• 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!

Is there a deeper reason for the unprecedented Partisanship in America?

guy, its clear you need to read the founders more

the founders did not go to Philly to write a constitution, but to fix the AOC with its problems, those problems were solved with a new constutution

the new federal governments powers were few and defined by the constitution, all others powers remained where they were in the state governments which are numerous and indefinite.

federalist 45

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.


the federal government powers few and external over the union, state powers are numerous and internal to the union and concern the lives liberty and property of the people.

The increased power of the union was meant to correct the weaknesses of local, factious state governments. The point was to limit state power, not make it vast. The union comes first, states second. Unfortunately it took a civil war to force this point home.
 
The Boomers, who have already charged a lot of their spending to the kids and unborn , will have no problem in their old age collecting all the promises the government has made to them, which were never paid for, further inflaming the massive debt we leave behind.

Because it is still MEMEMEMEME.
Zomg... such nonsense

You did not in any way refute my point, which is that narcissistic tendencies fade as we age. Anyway....


"Boomers" did not "charge their spending" to their successors. Like everyone else, they are responsible for their own borrowing; in fact, the laws made it harder to discharge debts in bankruptcy than before, hardly a "get off free" card.

As to federal spending, where did that go? Social Security and Medicare paid for themselves pretty much up until a few years ago, so that wasn't it -- if anything, the Boomers held up their part of the bargain, dutifully paying for the benefits of their elders for decades. It's not clear if we will borrow to pay for future benefits.

We should also note that it's not the fault of the Boomers that the wound up having fewer children, thus producing fewer workers from whom we can collect payroll taxes.

I'd also add that no generation would be thrilled by slashing Social Security. Not a one. Portraying the Boomers as "greedy" because they aren't thrilled with the prospect of spending decades paying for someone else's SS, only to have their benefits taken away, fundamentally doesn't make sense.

So how did the Boomer line their own pockets with federal spending? Where did it all go? Perhaps you're referring to all those tax cuts over the years...?
 
The increased power of the union was meant to correct the weaknesses of local, factious state governments. The point was to limit state power, not make it vast. The union comes first, states second. Unfortunately it took a civil war to force this point home.



the states gave some of there powers to the new federal government, but the federal government powers were still few and defined, the constitution is a limiting document on the federal government.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
those powers are those which are external on the uinion, not internal

powers concerning the peoples lives liberty and property, are going to be the power which are vast and those powers remained with the states, the states are prohibited from engaging in powers defined as federal powers in the constitution.

hamilton is federalist 84 in arguing against the anti - federalist makes it clear the federal government is to merely intended to regulate the general political interests of the nation, but not to regulation of every species of personal and private concerns.

meaning the federal government has no power to regulate the people or their private business

Federalist 84

But a minute detail of particular rights is certainly far less applicable to a Constitution like that under consideration, which is, than to a constitution which has the regulation of every species of personal and private concerns. If, therefore, the loud clamors against the plan of the convention, on this score, are well founded, no epithets of reprobation will be too strong for the constitution of this State. But the truth is, that both of them contain all which, in relation to their objects, is reasonably to be desired.
 
the states gave some of there powers to the new federal government, but the federal government powers were still few and defined, the constitution is a limiting document on the federal government.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
those powers are those which are external on the uinion, not internal

powers concerning the peoples lives liberty and property, are going to be the power which are vast and those powers remained with the states, the states are prohibited from engaging in powers defined as federal powers in the constitution.

hamilton is federalist 84 in arguing against the anti - federalist makes it clear the federal government is to merely intended to regulate the general political interests of the nation, but not to regulation of every species of personal and private concerns.

meaning the federal government has no power to regulate the people or their private business

Federalist 84

But a minute detail of particular rights is certainly far less applicable to a Constitution like that under consideration, which is, than to a constitution which has the regulation of every species of personal and private concerns. If, therefore, the loud clamors against the plan of the convention, on this score, are well founded, no epithets of reprobation will be too strong for the constitution of this State. But the truth is, that both of them contain all which, in relation to their objects, is reasonably to be desired.

I never said anything about personal or private concerns. This has nothing to do with the power of states. But if state laws impact personal or private concerns the federal government is there to be sure the states don't violate them as well.
 
I never said anything about personal or private concerns. This has nothing to do with the power of states. But if state laws impact personal or private concerns the federal government is there to be sure the states don't violate them as well.

in original constitutional law, if a state violated your rights under the states constitution you took it to state courts, but you could petition the federal government to hear your case.

in this method the courts rectified the problem, not congress making laws.
 
I never said anything about personal or private concerns. This has nothing to do with the power of states. But if state laws impact personal or private concerns the federal government is there to be sure the states don't violate them as well.

personal and private concerns would be covered by state laws/ regulations dealing with the people

personal and private concerns of the people are state powers, not federal.
 
Republicans and Democrats are increasingly viewing each other as more of an enemy than foreign adversaries. For instance many Trump supporters see Hillary Clinton and the Democratic establishment as a greater threat than Vladamir Putin and the Kremlin. Comparatively, many liberals seem to be less concered with the ever-growing threat of Islamic Extremism around the planet than with white privilege here at home.

This inceasing divide is well reflected in politics. Just listen to any senior congressman and you will quickly learn that this level of dysfunction is not only, not normal, but deeply and truly unprecedented. Our divide reached new and uprecedented levels, just recently, with the execution of what was known as the "Nuclear Option" forever diminishing the ability of the senate to operate in a remotely bi-partisan manner.

The most common reasons you hear these days are fake news or partisan media but I believe there might be something deeper to this phenomena. I believe one aspect of this phenomena that is not adequately discussed is the breakdown in the American conciousness. There no longer seems to be any Locus of "Identity" which has greatly diminished our sense of unity and loyalty to the wider nation.

Possible answers for the loss of identity/American conciousness:
1.) Religion: The United States used to be an overwhelmingly Christian country. By this, I dont mean so much that people followed the tenants of the religion but rather a "Christian identity" helped forge a shared worldview.
2.) Race: The United States in 1970 was close to about 90% white. The United States is now about 60% white and in about 20 years whites will be a minority. It goes without saying that Race is central to one's identity.
3.) Language: Today about 1 in 4 Americans do not speak English as a first Language. Language is crucial in establishing a shared venacular which is crucial to social cohesion.

Without shared Religion, Sprituality, Race, Ethnicity, or even Language will there be much to keep us together as time progresses? "Diversity" has historically been a source of conflict and war among humans as long as we have been around. Humans are pack mammals and instinctively "triablistic."

On the other hand perhaps we are at "peak partisanship" and will soon start on a path towards forging a new American identity? If we are not at or near "Peak Partisanship" how much worse can things get before "**** hits the fan" so to speak?

Throw in this forced immigration of would-be terrorist and you have valid points.

Also, there are powers that manipulate societies because division makes chaos and chaos causes war and criminal activity...both money makers.
 
Un-necessary wars expedited that divide. After 9/11 we were united and I dare say most of the US supported action in Afghanistan. However, when the Iraq invasion happened, it was a very popular and unnecessary war which has only served to divide the US further throughout the years.

:shrug: no war is "necessary" - we always have a choice. Surrender, for example, is a choice. So is pacifism and death.

War's aren't fought because they are necessary in and of themselves, they are fought because they are necessary to achieve a policy goal. That policy may be good (free the slaves), it may be bad (take slaves), or it may be a mixture of both (replace a murderous dictator with..... something to be named later). But they are never necessary in and of themselves.
 
Is there a deeper reason for the unprecedented Partisanship in America?

yes. we're still far too tribal for an artificially limited two choice system to work long term.
 
Or, we never had one.

<snip>

Fine. Leave whenever you like. See ya.
Dood... your idol must be the scarecrow in the Wizzard of Oz, you seem to love straw men. To each his own preference I say, just keep it at home, please.

I think we used to understand that people that came to America were generally freedom lovers, wanted a better chance in life than the countries they were coming from were offering them, understood we have, and live by, our magnificient Constitution, that we, granted gradually, accept [and accepted] everyone as long as you became an American foremost, assimilated. While the Western frontier was still being won we often felt ourselves, our American character to self made and self reliant, independent, hardy can do type folk coming from everywhere to be one people, E Pluribus Unum.

You are welcome to deny, but as so often proven, you say a lot but most of it is fairly shallow, scratching at the surface feel good and cool lib stuff.

Where did I ever [ this is a common beginning of a line I have to use with you every thread in which I encounter you] say there was a single reference to only one ideology? We can have different perspectives on how to arrive at the same things, a strong, prosperous, industrious, educated, free people.

BTW, when did accurate descriptions become drama? We were unified enough to take on the most powerful nation in the world and gain independence, we were unified enough to compromise and create a common framework for governing we know as our Constitution. But I never used the word, nor meant, unified in the manner you are using it. Being free, independent, prosperous and strong does not mean we all think exactly the same... that is a requirement of modern liberalism.

If you think political parties and political platforms are forever, cannot be defeated, check out the American Whigs, the Know Nothings, the Anti Federalists, Southern Democrat segregationists... while some may still retain some adherents, they are in reality extinct.

1955 was a particularly good year, well, tax rates were outrageous... what was wrong with 1955? But it was in the 60s that it became apparent that some were anti American and with the help of Soviet seed money and active disinformation, with two limited wars against a truly evil ideology, that we were not allowed to win, under our belt... the cultural chasm has been growing. Well, until the left disgraced itself, dug itself into its inevitable hole and now cannot get out. All they can do is scream Trump at the top of their "collective" lungs.

Your folks don't want to cure structural unemployment, nor solve the immigration problems, you promote both, promise give aways from the people who earn and then blame it all on those that have jobs and, who else, the bah humbug Republicans [too many of whom are just liberals wanting to get elected on the side that wins].

Dood, been poor... no, I did not like it and did something about it. I sure as hell didn't blame it on someone else. I didn't go on welfare, didn't steal, didn't pimp out girls or sell drugs, I took the first minimum wage job I could get, this after having been a Trust banker that got laid off because of a bad economy, and i worked my way back into the game. Got more education, at my own expense and gradually improved my lot.

I worked damned hard at several jobs.

Again, you repeat and emphasize what I just got finished saying and then try to make it appear as if your are contridicting my statement. I watch NO TV dude, I watch clips on youtube of CNN, MSNBC, Fox, CBS, CSPAN, ABC, PBS, I go wherever I need to get perspective and have friends on the right, left, libertarian, and moderates with whom I discuss matters... but you get all yours from the ones we know are liars on current politics, who feign being down the middle when all they are is anti Trump.

I didn't set out to write a book about it here, so could not hope to explain, withh the severe character limits here, such a premise. But if you read closely I am sure, to the other than clueless, you will find some tantalizing tidbits. Too mentally taxing I can easily surmise.

Dood. I can see you are not channeling Sherlock Holmes. Should be elementary my dear Visbeck, I am already in my self made utopia... broke my heart what you folks were doing to our fine country.
 
personal and private concerns would be covered by state laws/ regulations dealing with the people

personal and private concerns of the people are state powers, not federal.

They become federal if the state fails to protect people. That is the job of federal government.
 
Why? Because the answer to your question is NOT a simple answer. It is extremely complex that no one human could possible address all the reasons that we are so divided right now. There are many that will attempt to say "No, its not, Z is the reason". The reason being is that in this day and age far too many people look for the simplest answer that they can possibly find and focus on that and that alone. I could give you many examples of this happening but I won't because, again, it will be focused on that and your original question will become lost in the dispute along with everything else that I'm trying to explain here.

Brilliant
 
because the federal government is involved in the lives liberty and property of the people, which it was never intended to do.

a perfect example of

The reason being is that in this day and age far too many people look for the simplest answer that they can possibly find and focus on that and that alone.
 
it is the court's duty to solve controversies, not the congress

It is Congress's job to serve the people.

To paraphrase the code of Hammurabi, congress is supposed to
to make justice visible in the land, to destroy the wicked person and the evil-doer, that the strong might not injure the weak
 
It is Congress's job to serve the people.

To paraphrase the code of Hammurabi, congress is supposed to

congress until the 20th century, congress had no powers concerning the peoples lives liberty or property.

controversies are to be handled by the courts, not congress
 
congress until the 20th century, congress had no powers concerning the peoples lives liberty or property.

controversies are to be handled by the courts, not congress

And what, pray tell, happened in the 20th century to change this?

Oh right! The people demanded it
 
And what, pray tell, happened in the 20th century to change this?

Oh right! The people demanded it

its a shame you don't know these things

Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), was a United States Supreme Court decision that dramatically increased the regulatory power of the federal government. ... An Ohio farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat for use to feed animals on his own farm.

before this case the federal government could not regulate the people
 
its a shame you don't know these things

Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), was a United States Supreme Court decision that dramatically increased the regulatory power of the federal government. ... An Ohio farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat for use to feed animals on his own farm.

before this case the federal government could not regulate the people

I think you need to look a little further back

West Coast Hotel Company v. Parrish
 
I think you need to look a little further back

West Coast Hotel Company v. Parrish

it think you do!

again you are going to cite a case dealing with a waterway between NY and NJ, which is between states and under federal authority [which you bring up regularly] or now a hotel

the USSC RULED in 1873 Slaughterhouse case, that the federal government has NO POWERS TO REGULATE INSIDE OF THE STATES, that ruling was reversed in 1942

West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379, was a decision by the United States Supreme Court upholding the constitutionality of minimum wage legislation enacted by the State of Washington, overturning ...
 
Last edited:
You cannot half abort a baby

Absolutely true. However, one could support policies that would make abortion less frequent. By supporting sex education is schools ( I have no problem advocating abstinence, but give factual information) and making birth control easily accessible. One could take an unpromising anti-abortion stance and at the same time advocate policies that would make abortion less frequent. However such an idea doesn't fit in extreme partisan politics.

Not trying to hijack the thread on the abortion issue, but making a point about compromise
 
IMO we have to look to history for the deeper cause. There was a time in America--I need to write a book with that as the opening line--in which pretty much everybody--Democrat, Republican, white, black, Asian, Hispanic, Native American--shared pretty much common values of right and wrong. There are exceptions of course--people disagreed on individual issues large and small--but for the most part, whether we lived our lives accordingly, most of us agreed on what good values are.

A very popular and erroneous belief. A larger knowledge of social history would show that belief to be false. Read "The Way we Never Were". Certainly, there may have been shared ideals, but I would challenge anyone to find "that time" when we agreed not only in word but in practice,
 
Republicans and Democrats are increasingly viewing each other as more of an enemy than foreign adversaries. For instance many Trump supporters see Hillary Clinton and the Democratic establishment as a greater threat than Vladamir Putin and the Kremlin. Comparatively, many liberals seem to be less concered with the ever-growing threat of Islamic Extremism around the planet than with white privilege here at home.

This inceasing divide is well reflected in politics. Just listen to any senior congressman and you will quickly learn that this level of dysfunction is not only, not normal, but deeply and truly unprecedented. Our divide reached new and uprecedented levels, just recently, with the execution of what was known as the "Nuclear Option" forever diminishing the ability of the senate to operate in a remotely bi-partisan manner.

The most common reasons you hear these days are fake news or partisan media but I believe there might be something deeper to this phenomena. I believe one aspect of this phenomena that is not adequately discussed is the breakdown in the American conciousness. There no longer seems to be any Locus of "Identity" which has greatly diminished our sense of unity and loyalty to the wider nation.

Possible answers for the loss of identity/American conciousness:
1.) Religion: The United States used to be an overwhelmingly Christian country. By this, I dont mean so much that people followed the tenants of the religion but rather a "Christian identity" helped forge a shared worldview.
2.) Race: The United States in 1970 was close to about 90% white. The United States is now about 60% white and in about 20 years whites will be a minority. It goes without saying that Race is central to one's identity.
3.) Language: Today about 1 in 4 Americans do not speak English as a first Language. Language is crucial in establishing a shared venacular which is crucial to social cohesion.

Without shared Religion, Sprituality, Race, Ethnicity, or even Language will there be much to keep us together as time progresses? "Diversity" has historically been a source of conflict and war among humans as long as we have been around. Humans are pack mammals and instinctively "triablistic."

On the other hand perhaps we are at "peak partisanship" and will soon start on a path towards forging a new American identity? If we are not at or near "Peak Partisanship" how much worse can things get before "**** hits the fan" so to speak?


Just my opinion, but what I've seen in the last 20 years is the last stance of the WASP. All three of what you listed fall into that category. I grew up in a time that is not the same as now. If I grew up the way I did, and was happy, why should I not want that way to continue? It really is that simple. We can more easily relate and bond with others like us. Which is why we hire whom we do. James Baldwin, the famous black author, said we identify others by three characteristics being sex, age and race. Try it out. You will find yourself doing just that, and no more.
 
Back
Top Bottom