Romney: 47% of Americans are losers, don't care about 'em

[DGuller]

I think "pox on both houses" or "both sides are to blame" is probably the most dangerous mode of thinking you can have in politics.  This kind of thinking just encourages more radicalization, since there is a guarantee that both sides will get equal blame no matter how nasty things get.  Ironically, while people who think like that consider themselves rational and moderate, they are in fact the most dangerous enabling element of the dangerous radicalization.

[Berkut]

I think "pox on both houses" or "both sides are to blame" is probably the most dangerous mode of thinking you can have in politics.  This kind of thinking just encourages more radicalization, since there is a guarantee that both sides will get equal blame no matter how nasty things get.  Ironically, while people who think like that consider themselves rational and moderate, they are in fact the most dangerous enabling element of the dangerous radicalization.

No, I think the most dangerous enabler of radicalism are the actual radicals...especially the ones who mistake disagreement with their views as some kind of actual malevolence.

The real enablers of the radicals are the not so radicals who do buy into the idea that dissent within the party is so terrible that it deserves being stamped out irrespective of the legitimacy of the viewpoint.

As an example, people who think that they would rather risk a member of the other party in a seat rather than tolerate a moderate member of their own. Just picking a random example out of recent history...say the people who worked hard to vote out Blue Dog Democrats...and got Tea Party Republicans instead.

That is the real enabler of radicalism within parties - the people who won't tolerate moderates in their own party.

[Eddie Teach]

Even as the resident board super moderate,

Snicker.

That is cute isn't it?

Considering that was a preamble to a statement bashing Republicans, the fact that a couple Democrats respond this way kinda supports his claim to the title...

[Razgovory]

I think "pox on both houses" or "both sides are to blame" is probably the most dangerous mode of thinking you can have in politics.  This kind of thinking just encourages more radicalization, since there is a guarantee that both sides will get equal blame no matter how nasty things get.  Ironically, while people who think like that consider themselves rational and moderate, they are in fact the most dangerous enabling element of the dangerous radicalization.

No, I wouldn't give them that much credit.  "Pox on both houses" is just cynicism, the most chic form of cowardice.  It's for people who are so afraid of being wrong and looking stupid that they forgo any chance of being right.

[Valmy]

I think "pox on both houses" or "both sides are to blame" is probably the most dangerous mode of thinking you can have in politics.  This kind of thinking just encourages more radicalization, since there is a guarantee that both sides will get equal blame no matter how nasty things get.  Ironically, while people who think like that consider themselves rational and moderate, they are in fact the most dangerous enabling element of the dangerous radicalization.

Wait so holding one side entirely responsible is the non-radical approach? LOL.  I prefer to hold each side accountable for what they actually do instead of being 'moderate' and 'rational' by making up fairy tales about the big bad Tea Party or the big bad Radical Leftists.

Besides alot of things I strongly oppose both parties favor.  I cannot really support a political force that is so radically directly opposed to my own beliefs.

[Razgovory]

Even as the resident board super moderate,

Snicker.

That is cute isn't it?

Considering that was a preamble to a statement bashing Republicans, the fact that a couple Democrats respond this way kinda supports his claim to the title...

Hans bashes Republicans as well.

[merithyn]

I think "pox on both houses" or "both sides are to blame" is probably the most dangerous mode of thinking you can have in politics.  This kind of thinking just encourages more radicalization, since there is a guarantee that both sides will get equal blame no matter how nasty things get.  Ironically, while people who think like that consider themselves rational and moderate, they are in fact the most dangerous enabling element of the dangerous radicalization.

I mentioned that I blame the Republicans in the House and Senate for the last four years, haven't I? If not, I should have. I'm just not 100% convinced that the Democrats would have been a tremendous amount better.

I do try to focus on what I've seen happen rather than just the lumped "they all suck!" I've seen the Republicans cock-block Obama over and over again, and I strongly believe that we need to get Democrats into both the US House and Senate by a majority in order to enact necessary changes right now. That doesn't mean, however, that I won't vote for the handful of Republicans that I like in my state. (These Repubs are moderate, and appear to be almost anti-Tea Party, which makes me happy.)

I just don't see either side as mostly moderate, which is what I want. If that makes me "dangerous", well, yay me!

[Valmy]

I think "pox on both houses" or "both sides are to blame" is probably the most dangerous mode of thinking you can have in politics.  This kind of thinking just encourages more radicalization, since there is a guarantee that both sides will get equal blame no matter how nasty things get.  Ironically, while people who think like that consider themselves rational and moderate, they are in fact the most dangerous enabling element of the dangerous radicalization.

No, I wouldn't give them that much credit.  "Pox on both houses" is just cynicism, the most chic form of cowardice.  It's for people who are so afraid of being wrong and looking stupid that they forgo any chance of being right.

Or you could make up insane fairy tales about non-partisans.  Whatever it takes to fight off radicalism.  Besides you do the exact same thing I do: babble on message boards and show up to vote.  Am I supposed to be over-awed by your courage?

[MadImmortalMan]

I think "pox on both houses" or "both sides are to blame" is probably the most dangerous mode of thinking you can have in politics.  This kind of thinking just encourages more radicalization, since there is a guarantee that both sides will get equal blame no matter how nasty things get.  Ironically, while people who think like that consider themselves rational and moderate, they are in fact the most dangerous enabling element of the dangerous radicalization.

It might encourage radicalization, but it's still mostly true. 

[Razgovory]

"there's are thing In both parties I don't like" doesn't make you non-partisan.

[DGuller]

I think "pox on both houses" or "both sides are to blame" is probably the most dangerous mode of thinking you can have in politics.  This kind of thinking just encourages more radicalization, since there is a guarantee that both sides will get equal blame no matter how nasty things get.  Ironically, while people who think like that consider themselves rational and moderate, they are in fact the most dangerous enabling element of the dangerous radicalization.

No, I think the most dangerous enabler of radicalism are the actual radicals...especially the ones who mistake disagreement with their views as some kind of actual malevolence.

The real enablers of the radicals are the not so radicals who do buy into the idea that dissent within the party is so terrible that it deserves being stamped out irrespective of the legitimacy of the viewpoint.

As an example, people who think that they would rather risk a member of the other party in a seat rather than tolerate a moderate member of their own. Just picking a random example out of recent history...say the people who worked hard to vote out Blue Dog Democrats...and got Tea Party Republicans instead.

That is the real enabler of radicalism within parties - the people who won't tolerate moderates in their own party.

Radicals are always going to be there to some extent.  The difference between them being a fringe and being in power is how far they are enabled by non-radicals.

[Razgovory]

Radicalism is really kind of in the eye of the beholder.  Perhaps it should be phrased "people I really disagree with".

[CountDeMoney]

That is the real enabler of radicalism within parties - the people who won't tolerate moderates in their own party.

"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty from secular Kenyan anti-colonialism is no vice!"

[DGuller]

Wait so holding one side entirely responsible is the non-radical approach? LOL.

Yes.  You've just highlighted the core of the "pox on both houses" thinking:  that the rationality of one's position is solely a function of how you apportion the blame to each side.  If you want to punish radicalism, punish the side that pushes radicalism, don't vote for a third party (which is almost surely guaranteed to be even more radical, just out of power).

[Eddie Teach]

Hans bashes Republicans as well.

Find me a post where Hans says Democrats aren't as bad as Republicans and you can have that point.