How polarization has changed America and our politics

Uncategorized 1 Minute

Mr. Klein provides an enlightening view of how the parties have changed and in what way.

He makes some interesting points about why the Democrats will unlikely win the White House or the Senate. Disheartening for some, reason to gloat for others.

Unknown's avatar

Published by Adam Green

A 24 year Navy vet, cancer survivor, father, grandfather, assistant caregiver for my live-in mother-in-law. Enjoys golf, football (real and fantasy), being the best grandfather I can, supporting the endeavors of my children (both involved in the education of our younger generations) and tormenting my wife of 34 years. Also prefer bourbon over scotch, but will drink both, just not at the same time. Discovering craft beers and trying trying hard to get to a consistent golf swing.

Published

12 thoughts on “How polarization has changed America and our politics”

  1. The Democratic Party will be the ONLY marketplace of competing ideas while the Republicans have so marginalized themselves with their Stalinist tactics (the press is the enemy of the people? Really?), disregard for facts and evidence and their uncompromising hate rhetoric that they can and will be ignored when important decisions are being made. In spite of a thriving economy they have made virtually zero increases in their base of reliable support. That is very telling.

    An example is the future of healthcare where different parts of the Democratic Party offer different approaches while the Republicans offer nothing worth considering.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

  3. Tyranny of the minority.

    We aren’t a democracy except as a term that describes how our representative for of government is selected.

    It is the loss of the Senate for the foreseeable future that is a problem for the majority. In and of itself that is not a huge problem so long as the majority can be reflected in the House and the presidency. At that point, the minority is well protected by the Senate and we may have a workable government.

    If the demographic projections are correct, and 70% of the population will only have 30 seats, then the House and presidency are critical to avoid a slide to autocracy. And that is what the combination of a corrupt president and equally corrupt Senate majority leader is trying to accomplish.

    IMHO

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

  4. RE: “Mr. Klein provides an enlightening view of how the parties have changed and in what way.”

    Maybe so, but the article is behind a paywall for me.

    Like

    Reply

    1. I joined Apple News. It gets me into WSJ, National Review, Washington Times, Examiner, as well as NYT, WAPO, among dozens of others except Bloomberg. Even Nat Geo. I get a broad spectrum for $10 month.

      (I know you hate NYT, but if it’s behind a paywall, how do you know about what you can’t read?)

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

    2. RE: “I joined Apple News. It gets me into…”

      Thanks. I looked into it.

      Unfortunately, because my main computer is a Windows PC, Apple News isn’t a good fit for me.

      RE: “I know you hate NYT, but if it’s behind a paywall, how do you know about what you can’t read?)”

      Like other non-subscribers to NYT’s web site, I can access a few articles per month before the paywall kicks in. Based on the sample I do read, I wouldn’t pay even a dollar a month for full access.

      I don’t have a problem with linking to paywalled content here at Tidewater Forum. I think our host frowns on the practice, but if you have something to say to the group, linking to the source that inspires your commentary is an intellectually honest thing to do.

      At the same time, if your commentary doesn’t say anything substantive in its own right or make any effort to communicate ideas from the link to those who can’t read it, then the link is useless and, frankly, a bit rude.

      Like

      Reply

      1. What is wrong with starting a conversation based on opinion? I don’t see it as rude. I see it as an opportunity for others, including yourself to comment.

        I think it is rude to post conspiracy theories and counterfactual nonsense, but I still give it a fair look.

        Liked by 2 people

        Reply

        1. RE: “What is wrong with starting a conversation based on opinion?”

          Do you understand that others cannot read the link you posted? There is nothing wrong with starting a conversation based on opinion. What’s rude is starting a conversation that some can’t join.

          Like

          Reply

      2. “ Based on the sample I do read, I wouldn’t pay even a dollar a month for full access.”

        Your choice, of course.

        I feel that if I am going to participate in a forum such as this one, I kind of owe to the others, and myself, to read opinions and articles across the spectrum. I think I read more FOX, WSJ, etc., than the more liberal sources because my curiosity demands it. Don and you both link to sites that I consider quite biased, but it helps me understand where some ideas percolate, good or bad.

        But, like I said, your choice. I usually try to find links that may post articles from pay sites. Or I’ll quote a pertinent part that interested me.

        Like

        Reply

        1. RE: “I feel that if I am going to participate in a forum such as this one, I kind of owe to the others, and myself, to read opinions and articles across the spectrum.”

          I don’t see that as a virtue. More important, in my view, is being able to analyse material to which one is excposed.

          Like

          Reply

Leave a comment