How bad has it gotten with polarization in this country?
How far have the Bush administration and its surrogates moved the goalposts on long-held conventional wisdom as to how the United States operates in its often adversarial relationship between the press and the government?
How deep has ideological ire gone on the left in terms of infighting between once vital parts of the liberal opinion making establishment?
The answers to the questions: (1)VERY bad. (2)VERY far. And (3) VERY deep.
Either there’s an awful lot of useless, perfunctory rhetoric going on -- or the United States may now be at a crossroads. Possibly a scary one.
During the 1980s some Americans decried the politics of polarization practiced by the late Lee Atwater in George Bush’s first Presidential campaign. Given what’s going on these days, the Lee Atwater Era now seems like a 1960s Love In.
Polarization has seemingly become the order of the day. It seems to be considered wimpish and naive to seek a more healing kind of politics, one where politicians, opinion-makers and people who literally have a microphone seek to find common ground and encourage aggregating interests -- as opposed to aggravating interests, sparking outrage among some of those interests and running campaigns based on the theory that the winning side is the side that gets more of its members to feel that the country must be saved by repudiating the other side’s CHARACTER and MOTIVES (and in some cases patriotism) as well as their policies.
It’s fitting that Unity08 is now issuing its Declaration of Independence since many Americans want to be free of this new form of -- can we be BLUNT? -- what was previously known as “gutter politics” that the political establishment has fallen into. The appeal is no longer to intellect and reason; the effort is to arouse feelings of resentment outrage so people vote AGAINST something or someone. Or some group.
Nowhere is this clearer than in the administration’s new war against the New York Times. There have been big conflicts between government and the press in American history before. But you can look and you will not quite find a parallel to what you’re seeing now: GOP opinion-forming publications and some GOP politicians urging that the Times, its editors and reporters be prosecuted due to what it published using info leaked form official sources.
No matter what, in the PAST it was a “given” -- even in the Nixon administration -- that you didn’t threaten to use the federal government to overtly go after the press. “Prosecute” is clear in meaning: it’s to try to throw editors and reporters in jail.
Add that to the administration’s crackdown on whistleblowers (and a court decision weakening protections to some whistleblowers) and if this happens the U.S. will LOSE the kind of free press that we have had for centuries. In a time when there is virtually no real Congressional oversight, unfettered press oversight will vanish or be crippled.
Why? Because ANY party in power can use government power to tightly control the flow of info so only Big Daddy’s Feel Good News Reports (that coincidentally help the part in power retain power) are what see the light of day.
For people who consider themselves centrists and moderates this is especially troubling; centrists and moderates tend to read and consider BOTH SIDES a lot more than the most lockstep partisans on the right and left who in some cases read only what they already agree with and quote only info that supports their preconceived ideas (which may change totally if their party shifts its position)
Does this mean that yours truly and others who are upset MUST be “liberals” or “close liberals” or “transgender” ideologies? Not at all. Some Republicans are enormously concerned.
This week MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough, in no uncertain terms, noted that if he had to opt for Thomas Jefferson’s warning about government power or following the White House he’d opt for Jefferson. And the former Republican Congressman from Florida also said that what we’re seeing is a split between the traditional Republicans and the “establishment Republicans” who will do whatever the White House says or wants (and change their position and jettison their once passionately-defended principles in a mega second).
Scarborough declared: “You gotta admit-it’s frightening. More so to us who know how Washington works and know how power can corrupt and know how power can be abused. I believe friends, we are in dangerous times for those of us who believe like Thomas Jefferson -- that Washington is not to be trusted with unlimited police power.”
And the Democrats? Some Democrats are on a total war footing.
But enough about trying to get rid of Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman.
The other big war has been raging between The New Republic, a longtime Democratic opinion stalwart that has undergone various shifts of ideological orientation over the years, and Daily Kos, the mega-blog of the left. Both are excellent news and opinion sources. But the sniping between the two has recently reached a fever pitch. My grandfather subscribed to the New Republic in the days when it supported the New Deal; I have gotten it for years and still do (when it now is closer to the DLC). It has been a Democratic institution, but some now claim it is really virtually Republican.
The bottom line is that on the left and the right these days there is a tendency to want to if not eliminate other sources of opinion and thought then to undermine those other sources so they don’t have credibility or power to challenge you. There was a time in American politics when the assault was less on news sources (the press; reporters, and opinion journals) and more on ideas and policies and on actual political figures.
But that has shifted. And, to be sure, some people hurl around adjectives saying that all of this is a sign of “fascism” or almost “Communistic” or “Stalinism” on the right and/or left.
What it signifies is that we’re in an era where some folks want to PURGE the idea and fact menu to offer a “pure” version -- “pure,’ meaning what THEY agree with and think. Just look at the assault on “fact-based reporting” -- as if trying to do news reports by sifting out facts and packaging them is hideous thing.
The political polarization is now spilling over into an area where some want to accentuate differences to either create intellectual and informational polarization or to whack into institutions so they follow Their Boss’ way of thinking and don’t deviate from the official line.
Joe Scarborough is right. Which is why, more than ever, even if you don’t believe in voting for a third party, you have to applaud Unity08 and its declaration of independence. “Independence?” Why, how 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries!!
Subscribe
Listening to NPR this morning I heard a conservative commentator say that the Supreme Court decision in Hamdan v Rumsfeld was a VICTORY for the administration!
What? The Supreme Court found against the Administration and yet they won?
Anything can be spun to the advantage of the spinner and this is a huge reason for polarization.
The audacity of some spinners is matched only be the deep desire on the part of Americans to only hear and see their stance supported and agressively reject all else.
That is because we have let fear win our hearts. We're afraid of compromise because it means we're giving in and we've lost.
It seems to me that defamation has replaced compromise in our political arena and hatred has replaced patriotism.
How many of you have considered
running for office? Do it!!
Having just changed parties to
(D) after fifty years of (R)
you would not beleive the inside
stories of how politics really
produce what "leadership" we have
today. It will open your eyes
and perhaps sicken you. We had
only 30,000 voters in the (D) state
wide runoff 6-27. We have parties
who want to dominate, not lead.
The parties are not close to each
others positions and it spills
over to the positions of average
citizens. Will we ever have official
acts with all peoples' interests
at heart again? Only if you vote--
only if "they" know you are
watching and care.
I am new to Unity08, but for the past two years I have been waiting for some sort of vehicle that can bring together those of us, of which there are substantial numbers, who would like to see a concrete institution, namely, a third party, that could offer to the polity a presidential candidate whose disposition, decision-making, and actions are authentic, direct and competent.
Foremost is authenticity, which I will not attempt to define, but instead rely on our tacit sense of the word. In 2024 I worked for Wes Clark. I would work for him again if he is not sucked into 'politics as usual' (I fear that he was, under advisement of his handlers). Why did I work for him? His policies were not in line with mine, but I felt that he had the potential to be authentic; he was pretty direct and I can attest to his competence (brain-power, leadersip), though he lacked 'political' experiece, an asset that he should have leveraged.
I am not on the soapbox for Clark, but I projected upon him qualities that I think a Unity08 candidate should have. First, a 'third-way' candidate must be able to challege, with directness and honesty, the incestuous and corrosive interplay between politics and the 'media', whether from the right or left (to the extent that the left has any public voice at all). They must confront the spiraling deconstruction that politicians and the media mutually activate, the former to differentiate their image and the latter to, in the face of intense competitive pressure, secure and grow various market niches (news should not be demand driven.
This person has to refuse and confront the tendency of the right ( not conservatives) and liberals (and the left) to fight over symbolic capital; marraige, the flag, or being of a particular sex or race. America does not need yet another 'manchurian candidate' who is sold to various constituencies so as to secure and grow a position in the so-called cultural wars.
The candidate should no longer triangulate and 'nuance', nor should she or he claim that stubborness and rigid conviction is a virtue and be conflated with 'character'.
I hope that UNITY08 works. If not, I hope that someone else tries again (I would if I had the IT and the required skills to manage it. In the meantime, whoever created this site should modify it to better instruct us (me) how to create my own blog initiative. I also hope that, as you hear from us, you continually redesign the site to better galvinize activity.
But thanks for creating this forum, as it is sorely needed.
Brian,
I really enjoyed your post - especially the reference to the "Manchurian Candidate". I think you're spot on there.
As well, I agree that news should not be demand driven or ratings influenced, however the average attention span seems to be short, as evidenced by less-than-stellar support for public broadcasting. A pity.
The blogosphere seems to be one of the best venues for disseminating information, and providing a platform for the average citizen to voice/hear opinion and fact - although it is sometimes difficult to discern between the two.
To my knowledge, Unity08 is one of the few sites which actively seeks consensus of opinion and moderation in views.
I hope (and work) for the goal of broadening the reach of this site to the many out there who are unaccustomed to, or perhaps fearful of, participating in discussion through the web. There are many more moderate voices out there - it's the getting to them, in time, that may prove to be the biggest challenge.
GOP opinion-forming publications and some GOP politicians urging that the Times, its editors and reporters be prosecuted due to what it published using info leaked form OFFICIAL SOURCES.
The "official sources" reference is an assumption. No one knows at this point who or what was the source of the classified information.
This effort passed thru many people and organizations, foreign and domestic, and it could be anyone who was aware. Notice the the administration is not using the term "offical sources".
Democratic Opinion forming leaders strangely silent on the compromising of a LEGAL intelligence operation that was working to defend America and its allies against terrorists.
I suppose they are leaving their options open to support it and oppose it at the same time and depending on the crowd they are in front of.... jeez take a stand. Support strong and legal intelligence operations and oppose media controlled by big business and foriegn interests!
I know plenty will take offense to this, but so be it- the truth is the truth.
I'm no liberal, but I think The New Republic at least makes a rational attempt at providing fair opinion without having an obsession with forcing its ideology down the throats of the entire population. Markos Moulitsas, on the other hand, is entirely different. He and the liberal netroots are a classic example of what is wrong with the political atmosphere in this country. To people like him, it is ideology or nothing. Liberalism is a religion to people like him, just as neoconservatism is a religion to people like George Bush.
Kos and his fellow netroots bloggers spend day after day personally attacking conservatives, Republicans, the President, and now even their own fellow Democrats, if the Democrats don't follow their hardcore-liberal ideological preferences. That is no better than what certain hardcore conservatives do on talk show radio or on television. The funny part is, people like Markos constantly attack these sources, while simultaneously displaying the same behavior they attack them for displaying. It's pure hypocrisy.
It doesn't matter if it is George Bush or Markos Moulitsas who is trying to force an ideology down the throats of moderate and rational Americans- the bottom line is they both do it. I think, however, we spend way too much time blaming people like Bush and those politicians in Washington, and not enough time blaming our own fellow citizens who have actively helped create the most vitriolic political atmosphere in decades.
I find no justification for the Times and other papers printing the classified information on financial monitoring of terrorist networks. If there was some allegation it was illegal or an abuse, that would be one thing. All I've heard from the NY and LA Times people is that if they get the story out, maybe someone will figure out how it might violate a law.
I don't think it's left-wing bias so much as journalists natural desires to get a story that's burning a hole in their pocket out there, and get the credit. Yet because the Bush Administration is attacking the press, the left is lining up to defend it in a knee-jerk way.
This is all really dysfunctional. Whatever happened to United We Stand?
I do consider myself liberal, in the classical sense. TNR is liberal in the classical sense as well i.e. the magazine supports individual liberty and free thought, free markets and democracy. Think J.S. Mill's "On Liberty" and you have a good idea of what the mag is about.
TNR is not liberal in the contemporary sense i.e. knee-jerk support for affirmative action, multi-culturalism, or whatever flavor of the week is popular with the left side of the political spectrum. Another reason TNR is not popular with contemporary liberals is the magazine’s muscular foreign policy stance and steadfast support of Israel.
In response to Martiniano, the Supreme Court did not strike down the constitutionality of military tribunals, only the president's ability to establish them unilaterally. I suspect Bush will now go to the Republican-controlled legislature and ask for a bill that establishes military tribunals. I also suspect that the legislators will support Bush in this endeavor and that some sort of military tribunal system for "enemy combatants" will be established.
What these Republicans are upset about is that they were not consulted and they did not have a role in drafting the policy governning military tribunals. They, and the court, do not have problems with military tribunals per se they have a problem with unchecked executive power particularly when said power infringes on their turf. As they should.
"I also suspect that the legislators will support Bush in this endeavor and that some sort of military tribunal system for "enemy combatants" will be established."
Should read:
I also suspect that the legislators will support Bush in this endeavor and that some sort of military tribunal system for "unlawful combatants" will be established.
The Supreme Court's five to three cockeyed view of anti-terrorist law will be overturned by Congress and the President.
Come November 2024 the House of Representatives will remain in Republican hands. Part of the reason for this is to prevent a contest between the Court and and the House, on one side, and the President and Senate, on the other.
Under the law as we know it, the people's President is responsible for protecting the people against terrorists -- not the courts and not the congress.
All other views of the law will be tested in coming years. I expect to see Congress and the President remain on the same side -- and the court to back off from its folly.
John Gelles
http://unity08ws.wikispaces.com
http://www.tiea.us
Human rights and how to pay for them are key to a livable world.
Being in the center doesn't really make a lot of sense to me, when both parties use the same techniques.
"Energize your base".
The Repubs have figured out how to win elections, by meticulously focusing on motivating their base, and winning elections where very few people vote.
The reason polarization has taken over, is simmply that it works!
As soon as it stops working, office holders will very quickly start do something else.
It will stop when lots of people vote.
We have to stop blaming voters for not voting. We have to recognize the good news that most Americans recognize bs when they see it, and act on that intelligence by staying home.
If Unity 08 can stop blaming either side, and support any candidate that is willing to come out for practical solutions to the transparency problem, I think that might be just the ticket.
For Unity 08 it's not about people, or even policy, it's about process.
The problem with a 3rd party is that it doesn't work. I think for Unity 08 to really scale there has to be a reasonable expectation of success.
The other problem with a third party is that to win you get sucked into exactly the same game.
So.. suppose we don't play the game, and instead go for a reality based politics. It's not left or right, just a common sense approach to making decisions on solving real problems.
The "center" implies there is some compromise position that will yield good policy. But that's like a blog post or article written by committee.
It's not about the "center", it's about common sense.
The center won't win! The divide is deep... we must use a tool that unites and is something they can't stand up against or use propoganda to defeat ... it is something all are sure will move us forward, reform the institutions and enable leaders to unite under one flag... best of all - it is time... for more www.appyp.com/fix_main.html
Obviously our leaders (if you call them that) did not take notes in school or were tardy the day they studied about the bias Japanese concentration camps in Oregon during WWII, the civil war over slavery, and the invasion of Vietnam which failed to convert a tribal society to democracy. They seem to have forgotten our common goals - individual freedom in this country, national economic and security interests, all of which have been ignored by this generation of leaders... it time for a new generation in Washington with modern Progressive agendas! ... for more information visit www.appyp.com/fix_main.html
You write "Japanese concentration camps in Oregon during WWII, the civil war over slavery, and the invasion of Vietnam" but you should speak of internment camps, state's rights and involvement.
PS
I have not and will not ever click on your link.
I tried going to your site, but only got the side bar.. i don't understand what you are trying to say.
perhaps you could say it here. it would be easier to understand.
"Our leaders" mostly care about 1 thing, getting re-elected. That's not in itself bad or good. The way the system is set up, that's what they are supposed to care about.
The problem is that starting around the Nixon time, they figured out a much more effective way to get elected. We may all hate what Lee Atwater and Nixon pioneered, but it was worth it to them. And once the Dems saw that it worked, they started to try to play the same game.
But Nixon made the big mistake of using those tactics against other politicians. Remember the Watergate break in was in the offices of Democratic National Committee.
As we've seen by the quick reaction of Congress to the Justice Dept going into one of their owns offices, when it gets personal, they can react very quickly.
Darwinian principles, or business principles, or just plain American pragmatism, usually wins out. Whatever works, usually grows.
So..instead of getting in the shouting match, let's use the internet tech to change the rules for winning.
Bad people can do good things, good people can do bad things. It's all about the incentives. Until we show there is a better way to win- better meaning less expensive and less risky - nothing is really going to change unless there is some major crisis.
Hopefully we'll continue to be lucky and it won't happen. But if it does, they will all run around, trying to craft the "message" that they think will keep them from being fired, and make sure someone else takes the fall.
Anyone who has worked in a large complicated organization has seen this again and again.
When business is forced to be transparent, the old rules start to change. My bet is that the same thing will happen with our "incumbents".
The good news is that it's pretty doable, doesn't really need a lot of money. Just interested individuals doing their part. And a common sense approach to the problems America faces.
History repeats itself, we now find ourselves throwing rocks at each other and soon a shot will be fired over modern slavery being implemented by corporations instead of plantation owners! Only this time the Southern plantation owners have both political parties in their back pocket instead of just the democrats, so we find the union the underdog but that's OK - Truth and freedom will prevail! www.appyp.com/fix_main.html
Regarding the website:
It's only a sidebar with links to Quicktime streaming video like it says at the very top of the page, not text based... without Quicktime software (which is free and downloadable by clicking on the link at the top of the page) you can see the streaming videos about the various topics...
Sorry, I don't buy it. I'm not sure if you are right or wrong. I have some ideas about it, but not enough to really know.
But, I do know that this kind of interchange is not useful to the task at hand.
Which is to figure out any way that we can fix a serious problem.
This is not a corporation and those principals and goals do not apply to government. Critical social functions have been fed whole to capitalism in social failure. Healthcare, higher education and legal representation have all be consumed by profiteers at the expense of the American people who pay taxes for such things... There will be no fight in this argument that these things cannot be capitalized upon or the society will fail like ours is today... www.appyp.com/fix_main.html
MJ, Thank you for feedback! I need your help in this matter! I don't want to sell you the whole package, in fact I want you to give me ideas on the application of computers regarding specific policies and issues facing us... because, my friend, this is our common ground and your ideas on application may very well be better than my early views as my policy will only be as good as the ideas submitted to me from all sides of the issues. I seek help from republicans, democrats, independents, enviornmentalists, socialists, even Pat Bucannan (just kidding)? And I will study your ideas and include them in my policies if I can. www.appyp.com/fix_main.html
Ern
The idea is that the power of polticians is built on an information advantage. The internet eliminates that advantage.
Suppose, 48 hours before a bill was to pass it had to be posted online for comments. I have to believe that the "wisdom of the crowds" would come into play.
And suppose that Unity 08, published a cost benefit sheet for every appropriation, every piece of legislation..
And suppose that the benefits were analyzed by people who were really experts at these things...
So everyone could add their opinion on whether it's worth it.
No bombastic position taking, just ... tell me what it's going to cost and what are going to be the benefits and whose going to get them.
The tech is all there, the info is already pretty much out there..
Now, imagine what that does to a pol, he's judged on what he does not what he says. No more earmarks in the middle of the night.
Yikes... what will become the currency of power. Maybe it will be really doing their jobs, becuase the information of how they do their jobs will be available.
By the way, for whatever it's worth, I believe that not all business is bad, not all activists are good, and that no one person knows the best way to fix a problem.
I guess I'm a follower of Bob Dylan when he said, " don't follow leaders, watch your parking meters..."
You'll find them on the Senate and House websites.
Time to crank up those spreadsheets. Just don't all go there at once, you might overload their servers :)
Thanks. It confirms the idea that most of the info is already out there.
Now, all (I know it's a potentially pretty big all) that has to happen is for some network of people, to translate the legalesse into costs and benefits for me and my neighbors.So I could figure out if I'm for it or against it.
Or if I could hear(read) some real cost benefit discussion of it.
Problem is I don't have the expertise or the time to trace this out. And it's the only way I could possibly make an informed choice.
You would think that my representative could do that, but I'm not holding my breath waiting.
If he/she did, I would defintely vote for them. No matter what other position they said they were supporting.Repub/Dem/Green/Blue/Red.
Couldn't Unity '08 build this kind of service in at least a couple of key districts?
It can't be that hard, and boy would it be useful.
Who knows, maybe Google could see it as a business opportunity, tie it in with Mapping functions, and make me look at ads while I read the lots of thinking on a specific decision TO COME.
I don't want to waste time on decisions that have already been made, although it would be neat to have an archive, by rep, and some kind of score that might reveal an interesting pattern in who benefits from any particular law or rule.
Well, the problem I have is that I consider terrorism a very big issue, and I feel that the NYT did a very disgraceful thing by publicizing the screening of international money transfers.
I don't think that you are past what are described as "important issues" on the front page, and on to the "critical" or "crucial" issues. In fact, reading the comments here, it looks like Unity08 is just another desperate movement by the far left.
I consider KOS to be a hate rag; I'd rather listen to Limbaugh than read that web garbage. Which is saying a LOT.
PROJECT ENERGY INDEPENDENCE
By Kirk Polizzi
There is nothing more economic insecure then to have the United States of America to be dependent on foreign oil, to keep our country afloat. Thirty-three years have passed since the oil producing countries (OPEC) embargoed oil to the United States causing gas lines, gas shortages and gas rationing. Nixon was in the White House. Twenty-nine years have passed since the Congress and the president took America’s energy problems seriously. Carter was in the White House, and after the lobbyists were done, a watered down, weak, ineffective energy plan emerged. Reagan dismantled most of it, both Bush Sr., and Clinton did little to nothing for energy independence.
Today, well over thirty years have passed, and America is more dependent, not less, on foreign oil from a region more turbulent and less reliable then it was in 1973. The only answer to our dependence on foreign oil, not surprisingly, from a pro-big business, Republican, oil industry-leaning administration, is to drill more U.S. oil from the Alaskan wildlife refuge. The Republicans miss the point. Not one energy analyst, not one person in the field of science or economics, believes there is enough oil to be found, anywhere on the continental United States or along our coastlines, that will even make a dent in our thirst and use of oil.
The policies of Bush and his people makes clear from the start that oil is king, that it is the only energy source that America can use. Bush and the Republicans are now talking about hybrid cars, some use of ethanol, but their real purpose is to continue our dependence of foreign oil and to make sure one way or another that the nation’s oil companies continue their monopoly in the energy business.
Today, we see the highest gasoline prices in U.S. history, and Americans are seeing the largest increase in home energy bills ever. Once again, we know full well who this hurts, and who is suffering: working Americans trying to make ends meet week after week, paying obscene gasoline prices and spiked home heating and air conditioning costs. We see once again why the American middle class is getting squeezed.
Here in the United States we can become energy independent with alternative sources of energy, not by continuing down the path of using just oil. We have other sources of energy we can use, if only the pro-oil politicians and the oil companies would get on board, and understand that any energy conversion would not hurt them but help them in the long run economically, and the nation. The jobs that could be created by the use of alternative sources of energy here in America are estimated at half a million workers or more. What a better way to say to the American people, that we are finally energy independent.
This nation must enter the 21st century with its eyes wide open with new ideas and new initiatives when it comes to our energy independence. This country has its own vast natural resources that can be used for alternative fuels, other then oil, and we need to start using it. Leading our nation into the future with project energy independence is not just an economic issue of security, but of national security as well. We can only shudder to think what another oil embargo from the oil producing countries would do, or another type of interruption; either by sabotage, terrorist attack, regional war, or a take over of an oil exporting country by a hostile regime. This would bring the United States to its economic knees. To continue down the path we are on, is a path to national disaster. We can become energy independent and we can, if we lead the way.
Kirk Polizzi
Chillicothe, IL