Political polarity is an illness, what is the cause?

[Gregorygregg1]

What is the source of the polarity in The United States? Why can't the Democrats and Republicans talk to each other any more?  There seemed to be a sudden increase in the strength of polarization which occurred with the rise of "The Moral Majority" in the 1980's.  This seemed to coincide with the significant shift in economic power to the left.  Since then US policies appear to have shifted significantly to permit greater corporate freedom with restriction of personal freedom.  Does anyone have a theory?

[Ecurb]

I'm not sure that politics have become more polarized. It's always easier to see the bickering of today than to remember the differences of yesterday. Think of the Viet Nam war. Are politics today more polarized than they were in the 1960s and 70s? Didn't the Right hate Clinton as much as Obama?

The religious right is an interesting phenomenon. Fundamentalist and evangelical Christians drifted toward right wing Capitalism under the influence of the Cold War. Communists, after all, were repressing and persecuting Christians, and that was a war evangelicals felt they must win. In addition, the Protestant ethic (as Max Weber pointed out 100+ years ago) shares some of the concepts of personal responsibility with the Capitalist etic. Nonetheless, I think many Christians are moving leftward since the end of the Cold War. Environmentalism and stewardship of the Earth are popular refrains in the Evangelical community. Of course some leaders of the religious right try to stir up anti-Islam bigotry, and switching off the anti-socialist refrains that fear of Godless Communism instigated is a long process.

Although corporate freedom SEEMS to be enhanced by recent political machinations (Supreme Court decisions, for one), Governmental restrictions on corporate liberty are actually greater than they were 50 years ago, when the EPA barely existed (I forget when it was founded), or 100+ years ago, when there were no anti-trust laws, and unions were often outlawed (just as they are today in Wisconsin), and when patent medicines could be sold without FDA approval. Regulatory restrictions of coroprate freedom that we take for granted today were once contraversial.

[backbeat]

Gregory - I really don't agree so much with the polarization premise. That is to say, that I think it's largely manufactured by the media.

If you accept the fact that R's primarily derive their philosophy from conservatism, and D's primarily derive their philosophy from some form of socialism, then it stands to reason that they are polar opposites based upon diametrically opposed philosophies. The are polar opposites, and therefore are naturally in a polarized state. Of course none of this means that people can't get along, and that's a slightly different issue.

Let's look at this in very simple and binary terms, to try and drive home a point. And, let's look at this in basic philosophical, and not in political terms. The right wants a smaller state, and the left wants a larger state. If new legislation is brought before congress to add a program that is desired by the left, and they don't have all the votes needed to push it through, and the right for philosophical reasons is completely against it, then we have a binary situation. One is for, and the other is against. How do you goad the right into meeting you part way? One thing that can be done, is to scream about gridlock. Another thing is to speak about polarization. You can also ask for compromise, and for congress to get along. In this case, any movement from point zero, is a win for the left, because it establishes something that didn't exist before.

To continue and take this a step further, if the right meets even 5% of the way, it's a loss for the right and a win for the left. Now that's not how people see the issue, because they look at the details of the legislation and determine somewhat mathematically, that the right got much of what it wanted, and the left didn't get all that they wanted. Or something like that... But in the end, it was a philosophical loss for the right.

While I do agree that there have been some shifts that can make people more vociferous, I believe that most of it is manufactured, and designed to bludgeon the minority into submission. Of course most people believe it to be true.

backbeat

[Ecurb]

Another factor is the proliferation of the Media. Cable TV has spawned news networks with an aggressive political point of view (Fox News, MSNBC, for example are far more aggressive than FOX or NBC) and the internet has spawned blogs, websites and fora in which extreme political opinions can be expressed and validated.

This creates polarity -- but it also creates the appearance of polarity. Networks and websites pander to small percentages of the population in order to gain viewers.

[Lomax]

I'm inclined to agree with the others; the problem in the US is too much conflation, not polarisation - particularly since Clinton made "triangulation" the sole principle of American politics. I agree that there's been a gradual shift towards corporatism etc, but this has happened in both major parties, not just the one. This sort of thing is why Israel Shahak used to refer to "encouraging signs of polarisation".

[Gregorygregg1]

Perhaps the way I am using the term polarity needs to be defined.  The poles are, at one end those who believe that 
1.  The government should do whatever it takes to create a business friendly environment, including, but not limited to allowing them access to the resources of the commons with as few restrictions as possible.
2. That those with a talent or expertise for making money from doing business are a special class of citizen who should pay lower tax rates, so they can " create more jobs".
3.  That, in the interest of "job creation, additional subsidies should be provided to businesses from the higher taxes paid by those who do the labor.  
3.  That morality refers to behaviors that are either mentioned in the bible, or which might impair the productivity of one in the working class, and that these behaviors must be strictly controlled.
At the other end are those who feel: 
1.  All of us should share the tax burden equally with, at the very least a flat tax. 
2.   Those with access to the commons have a special responsibility to use those resources wisely with care not to pollute the environment with their waste, and that, if those resources cannot be obtained without poisoning the environment, they should be left for another generation which can.  
3.  That these responsibilities should not be shifted to an imaginary surrogate, "The Corporation".  Leaving those responsible for decision making blameless.
4.  That morality refers to civic responsibility and treating all people as equals.

Perhaps you have a different take on what polarity means these days.  What is alluded to here is not specific to either political party because while there may be a few more Democrats who subscribe to the latter view, most on both sides of the isle subscribe to the former.

[Ecurb]

I still don’t think (given Greg’s new definitions) that we are more polarized than in the past. The responsibilities of federal regulators like FDA and EPA are now clearly accepted even by most Republicans. In the past, they were not. When I moved to Oregon 25 years ago, restrictions on old growth logging because of the “endangered species act” were extremely polarizing. Now even loggers accept that the government has the right to restrict logging on government land. Is our morality more polarized now than it was 50+ years ago, when many states outlawed miscegenation, and had a legalized system of apartheid?

Of course there are still disputes (since when is a “flat tax” progressive?). Nonetheless, protection of the “commons” (although still argued about) is far more accepted in principle than it has been at any other time in American history.

I’ll further grant that the disputes about morality and corporate limitations on personal liability are reasonable. However, since the entire purpose of incorporation is to limit personal liability, this has been an issue since corporations originated. The only reason morality seems more polarizing today than in the past is that we (like the European countries) have become far less religious in the last 50 years (despite increased noise from the religious right). The distinctions Greg calls “polarizing” are polarizing – but the fervor with which they are arbued has not increased over the past decades; it's decreased.

I’ll grant that there has been some backlash to the “Great Society” and “welfare state”. But it’s been a minor fluctuation. In general, government regulation is LESS controversial and polarizing than in the past (especially regulation of the commons). I’ll also grant that (because of the omnipresence of media) politicians bloviate and pander even more than they did in the past (with idiotic promises not to raise taxes, for example). Entitlements we take for granted (Medicare, Social Security) may be in some jeopardy, but they are relatively recent developments, and are no longer polarizing. Everyone accepts that we need them. Now, if we could only convince our President to quit assassinating people with his drones……

[ronjanec]

I personally believe that there is a great deal of political polarization in our country: Where do I believe this 'polarization' came from, and why is this so bad today?

For many years the MSM(the MainStreamMedia, or ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, PBS, MSNBC, Hollywood, the music industry for the most part, and most newspapers, journals, and magazines), did everything they could to promote(actually brainwashing) their liberal social and political democratic agenda(also called political "correctness"), and then tried to do everything they could(and are still trying to do today) to hide and cover up any story or opinion that made their liberal democratic party agenda look bad(the Nazis, and Pravda also did this when the Communists had complete power);

Many times, they also personally attacked anyone who dared to voice an opinion against this "correct" ideology, and even tried to personally destroy anyone who did this by trying to dig up something negative from their past, and then gave this a great deal of publicity("Bush was a drunk" for example)

They would also dig for anything the same person(or another person) did in the past that may have been in any way against the law, to hopefully shut them up by having them then sent away to prison(The 700 club's Jim Baker and his 40 year original prison sentence). On the other hand, any story that would give the republicans a bad name they would give a ton of publicity to(stupid comments by people like Jerry Falwell for example).

Then along came conservative talk radio, then conservative books, and then the conservative websites on the internet, whose millions of listeners and readers would now make a very big stink whenever the MSM tried to hide a story like they did before, and would force them to address the same issue.

So this "new" 'polarization' that you are seeing today, is actually the other side finally getting a voice in the media unlike before. And to a large extent, it is again the extremist MSM and their agenda, that is originally responsible for much of the 'polarization' of our nation today, with a now also vocal extremist reverse reaction from the right(Limbaugh for example).

By the way, does anyone besides me read the very interesting and very informative comments section on different stories on the different websites(ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, WSJ, MSNBC, Drudge Report, etc.) on a regular basis?(Why did I not mention Fox News? For some reason they rarely allow comments today)

Holy smokes! The left and the right are in a war against each other(on both the liberal and conservative websites), and the formerly "sacred" PC agenda is now openly ridiculed and laughed at by many people. And there are also many extreme racist comments that are really shocking, and many times, very mean spirited.

And thanks to The Drudge Report in particular, I also get to read stories from all over the world(without the MSM filter) on many different issues, and also get to read some very interesting comments from people in other nations.

[Ecurb]

I'll grant that the internet (with its anonymity) has limited what some might call political correctness" and others might call "politeness". Nonetheless, I disagree that the liberal media was formerly monolithic. Newspapers were the most significant source of news in the past -- and they voiced varied and diverse points of view. I'll bet there were plenty of Conservative newspapers supporting laws promoting racial segregation, back in the 1950s and 1960s.

There may have been a period (a decade perhaps) in which the major TV networks dominated the discourse -- but to think that a fair reflection of our media history is short sighted. Today, there are dozens of TV stations with all kinds of perspectives. Yesterday there were dozens of newspapers with all kinds of perspectives.

[Gregorygregg1]

I personally believe that there is a great deal of political polarization in our country: Where do I believe this 'polarization' came from, and why is this so bad today?

For many years the MSM(the MainStreamMedia, or ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, PBS, MSNBC, Hollywood, the music industry for the most part, and most newspapers, journals, and magazines), did everything they could to promote(actually brainwashing) their liberal social and political democratic agenda(also called political "correctness"), and then tried to do everything they could(and are still trying to do today) to hide and cover up any story or opinion that made their liberal democratic party agenda look bad(the Nazis, and Pravda also did this when the Communists had complete power);

Many times, they also personally attacked anyone who dared to voice an opinion against this "correct" ideology, and even tried to personally destroy anyone who did this by trying to dig up something negative from their past, and then gave this a great deal of publicity("Bush was a drunk" for example)

They would also dig for anything the same person(or another person) did in the past that may have been in any way against the law, to hopefully shut them up by having them then sent away to prison(The 700 club's Jim Baker and his 40 year original prison sentence). On the other hand, any story that would give the republicans a bad name they would give a ton of publicity to(stupid comments by people like Jerry Falwell for example).

Then along came conservative talk radio, then conservative books, and then the conservative websites on the internet, whose millions of listeners and readers would now make a very big stink whenever the MSM tried to hide a story like they did before, and would force them to address the same issue.

So this "new" 'polarization' that you are seeing today, is actually the other side finally getting a voice in the media unlike before. And to a large extent, it is again the extremist MSM and their agenda, that is originally responsible for much of the 'polarization' of our nation today, with a now also vocal extremist reverse reaction from the right(Limbaugh for example).

By the way, does anyone besides me read the very interesting and very informative comments section on different stories on the different websites(ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, WSJ, MSNBC, Drudge Report, etc.) on a regular basis?(Why did I not mention Fox News? For some reason they rarely allow comments today)

Holy smokes! The left and the right are in a war against each other(on both the liberal and conservative websites), and the formerly "sacred" PC agenda is now openly ridiculed and laughed at by many people. And there are also many extreme racist comments that are really shocking, and many times, very mean spirited.

And thanks to The Drudge Report in particular, I also get to read stories from all over the world(without the MSM filter) on many different issues, and also get to read some very interesting comments from people in other nations.

You are indicting all non conservative news media as misrepresenting the news because conservative opinion does not flavor the way it is presented?   And you know this because you listen to Rush Limbaugh and Fox news?
Are you really equating independent news media with the Russian Communist regime and Nazis?  Ask yourself if this might not be a bit of an overreaction.

As for the Liberal agenda, you mention, where do you think child labor laws, public education, civil rights and the minimum wage came from.  Any change that promotes fairness in society or the workplace has been brought about by liberals.  Liberals love you and work to make your life better in spite of yourself.

[Paul Anthony]

As for the Liberal agenda, you mention, where do you think child labor laws, public education, civil rights and the minimum wage came from.  Any change that promotes fairness in society or the workplace has been brought about by liberals.  Liberals love you and work to make your life better in spite of yourself.

He-he. Yes, we have the Liberal agenda to "thank" for child labor laws, public education, etc. The changes that promote "fairness" frequently seem to result in a reduction in personal liberty, perhaps because those who have defined "fairness" are statists.

[backbeat]

To get to Gregory's question, I think this needs to be reframed. I'll take some license here and ignore the 'illness' part of the question.

The left and right are polar opposites, and they've always been on a philosophical level. So what is the cause of the perception of polarization? Candidly, we wouldn't be having this discussion if it wasn't talked about in the media, so it's not a unique observation. The question is: are they correct? If so - why? What has changed? What is the problem with polarization?

I don't buy that it is a problem. I believe it is just as I mentioned above (as well as others), something the media will use to push whatever opposition, into a corner. It forces issues, just like grid-lock did in the previous administration. It's their way of getting people to work together, which is another way of asking the opposition to capitulate. I don't think it's much more complicated than that.

As for media bias, someone is lying when they say it is biased and the other side says its not. There's truth there, somewhere, but we're not likely to find it because someone is going to look bad.

[Gregorygregg1]

It sounds like you see any compromise as a loss for the conservatives. The problem with seeing everything as a win or loss is that it eliminates compromise. Despite the current trend, the government of a democratic nation is not supposed to be a game. When government is done correctly, no one wins or looses and we all come out ahead. It is supposed to be government of the people, by the people, for the people; not government of the people, by the corporations, for the wealthy. Conservative means big business. Follow the money and you'll know who is in charge.
I am a liberal tree hugging Druid and I'm not fond of this president, he has not lived up to his promise, but then what president has? If we elect Romney however things are not going to get better for the little guy. We are the surfs of the world he lives in.

[Gregorygregg1]

As for the Liberal agenda, you mention, where do you think child labor laws, public education, civil rights and the minimum wage came from.  Any change that promotes fairness in society or the workplace has been brought about by liberals.  Liberals love you and work to make your life better in spite of yourself.

He-he. Yes, we have the Liberal agenda to "thank" for child labor laws, public education, etc. The changes that promote "fairness" frequently seem to result in a reduction in personal liberty, perhaps because those who have defined "fairness" are statists.

Does this mean you would roll back the clock to the days of child labor, 18hour workdays and no minimum wage. It sounds like you would prefer if only children of wealthy parents were educated and there were no provisions made for handicapped or disabled citizens. You would prefer to live in a segregated society because it would preserve your personal liberty to treat others as second class citizens. Fairness is what it is all about. Fair is giving everyone an equal opportunity to reach their full potential. Does that reduce your personal liberty?

[Paul Anthony]

Does this mean you would roll back the clock to the days of child labor, 18hour workdays and no minimum wage. It sounds like you would prefer if only children of wealthy parents were educated and there were no provisions made for handicapped or disabled citizens. You would prefer to live in a segregated society because it would preserve your personal liberty to treat others as second class citizens. Fairness is what it is all about. Fair is giving everyone an equal opportunity to reach their full potential. Does that reduce your personal liberty?

Well, you said you were a liberal and I believe you! After all, when confronted with an opposing viewpoint you could not resist calling me a racist.

No, I would not prefer to "live in a segregated society" and no, I do not "treat others as second class citizens". (Sorry to disappoint you).

But you are correct about a few of my views. Minimum wage laws have caused more harm than good. Our youth "enjoy" a terribly high unemployment rate, due in part to the fact that unskilled, inexperienced people are not worth much to an employer. Many more young people would find gainful employment if they could be hired at a lower training wage. But of course, our youth have been taught to believe they are worth more than they actually are by a progressive educational system that concerns itself more with giving students a false sense of self-worth than it does with providing students with marketable skills.

I also believe that not everyone should seek a college degree. No, I don't think such an education should be restricted to "children of wealthy parents", but I do think it should be restricted to children who might benefit from it. We are not all of equal intellect. An education does not raise one's IQ. Knowledge can erase ignorance, but it can't do anything for stupidity. But again, our public education system teaches that all of us should be high earning executives. The world doesn't need more ill-equipped leaders. It needs more skilled workers. Many young people would do better to attend trade schools rather than go deep in debt to acquire some useless degree.

I do believe in "giving everyone an equal opportunity to reach their full potential". The difference between us may be that I realize that each of us has a different potential. And, after attempting to be what others thought I should be, I came to realize that happiness comes from being who you are meant to be. Liberty is the freedom to be yourself.

[backbeat]

It sounds like you see any compromise as a loss for the conservatives. The problem with seeing everything as a win or loss is that it eliminates compromise. Despite the current trend, the government of a democratic nation is not supposed to be a game. When government is done correctly, no one wins or looses and we all come out ahead. It is supposed to be government of the people, by the people, for the people; not government of the people, by the corporations, for the wealthy. Conservative means big business. Follow the money and you'll know who is in charge.
I am a liberal tree hugging Druid and I'm not fond of this president, he has not lived up to his promise, but then what president has? If we elect Romney however things are not going to get better for the little guy. We are the surfs of the world he lives in.

Technically Gregory, what you said in your first sentence is quite true, and if you follow me on this I think you'll understand my point.

It doesn't matter how we view the outcomes of legislation in congress or how we feel about those outcomes, there is a winner and a loser from a philosophical perspective. In this context when I speak about philosophical, I'm not speaking about a state of mind of any one particular person or group. I'm speaking about two antitheticaly different world views, and you're either going in one direction or the other. You're not going in both at the same time, and there's no third direction.

The great philosophers didn't conceive and design their 'systems' with the idea of negotiation, and please follow me on this. The outcomes of these philosophies are the result of binary propositions. Let's just use ethics as a simple one. You have individualism and collectivism representing two different sides of a coin. There are of course many reasons why one view prevailed over the other, but let's accept the fact that there are two choices - or two different determinations and outcomes. Much of course went into arriving at these two different and diametrically opposed views, and it is legislation that is derived from these views, and not the other way around. These basic principles that we know become the basis for highly complex legislation, with legal language and all sorts of competing interests, but that doesn't negate the fact that you can still find the basic principles.

People generally don't have beliefs or views with the idea of compromise, as a first principle. As an example, if one holds a view of individualism, that's their view. it's not a view of individualism with the idea that if someone disagrees with them, that they'll agree that they should have a collectivist view, instead. It also doesn't mean that people won't change their minds. But those sorts of changes are larger things to get your head around, and don't logically happen on a day-to-day or issue-by-issue basis. Skipping forward to congress and some pending legislation, this is where there is compromise, but that's because that's how the system works when you don't have 100% (figuratively) of the representatives thinking the same way. It's not compromise for the sake of compromise, it's compromise because it's most often a necessity.

What I'm saying here is that people 'typically' go into a debate with fixed principles; which is a positive thing, but they don't always get what they want or believe is right. It doesn't matter if we call it winning or losing. If two different paths are being debated and there's going to be a conclusive outcome, then one path prevails and the other does not. Both sides can walk away feeling that they did well in the process, but that doesn't mean in the absence of their awareness of their awareness of core principles being debated, that one idea prevailed and the other did not.

To your point about government being 'done correctly', that assumes that there's only one path to take; a single view, and we both know that there isn't a single view in the process.

Finally, let's not confuse political parties with political philosophies. Conservatism is not about big business. There is nothing written by Edmund Burke, Russell Kirk, Richard Weaver, or many others, that addresses the idea of the size of a business, or even the idea of a tax rate. You're conflating what the Republican party does, with conservatism, and it's not always the case that they're one in the same.

[ronjanec]

I'll grant that the internet (with its anonymity) has limited what some might call political correctness" and others might call "politeness". Nonetheless, I disagree that the liberal media was formerly monolithic. Newspapers were the most significant source of news in the past -- and they voiced varied and diverse points of view. I'll bet there were plenty of Conservative newspapers supporting laws promoting racial segregation, back in the 1950s and 1960s.

There may have been a period (a decade perhaps) in which the major TV networks dominated the discourse -- but to think that a fair reflection of our media history is short sighted. Today, there are dozens of TV stations with all kinds of perspectives. Yesterday there were dozens of newspapers with all kinds of perspectives.

Yes, I have to agree that much of what you said was true until somewhere around the first half of the 1960's, but there was at this point a very major swing to the left by almost every facet of the media(also our nation's education system), and this complete dominance of the media by the left again continued until the advent of conservative talk radio.

Yes, there are indeed dozens of TV networks with all kinds of perspectives, and they try to give everyone the impression that they are trying to be fair to both sides of the issues, but behind the scenes they do everything they can to slant public opinion to fit their agenda;

Take ABC's 'This week with George Stephanopolis' as only one example: George was a White House insider during the Clinton administration: I think it is fair to say that George is personally a Democrat "to the ninth degree";

Does anyone really believe that someone like George can be a fair and unbiased moderator in a political discussion or debate between the Republican's and the Democrat's on any political issue. If Rove or Cheney took over the same show this sunday, do you think any democrats would be concerned about their "fairness" on this weeks political issues?

Watch how George actually interviews a democrat one on one, and then watch how George interviews a republican one on one: George cuts off the republican frequently in mid sentence, and you can actually see him gritting his teeth sometimes when the republican is speaking;

The democrat on the other hand is usually allowed to speak without interuption, and you can tell that George is in no way hostile to this person, unlike his conversations with many republicans.

[ronjanec]

G.G,

My post was not directed at liberals and their beliefs: My post was directed at the MSM. And as you have mentioned, some liberal beliefs have definitely made the world a much better place.

My analogy in comparing the MSM to the Nazi's and Pravda was definitely not an overreaction: They all have used many of the same methods. The MSM is also in one very important way far more dangerous than the other two examples, because at least in the other two examples, everyone knew that the state controlled the media, and almost always only presented one side of every important issue, and they could of course not be trusted;

The MSM on the other hand is not controlled by the state or any dictator, and many people believe that they can be trusted because of this("free speech"). Instead of presenting only one side of every important issue like the two other examples, they pretend to present both sides of every issue, while they are again working behind the scenes to do everything they possibly can to influence and brainwash people into believing in their particular ideology

I never personaly listen to Limbaugh, and I very rarely watch Fox, or go to their website. I have read quite a few books on the same subject by people like Goldberg for example(former CBS).

[Gregorygregg1]

Does this mean you would roll back the clock to the days of child labor, 18hour workdays and no minimum wage. It sounds like you would prefer if only children of wealthy parents were educated and there were no provisions made for handicapped or disabled citizens. You would prefer to live in a segregated society because it would preserve your personal liberty to treat others as second class citizens. Fairness is what it is all about. Fair is giving everyone an equal opportunity to reach their full potential. Does that reduce your personal liberty?

Well, you said you were a liberal and I believe you! After all, when confronted with an opposing viewpoint you could not resist calling me a racist.

No, I would not prefer to "live in a segregated society" and no, I do not "treat others as second class citizens". (Sorry to disappoint you).

My heartfelt appologies. It was not my intention to call you a racist. It is just that for so many see personal liberty is the liberty to percieve the inequities that exist as God telling them they are better than those who suffer under the burden of social inequality.

But you are correct about a few of my views. Minimum wage laws have caused more harm than good. Our youth "enjoy" a terribly high unemployment rate, due in part to the fact that unskilled, inexperienced people are not worth much to an employer. Many more young people would find gainful employment if they could be hired at a lower training wage. But of course, our youth have been taught to believe they are worth more than they actually are by a progressive educational system that concerns itself more with giving students a false sense of self-worth than it does with providing students with marketable skills.

It is not that there is nothing wrong with our educational system. At the same time changing public education into a mill for turning out "students with marketable skills" would be a mistake. The goal of education should be to teach the youth to think, and their responsibilities in a democratic society. That is not what is happening. Young people with the ability to organize their thoughts and put them into meaningful action are easily worth a living wage. The question is, by what measure is it fair to pay the CEO $40million while paying the guy who cleans the toilets $15,000 a year...or the person who educates your children $35,000? Minimum wage is intended to make sure people who work make a living wage. Even a trainee. There is nothing to stop an employer from using a "training wage to keep his cost down by having an extended training period and replacing those who are eligible for higher wages. Or do you think that would not happen?

I also believe that not everyone should seek a college degree. No, I don't think such an education should be restricted to "children of wealthy parents", but I do think it should be restricted to children who might benefit from it. We are not all of equal intellect. An education does not raise one's IQ. Knowledge can erase ignorance, but it can't do anything for stupidity. But again, our public education system teaches that all of us should be high earning executives. The world doesn't need more ill-equipped leaders. It needs more skilled workers. Many young people would do better to attend trade schools rather than go deep in debt to acquire some useless degree.

At one time I might have agreed with you. Having watched the progression of requirements in the workplace however, it is clear that higher education is becoming a requisit for even the most basic jobs. The colleges and universities have become the "trade schools" in this country. Two years beyond high school is minimum for a decent job, and where a BS was sufficient at one time for a good job, a Masters or Doctorate are required now. All the while the cost of higher education is inflating beyond the means of many. Most people entering a profession today, do so with a mountain of school debt, as you say. But Trade schools are no better. They are expensive to attend, and often turn out chefs or tour guides or electricians who then have the problem of finding a decent job without a college education.

I do believe in "giving everyone an equal opportunity to reach their full potential". The difference between us may be that I realize that each of us has a different potential. And, after attempting to be what others thought I should be, I came to realize that happiness comes from being who you are meant to be. Liberty is the freedom to be yourself.

It sounds like you have been very fortunate, as have I. I know many who have not. Ask the guy driving a cab about his master's degree in social work or education. Opportunities to "be yourself" do not always present themselves. Many of us follow the path of least resistance and get lucky. For others, chance is not so kind. This will always be the case. A liberal point of view means believing no one should start out with a deck stacked for or against them.

[Lomax]

Incidentally, I know this thread wasn't intended as a comparison of party lines but someone reminded me of the political compass today, and look how closely they plot Obama and Romney:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012

The text underneath highlights a few facts which I think Democrat voters have the responsibility to be aware of.

[ronjanec]

Incidentally, I know this thread wasn't intended as a comparison of party lines but someone reminded me of the political compass today, and look how closely they plot Obama and Romney:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012

The text underneath highlights a few facts which I think Democrat voters have the responsibility to be aware of.

Hi Lomax. I hope all is well with you: I tried the link, and it did not work for me for some reason? Never mind, it's working now.

[backbeat]

It is not that there is nothing wrong with our educational system. At the same time changing public education into a mill for turning out "students with marketable skills" would be a mistake. The goal of education should be to teach the youth to think, and their responsibilities in a democratic society. That is not what is happening. Young people with the ability to organize their thoughts and put them into meaningful action are easily worth a living wage. The question is, by what measure is it fair to pay the CEO $40million while paying the guy who cleans the toilets $15,000 a year...or the person who educates your children $35,000? Minimum wage is intended to make sure people who work make a living wage. Even a trainee. There is nothing to stop an employer from using a "training wage to keep his cost down by having an extended training period and replacing those who are eligible for higher wages. Or do you think that would not happen?

It may be helpful for you to know, Gregory, that Mossling started a discussion on fair wages or something to that effect, some time ago, and it had loads of comments both for and against.

[ronjanec]

Who is mostly against abortion, gay rights, gun control, not real crazy about feminism or evolution to the same degree, definitely against alcohol, goes to church or temple more than once a year, President Bush was one of them, have a number of people in the Tea Party, and usually vote republican? Yes, the "dreaded" Christian right of course;

Honestly, how does the MSM portray the same people who are basically the polar opposites of their beliefs and agenda? They love them and have all kinds of nice stories about them like they do for Gay people?

What percent of the population is Black, Latino, Jewish, Asian, or Gay? Correct me if I am wrong, but in the same order say 12, 15, 3, 3, and 3 percent? What is the percentage of the same people who work for the MSM? It's a good question, but I bet it is more than say 0.5 in most cases;

Now what is the percentage of the people in the US who are 'born again' as this is called? Something like 75 or 80 million out of 300 plus million equals something like 25 percent right? What is the percentage of the same people who work for the MSM? I doubt it is more than 0.5 percent nationwide.

Can anyone guess why the MSM is not too crazy about hiring the same people? I doubt it has anything to do with their drinking problems right? Do you think it "maybe" has something to do with their beliefs? And the fact that a 'born again' eventual vp at NBC might cause a few problems with the agenda you all believe I am just "imagining"?

[Paul Anthony]

It was not my intention to call you a racist. It is just that for so many see personal liberty is the liberty to percieve the inequities that exist as God telling them they are better than those who suffer under the burden of social inequality.

Your statement above is significant if we are to understand how political polarity has developed. You are certainly not the only liberal to assume such things about anyone espousing views more conservative than your own. It might be helpful if you consider the possibility that someone might be a fiscal conservative without being (A)Christian; (B)Republican; (C)racist; (D)pro-life...shall I continue?

At the same time, it would be extremely helpful if conservatives didn't assume all liberals are (A)atheists; (B)Democrats; (C)gay; (D)pro-abortion...

It is not that there is nothing wrong with our educational system. At the same time changing public education into a mill for turning out "students with marketable skills" would be a mistake. The goal of education should be to teach the youth to think, and their responsibilities in a democratic society. That is not what is happening. Young people with the ability to organize their thoughts and put them into meaningful action are easily worth a living wage.

There was a thread about the purpose of education (over the years, there has probably been a thread on every topic imaginable!)

I am very much in favor of teaching children how to think, rather than what to think, and have said so before. But, it is a sad fact that the primary purpose of public education has always been to turn out useful drones that will keep the economy running. 79% of our economy is dependent upon consumer spending. In order to spend, people must have income. Creativity and independence should be celebrated, but it is, instead, feared by the establishment. Independent thinkers make terrible drones, soldiers, factory workers, burger-flippers. Worse, independent thinkers don't fall for political rhetoric! They are harder to manage at every level. BTW, some of my best employees were home-schooled. Some of the worst were products of the public school establishment.

The question is, by what measure is it fair to pay the CEO $40million while paying the guy who cleans the toilets $15,000 a year...or the person who educates your children $35,000?

I can't justify the obscene salaries of some CEO's anymore than I could justify the equally obscene salaries of professional sports or movie stars, but I can see why someone who is responsible for keeping a company running (and capable of employing many people) is worth more than "the guy who cleans toilets". No poor person has ever offered me a job.

Minimum wage is intended to make sure people who work make a living wage. Even a trainee.

Minimum wage is NOT a living wage, and never will be - no matter how high it becomes. Most people measure their wealth not by what they have, but by how much more others have. The minimum wage earner will always be on the bottom of the heap. Furthermore, the number of dollars one has is irrelevant. What matters is the buying power of those dollars. Raising the minimum wage while also raising the cost of living (mostly through government-controlled inflation) ensures that the minimum wage earner will never prosper.

But, the poor sap who never learned economics in school (the majority of college grads can't balance a checkbook) thinks he's better off when his minimum wage is raised, so he ignores the reality that the only way he will ever prosper is to gain the skills and knowledge to command - yes, command - a higher wage. You can't hire a plumber or a doctor or an auto mechanic or a lawyer for minimum wage. People with skills can command better compensation. If the only skill one has mastered is the ability to clean toilets, one should not expect to be rewarded for his lack of effort.

It sounds like you have been very fortunate, as have I. I know many who have not. Ask the guy driving a cab about his master's degree in social work or education. Opportunities to "be yourself" do not always present themselves. Many of us follow the path of least resistance and get lucky. For others, chance is not so kind. This will always be the case. A liberal point of view means believing no one should start out with a deck stacked for or against them.

I've read and re-read your above statement, and still can't make sense of it. If the guy driving the cab has a master's degree, how was the deck stacked against him? Does cab driving require a master's degree? Maybe he should have attempted to obtain a degree in something more useful than social work. Who's fault is that?

[ronjanec]

Paul,

FYI, I read somewhere that the actual reason for the obscene and ever escalating salaries for many CEO's today is due to the fierce competition for the same talent. If I really want Paul Anthony to be the CEO of my company, and Paul is already making 5 million, I may have to offer him 10 million to get him to jump ship.

Then, the next company who wants Paul to work for them has to offer Paul even more money.

[Paul Anthony]

Paul,

FYI, I read somewhere that the actual reason for the obscene and ever escalating salaries for many CEO's today is due to the fierce competition for the same talent. If I really want Paul Anthony to be the CEO of my company, and Paul is already making 5 million, I may have to offer him 10 million to get him to jump ship.

Then, the next company who wants Paul to work for them has to offer Paul even more money.

Let the bidding begin! :)

There may be something to that. In one industry I worked, companies always paid more to snag managers from their competitors than they offered to the poor sap who was loyal to one company and asked for a promotion. (Hint: I was the sap - but not for long!)

[Gregorygregg1]

Technically Gregory, what you said in your first sentence is quite true, and if you follow me on this I think you'll understand my point.  

It doesn't matter how we view the outcomes of legislation in congress or how we feel about those outcomes,  there is a winner and a loser from a philosophical perspective.  In this context when I speak about philosophical, I'm not speaking about a state of mind of any one particular person or group.  I'm speaking about two antitheticaly different world views, and you're either going in one direction or the other.  You're not going in both at the same time, and there's no third direction.  

The great philosophers didn't conceive and design their 'systems' with the idea of negotiation, and please follow me on this.  The outcomes of these philosophies are the result of binary propositions.  Let's just use ethics as a simple one.  You have individualism and collectivism representing two different sides of a coin.  There are of course many reasons why one view prevailed over the other, but let's accept the fact that there are two choices - or two different determinations and outcomes.  Much of course went into arriving at these two different and diametrically opposed views, and it is legislation that is derived from these views, and not the other way around.  These basic principles that we know become the basis for highly complex legislation, with legal language and all sorts of competing interests, but that doesn't negate the fact that you can still find the basic principles.  

People generally don't have beliefs or views with the idea of compromise, as a first principle.  As an example, if one holds a view of individualism, that's their view.  it's not a view of individualism with the idea that if someone disagrees with them, that they'll agree that they should have a collectivist view, instead.  It also doesn't mean that people won't change their minds. But those sorts of changes are larger things to get your head around, and don't logically happen on a day-to-day or issue-by-issue basis.  Skipping forward to congress and some pending legislation, this is where there is compromise, but that's because that's how the system works when you don't have 100% (figuratively) of the representatives thinking the same way.  It's not compromise for the sake of compromise, it's compromise because it's most often a necessity.  

What I'm saying here is that people 'typically' go into a debate with fixed principles; which is a positive thing, but they don't always get what they want or believe is right.  It doesn't matter if we call it winning or losing.  If two different paths are being debated and there's going to be a conclusive outcome, then one path prevails and the other does not.  Both sides can walk away feeling that they did well in the process, but that doesn't mean in the absence of their awareness of their awareness of core principles being debated, that one idea prevailed and the other did not.  

To your point about government being 'done correctly', that assumes that there's only one path to take; a single view, and we both know that there isn't a single view in the process.

Finally, let's not confuse political parties with political philosophies.  Conservatism is not about big business. There is nothing written by Edmund Burke, Russell Kirk, Richard Weaver, or many others, that addresses the idea of the size of a business, or even the idea of a tax rate.   You're conflating what the Republican party does, with conservatism, and it's not always the case that they're one in the same.

OK.  This sounds like an opportunity for education.  I stand corrected on the meaning of conservatism.  And I was off base on the statement about government being done correctly which implies that there is only one "correct" set of priorities.
Let us assume that the binary opposites are individualism and collectivism.  It becomes clear that I would hold a collectivist position, because my philosophy is non-egoic.  From this philosophical position, the greatest good is that which best serves humanity, and through humanity, life.  This would entail making every effort to provide every person the opportunity to realize his or her full potential with the understanding that unrealized  human potential is an unnecessary waste of a tremendous resource.
From the individualism side of the coin one might say that achievement of a person's full potential is the responsibility of the individual, not the society in which he or she lives.  From this position any interference with the system that provided the successful individuals living in it their supremacy, would be to deny them the opportunity to reach their full potential.  Because of their philosophy of individualism, they would contend that "If all men are created equal," then, because I am able to succeed, those who don't, aren't trying hard enough.  It is not the system that needs to change, but the attitudes of the people who aren't trying hard enough. 

Is this an accurate assessment?

[ronjanec]

What happened to the original topic everyone?

[Gregorygregg1]

What happened to the original topic everyone?

The original topic was a request for a theory to explain the political polarity that exists in the US. Until our friend backbeat jumped in, all we were doing was demonstrating the polarity I was talking about. Backbeat has something worthwhile to say, and I am all for drawing him out. He has introduced the concept of a binary opposition, which is a non emotion laden concept we can all deal with to help us understand where each of us is coming from. Then we can work in finding a transition zone we can share.

[ronjanec]

What happened to the original topic everyone?

The original topic was a request for a theory to explain the political polarity that exists in the US. Until our friend backbeat jumped in, all we were doing was demonstrating the polarity I was talking about. Backbeat has something worthwhile to say, and I am all for drawing him out. He has introduced the concept of a binary opposition, which is a non emotion laden concept we can all deal with to help us understand where each of us is coming from. Then we can work in finding a transition zone we can share.

Well, if that is ok with you, then I guess it will have to be ok with me(it is your thread after all) But you may discourage myself and others from participating and commenting in your other threads, if you make a habit out of this Greg.