Extremist Politics - Chicken Or The Egg?

roguenuke said:

Trump really is a political anomaly though. He never struck anyone as really a religious person. Now, even in office, he is playing up that very persona, likely so he can try to maintain at least those votes next election. It all even looks fake, despite him maintaining that particular post for so long. I imagine if he does lose the election in 2020 (as he very well should), then we won't see this "highly Christian conservative" side of Trump ever again. I am still absolutely convinced that the man only ran for President at all because his ego is that big he just wanted to be able to say he did it. The fact that he won the election shows a broken system to all and he is playing it for everything he is worth.

Most people are sick of it, but the plain reality is that it is very hard to change it unless someone actually trustworthy and in the middle steps up to try to change things. The likelihood of that occurring is very small.

Click to expand...

Of course he is, because he relies on the far religious right to get anything done. He's doing what all politicians do, kissing ass so he can accomplish something. And yes, I'm sick of it, but it's nothing I didn't expect, any more than if Hillary had won, she wouldn't be kissing the ass of the far regressive left for the same reason. Bernie would have done the same thing.

Cephus said:

Of course he is, because he relies on the far religious right to get anything done. He's doing what all politicians do, kissing ass so he can accomplish something. And yes, I'm sick of it, but it's nothing I didn't expect, any more than if Hillary had won, she wouldn't be kissing the ass of the far regressive left for the same reason. Bernie would have done the same thing.

Click to expand...

I don't think other politicians have kissed ass of such a narrow group of voters as much as Trump though. He got worse when it comes to partisan pandering, rather than what we usually see, which is more willingness to compromise in order to gain the trust of the middle. Someone forgot to tell him that in order to win the next election, he has to gain the support of the middle. If not, chances are that, unless the Dems run Hillary again (highly unlikely), the election will lead many Independent voters to vote "anyone but Trump". This election was much more about voting against someone than voting for them.

roguenuke said:

I don't think other politicians have kissed ass of such a narrow group of voters as much as Trump though. He got worse when it comes to partisan pandering, rather than what we usually see, which is more willingness to compromise in order to gain the trust of the middle. Someone forgot to tell him that in order to win the next election, he has to gain the support of the middle. If not, chances are that, unless the Dems run Hillary again (highly unlikely), the election will lead many Independent voters to vote "anyone but Trump". This election was much more about voting against someone than voting for them.

Click to expand...

Not only would they have, they did. The second Hillary was past the primaries, she started spewing all of the regressive left talking points. She even started adopting things that Bernie said to appeal even more to the extremes. She knew, like every politician, that the people who put you in office aren't the mainstream, they are the extreme. Bernie would have done exactly the same thing if the Democrats hadn't fixed the primaries. They all know that the mainstream either generally lean left or generally lean right. Those that generally lean left will vote for whoever the Democrats put up. Those who generally lean right will vote for whoever the Republicans put up. They have no choice, there is no one else out there to vote for. It's only the crazies, the fanatics, the extremists who will go crazy for their candidate of choice, that matter. The rest of us are screwed.

Cephus said:

Not only would they have, they did. The second Hillary was past the primaries, she started spewing all of the regressive left talking points. She even started adopting things that Bernie said to appeal even more to the extremes. She knew, like every politician, that the people who put you in office aren't the mainstream, they are the extreme. Bernie would have done exactly the same thing if the Democrats hadn't fixed the primaries. They all know that the mainstream either generally lean left or generally lean right. Those that generally lean left will vote for whoever the Democrats put up. Those who generally lean right will vote for whoever the Republicans put up. They have no choice, there is no one else out there to vote for. It's only the crazies, the fanatics, the extremists who will go crazy for their candidate of choice, that matter. The rest of us are screwed.

Click to expand...

Hillary was always "spewing" what she spewed. She has always said she is for the same things she has been for. What exactly did she go all the way to the left on after the Primaries which she didn't go there before on? Bernie was pretty far to the left already.

roguenuke said:

Hillary was always "spewing" what she spewed. She has always said she is for the same things she has been for. What exactly did she go all the way to the left on after the Primaries which she didn't go there before on? Bernie was pretty far to the left already.

Click to expand...

Free college for one.

Cephus said:

Free college for one.

Click to expand...

This is what I found on that.

https://news.vice.com/article/hilla...e-plan-sounds-a-whole-lot-like-bernie-sanders

But was the switch to pander to liberals, the base of Democrats or because a lot of people in the US actually support that plan?

https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/col...mericans-support-free-college-tuition-n620856

Her plan wasn't really feasible on the monetary level or passing through Congress (however her tax plan was said to actually cut down our debt), but that doesn't mean that she pandered to the base with it. A lot of people, far more than simply liberals, particular uber-liberals, support free college, debt-free graduates of college. I never said she didn't pander to voters, only that she did not seem to pander to the base. She is much more likely to go with the prevailing sentiment of the voters as a whole than she is to support whatever the base of her Party supports.

Even Republicans, to a pretty decent degree, support free college.

https://theintercept.com/2017/09/21/free-college-tuition-republicans-bernie-sanders/

roguenuke said:

This is what I found on that.

https://news.vice.com/article/hilla...e-plan-sounds-a-whole-lot-like-bernie-sanders

But was the switch to pander to liberals, the base of Democrats or because a lot of people in the US actually support that plan?

https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/col...mericans-support-free-college-tuition-n620856

Her plan wasn't really feasible on the monetary level or passing through Congress (however her tax plan was said to actually cut down our debt), but that doesn't mean that she pandered to the base with it. A lot of people, far more than simply liberals, particular uber-liberals, support free college, debt-free graduates of college. I never said she didn't pander to voters, only that she did not seem to pander to the base. She is much more likely to go with the prevailing sentiment of the voters as a whole than she is to support whatever the base of her Party supports.

Even Republicans, to a pretty decent degree, support free college.

https://theintercept.com/2017/09/21/free-college-tuition-republicans-bernie-sanders/

Click to expand...

I wasn't saying him, I said that Hillary picked up that flag and ran with it once she got the nomination. It was just pandering to the regressive left, trying to get Bernie's crowd to follow her.

Moderate Right said:

Just wondering

Click to expand...

Getting to my answer may be in a round about way. There's been extremist ever since this country was founded. But not as many in government as there has been over the last 15 years or so. So if we are electing more extremist, are we ourselves more extreme? Perhaps it is we ourselves are more willing to follow the extremist since they have become our political leaders? Two elections have set the course. In 2006 when the Democrats won back congress they did so by defeating the more moderate Republicans and replacing them with far to the left liberals or progressives depending on what one wants to call them. But the far right conservatives remained for the most part having carved out safe districts and from relative safe states.

Then in 2010 the reverse happened. The blue dog Democrats, the more moderates were defeated by very conservative republicans. What was left were the extremist from both parties. I think for the most part, those who affiliated or identified with the two major parties took their cue from the far right and far left leaders in congress and became more or less extremist followers.

Also keep in mind that those moderates of both parties who couldn't or wouldn't move to the far reaches of left or right became independents. Independent ranks rose from 30% to approximately 44% in 15 years. Thus leaving both parties extremist, the die hard of each party the ability to nominate more extremist as time goes by.

I think each party is happy to have shed the moderate factions within their parties. That it doesn't bother them one bit they have shrunk. They know in the end one will have to choose either extreme right or extreme left candidate they offer. Hence we have a Trump vs. Clinton or the rise of Moore in Alabama.

Perhaps the extremist problem lies with folks like me who have kissed the two major parties goodbye. There is no one around to try to keep them from the fringes anymore, we left them. We left them and that enabled both parties to become more extreme. the more extreme they become, the more of us that leaves them. With no more moderating influence, both are free to exert their extremist agendas. I don't know if this answers your question, perhaps the amount of extremist is about the same as it has always been. But with more and more of us in the middle that depart both parties, it gives them free reign.

In short, we have more extremist in power, but the overall population is pretty much what it was 15 years ago, 30 years ago and before.

Moderate Right said:

Just wondering

Click to expand...

I chose option 1, but...

It's not entirely one or the other.

I think that, generally, there is a feedback loop of sorts between leaders and those who follow them - especially noticeable with the internet as a medium, which has sped up the process, and distilled people into bubbles of belief and unreality.


At some point we're going to be forced to come to terms with a reality where multiple unrealistic exist and conflict with each other - and those who believe in/follow those unrealistic will clash, as some already are.


I hope reality wins, whatever it is (I won't claim to be sure what I think it is...is).

Cephus said:

I wasn't saying him, I said that Hillary picked up that flag and ran with it once she got the nomination. It was just pandering to the regressive left, trying to get Bernie's crowd to follow her.

Click to expand...

Except it wasn't. The news and polls started showing that more than simply the left were in support of free college, paying for college tuition. That is when she started to support such a plan.

The Mark said:

I chose option 1, but...

It's not entirely one or the other.

I think that, generally, there is a feedback loop of sorts between leaders and those who follow them - especially noticeable with the internet as a medium, which has sped up the process, and distilled people into bubbles of belief and unreality.


At some point we're going to be forced to come to terms with a reality where multiple unrealistic exist and conflict with each other - and those who believe in/follow those unrealistic will clash, as some already are.


I hope reality wins, whatever it is (I won't claim to be sure what I think it is...is).

Click to expand...

Good point. I never considered the internet thing.

Political extremism is the natural consequence of government being involved in every single aspect of our lives, 24/7, and seeking even more control. We are measured, monitored, regulated, and forced to give up a large portion of our income to various levels of government. The stakes are tremendous. Every group must have a lobby, and every group competes for favorable legislation and financing. Many lobby to reduce controls on themselves but insist on more control of other groups. The snowball keeps growing. And it's winner take all. Take no prisoners.