Third Party & Independents: Archives

Misha, great article.

I personally would love a political party that said “Hey, lets take some of your ideas, and some of yours, and make them work. We know we are not gonna please everyone, but if we can keep everyone mostly happy, we are doing our job.”

Sadly, both the Left and Right are way too extreme for me now….

A question for you, in your opinion, do you feel that they push this scandal crap to keep us from asking them the real question? If you check out the candidates on Project VoteSmart, a non-partisan website, you will see that none of our candidates will release how they feel about the issues..and they are not very forthcoming on how they vote either.

It’s just an interesting note.

Anyway, admirable article.

It is interesting to say that Bush hasn’t created the division in this country without backing it up with some evidence. Certainly his policies and lack of working towards unifying the country has had something to do with it.

This article is interesting, but, in my opinion, fails to grasp onto anything more than the fact that members of opposing political parties start rumors and point out actual deficiencies in officials from the opposing party. That was the case with Clinton and is the case with Bush. Some of the controversial memes are based on fact and some are based on lies.

While it is always nice to have an epiphany, it is questionable as to how it came from seeing a couple of book covers at a bookstore. Perhaps reading the books may have helped inform a viewpoint. Add to that research on who is writing the books and there you have the ingredients to fuel an epiphany.

Nice idea Misha, but the Bush Admin clearly is the source of the divisiveness you allude to.

No matter how you spin it, emotive conspiracy theories have little to do with the mess that Bush has made. This administration used 9/11 to wage a preemptive war based on crappy cherry picked intelligence. Alienated a number of long standing allies. Reinstated unilaterilism as a reasonable tool in international relations, something the Russian’s did to spark the Cold War. Have shown reckless disregard for the environment and economy, something that future generations will pay dearly for.

In the eyes of the world, America has never been as unpopular as it is right now. This has nothing to do with the tenor of political debate in America but is all thanks to the “lousy person and poor president” that is currently in office.

Misha, while your argument that the divisiveness is systemic is I think, accurate, your argument that this President is not divisive, I believe is incorrect. Having read the RNC party platform which Bush ran on, smaller government and fiscal responsibility were positions he campaigned on. What he has done has grown government and indebted this and the next two generations into higher interest rates and taxes. This is divisive, even amidst his own party.

Russia after WWII, Hitler upon taking power, Japan in relation to China after WWII, all embarked on a preemptive strike policy in the name of defense. In invading Iraq, this President destroyed America’s high moral ground for foreign policy and international respect for our nation. This was an immensely divisive move on his part.

He has issued unfunded mandates regarding “No Child Left Behind” which has become divisive. He now will promote a constitutional ammendment to deprive states of their right to issue marriage licenses as they deem appropriate - that is divisive. He has torn down the wall of separation of church and state - how much more divisive can one President get?

Perhaps I made an editing mistake my starting off my column with the divisiveness thing- So you guys were left with the impression that the goal of the article was to disprove the contention that Bush is divisive. Honestly, that wasnt the point. The major point I was trying to make was about the culture of person attacks that has grown up around political discourse, and how people from the other side have bought a lot of the propoganda about Bush much like the other side bought its own propoganda about Clinton over the last 8 years. It wasnt about if bush is a “good” president (he is not) or if Clinton was a “good” president (he certainly was not), but about HOW we talk about them.

But now that we are on the diviseness point….
As for what you guys mentioned about Bush’s record being divisive- that is nothing but a list of things Bush has done that you don’t like. With perhaps the exception of a pre-emptive war that can be inflamatory, the things you guys listed were just example of what Bush has not done well. Its not particularly “divisive” to have unfunded mandates and big government, its just poor policy making (as for the church-state thing, I gotta admit I dont understand what people are up in arms about. The goal of the church-state divide is to allow people to feel comfertable whatever religion they are. I am an agnostic and dont feel that a couple of silly faith-based initiatives cause me any constranation or discomfort. if a church can do drug rehab better than a secular organization, then I dont really see a big problem with the funds going to them- then again, I see the objection against it, I just dont think its as serious a problem as some others do).

If anything, Bush’s agenda on the domestic front has not very “ideological”, at all. He has supported increases in spending in areas like medicare, NEA, ect- he has done nothing about abortion besides signing a bill to ban a procedure that 80% of the country, including half of democrats, oppose. I am not saying this to complement him- quite the opposite, I am very dismayed as his lack of convictions on the issues that led me to (half-heartedly) support him in 2000. I think by that definition, almost any policy which you strong disagree with would be called “divisive”.

In any case, the point of my article was not really about diviseness but about the tenor of political discourse. They were not about people who say “Bush has made a mistake and angered the world through the iraq war” but about people who say things like “Bush has purposely sold out our country to the oil companies through the Iraq war”. One is an analysis of whether Bush did the right things- all things considered, the other is just another species of what the Republicans were saying when Clinton bombed the Sudan…

And anothony, what other evidence do you want from me? I posted a long list of articles of how Clinton arroused the same level of hate during his 8 years than Bush does now. The hate may be coming from the left now, so you might be more personally familiar with the people who are angry, but the level of discuss and the type of rhetoric are all the same.. perhaps Bush and Clinton were really that “bad”, but I think we might want to look ourselves in the mirror a little instead….

Bush has not become divisive, the Democrats are the ones who perpetuate the division. Many liberals just hate Bush because he is a Republican. “This is called bigotry.” They can’t stand the thought that they are not in power any more and can’t get over the 2000 election.
Nothing Bush does will be right to these people. They will hate him no matter what. Bush does not seek division. The liberla meadia and leadership perpetuate the division. They seek; idealogical divisions, racial divisions, economica divisions and the like.
You can take a donkey to water, you can’t make him drink. Bush has tried to unite, the liberals won’t have it, and neither will the liberal press.

J., please note the definition:

Divisive
(a.) Indicating division or distribution.
(a.) Creating, or tending to create, division, separation, or difference.

If a substantial number of the electorate oppose policy initiatives proposed by government, those proposals are by definition DIVISIVE!

The spin is getting deep around here when we try to reinvent the language to support our positions.

Misha, there is nothing wrong as I see it with federal dollars spent to support a social service that holds a particular religious affiliation. I adamantly oppose my tax dollars spent to support a social service that holds a particular religious affiliation which makes listening to or participating in that religious affiliation as a condition of receiving the social service. That is state subsidized religious conversion, NOT social service alone.

Your argument regarding systemic polarization between the two major parties is supported by experts and media coverage. I read a month or so ago, how the rhetoric and issues have, for the last two decades, resulted in a fewer and fewer centrists and moderates being elected to Congress as well as in leadership roles within the parties.

Misha, I enjoyed the article, too, but I have to say I thought it just a touch naive. Many of us conservatives actually supported some of the positions Bill Clinton took, even if we thought he was sleazy. In other words, we wanted him to take a principled position, even if he had an unprincipled character. The two are not mutually exclusive, as “social scientists” like to say!

What has puzzled me—and I don’t think you address this—is why can Republicans and Conservatives Fisk Bush in a spirited manner, but people from the left seem completely unwilling or unable to step back and take a good look at Clinton.

Might that have something to do with principle?

I think it’s a legitimate question.

J. Nash,

Seems a lot like the right when Clinton was President doesn’t it?

Misha,

Right on about one side hating the other side. It seems so easy to get your supporters to propergate a sound bite message inflicting the damage on the other side. I admit guilt on letting my disgust show when I hear something about Bush before really knowing if it is true. But, come on, he has that damn annoying smirk….

In light of the two articles and their comments posted after yours, it would seem your topic was most apropos and timely.

Why has no one discussed the real culprits in the US causing the divisions? Its the media and talk radio hosts. Yes, they are actors, and have to take sensational stands to gain a listening audience, and have become tremendously wealthy (ie Rush) doing so, but they spew hatred, bigotry, demonization, fear, while hiding behind religion, freedom, patriotism. Listeners nod their approval without questioning if they’re Republicans, and develop fear and hatred of Conservatives if they are Democrats. History shows this behavior is a strategy of facism.

Our area is mostly democrats, but the right wing controls the talk shows. I’m sure that in some areas its the opposite. We are letting the extremes have too much voice, while the middle stands silent or gets pulled to either side.

Moose- I think thats a very astute point. I remember especially when several women’s rights leaders came out in support of Clinton after the sexual herrasment charges against him- basically saying the women asked for it(!!!) After that, they were completley discredited in my eyes.

As for people more on our side of the ilse, i think this has been a great litmus test for who has real principles in our party and who is just a party hack. There are several people for whom I have lost respect (most everyone who voted for the medicare bill), and some people who i previously did not know about that are now some of my favorite congressmen. They stood up to bush and called him on abandoning our principles.

in re, “the rhetoric and issues have..resulted in a fewer and fewer centrists and moderates being elected to Congress,” there is a much more compelling explanation: redistricting. redistricting creates ‘safe’ districts, which discourage centrism and compromise.

also, instead of Clinton and Bush I might have named Nader on the left or Delay on the right — whom even folks on each respective side probably consider divisive extremists.

re: definition of divisive

If a substantial number of the electorate oppose policy initiatives proposed by government, those proposals are by definition DIVISIVE!

That a divide exists is a fact. It is a philosophical divide. Can one accuse the other of creating the divide if both honestly disagree? Each side would then have equal standing to accuse the other of dividing.

Misha, I agree wholeheartedly with your comments about the downward spiral of American Politics. But I believe the blame falls on us as a society. The political operatives only give us what we want. They give us soundbites to support the positions we hold to so tightly. We hate to be wrong, and so do our politicians. They fail to embrace good ideas from the other side of the aisle, as they believe it would give the other side an opportunity to make them look bad. As voters, we avoid serious discussion and anything that would counter our current position. The Dem’s primary is a perfect example on politics today—the focus is on who can beat the incumbent, not the validity of their ideas. It leaves a nasty taste in my mouth.

I believe the media has a lot of responsibility in the “divide” of our society. They are the ones who are actually providing the conduit for the lies and divisive attacks of our politicians. They know, or should know , the truth before they even report the sleaze. If you watch who they use as their “political experts” , you will find the extreme of both parties. If they would report the facts instead of the rhetoric, a lot of this garbage would not even enter into the debate. Just my 2 cents.