

But maybe that's because many of my positions are to the left of the Democrats, it seems at times - and I don't think I'm on the left fringe of things, so to speak.
 
The Mark said:
I see the Democrats as a center-right party. And the republicans as a hard-right party.

But maybe that's because many of my positions are to the left of the Democrats, it seems at times - and I don't think I'm on the left fringe of things, so to speak.
Click to expand...

Each individual is where they are and have their own political beliefs. I'm more of a pragmatist than an ideologue. What I want to see from Washington is legislation from the right and left being debated, then a compromise worked out somewhere in the middle. Something each party gets a piece of, shares and where both parties are responsible for the legislation. Now I realize there are some issues where there can be no compromise. That good also, but most issues can have a meeting of the minds. That is if both sides are willing and not entrenched in extreme ideology, partisanship and polarization.

Being I have been an advocate for a strong viable third party since the early 1990's, what you point out is a big factor. Those Republicans and Democrats, the right and left think all independents are moderates and stand for nothing. That they are somewhere in-between their hard right and left ideology. Not so, the biggest chunk of independents are fiscal conservative, social liberal. But you have some that are both fiscal and social conservatives, fiscal and social liberal. Then some that are far right of the Republicans and far left of the Democrats. Being independent doesn't mean you're in the middle on all things and issues between the two major parties. So uniting all independents is pretty much impossible as their ideology varies. It would be nice since independents now make up approximately 45% of the electorate, but their views, ideology is divergent as all get out. Independents aren't given credit for this or are not recognized as being more diverse than either of the two major parties.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom