(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpewresearch.org%2Fassets%2Fpublications%2F1178-1.gif&hash=e450ca11b3866286f730cae9f2fba4bb2867753e)
That chart struck me as really rather interesting. I mean you can see the emergence of a form of automatic partisanship forming in Reagan and Bush I's first terms. But I was wondering what people caused the shift so that by Clinton, Obama and, to a lesser extent, Bush II, they get, it seems to me, remarkably short shrift from their political opponents.
Was there a deep reason, a shift in American political culture (perhaps to a more natural state?) or was it just particular acts early in their Presidency (DADT, tax cuts, stimulus) that drove ideological opponents away?
To a lesser extent? :yeahright:
Maybe something to do with the rise of 24 hour talk TV.
Or with the trend to self-segregate in like minded communities.
Hrmm. IS there any way to find out what percentage of those polled considered themselves dems and republicans?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 07, 2009, 06:53:11 PM
To a lesser extent? :yeahright:
10% seems worth mentioning. Bush II is 5% off of Reagan or Bush I levels. Obama and Clinton are about 15% off :mellow:
QuoteMaybe something to do with the rise of 24 hour talk TV.
Maybe. I mean, as I say I think this could be more natural because, reading histories of the US I get the impression that earlier periods of American history were far more partisan than the fairly broad post-war consensus on many issues. But during those periods America had a scurrilous journalistic life as opposed to the august, self-important stuff that I think dominated the post-war years until the end of the Cold War.
But this leads me to another question - which I think may only be relevant to Brits. Daniel Finkelstein asked why did mass political parties arise (as opposed to the more fluid early and mid-nineteenth century House of Commons were a good speech could literally change the opinion of the House). He argued that it was to do with the rise of the mass media, first newspapers then radio ultimately TV. What he then wonder is what impact the internet's effect will be on mass parties designed for a very different media? For example who would have predicted that Daniel Hannan, a minor Tory MEP (MEP!) would have a hugely watched youtube video that has since become a story in the Guardian, BBC and elsewhere. Now he's got an address lined up for party conference and will no doubt be parachuted into a constituency somewhere. Does it change things that much? I mean is there any point in a party trying to tightly control its message when leakages can happen in the oddest of places, even the European Parliament? :mellow:
Here's the Youtube I mentioned (personally I don't think it's that great - that extended and overdeveloped metaphor is awful):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94lW6Y4tBXs
One wonders about previous presidents. Nixon and Carter were unique in that the opposition party had completely melted down. Carter's Republicans had been cowed by a hostile media and the new partisanship that had been thrust upon them by the Democrats. Nixon's Democrats had been completely dishonoured by their fringe players who had pushed everyone into the Silent Majority.
How would Truman, Eisenhower, JFK or LBJ stack up?
We don't have a partisan breakdown but earlier Presidents seem to generally have had a more positive hearing (a complicit press perhaps?):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Presidential_approval_rating
What's really striking is the virtual disappearance of 'don't knows'.
Edit: How long until someone blames it on the Boomers taking over?
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 07, 2009, 06:45:24 PM
Was there a deep reason, a shift in American political culture (perhaps to a more natural state?) or was it just particular acts early in their Presidency (DADT, tax cuts, stimulus) that drove ideological opponents away?
I think part was a shift in American political culture. Studying Karl Rove's career in particular shows a trend towards rallying your base at all costs; pissing off less-motivated opponents is fine as long as your partisan rhetoric drives 50% + 1 to the polls on your side.
In addition, I blame the lack of competition in over 90% of the Congressional districts. If you only have to win your party primary, you will tend to approach (typically, you overshoot somewhat, to pick up the more motivated voters) the median position of your party. This will drive you to the left or right depending on your party.
I think the parties were in a greater state of flux early on, Vietnam and the various civil rights movements created a lot of upheaval. Voters' self-identification may have lagged behind the candidates in reflecting that.
Also partly coincidence I think. Nixon and Carter came in replacing unpopular Presidents. Bush was credited with "stealing" hsi election, while Clinton(and perhaps Obama) were overambitious in pushing new policies.
Assuming there is a real trend toward increased partisanship, I think Yi is on to something about the 24 hour news stations. Talk radio, Fox News and the internet have given conservatives places where they can go and be spoonfed news already spun toward their point of view. The networks have long done much the same thing for liberals(and if they don't go far enough, there's places like KOS or MoveOn). So whereas before there were people reacting differently to a news story, now the story is told differently.
One of the theories I have is that this is due to the Republican party becoming more radical and driven since around Reagan's time. This results in Republicans putting themselves in an echo chamber, and Democrats being very scared of their extremism.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 07, 2009, 07:18:08 PM
We don't have a partisan breakdown but earlier Presidents seem to generally have had a more positive hearing (a complicit press perhaps?):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Presidential_approval_rating
What's really striking is the virtual disappearance of 'don't knows'.
I'm not sure that the press was any easier on the presidents back in the day. The White House corps itself was completely tame, but then again they're not exactly snarling attack dogs even today. The 'gotcha' attitude of the press that has increased lately has probably got something to do with it.
I would say that there's something of a feeling of helplessness with the process that creates a lot of resentment. No matter who is in power, neither side really advances their agenda due to inertia, the multitude of interests across the country, and political horse-trading. Moreover, sometimes the other side is able to use the courts to short-circuit the process and actually advance their own agenda.
Neil's avatar exploiting the culture wars and racial tension. The Republican Party of the last 40 years has essentially been hardened by 40 years of success into a glittering jewel of Nixonian insanity.
Lee Atwater.
Looking at the numbers from the 80s, there was a massive right media bias; both a reflection and a cause of right-wing shift; especially media that was targeted at the adolescent youth had strong conservative values and focus.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on April 07, 2009, 08:40:20 PM
Looking at the numbers from the 80s, there was a massive right media bias; both a reflection and a cause of right-wing shift; especially media that was targeted at the adolescent youth had strong conservative values and focus.
Like what? I was a kid in the 80s, and I don't remember anything like that. I mean, Oscar the Grouch is clearly GOP, but he's not exactly propaganda. And Alex Keaton was a strawman brought to life, not a role model.
Before Reagan, the Republicans had been a minority party for a generation. They practiced a "me-too" brand of politics, whereby they didn't advocate a different agenda than the Democrats so much as argue that they could administer things better on a day-to=day basis.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 07, 2009, 09:17:43 PMLike what? I was a kid in the 80s, and I don't remember anything like that. I mean, Oscar the Grouch is clearly GOP, but he's not exactly propaganda. And Alex Keaton was a strawman brought to life, not a role model.
I would imagine he's talking about shows like GI Joe, the A-Team, Airwolf, and so on. However, I don't see that as being especially relevant since I doubt children were polled for this at that point and I'm quite certain they didn't have the right to vote. :cool:
Quote from: Caliga on April 08, 2009, 07:13:37 AM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 07, 2009, 09:17:43 PMLike what? I was a kid in the 80s, and I don't remember anything like that. I mean, Oscar the Grouch is clearly GOP, but he's not exactly propaganda. And Alex Keaton was a strawman brought to life, not a role model.
I would imagine he's talking about shows like GI Joe, the A-Team, Airwolf, and so on. However, I don't see that as being especially relevant since I doubt children were polled for this at that point and I'm quite certain they didn't have the right to vote. :cool:
A-Team, right wing? WHAT KIND OF SHIT IS THAT? They helped migrants in one episode for christ sakes.
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 08, 2009, 07:19:19 AMA-Team, right wing? WHAT KIND OF SHIT IS THAT? They helped migrants in one episode for christ sakes.
I didn't say he was RIGHT, just that I think those sorts of Stephen J. Cannell-esque shows are what he's got to be referring to.
In fact, I don't really think he's right (aside from my earlier objections to the relevance). They glorified violence, sure, but that doesn't make them conservative vehicles. I mean, the A-Team featured a NEGRO in a starring role for Chrissakes.
Additionally, nobody ever died in the A-Team or GI Joe.
Quote from: Stonewall on April 08, 2009, 12:54:16 PM
Additionally, nobody ever died in the A-Team or GI Joe.
That's kinda how they glorified the violence, in fact. Cartoonish violence with no real consequences.
Quote from: Caliga on April 08, 2009, 01:00:55 PM
That's kinda how they glorified the violence, in fact. Cartoonish violence with no real consequences.
I thought it was bizarre how GI Joe's weapons were all lasers in the cartoon. I mean even their M-16s shot laser beams.
Quote from: Valmy on April 08, 2009, 01:16:14 PM
Quote from: Caliga on April 08, 2009, 01:00:55 PM
That's kinda how they glorified the violence, in fact. Cartoonish violence with no real consequences.
I thought it was bizarre how GI Joe's weapons were all lasers in the cartoon. I mean even their M-16s shot laser beams.
meh, the Muskets in Empire Total War shoot laser bolts
Quote from: Valmy on April 08, 2009, 01:16:14 PM
I thought it was bizarre how GI Joe's weapons were all lasers in the cartoon. I mean even their M-16s shot laser beams.
That annoyed the crap out of me, along with pilots always safely parachuting out of their planes when they got shot down.
At least the comic book (the few issues I read, anyway) had real, honest to God violence in it.
Remember when Hawk (I think it was) got stabbed by some snake spear thrown by Serpentor in the GI Joe movie? I was like "OMGWTFBBQ actual blood!!!!!!!!!!!11111111111" :o
Serpentor sucks.
Doesnt look too different from the Clinton numbers. Its just that more Dems are still in honeymoon mode with Obama.
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 08, 2009, 02:49:52 PM
Serpentor sucks.
I remember being very pleased when the show brought back Cobra Commander and turned Serpentor into an iguana.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 08, 2009, 02:56:47 PM
Doesnt look too different from the Clinton numbers. Its just that more Dems are still in honeymoon mode with Obama.
I'm not saying it's worse for Obama than Clinton, but that at this stage, compared with earlier Presidents, the opposition seems less tolerant of Clinton, Obama and, to a lesser extent, Bush II. And I was wondering what the possible reasons were for that.
The Americans will set me straight but my impression is that Clinton was a polarizing force in American politics and that polarization remains to this day.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 08, 2009, 03:14:22 PM
The Americans will set me straight but my impression is that Clinton was a polarizing force in American politics and that polarization remains to this day.
I think that's a valid thesis. Clinton opened the old Vietnam era wounds and the following administrations can be seen as revenge cycles.
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 08, 2009, 07:19:19 AM
A-Team, right wing? WHAT KIND OF SHIT IS THAT? They helped migrants in one episode for christ sakes.
Likewise GI Joe had Eco-Warriors who hunted down environmental criminals and toxo-zombies.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 07, 2009, 06:53:11 PMOr with the trend to self-segregate in like minded communities.
I thought America was built on this principle. Only in America you could have stuff like Rhode Island, Las Vegas and dry counties - in most Western countries it would be impossible, due to laws regulating such stuff as alcohol or gambling being national.
I blame the end of communism. With the demise of the Soviet Union, America ceased to have a single powerful enemy and Americans ended up at each other's throats.
Quote from: Queequeg on April 07, 2009, 07:59:06 PM
Neil's avatar exploiting the culture wars and racial tension. The Republican Party of the last 40 years has essentially been hardened by 40 years of success into a glittering jewel of Nixonian insanity.
Another victory for right and justice. :)
Quote from: Martinus on April 08, 2009, 04:00:29 PM
I blame the end of communism. With the demise of the Soviet Union, America ceased to have a single powerful enemy and Americans ended up at each other's throats.
Nah, there were plenty of partisan culture wars in the 70s and 80s. Even vis-a-vis the USSR, between the right who agreed that they were the "Evil Empire" and the left who did not. Even the whole "Evil Empire" line from Reagan was quite controversial at the time.
Quote from: Martinus on April 08, 2009, 04:00:29 PM
I blame the end of communism. With the demise of the Soviet Union, America ceased to have a single powerful enemy and Americans ended up at each other's throats.
You werent around for the 80s were you.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 08, 2009, 05:28:23 PM
Quote from: Martinus on April 08, 2009, 04:00:29 PM
I blame the end of communism. With the demise of the Soviet Union, America ceased to have a single powerful enemy and Americans ended up at each other's throats.
You werent around for the 80s were you.
I think he was hiding behind a curtain.
Quote from: Savonarola on April 08, 2009, 03:51:49 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 08, 2009, 07:19:19 AM
A-Team, right wing? WHAT KIND OF SHIT IS THAT? They helped migrants in one episode for christ sakes.
Likewise GI Joe had Eco-Warriors who hunted down environmental criminals and toxo-zombies.
WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS SHIT? ECO WARRIORS? FUCKING CAPTAIN PLANET BULLSHIT.
Excuse me. :Embarrass:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 08, 2009, 03:19:41 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 08, 2009, 03:14:22 PM
The Americans will set me straight but my impression is that Clinton was a polarizing force in American politics and that polarization remains to this day.
I think that's a valid thesis. Clinton opened the old Vietnam era wounds and the following administrations can be seen as revenge cycles.
Was it Clinton's fault or just that he was the first of that generation and a draft-dodging pot-smoker to boot?
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 08, 2009, 05:53:25 PM
Was it Clinton's fault or just that he was the first of that generation and a draft-dodging pot-smoker to boot?
I don't think it was anything he did during his presidency if that's what you mean.
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 08, 2009, 02:49:52 PM
Serpentor sucks.
I dunno. They did a neat Cobra Civil War storyline in the comics where Cobra Commander, Serpentor and Destro all went to war against each other. It was neat.
That said, I prefer Cobra Commander.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 08, 2009, 06:02:50 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 08, 2009, 05:53:25 PM
Was it Clinton's fault or just that he was the first of that generation and a draft-dodging pot-smoker to boot?
I don't think it was anything he did during his presidency if that's what you mean.
Yeah, I meant was it a policy or just him. I think maybe it could have been both. As I say, from what I understand he had a torrid nominations experience (how many AG noms?) and I think he tried gays in the military very early. So maybe, in early February people were willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. By April initial concerns about his personality/past were reawakened or reinforced by his early mistakes.
Quote from: Neil on April 08, 2009, 06:09:23 PMThat said, I prefer Cobra Commander.
Zartan > Destro > Cobra Commander > Serpentor.
good thread... I'm loving the parallel GIJOE hijack.
I'd say most of the reasons given have some merit. You can't underestimate the role of the media which has gone from literate and understanding of the issues in the 60's 70's to where they are now - Shrill alarmists walking around screaming about the sky falling (and how that's "the other guys' fault")
The media these days have very little credibility in terms of really knowing whats going on.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 08, 2009, 06:20:14 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 08, 2009, 06:02:50 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 08, 2009, 05:53:25 PM
Was it Clinton's fault or just that he was the first of that generation and a draft-dodging pot-smoker to boot?
I don't think it was anything he did during his presidency if that's what you mean.
Yeah, I meant was it a policy or just him. I think maybe it could have been both. As I say, from what I understand he had a torrid nominations experience (how many AG noms?) and I think he tried gays in the military very early. So maybe, in early February people were willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. By April initial concerns about his personality/past were reawakened or reinforced by his early mistakes.
I think it was him more than his policies. Don't blame me; I voted for Tsongas in the primary.
You have to give Serpentor credit for how they made him out of the DNA of the world's greatest evil masterminds though. After he was created, he turned out to be a douche. But the series of events leading up to it was pretty awesome.
No one ever does a "Jayce and the Wheeled Warriors" hijack. :(
Why all this hating on Serpentor?
Quote from: Ancient Demon on April 09, 2009, 08:18:35 PM
Why all this hating on Serpentor?
Because Timmay and people of his ilk would like it.
It general it is the baby boomers fault. The reason that polarization is happening so quickly with Obama is that he has decided to govern from the extreme from the get-go.
When obama was elected I was worried that he would effectively steal ideas from the right in order to split a demoralized and split GOP and build a lasting Democratic majority. Luckily he already pissed that away, has served as a unifying force on the right and driven independents back to the GOP. Way to go, Obamateur! The GOP is now set to regain control of the House and to weaken the Dems hold on the Senate in 2010, and he'll have a hard time getting reelected in '12 unless he sharply changes course the way Bill Clinton did in '95-'96. But I don't see that happening with Obama who is too arrogant and ideological to ditch the far left for the center.
The Dems will probably find themselves in 2013 where the GOP is today. the question will be if the GOP will learn not to overreach the way the Dems have now?
30 years ago there were less media. These days there are much more media, like internet. So people can pick the media that show their own opinion, not the opinion of the other side. That means that people who didn't vote for Obama, now get the news of media, who don't like Obama.
In any case, I laugh when people say "OMG the GOP is dead!" or "OMG the Dems are dead!" Whenever one party gets too powerful, they do alot of idiotic partisan shit and piss off the center, and the pendulum swings back. As long as we have this two-party system, it'll always be that way.
Quote from: Caliga on April 10, 2009, 07:32:21 AM
In any case, I laugh when people say "OMG the GOP is dead!" or "OMG the Dems are dead!" Whenever one party gets too powerful, they do alot of idiotic partisan shit and piss off the center, and the pendulum swings back. As long as we have this two-party system, it'll always be that way.
Yeah, agreed on that. Didn't the Dems feel they were in similar trouble after losing two elections to Bush, or after losing the Congress to the Repubs during the Clinton admin? I seem to recall much introspection and worry after the Bush elections. Also recall how the Repubs over stepped and the Dems regained power. And I think that now the Dems may be over stepping far greater than the Repubs ever did, so we'll see how it all goes. Still very early yet.