This is directed towards people who have been following politics for a long time (multiple presidents). I’ve only really started paying attention to politics within the last 5 years or so. It seems like since Clinton there is a lot of hatered between the two parties. This may be a dumb question but has this been the case in the last 50 years or is this something new in this country?
What about politics in other countries, is it similar to the U.S.?
Hatred between parties is nothing new. I understand though, that the partisanship and general dislike has reached new levels. But those are opinions based on personal history.
If you research some of the pamplateering that peopl did back during the days of yore (sorry, had to write that), aka “founding fathers”, you will find that some of the accusations today pale in comparison to back then.
I hate to be so glibe, but it’s the same old stuff, just in a new era. The history of politics (and especially democracy) is written on conflict and tension. Democracy works best when at least two sides can freely but heads.
So I guess it would be pretty ridiculous to want the two parties to discuss and compromise solutions to problems most people can live with? Or maybe that’s exactly what happens and it just appears the other way due to the few hot issues, abortion, gay marriage, taxes, etc.
So I guess it would be pretty ridiculous to want the two parties to discuss and compromise solutions to problems most people can live with? Or maybe that’s exactly what happens and it just appears the other way due to the few hot issues, abortion, gay marriage, taxes, etc. One reason for the bitterness that exists is that the courts are preventing any compromises on issues like abortion and gay marriage, but instead imposing one solution that is opposed by the majority of Americans. Most Americans would agree that (1) marriage should be between one man and one woman, (2) homosexuals should not be able to get married, (3) there should be some sort of domestic partners status, (4) as a general rule, homosexuals should be able to hold most jobs (5) homosexuals should not be able to be scoutmasters or serve in the military. Similarly, with abortion, most Americans would agree that there should be some abortions. Most Americans would also agree that teenagers should not be able to have an abortion without parental consent and that there should be significant restrictions on abortions after the first trimester. In either case, there are compromises that can be reached, and the beaty of a federal system is that different states can reach different compromises. But, the courts are taking these issues outside of the realm of democratic solutions, which causes a great deal of bitterness and is the primary reason why judicial confirmation has become the most significant issue in DC.
I’d like to say that even though the process seems slow, arduous, and full of ridiculousness that eventually it all balances out. And I will, I just said it.
I definitely think that there’s a reason that for over two centuries people have been saying “Wow, you know, the Founding Fathers sure did get something right with this system.” There are lot’s of people who think that our government is at its best when it is slowly crawling around grasping at answers and solutions. And I agree, I think the worst thing we could have is a nimble beauracracy that was able to readily address in no time all the issues of the day. Fortunately for us, debate is built into the system and almost always unavoidable.
But there’s nothing wrong with wishing they’d all just grow up and deal with things more maturely and in a more positive fashion. But, there is some element of “Art reflecting life, life reflecting art” in all of this. It’s not just the media’s fault, it’s not just the politicians fault. We’re the ultimate decision makers (either with our votes, our dollars, or our viewership/reading habits), but how many times do we vote for civility?
But maybe I’ve fooled myself into believing your hypothesis, it’s hard to tell anymore. But ultimately I trust that while the system seems like it is comprised of a bunch of jerks at times, that they are really just normal people out to try and do what they think is best.
Though the level of personal attacks is nothing new, the level of political party conflict is very new. Reagan got his tax cuts approved in the early 80s with substantial Democratic support. That can’t happen today.
The biggest cause of the problem is gerrymandering. Congressional districts are designed so that the incumbent is assured reelection if he appeals to the fringe right or left, depending on the district. Essentially no one in Congress has to campaign by reaching for the voters in the middle, so there is no reason whatever to compromise.
Another problem is the judicial problem described above. Issues that should be handled democratically have been usurped by judges, so the parties have to fight over judges to maintain illegitimately gotten political objectives.
A third problem is that the Republicans during most of my lifetime were very good losers and were perfectly happy to continue to be losers so long as they got their scraps of pork, tee times and cocktail party invitations. Democrats are very bad losers and hate being losers so they refuse to act like losers. They know they will get their tee times and invitations anyway. They hang tough and play to win every day.
homosexuals should not be able to be scoutmasters
What’s the rationale for that?
**What’s the rationale for that? **
Obviously it’s simply that the scouts think homosexuality is immoral.
Who think homosexuality per se is immoral? Isn’t is just the sex act?
Who think homosexuality per se is immoral? Isn’t is just the sex act?
Are you asking my opinion about it, or are you asking why homosexuals shouldn’t be scoutmasters?
If, as I thought, it’s the latter, it’s because homosexuality is incompatible with the foundational beliefs of the organization. Sort of like why atheists shouldn’t be priests. But you knew that, right?
I know they’re a private organization and can decide on their membership. However, I seriously doubt any homosexual conduct (or heterosexual conduct for that matter) goes on at scout meetings.
I think and I am SURE I am right that the only reason you and I know about the gap that is and has been there since before Lincoln is that we have about a dozen 24 hour news channels pointing out evey little snippet of every sneeze for everyone who is on the hill.
homosexuals should not be able to be scoutmasters
What’s the rationale for that? The rationale for saying it was simply that most Americans believe this should be the case. As far as why they believe this, there are certainly many reasons different reasons why they have reached this conclusion. I assume the most likely reason is that some homosexual men like to have sex with teenage boys. See, e.g., scandal involing Roman Catholic priests, which predominately involves men in a position of authority sexually abusing teenage boys. Even if most homosexual men don’t want to do so, having no homosexual men as scoutmasters eliminates this risk. But, the point that I was trying to make was simply that Americans should be able to work this issue out instead of having the courts decide it for them.
It just seems to me that a lot of the people that I would consider political don’t discuss issues, they argue issues. I teach high school chemistry and almost without exception if I mention an article I read in the New York Times, I’m accused by half a dozen students of propogating the liberal agenda. If I mention anything about the chemical industry manufacturing a certain compound another half dozen students start telling me I’m advocating destruction of the environment. You know they’re just spewing stuff out their parents are telling them at dinner the night before. Also, it seems that friends who are political (ie. they simply stay in touch ) are for or against something without even considering the other side’s opinion. The discussion always seems to be each side destroying the other while stating why they are right and you are wrong.
Anyway, I was mostly just curious what people think about the current political climate vs. past political climates.
Thanks,
Tom
The rationale for saying it was simply that most Americans believe this should be the case
Yeah, I was more asking why mosr Americans believe this should be the case
I was wondering if this would be proposed as a reason. Because it’s bullshit. There isnt a higher incidence of pedophilia in homosexuals than heterosexuals. And the highly publicized cases of adults having sex with teens in recent years have often been adult women and teenage boys… should we ban women from being Den mothers?
I was wondering if this would be proposed as a reason. Because it’s bullshit.
Yeah, that’s it- wait long enough to get the answer you’re looking for, even if it’s not the actual answer, then attack it. Good job.
Homosexuals shouldn’t be allowed to be scoutmasters because the Boy Scouts believe that homosexuality is wrong, that’s all. There’s no controversy there. Move on, already.
One reason for the bitterness that exists is that the courts are preventing any compromises on issues like abortion and gay marriage, but instead imposing one solution that is opposed by the majority of Americans.
Do you truly believe that because a majority of Americans think one way that should make it the law?
**Do you truly believe that because a majority of Americans think one way that should make it the law? **
'less I’m mistaken, that’s exactly the way it works.
Do you truly believe that because a majority of Americans think one way that should make it the law? Yes, subject to some limited exceptions. Do you think that a small minority of Americans should be able to decide what is law instead? Or do you want to turn things over to the UN so that we can ruled by bureaucrats that answer to foreign dictators?