Is it just me or are the politics, at least in the US, beoming more and more polarized? (If you don't live in the US, and/or don't follow US politics, feel free to comment on your country's political landscape as well). I see this as a really negative thing as it makes compromise virtually impossible and stalls any political progress.
What is the cause of this recent trend of increasing polarization?
What can be done to fix it?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"For small creatures such as we the vastness is bearable only through love." --Carl Sagan
Yes politics in America are more polarized. But even when they were compromising there was little being done to advance the country. Look where we are now. The reason for the polarization, at least to me, is a generation that believes the past 30-50 years wasnt working for us. They are hard headed and stubborn, pushing the values and views they were voted in for.
I personally dont think there is anything that can be done to fix the problem. Certain groups feel certain ways. There is little anyone is going to be able to do to change those views and/or ideals. I think America is going to get worse as multiple chasms get wider.
It'll rectify itself, it's happened historically a number of times - usually kills a party (but not always) from literally nothing happening politically for a while and the constituency getting fed up with problems not being dealt with.
But after a few years it goes back to normal - just like everything it goes in cycles - we've had two or three of this happen before.
I often wonder if it the polarization has to do with the rise of political sites online and the bias of cable news networks like MSNBC and Fox News? Like people get caught in this echo chamber, where they only hear from people who agree with them, and they're always presented the Republicans/Democrats as crazy people who are going to ruin the country. And of course the internet is even worse than the cable news networks in this regard. Online, liberals present conservatives as idiot rednecks who want to turn the country into a theocracy, and conservatives present liberals are as godless communists who want to turn the country into a socialist welfare state.
I mean, both Liberals and Conservatives have some good ideas. It seems very few people recognize this because they only listen to people who share their views. And when people do talk to those with different views it seems that it quickly devolves into name-calling.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"For small creatures such as we the vastness is bearable only through love." --Carl Sagan
It'll rectify itself, it's happened historically a number of times - usually kills a party (but not always) from literally nothing happening politically for a while and the constituency getting fed up with problems not being dealt with.
But after a few years it goes back to normal - just like everything it goes in cycles - we've had two or three of this happen before.
Well, if you look at politics in America the past 30-50 years, the scene is getting worse, not better. Personally I dont feel we have had good leadership in this country for decades. American politicians make promises to get seats then wheel and deal to get a silver lined retirement. In short, American politicians dont care about the general population. They care about those who can throw as much money as possible at them (big business and billionaires). Not the masses that actually voted for them.
I'm not sure how accurate these are, but I found them to be helfpul, as an outsider, to see some of the problems of the US political system. I'm sure they're overexaggerated, but either way.
Would you agree on the sentiments in these? They do seem sensible, but as I said, I'm an outsider.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Sage is occupied with the unspoken
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
I think it has to do with a combination of echo chambers and private interests. It's a feedback loop of big money being spent on the two most successful parties so 24 hour media outlets tailor their message to a party in order to gain viewership, which influences the minds and opinions of the public.
It also has to do with the way we vote and how it always devolves into a two party system. Third parties such as Libertarians and Green Party may or may not have good ideas at the time, but they are generally considered "wasted votes" by the public because they take votes away from parties that stand any remote chance of winning. This gets perpetuated by the fallacy of the "lesser of two evils." Just as an example, you may not consider yourself a Republican, but, rather, a Libertarian. You also know that the Libertarian party is not likely to win, so you displace your vote to the republican, because, while you don't identify with them, you reeeeaaallly don't want the democrat to win.
Ironically, people are often surprised how many honest-to-god "average Joes" in the United States identify as moderates or independents The system in which we glean information and vote for public offices is not tailored to a diverse political spectrum.
I'm not sure how accurate these are, but I found them to be helfpul, as an outsider, to see some of the problems of the US political system. I'm sure they're overexaggerated, but either way.
Would you agree on the sentiments in these? They do seem sensible, but as I said, I'm an outsider.
I don't think there's much controversy over EC's identification of the causes. Gerrymandering, in particular, is mentioned by just about everybody who talks about polarization. The problem is charting a course to reform. For gerrymandering, the solution is pretty simple on its face - independent commissions to assign congressional districts - it's just a matter of making it happen. ("Just.") But for, say, the graduation of ex-members to the lobbying industry, the problem is in the Beltway culture as much as it is the law. Simply imposing restrictions on what jobs ex-members can take, as EC suggests, is not going to work; they will always be able to find some other job that's not covered by the law.
I think the political rhetoric is to blame for a significant part of the divisiveness we see in us politics. As narratives go moe twoards war on women, banksters, teabaggers, and other just plain nasty stuff, you can only expect one kind of reaction.
Also, the democrats negotiating attitude and the republican's response To it."Let's balance the budget, but no touching entitlements or medical reform and you have to include more tax increases. What do you want to add?" runs into "no" every time.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Commander Decks G MGC WB Teysa Tokens BR Wortsnort UG 23.5-No Edric URG Noncombo Animar GUB Damia Stax WBR Alesha Hatebear Recursion WBR Daddy Tariel UBR [Je]love-a Your Deck GWU Almost Critterless Enchantress WUB Sydri+Artifacts=WUB WURG Glint-Eye Combo
I think the political rhetoric is to blame for a significant part of the divisiveness we see in us politics. As narratives go moe twoards war on women, banksters, teabaggers, and other just plain nasty stuff, you can only expect one kind of reaction.
Also, the democrats negotiating attitude and the republican's response To it."Let's balance the budget, but no touching entitlements or medical reform and you have to include more tax increases. What do you want to add?" runs into "no" every time.
Lets not forget when the Democrats mention cutting defense spending the Republicans lose their minds. It is not a one side situation.
Is it just me or are the politics, at least in the US, beoming more and more polarized?
Compared to?
Compared to earlier points in the country's history. Blinking Spirit's link was a good one that seems to show we are more polarized now than any time in the past 100 years or so.
Indeed, I think what we're looking at is, in fact, a growing amount of people who do not identify with either of the major parties.
Do you think this is what is causing the gridlock in Washington? It just seems that neither side is willing to budge on much of anything these days. But again, maybe that's just my perception.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"For small creatures such as we the vastness is bearable only through love." --Carl Sagan
Lets not forget when the Democrats mention cutting defense spending the Republicans lose their minds. It is not a one side situation.
Oh, I didn't mean that it was just democrats - both sides are guilty of putting forward nothing but increasingly hateful rhetoric the past decade or so.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Commander Decks G MGC WB Teysa Tokens BR Wortsnort UG 23.5-No Edric URG Noncombo Animar GUB Damia Stax WBR Alesha Hatebear Recursion WBR Daddy Tariel UBR [Je]love-a Your Deck GWU Almost Critterless Enchantress WUB Sydri+Artifacts=WUB WURG Glint-Eye Combo
Compared to earlier points in the country's history. Blinking Spirit's link was a good one that seems to show we are more polarized now than any time in the past 100 years or so.
To which I'll agree.
Do you think this is what is causing the gridlock in Washington? It just seems that neither side is willing to budge on much of anything these days. But again, maybe that's just my perception.
Because they're being elected on a campaign that they will not budge.
There are certain issues dividing this country that you just cannot compromise on. For instance, you cannot have 50% Obamacare. There are those who are opposed to Obamacare, there are those who are in favor of it, and both sides are elected specifically to hold their ground and not budge against the other.
Compared to earlier points in the country's history. Blinking Spirit's link was a good one that seems to show we are more polarized now than any time in the past 100 years or so.
To which I'll agree.
Do you think this is what is causing the gridlock in Washington? It just seems that neither side is willing to budge on much of anything these days. But again, maybe that's just my perception.
Because they're being elected on a campaign that they will not budge.
There are certain issues dividing this country that you just cannot compromise on. For instance, you cannot have 50% Obamacare. There are those who are opposed to Obamacare, there are those who are in favor of it, and both sides are elected specifically to hold their ground and not budge against the other.
I don't always agree with Highroller, but when I do it is 100%.
Over the past...as long as I can remember...the people elected are almost always elected by the extremes (because that's who shows up at primaries) to do exactly what we see them doing.
The divisive nature of things has caused people to vote specifically for candidates who promise to "Repeal Obamacare", or "Push for gun control" for instance.
When's the last time "I promise to compromise..." got anyone a congressional seat?
The electorate has decided they don't want compromise. It's the Bloods vs. the Crips up n hurr!
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
But would the electorate be more likely to vote for less-extremist people if gerrymandering didn't happen? If areas can be divided strongly into one side or the other, of course the extremists are going to do well. If you decide areas by geographical locations of reasonable shapes, they are going to have both left and right voters, and it becomes important to be able to compromise between the two.
If we have areas with 100% democrats, they're going to elect a really democratic guy. If there's an area with 100% republicans, same thing. If there's an area with 54% democrats and 46% republicans, it's much more complicated, because not everyone wants the same thing.
I don't know. Extremism doesn't seem to work that well in Scandinavia.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Sage is occupied with the unspoken
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
Wasn't saying right now isn't uniquely bad - was just stating that it eventually gets a voter backlash that gets things back to a moderate course EVENTUALLY.
I think the biggest issue right now is we have the echo chamber effects that make it happen more rapidly while the voting public is relatively slow to react (honestly it's been slow enough to "fix" before that it's likely generational usually a 20-30 year rut of polarization that then gets fixed once the generational switch happens) - and that's why it's worse than average right now.
I was just trying to address if it was going to be a permanent thing. Which history shows there will be a pushback and things will go back to a median again.
Which history shows there will be a pushback and things will go back to a median again.
I use to think this. But it seems to be getting worse. I believe it will get to a point where we may have to think about changing the process. Not sure of how many more tenures of extreme clashing the country can endure.
Not arguing against your point. Gerrymandering has a lot to do with it.
How do you propose we change it, given it's prevalence and history?
Register for the dominant party? Seriously though, stealthing in more political diversity could ease the transition to more equitable rules (districts and election laws alike), but in the meantime candidates will have no choice but to contend with rising voices armed with votes.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Do I Contradict Myself? Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
When's the last time "I promise to compromise..." got anyone a congressional seat?
Well it got Obama into the White House the first time around. Of course, he dropped that pretty fast when he realized nobody else in Washington wanted to believe in that message...
ColonelCoo: This entire current environment has existed since about 1994-95... this isn't something new since then, it's just ramped up to it's apex.
bocephus: I'd agree it's worst, and we've got a ways to go till it rights itself again since it's usually about a 30 year cycle and we're barely to the half-way mark if history holds true.
There are certain issues dividing this country that you just cannot compromise on. For instance, you cannot have 50% Obamacare. There are those who are opposed to Obamacare, there are those who are in favor of it, and both sides are elected specifically to hold their ground and not budge against the other.
That's also a part of the issue, it's "Obamacare" and seen as a "great evil" that "must be killed." This is the same way that Jackson looked at the American banking industry as "evil, evil, evil, must go away at all costs." Yet, it took an entire economic bubble and crash, Polk to create a new state based system, and then after multiple other crashes to create the Fed.
This reminds me of a lot of NCLB act under Bush, a lot of good ideas strung together with some idiot ideas that came from some think tanks and politicians that focused on a broad goal by telling teachers what to teach and ended up creating a massive problem.
The point is that you can support the ethos behind a bill but not the pathos and exact policy. When you get to policy, you must be very specific. For example, I do not believe in the insurance agency setting life time caps on healthcare spending. Get rid of the healthcare bill, and that comes back. Then "replacing" it will take months, and then for that legislation to come back into vogue, if it does, will require six months to become law, again.
Amendments, reform, and taking your time to be a good editor. However, when conservatives talk like, "Don't judge me by how many laws we pass, but how many laws we repeal."
It's called quality management and editing, it's also called human centered design. When those are applied to the private sector those designs have worked quite well, however it may have come time to look at the structure of the committees themselves. For example, many of the top posts are based on seniority. Why? Why aren't they merit based, how do we make those merit based?
Would I rather have Steve Jobs nominated and elected as head of the technology related committees for a few years when he was alive? Perhaps, might have been interesting. At the very least I would rather have some young person followed up by a CEO then by a regulator dependent on the zeitgeist of the times with the people. Rather than being totally about court politics in the system.
We must also look at that the rules aren't being always followed, such as the "return to regular order" under the budget process. Why did it take 5 years? Because Congress had a bunch of neophytes that didn't understand process that wanted to change the process and a bunch of old timers that had to tame the social sphere.
For example, Michelle Bachman reached out for greater power multiple times without building the relationships inside of the system, nor were her merits very well known such as being a tax lawyer. That certainly damaged her ability to gain power, whereas Ron Paul was known to be a medical doctor and a devout Austrian follower that wanted the Fed destroyed. He also had the relationships to gain that power.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
It seems to me that the republican party is at a bit of an impass... Do they continue to hold onto socially conservative ideals at the risk of lossing out on fiscal issues, or do they become more socially moderate (or liberal) giving ground on social issues to be able to win more seats and push conservative fiscal issues.
What I see happening is an eventual split and re-shuffle of ideals so the "losing" party can regain some ground... I'll use an overly simple example:
Gay marriage is an issue that does not give much ground for negotiation... either you dont want gays to get married (republican stance) or you do want to allow them to get married (democratic stance). It seems to me that eventually (and I believe it is happening now) a significant portion of people believe so strongly in this issue that they will ignore all other issues while voting. When this happens in a significant number on one side of the issue (a boat load of people support gay marriage and will vote that direction) then the opposing party has two choices, hold firm and keep losing, or cut their losses, cut ties with the few that will continue to hold firm and change their stance on the issue.
I have a feeling what we will see in the near future is a re-alignment of the Republican party's ideals to be more social liberal while holding onto fiscal conservative ideals. If they do this I could see a shift in support from the more moderate voters.
ColonelCoo: This entire current environment has existed since about 1994-95... this isn't something new since then, it's just ramped up to it's apex.
bocephus: I'd agree it's worst, and we've got a ways to go till it rights itself again since it's usually about a 30 year cycle and we're barely to the half-way mark if history holds true.
Don't change the subject I was responding to. That Obama was noble of intent is false. His specific treatment of opposition party of "you lost I won" set the tone for his terms. Obama didn't stop having civility in politics and considering the concerns of the minority party: he never had civility.
I didn't change the subject, you made drastically false assertion. If you don't want false assertions called out, don't pitch them.
Additionally - he didn't ramrod anything through any more than any other President in modern memory. You were alive for Reagan weren't you? His 'compromises' were similar attempts to work out a median, with many Democrats voting against it when the time actually came up after he made sure many concessions were made to get Democrats on board. [Not nearly 100% defection from the compromises like recently, but it was something around 60% or so if memory serves]
And if you just look back to the previous Presidency, how often were Democrat concerns considered at all in legislation until they retook Congress? Almost no bills saw substantial revision to Democrat requests - just the ACA alone likely has more revisions made to it at Republican request than was done for the Democrats from 2000-2006 TOTAL.
Additionally, it's absolute fact that this downhill slide started around midterms for Clinton - specifically after he won his second term is when I would say is when I picked up on it - although the undercurrent might have already been there before it.
So to say Obama is anything in it is ridiculous - he's not done anything to improve the situation - but he didn't create it and really hasn't exacerbated it, because it was already quite terrible. [I'd recommend listening to some Billy Joel if you're not understanding the importance of how things can be difficult to stop once they're going even if you want to - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFTLKWw542g]
What is the cause of this recent trend of increasing polarization?
What can be done to fix it?
I personally dont think there is anything that can be done to fix the problem. Certain groups feel certain ways. There is little anyone is going to be able to do to change those views and/or ideals. I think America is going to get worse as multiple chasms get wider.
But after a few years it goes back to normal - just like everything it goes in cycles - we've had two or three of this happen before.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
I mean, both Liberals and Conservatives have some good ideas. It seems very few people recognize this because they only listen to people who share their views. And when people do talk to those with different views it seems that it quickly devolves into name-calling.
Well, if you look at politics in America the past 30-50 years, the scene is getting worse, not better. Personally I dont feel we have had good leadership in this country for decades. American politicians make promises to get seats then wheel and deal to get a silver lined retirement. In short, American politicians dont care about the general population. They care about those who can throw as much money as possible at them (big business and billionaires). Not the masses that actually voted for them.
Extra Credits: Incentive Systems and Politics (Part 1)
Extra Credits: Incentive Systems and Politics (Part 2)
Extra Credits: Incentive Systems and Politics (Part 3)
Would you agree on the sentiments in these? They do seem sensible, but as I said, I'm an outsider.
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
It also has to do with the way we vote and how it always devolves into a two party system. Third parties such as Libertarians and Green Party may or may not have good ideas at the time, but they are generally considered "wasted votes" by the public because they take votes away from parties that stand any remote chance of winning. This gets perpetuated by the fallacy of the "lesser of two evils." Just as an example, you may not consider yourself a Republican, but, rather, a Libertarian. You also know that the Libertarian party is not likely to win, so you displace your vote to the republican, because, while you don't identify with them, you reeeeaaallly don't want the democrat to win.
Ironically, people are often surprised how many honest-to-god "average Joes" in the United States identify as moderates or independents The system in which we glean information and vote for public offices is not tailored to a diverse political spectrum.
UAzami, Locus of All KnowledgeU
BMarrow-Gnawer, Crime Lord of ComboB
WBRTariel, Hellraiser StaxWBR
Annul is really good in EDH
No. It really is uniquely bad right now.
I don't think there's much controversy over EC's identification of the causes. Gerrymandering, in particular, is mentioned by just about everybody who talks about polarization. The problem is charting a course to reform. For gerrymandering, the solution is pretty simple on its face - independent commissions to assign congressional districts - it's just a matter of making it happen. ("Just.") But for, say, the graduation of ex-members to the lobbying industry, the problem is in the Beltway culture as much as it is the law. Simply imposing restrictions on what jobs ex-members can take, as EC suggests, is not going to work; they will always be able to find some other job that's not covered by the law.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Compared to?
I think compared to the Civil War, we're doing just fine.
Indeed, I think what we're looking at is, in fact, a growing amount of people who do not identify with either of the major parties.
Also, the democrats negotiating attitude and the republican's response To it."Let's balance the budget, but no touching entitlements or medical reform and you have to include more tax increases. What do you want to add?" runs into "no" every time.
G MGC
WB Teysa Tokens
BR Wortsnort
UG 23.5-No Edric
URG Noncombo Animar
GUB Damia Stax
WBR Alesha Hatebear Recursion
WBR Daddy Tariel
UBR [Je]love-a Your Deck
GWU Almost Critterless Enchantress
WUB Sydri+Artifacts=WUB
WURG Glint-Eye Combo
Lets not forget when the Democrats mention cutting defense spending the Republicans lose their minds. It is not a one side situation.
Compared to earlier points in the country's history. Blinking Spirit's link was a good one that seems to show we are more polarized now than any time in the past 100 years or so.
Good point
Do you think this is what is causing the gridlock in Washington? It just seems that neither side is willing to budge on much of anything these days. But again, maybe that's just my perception.
Oh, I didn't mean that it was just democrats - both sides are guilty of putting forward nothing but increasingly hateful rhetoric the past decade or so.
G MGC
WB Teysa Tokens
BR Wortsnort
UG 23.5-No Edric
URG Noncombo Animar
GUB Damia Stax
WBR Alesha Hatebear Recursion
WBR Daddy Tariel
UBR [Je]love-a Your Deck
GWU Almost Critterless Enchantress
WUB Sydri+Artifacts=WUB
WURG Glint-Eye Combo
To which I'll agree.
Because they're being elected on a campaign that they will not budge.
There are certain issues dividing this country that you just cannot compromise on. For instance, you cannot have 50% Obamacare. There are those who are opposed to Obamacare, there are those who are in favor of it, and both sides are elected specifically to hold their ground and not budge against the other.
I don't always agree with Highroller, but when I do it is 100%.
Over the past...as long as I can remember...the people elected are almost always elected by the extremes (because that's who shows up at primaries) to do exactly what we see them doing.
The divisive nature of things has caused people to vote specifically for candidates who promise to "Repeal Obamacare", or "Push for gun control" for instance.
When's the last time "I promise to compromise..." got anyone a congressional seat?
The electorate has decided they don't want compromise. It's the Bloods vs. the Crips up n hurr!
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
If we have areas with 100% democrats, they're going to elect a really democratic guy. If there's an area with 100% republicans, same thing. If there's an area with 54% democrats and 46% republicans, it's much more complicated, because not everyone wants the same thing.
I don't know. Extremism doesn't seem to work that well in Scandinavia.
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
How do you propose we change it, given it's prevalence and history?
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Wasn't saying right now isn't uniquely bad - was just stating that it eventually gets a voter backlash that gets things back to a moderate course EVENTUALLY.
I think the biggest issue right now is we have the echo chamber effects that make it happen more rapidly while the voting public is relatively slow to react (honestly it's been slow enough to "fix" before that it's likely generational usually a 20-30 year rut of polarization that then gets fixed once the generational switch happens) - and that's why it's worse than average right now.
I was just trying to address if it was going to be a permanent thing. Which history shows there will be a pushback and things will go back to a median again.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
I use to think this. But it seems to be getting worse. I believe it will get to a point where we may have to think about changing the process. Not sure of how many more tenures of extreme clashing the country can endure.
Register for the dominant party? Seriously though, stealthing in more political diversity could ease the transition to more equitable rules (districts and election laws alike), but in the meantime candidates will have no choice but to contend with rising voices armed with votes.
Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
Well it got Obama into the White House the first time around. Of course, he dropped that pretty fast when he realized nobody else in Washington wanted to believe in that message...
bocephus: I'd agree it's worst, and we've got a ways to go till it rights itself again since it's usually about a 30 year cycle and we're barely to the half-way mark if history holds true.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
That's also a part of the issue, it's "Obamacare" and seen as a "great evil" that "must be killed." This is the same way that Jackson looked at the American banking industry as "evil, evil, evil, must go away at all costs." Yet, it took an entire economic bubble and crash, Polk to create a new state based system, and then after multiple other crashes to create the Fed.
This reminds me of a lot of NCLB act under Bush, a lot of good ideas strung together with some idiot ideas that came from some think tanks and politicians that focused on a broad goal by telling teachers what to teach and ended up creating a massive problem.
The point is that you can support the ethos behind a bill but not the pathos and exact policy. When you get to policy, you must be very specific. For example, I do not believe in the insurance agency setting life time caps on healthcare spending. Get rid of the healthcare bill, and that comes back. Then "replacing" it will take months, and then for that legislation to come back into vogue, if it does, will require six months to become law, again.
Amendments, reform, and taking your time to be a good editor. However, when conservatives talk like, "Don't judge me by how many laws we pass, but how many laws we repeal."
As a conservative, I just do this:
............................................________
....................................,.-'"...................``~.,
.............................,.-"..................................."-.,
.........................,/...............................................":,
.....................,?......................................................,
.................../...........................................................,}
................./......................................................,:`^`..}
.............../...................................................,:"........./
..............?.....__.........................................:`.........../
............./__.(....."~-,_..............................,:`........../
.........../(_...."~,_........"~,_....................,:`........_/
..........{.._$;_......"=,_......."-,_.......,.-~-,},.~";/....}
...........((.....*~_......."=-._......";,,./`..../"............../
...,,,___.`~,......"~.,....................`.....}............../
............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-"
............/.`~,......`-...................................../
.............`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....,__
,,_..........}.>-._...................................|..............`=~-,
.....`=~-,__......`,.................................
...................`=~-,,.,...............................
................................`:,,...........................`..............__
.....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==``
........................................_..........._,-%.......`
...................................,
It's called quality management and editing, it's also called human centered design. When those are applied to the private sector those designs have worked quite well, however it may have come time to look at the structure of the committees themselves. For example, many of the top posts are based on seniority. Why? Why aren't they merit based, how do we make those merit based?
Would I rather have Steve Jobs nominated and elected as head of the technology related committees for a few years when he was alive? Perhaps, might have been interesting. At the very least I would rather have some young person followed up by a CEO then by a regulator dependent on the zeitgeist of the times with the people. Rather than being totally about court politics in the system.
We must also look at that the rules aren't being always followed, such as the "return to regular order" under the budget process. Why did it take 5 years? Because Congress had a bunch of neophytes that didn't understand process that wanted to change the process and a bunch of old timers that had to tame the social sphere.
For example, Michelle Bachman reached out for greater power multiple times without building the relationships inside of the system, nor were her merits very well known such as being a tax lawyer. That certainly damaged her ability to gain power, whereas Ron Paul was known to be a medical doctor and a devout Austrian follower that wanted the Fed destroyed. He also had the relationships to gain that power.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
What I see happening is an eventual split and re-shuffle of ideals so the "losing" party can regain some ground... I'll use an overly simple example:
Gay marriage is an issue that does not give much ground for negotiation... either you dont want gays to get married (republican stance) or you do want to allow them to get married (democratic stance). It seems to me that eventually (and I believe it is happening now) a significant portion of people believe so strongly in this issue that they will ignore all other issues while voting. When this happens in a significant number on one side of the issue (a boat load of people support gay marriage and will vote that direction) then the opposing party has two choices, hold firm and keep losing, or cut their losses, cut ties with the few that will continue to hold firm and change their stance on the issue.
I have a feeling what we will see in the near future is a re-alignment of the Republican party's ideals to be more social liberal while holding onto fiscal conservative ideals. If they do this I could see a shift in support from the more moderate voters.
I didn't change the subject, you made drastically false assertion. If you don't want false assertions called out, don't pitch them.
Additionally - he didn't ramrod anything through any more than any other President in modern memory. You were alive for Reagan weren't you? His 'compromises' were similar attempts to work out a median, with many Democrats voting against it when the time actually came up after he made sure many concessions were made to get Democrats on board. [Not nearly 100% defection from the compromises like recently, but it was something around 60% or so if memory serves]
And if you just look back to the previous Presidency, how often were Democrat concerns considered at all in legislation until they retook Congress? Almost no bills saw substantial revision to Democrat requests - just the ACA alone likely has more revisions made to it at Republican request than was done for the Democrats from 2000-2006 TOTAL.
Additionally, it's absolute fact that this downhill slide started around midterms for Clinton - specifically after he won his second term is when I would say is when I picked up on it - although the undercurrent might have already been there before it.
So to say Obama is anything in it is ridiculous - he's not done anything to improve the situation - but he didn't create it and really hasn't exacerbated it, because it was already quite terrible. [I'd recommend listening to some Billy Joel if you're not understanding the importance of how things can be difficult to stop once they're going even if you want to - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFTLKWw542g]
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.