When polarized politics becomes the norm, does the center become powerless?

DarkWizard12 said:

Even if that's true, there were millions who voted for him, simply because they thought he was a socialist. I don't care who you are, his popularity pokes a hole in this "conservative times! woe is us!" ruse we always get from the left.

Click to expand...

As is evidenced by the numbers, there were "hundreds of thousands" who "voted for him BECAUSE he was a socialist". The so called "millions" you're thinking of would be the millennials, who stayed home in record numbers.
The rest who supported him throughout his campaign voted for him because he was just a brilliant leader.

Your assertion "simply because they thought he was a socialist", is just flat out misguided perception.
Most Democrats are pragmatic types who, like any mainstream party faithful, recognize that politics is the art of the possible, and they knew that Bernie Sanders would never succeed in "turning America socialist" any more than anyone else could.
Most mainstream liberals know that America will never be an actual socialist country, but the pragmatic approach is to take the best tweaks from socialism and do what FDR did, apply it in hybrid fashion to the capitalist system.

Your problem is that you can't see anyone outside your circle as anything BUT "rabid bomb throwing left wing extremists who dream of turning America socialist, nay....COMMUNIST".
To the man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

So take the Lenin goatee off of Bernie's face, and take down the hammer and sickle.
Even John Steinbeck knew better, way back in the 1940's.
You're letting the John Birch Society distort your perceptions way too much.

Unitedwestand13 said:

I understand the desire of those who wish to see American politics return to an era of moderation. Moderates wish to return to a time that politics is not dominated by the political extremes.

I have a question for those who consider themselves political moderates: what if the return to moderation in politics never occurs. Suppose there exists no middle ground and instead are presented with a choice between two partisan agendas, separated by a chasm the size of the Grand Canyon.

Faced with no other options, the exceptions being political irrelevance, would you choose to align with the partisans that you have the most common interests with?

Would moderates rather choose to side with one of the ideological extremes rather then become politically irrelevant?

Click to expand...

No. I feel no need to choose a side based on trendiness and popularity. Right is right and wrong is wrong in my mind and I have a higher need to remain true to myself.

I rejected both parties in the last general election and voted libertarian. It was a protest vote for the most part. I will evaluate my mid-term options before voting to see if those in the race are completely full of ****. I may end up writing in some candidates. I did that last election as well. I have friends that can do a better job than some of the people we have elected, but they want nothing to do with politics.

This is why I support ranked choice voting

Checkerboard Strangler said:

As is evidenced by the numbers, there were "hundreds of thousands" who "voted for him BECAUSE he was a socialist". The so called "millions" you're thinking of would be the millennials, who stayed home in record numbers.
The rest who supported him throughout his campaign voted for him because he was just a brilliant leader.

Your assertion "simply because they thought he was a socialist", is just flat out misguided perception.
Most Democrats are pragmatic types who, like any mainstream party faithful, recognize that politics is the art of the possible, and they knew that Bernie Sanders would never succeed in "turning America socialist" any more than anyone else could.
Most mainstream liberals know that America will never be an actual socialist country, but the pragmatic approach is to take the best tweaks from socialism and do what FDR did, apply it in hybrid fashion to the capitalist system.

Your problem is that you can't see anyone outside your circle as anything BUT "rabid bomb throwing left wing extremists who dream of turning America socialist, nay....COMMUNIST".
To the man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

So take the Lenin goatee off of Bernie's face, and take down the hammer and sickle.
Even John Steinbeck knew better, way back in the 1940's.
You're letting the John Birch Society distort your perceptions way too much.

Click to expand...

So, either the people are more open to the idea of a socialist than 60 years ago, or they're not. Amid all the far-left rhetoric we see every day, from college campuses, Bernie Sanders, and all to loud applause, this wouldn't have happened way back then. Again, you prove my point:

The rest who supported him throughout his campaign voted for him because he was just a brilliant leader.

Click to expand...

Who, during the entire cold war, would consider a self-proclaimed socialist a "great leader"? This "we've shifted so far right" is so far off, only the left would believe it. We've gone so left, that nationalized healthcare is actually more preferable than the unaffordable obamacare mess we have today. homosexuals have protected legal status, states are starting to legalize drugs etc. etc. there has been no end to progressive politics, until the election of trump.

the left is so good at playing the game, but everyone can see through it. This isn't the conservative era of 50-60 years ago, no matter how much you want to make it so.

DarkWizard12 said:

So, either the people are more open to the idea of a socialist than 60 years ago, or they're not. Amid all the far-left rhetoric we see every day, from college campuses, Bernie Sanders, and all to loud applause, this wouldn't have happened way back then. Again, you prove my point:


Who, during the entire cold war, would consider a self-proclaimed socialist a "great leader"? This "we've shifted so far right" is so far off, only the left would believe it. We've gone so left, that nationalized healthcare is actually more preferable than the unaffordable obamacare mess we have today. homosexuals have protected legal status, states are starting to legalize drugs etc. etc. there has been no end to progressive politics, until the election of trump.

the left is so good at playing the game, but everyone can see through it. This isn't the conservative era of 50-60 years ago, no matter how much you want to make it so.

Click to expand...

Three things:

#1: I think there is a fundamental, pervasive misunderstanding of what 'socialism' actually means, and a palpable distrust of its branding, since it has been so reflexively abused and overused by conservatives to reflexively dismiss off-hand and often without argument just about anything they disagree with that happens to be the left of them. This misunderstanding is also noted among much of the left. At this point, the misconception of socialism as a social democracy/mixed economy with a strong govt component is now at least as recognized and common as its classic meaning of public ownership of the economy.

#2: A lot of the progressivism you're describing is social and not economic progressivism. Yes, there has indeed been a shift leftward in terms of social values, and that's largely because this doesn't conflict with the interests and objectives of the ultra-rich and corporations (why do you think establishment Democrats rake in so much cash from big corporations? It's certainly not because they're unfriendly to them; there's a good reason all this internal turmoil now exists within the party between the FDR and Clinton camps); by and large they don't care who can marry or who can **** who so long as they keep raking in money. However, the moment taxation and spending become involved, their influence and the rightward shift become undeniable when we consider how say the tax burden has diminished since the 60s and 70s, especially among the rich; the amount of military expenditure (including wars which are more a phenomena of the interventionist neo-conservative right than the left), pork and corporate welfare over real public spending, and so on.

#3: After politics and the Overton Window have moved so far right (economically), with the policy of federal politicians from both parties long remaining largely desynced from the preferences and desires of the people ( largely due to the toxic influence of money in politics; https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites...testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf ), the pendulum finally appears to be beginning to swing back left. This is why Sanders, someone who above all refuses to engage in the corrupt game of political finance, has become ascendant, and a political juggernaut basically overnight: a man who went from more or less complete obscurity and ~2% of the Dem vote, to nearly surpassing an established and famous name like Clinton in the span of months despite a blatantly skewed (not rigged; calm your **** Clinton supporters) political primary.

DarkWizard12 said:

Who, during the entire cold war, would consider a self-proclaimed socialist a "great leader"? This "we've shifted so far right" is so far off, only the left would believe it.

Click to expand...

Nope, it's only in the last couple of years that a BACKLASH against the steady, gradual rightward shift has happened.
And again, it was too little, too late. Not enough people are open to the idea of a socialist, because too many of them didn't even bother voting. And they were only open to the idea of a person they perceive to be socialist anyway, because Bernie is not really a socialist. I guess because he claims to be, you're going to believe his claims, instead of the evidence.

Trump and Trumpism, however, has been instructive. There will indeed be a correction to the Left, but in the long run it will only draw us back toward the center. That's probably healthy. This country is not experienced with socialism, therefore it is doubtful you would ever see a socialist United States.

Unitedwestand13 said:

I understand the desire of those who wish to see American politics return to an era of moderation. Moderates wish to return to a time that politics is not dominated by the political extremes.

I have a question for those who consider themselves political moderates: what if the return to moderation in politics never occurs. Suppose there exists no middle ground and instead are presented with a choice between two partisan agendas, separated by a chasm the size of the Grand Canyon.

Faced with no other options, the exceptions being political irrelevance, would you choose to align with the partisans that you have the most common interests with?

Would moderates rather choose to side with one of the ideological extremes rather then become politically irrelevant?

Click to expand...

I think our country had polarized politics between April 12, 1861 and April 9, 1865 when Lee surrenderd his sword to Grant at the Appomattox Court House.:2wave:

Checkerboard Strangler said:

Nope, it's only in the last couple of years that a BACKLASH against the steady, gradual rightward shift has happened.

Click to expand...

lol then what was 2008? what was 2012?

Checkerboard Strangler said:

Nope, it's only in the last couple of years that a BACKLASH against the steady, gradual rightward shift has happened.
And again, it was too little, too late. Not enough people are open to the idea of a socialist, because too many of them didn't even bother voting. And they were only open to the idea of a person they perceive to be socialist anyway, because Bernie is not really a socialist. I guess because he claims to be, you're going to believe his claims, instead of the evidence.

Click to expand...

People believe his claims. He proclaims it, news sources report it, and many left-wing pundits and 'opinionists' support him because they think he is a socialist. his supporters support him because they think he is a socialist. You can say any "oh, well, he's not TRULY a socialist" all you want, you need to find me someone who supports Bernie because they believe he is lying when he proclaims himself as a socialist.

DarkWizard12 said:

People believe his claims. He proclaims it, news sources report it, and many left-wing pundits and 'opinionists' support him because they think he is a socialist. his supporters support him because they think he is a socialist. You can say any "oh, well, he's not TRULY a socialist" all you want, you need to find me someone who supports Bernie because they believe he is lying when he proclaims himself as a socialist.

Click to expand...

Well that last sentence made absolutely no sense whatsoever, but then again, I doubt that you're even the least bit serious anyway.
But since you asked, perhaps try looking for people who are pragmatic enough to accept Bernie just as a LIBERAL, no matter what he CLAIMS to be.
I don't think you would have any trouble finding millions of them.

DarkWizard12 said:

lol then what was 2008? what was 2012?

Click to expand...

Do you think Obama was an extreme lefty?
Let's define who I am and who you are so that we know what the definitions of 2008 and 2012 look like in your eyes.
PS: I do not in the least expect to convince you that there has been a steady rightward shift in our two political parties, but you should be honest with yourself, at least.

If you think the country has shifted radically left, at least own it, and admit that you're not really an "Independent".
You're very conservative, isn't that right?
It's okay, be who you are.

I am sure that to a very conservative person, it probably looks like we're just an inch or two from hoisting the Hammer and Sickle over the White House and playing this:

Checkerboard Strangler said:

Do you think Obama was an extreme lefty?

Click to expand...

Yes, although much of his agenda was either stopped, or didn't go into effect.

Let's define who I am and who you are so that we know what the definitions of 2008 and 2012 look like in your eyes.
PS: I do not in the least expect to convince you that there has been a steady rightward shift in our two political parties, but you should be honest with yourself, at least.

Click to expand...

I always was

If you think the country has shifted radically left, at least own it, and admit that you're not really an "Independent".

Click to expand...

"Independent" is a party registration status. I'm neither republican nor democrat, and never have been.

You're very conservative, isn't that right?
It's okay, be who you are.

Click to expand...

Hence why, I'm my profile says i am conservative, specifically, a conservative independent, and I don't just change my views because parties change theirs.

I am sure that to a very conservative person, it probably looks like we're just an inch or two from hoisting the Hammer and Sickle over the White House and playing this:

Click to expand...

really quite silly.

Checkerboard Strangler said:

Well that last sentence made absolutely no sense whatsoever, but then again, I doubt that you're even the least bit serious anyway.
But since you asked, perhaps try looking for people who are pragmatic enough to accept Bernie just as a LIBERAL, no matter what he CLAIMS to be.
I don't think you would have any trouble finding millions of them.

Click to expand...

all the young people, the universities, everyone else, loved the fact that he was a socialist. Sorry, that fact isn't going to go away. You may not consider him a socialist, but many of his voters don't agree with you.

DarkWizard12 said:

all the young people, the universities, everyone else, loved the fact that he was a socialist. Sorry, that fact isn't going to go away. You may not consider him a socialist, but many of his voters don't agree with you.

Click to expand...

Ahhhh, the Bernie Bro's, who didn't even bother voting once he was out of the picture OR who flocked to Jill Stein!
Yeah, the problem with your numbers is, most of them never even wound up voting.
Drop in the bucket compared to people who were solid voters, and were going to vote for the Democratic nominee.
They wanted Bernie but they voted Democrat anyway.

Hey, you go ahead and have the last word on this, you have your special custom made "conservative" idea of what Democrats and liberals think anyway. I happen to BE one, but far be it from me to try and enlighten you.
That would be...a lot like a liberal trying to explain something to a modern conservative, which is sort of like teaching a pig to whistle.

After all, I'm sure that you think Democrats and liberals of all kinds are really just secret communists anyway, right? :lamo

Checkerboard Strangler said:

Ahhhh, the Bernie Bro's, who didn't even bother voting once he was out of the picture OR who flocked to Jill Stein!
Yeah, the problem with your numbers is, most of them never even wound up voting.
Drop in the bucket compared to people who were solid voters, and were going to vote for the Democratic nominee.
They wanted Bernie but they voted Democrat anyway.

Hey, you go ahead and have the last word on this, you have your special custom made "conservative" idea of what Democrats and liberals think anyway. I happen to BE one, but far be it from me to try and enlighten you.
That would be...a lot like a liberal trying to explain something to a modern conservative, which is sort of like teaching a pig to whistle.

After all, I'm sure that you think Democrats and liberals of all kinds are really just secret communists anyway, right? :lamo

Click to expand...

Democrats are worse than communists. They're idiots.

I think Ford & Carter were both moderates that's the last election when there wasn't a fairly big divide. The only
moderates I see who lean Democratic are Manchin of West Virginia & Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii & I could support them.
Republican moderates like Kyle, McCain, Kasich & Romney are worthless!