BREAKING NEWS: Bush visits Iraq!

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by GePap
I wonder (beside the civl war) when politics were this polarized in the US last?

The Rise of the Anger Industry

This American cacophony is not unprecedented—see Father Charles Coughlin in the '30s, or the partisan free-for-all of the early Republic.

I thought that was a well written article when I read it earlier this week.

[Drake Tungsten]

twice now i've been called a liberal by rabid rightists. well, **** me for not toeing the goddamned party line, but i actually like thinking about things in a little more depth.

Shut the **** up, you godless, liberal, baby-eating Repug...

[GePap]

I don't know if I would agree with that:

I agree that American politics in the past have not always been gentile (we did have a Civil War after all) in the past, but there are times when things calm down more. I think since the Cold War begun the press in this country has actually become less and less political (which is why Fox news stands out so sharply): the sort of scathing attacks on politicians the press used to run back in the day when most papers had open and obvious political agendas, and direct ties with political organizations, are no longer seen except on pundit shows, which are becoming more popular.

Perhaps what we have is a return to the future sort of thing were the normal state of politics is returning after a 50 year breather, and it has just taken us about a decade after to work out the transition.

[Spiffor]

I don't think the "normal state of politics" in an advanced democratic country is to have two very similar sides, whose main difference is the target of their cheap shots.

I can't wait for the US politics to harbor debates over issues more than ad-hominems.

[Drake Tungsten]

I can't wait for the US politics to harbor debates over issues more than ad-hominems.

Like a European has any room to talk about politicians slinging around ad-hominems.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Spiffor
I don't think the "normal state of politics" in an advanced democratic country is to have two very similar sides, whose main difference is the target of their cheap shots.

Why not? The longer a polity is around, the more the huge differences get either worked out or the whole thing falls apart, so then what is left to be argued? Are politics in Europe any less vicious?

I can't wait for the US politics to harbor debates over issues more than ad-hominems.

They do debate important things-using ad-hominems instead of evidence though.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Like a European has any room to talk about politicians slinging around ad-hominems.

Ours sling ad-hominems, but they don't only do it. In fact, political debates are fairly courteous here (and probably even too much), and politicians tend to try getting points on criticizing the rival policies more than rival politicians. Ad-hominems do exist; but they don't represent 100% of politics, and not even 50%

[GePap]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

The Rise of the Anger Industry

This American cacophony is not unprecedented—see Father Charles Coughlin in the '30s, or the partisan free-for-all of the early Republic.

I thought that was a well written article when I read it earlier this week.

I don't know about that article..it uses the premise that it is all an act, and that all pundits are the same quality..neither of which I think is true.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by GePap
Why not? The longer a polity is around, the more the huge differences get either worked out or the whole thing falls apart, so then what is left to be argued? Are politics in Europe any less vicious?

I don't know, but I think there is plenty of room for ideological debate on issues like welfare, abortion, environmentalism or foreign policy, to name a few. From what I gather on 'Poly, it seems both political sides care little about the actual policies, and speak little about them, because it is much easier to take cheap shots on individual politicians.

[Q Classic]

I don't know about that article..it uses the premise that it is all an act...

he goes off of that premise because if he didn't, the alternative would be too depressing.

[Drake Tungsten]

Ours sling ad-hominems, but they don't only do it. In fact, political debates are fairly courteous here (and probably even too much), and politicians tend to try getting points on criticizing the rival policies more than rival politicians. Ad-hominems do exist; but they don't represent 100% of politics, and not even 50%

Where'd you get the idea that American politicians behave differently? You need to watch some C-Span; those bastards are too polite, if anything. I want some more British style heckling, not this "I cede the remainder of my time to the gentleman from North Dakota" borefest...

[Imran Siddiqui]

I think since the Cold War begun the press in this country has actually become less and less political

Perhaps what we have is a return to the future sort of thing were the normal state of politics is returning after a 50 year breather, and it has just taken us about a decade after to work out the transition.

I think you hit the nail on the head to your own query. The Cold War was different. There was the (percieved) threat of Communism overtaking the world, and the idea that nuclear armeggedon may be right around the corner. In those situations, the press tends to respect whoever is in charge, no matter the party. The petty squabbles get pushed to the back page because of the more important issues.

That ain't the case now. Even though there is a 'War on Terror' people don't percieve it to be as "end of the world as we know it" as they did with the Cold War. Welcome to the actual political climate. Our 50 year break from it is over.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by GePap
I don't know about that article..it uses the premise that it is all an act, and that all pundits are the same quality..neither of which I think is true.

I don't know about it all being an act either. But from what I've seen most if not all of them are the same quality, IMO. I don't see any meaningful difference between Ann Coulter and Michael Moore myself.

[GePap]

Better depressing than shielding ones eyes from the truth of the matter.

Good pundits are civil-which is why they don;t make it on most TV and you go for people like Hannity (and I must say, Franken's description of Hannity is great...) on TV. Now, you get better stuff on page, though in less accessible magazines- I don;t bother with most editorial board on newspaper anymore.

[Imran Siddiqui]

In fact, political debates are fairly courteous here (and probably even too much), and politicians tend to try getting points on criticizing the rival policies more than rival politicians.

Like Drake said, try to watch some Congress debates. They are very civil. Much more so than "Prime Minister's Questions" in the British Parliament.