Is Political discourse getting more polarized? More brittle?

[SerScot]

Okay, sounds like a question everyone asks about their current time period. But I really wonder if the polarization is becoming more pronounced, particularly in the U.S. Additionally, it's becomeing more difficult to simply agree we have strong differences of opinion and to say "so be it." It's as though people who disagree with each other are taking their politically opinions much more personally?

Why is that the case? Do people see more at stake than they used to? Do they believe we're at some crossroads that if we move past this point we can't turn back?

What is going on that is making people so brittle with their political opinions?

[Cybrweez]

No, I think its true every generation thinks that's the case, and its probably not. How do you measure anyway? I mean, Congress people aren't fighting on the floor anymore, so that's a step in the right direction.

[SerScot]

Cyberweez,

Well, I'm basing this largely on my perception of political discussions on line. I've been arguing on line for more than ten years now. The discourse has changed and it's my perception that opinions and discussions are much more brittle than they were several years ago.

[hierachy]

I think the Internet has made everyone an expert.

[Zarathustra]

I think the Internet has made everyone an expert.

You might have something there ... I think we've always been polarized, but there used to be a monopoly of news reporting that gave the impression that our views are more similar than they actually are. With talk radio, the Internet, and Fox News, the other side now has a voice. And that voice is under constant attack from the other side, not merely in terms of debate, but in terms of trying to undermine it, demean it, discredit it, and silence it. When you have our federal government attacking radio and TV hosts, imply that a news network isn't really news (but giving support to their rival that is equally polarized), you know things are getting bad. Even the grass roots voices of the Tea Party must be maligned as a bunch of violent racists. So Fox News "isn't really news," Tea Party "isn't really a grass roots dissent," and of course Rush is a racist bigot. The strongest conservative voices are always attacked on a personal level, not at the level of their arguments or policies.

I honestly can't think of a conservative counterpart to this kind of attack. Bush didn't attack news channels or his critics. No one ever said that the anti-Bush protesters weren't legitimate. And we don't have conservative comedians joking about how funny it would be if Al Sharpton died.

Yes, it's "brittle." But the side which complains the most about the "civility" of the debate is the side engaging in the ad hominen attacks, in my opinion (unless you throw in Ann Coulter ).

[SerScot]

Zarathustra,

There were plenty on the Right, particularly pre-2006 who were callin those who spoke out against the war in Iraq "unAmerican" or traitors. The shrill cries are not solely from the left side of the political spectrum. It's across the board in my opinion.

[sindatur]

AS has been said, there has always been your "red meat throwers" on both sides of the aisle, but, the most uncivil and loudest of those were previously thought to be wingnuts, and largely marginalized. NOw those folks are the mainstream (on both sides), which carries forward to polarizing the voters more.

[Zarathustra]

Zarathustra,

There were plenty on the Right, particularly pre-2006 who were callin those who spoke out against the war in Iraq "unAmerican" or traitors. The shrill cries are not solely from the left side of the political spectrum. It's across the board in my opinion.

I know that people complained of this, but I never heard it actually being done. Specifically, it was not done by our president, the Speaker of the House, and the majority leader of the Senate, and two past presidents (Carter and Clinton). There may have been a few nuts who tossed around these terms during the Bush years, but that's completely different from the entire ediface of the Democratic leadership, past and present, making these kinds of charges. This is truly unprecedented. We can't pretend that a concerted effort from the leaders of every branch of government to malign conservative voters won't have an effect on the dialog.

[SerScot]

Zarathustra,

You're moving the goalposts. My point with this thread wasn't to highlight political discourse among those in Washington but political discourse generally.

[High Lord Tolkien]

I'd say being more informed naturally means being more polarized.

[sgt.null]

i have to agree with Z. before the right had a voice it seems the assumption was that the left had a monopoly on the media. not too many dissenting voices could be heard.

why else would the left be digging up the fairness doctrine?

and it seems i remember a movie about W being assassinated.

i remember the left rioting in the 60's at their convention.

now i know the tea baggers have some nuts - but they are drowned out by the left's assertion that any dissent is rooted in racism.

[Lord Mhoram]

The vilification of the mass media by the White House dates back at least to Richard Nixon whose notoriously contentious relationship with the media far surpasses anything we see now -- his paranoia and hatred led to actual prosecuted criminal behavior. (Come to think of it, this trend probably dates even earlier to HUAC, when Congress crucified "un-American" media figures.) In answer to Scot's actual question, I think it's pretty well documented that Internet users gravitate towards sources which bolster their already-existing viewpoint. The preponderance of sources available to us makes it easier for us to read only what we want to read. It is polarizing, and it is radicalizing. This access makes us better informed in some ways (more data is at our fingertips than at any point in the history of the world), and much worse informed in other ways (the opinions you'll actually read and research will only come from where you want it to). I'm as guilty of this tendency as anybody.

[Avatar]

Always an interesting question. Of course, polarisation has always been a facet of politics. And of course, the internet has given us a wider platform than ever before on which to be offended by other people's points of view.

Is it getting worse? I'm not really sure. I think how bad it appears depends on which side you're on, and which side is "on top" as it were.

But I think it's an unusually big issue in the US for what it's worth.

Y'all take this as you like, but when I took on the job of moderating the 'Tank 5 years ago, I thought my biggest challenge would be keeping other nationalities from the throat of the Americans. Almost without exception, it has been keeping (attempting to keep) the American's from each other's throats.

I'm starting to believe that there is nobody the Americans hate more than each other. And that can't be good for a country.

--A

[aliantha]

The vilification of the mass media by the White House dates back at least to Richard Nixon whose notoriously contentious relationship with the media far surpasses anything we see now -- his paranoia and hatred led to actual prosecuted criminal behavior.

And Nixon's veep, Spiro Agnew, uttered the famous "nattering nabobs of negativism" comment in regard to the media. Of course, that wasn't long before he had to quit the vice-presidency after pleading no-contest to tax fraud charges.

The link attributes the comment to William Safire, Agnew's speechwriter at the time, who went on to be a conservative newspaper columnist.

[wayfriend]

The internet is only half of the problem.

The other half of the problem is that political parties now more than ever use every means available to move voters. There is no endeaver of human activity that they do not use as vehicles. People are given talking points and told: go out into forums and post this opinion. News has become a vehicle for political propoganda. Soccer moms are pressed into talking politics with other soccer moms at soccer games. Neighbors are given the phone numbers of neighbors and told to call them.

It's the so-called astroturf movement. Internet provides a lot of means to this end. But it isn't the only means. Uber-rich political parties, empowered by the information age, know how to deliver messages to targets. It's the onholy marriage of politics, marketting, and data mining.

Tabloid politics is a side effect of this. Nothing spreads like something scandalous. So make everything a scandal.

[Zarathustra]

Good to see you around, LM.

The vilification of the mass media by the White House dates back at least to Richard Nixon whose notoriously contentious relationship with the media far surpasses anything we see now -- his paranoia and hatred led to actual prosecuted criminal behavior.

Good point. However, I do believe what we're seeing is at least on a different scale than one man. It's worth noting that we all know what Clinton and Carter think of the Tea Party, but we have no idea what either Bush Sr or Jr think.

In answer to Scot's actual question, I think it's pretty well documented that Internet users gravitate towards sources which bolster their already-existing viewpoint. The preponderance of sources available to us makes it easier for us to read only what we want to read. It is polarizing, and it is radicalizing. This access makes us better informed in some ways (more data is at our fingertips than at any point in the history of the world), and much worse informed in other ways (the opinions you'll actually read and research will only come from where you want it to). I'm as guilty of this tendency as anybody.

Which is why debate is so vital, to deliberately expose oneself to opposing views, imo.

In my answer to SerScot's actual question, I noted that we now have more options than ever to hear and confront those opposing views, leading to increased debate. While I agree that we all gravitate toward sources which validate or support our own bias, we still come into contact with conflicting views more often than in the past. Indeed, those opposing views will often be the topic discussed at our favorite, polarized sources (granted, from a biased perspective).

Zarathustra,

You're moving the goalposts. My point with this thread wasn't to highlight political discourse among those in Washington but political discourse generally.

Okay, it's your thread, so you get to set the goalposts. However, I think that limiting the playing field in this manner eliminates potential causal factors before we've even discussed their merit. The examples I gave are part of the discourse. Not only are our Democratic leaders participents, but also the subject matter. They affect the dialog both by their actions and their statements. I don't think this is merely tangential to the question you pose, but also plays a causal role. Their voters (including the mainstream media) take their cues from them. If Obama was taking up for the Tea Party and its right to protest, you'd see a completely different public response, and a much diminished level of "brittleness" in the dialog.

Bush was divisive becuase of his policies. Our Democratic leaders are divisive for the way they step into the very dialog which you're discussing.

I realize that my argument puts a polarized spin on the issue of this thread. But I believe the issue of this thread has a polarized cause. If we really are getting more brittle, it's either some mass psychological phenomenon (unlikely), or it's the current political environment. I go with option B. And I think the current political environment is created mainly by our leaders' actions and statements. While conservative reactions to those actions and statements contribute to the polarization (including mine), they are in reaction to the events and tone defined by our leaders.

[Lord Mhoram]

Z.,

Good to see you around, LM.

Why thank you.

However, I do believe what we're seeing is at least on a different scale than one man.

Well, it was more than one man. It was his entire political operation. The corruption was endemic. That's what made Watergate such a colossal scandal. And again, I think HUAC is an instructive example too, and that was, again, a structural phenomena that ended up affecting all of Congress. Your sensitivity is rather striking. When Glenn Beck is appearing before a Congressional committee that calls him un-American and makes legal claims that he is a collaborator with state enemies, then we can start talking about unprecedentedness.

It's worth noting that we all know what Clinton and Carter think of the Tea Party, but we have no idea what either Bush Sr or Jr think.

So what? We know what Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin and Karl Rove and more or less the entire Republican political establishment thinks of the Tea Party. What exactly is it that you are seeing? Do you really think the polarization of American politics began 15 months ago with the inauguration of Barack Obama? Or three years ago with Nancy Pelosi's election to the Speakership? Nonsense. It didn't even begin 10 years ago with the election of George W. Bush. Polarization is exactly what Washington was talking about in his Farewell Address. It's a constant throughout our nation's political history.

Which is why debate is so vital, to deliberately expose oneself to opposing views, imo.

Certainly.

While I agree that we all gravitate toward sources which validate or support our own bias, we still come into contact with conflicting views more often than in the past.

Maybe. But I think that's offet by the increased focus and indeed the increased insidiousness through which we read all commentary and ingest all news. This isn't the Internet's fault, per se. It's a curious phenomena that we tend to ascribe mystical properties to the Internet sometimes; in this case, as in most, it's just an extension of human psychology.

[Zarathustra]

Lord Mhoram, Nixon counters my "unprecedented" claim in only one sense--attacking the media. I don't know my Nixon history as well as I should, so maybe you can help me out here, but I don't believe that this vilification you've mentioned extended beyond covering up his own corruption, did it? In other words, did he attack the media for its political persepctive on the issues, or because the media went after him for his crimes? I had the impression it was entirely self-serving and not ideologically based.

Regardless, this doesn't address the examples of our leaders attacking the voters.

Your sensitivity is rather striking. When Glenn Beck is appearing before a Congressional committee that calls him un-American and makes legal claims that he is a collaborator with state enemies, then we can start talking about unprecedentedness

It's not sensitivity. It's examing the causal factors of a purported phenonenon.

So what? We know what Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin and Karl Rove and more or less the entire Republican political establishment thinks of the Tea Party. What exactly is it that you are seeing?

At least two of these people are paid commentators for Fox. It's their job to tell us their opinions. While it's true that they were once worked in the government, I don't believe they are comparable to past presidents weighing in on a current issue ... and not simply weighing in, but calling their ideological opponants racist and potential terrorists (Carter's and Clinton's positions on the Tea Party, respectively).

Do you really think the polarization of American politics began 15 months ago with the inauguration of Barack Obama? Or three years ago with Nancy Pelosi's election to the Speakership? Nonsense.

I didn't say when it began. I'm just addressing the hypothetical claim of this thread. I'm saying (and have said) IF there is increased brittleness, the actions/statements of our leaders--combined with increased access to information and opportunities to share opinion on thos actions/statements, are large factors.

Maybe. But I think that's offet by the increased focus and indeed the increased insidiousness through which we read all commentary and ingest all news. This isn't the Internet's fault, per se. It's a curious phenomena that we tend to ascribe mystical properties to the Internet sometimes; in this case, as in most, it's just an extension of human psychology.

No, it's not the Internet's fault. However, having had political discussions before the Internet, I can tell a difference (not to disparage your enviable youth! ). It has empowered the individual citizen to express his views in a way that is nearly mystical, if you want to use that word. Every Average Joe is now a self-publisher. I don't think the importance of this fact can be over-stated. It's a difference of degree that has transcended into a difference in kind.

[SerScot]

Zarathustra,

Okay, it's your thread, so you get to set the goalposts. However, I think that limiting the playing field in this manner eliminates potential causal factors before we've even discussed their merit. The examples I gave are part of the discourse. Not only are our Democratic leaders participents, but also the subject matter. They affect the dialog both by their actions and their statements. I don't think this is merely tangential to the question you pose, but also plays a causal role. Their voters (including the mainstream media) take their cues from them. If Obama was taking up for the Tea Party and its right to protest, you'd see a completely different public response, and a much diminished level of "brittleness" in the dialog.

Bush was divisive becuase of his policies. Our Democratic leaders are divisive for the way they step into the very dialog which you're discussing.

I realize that my argument puts a polarized spin on the issue of this thread. But I believe the issue of this thread has a polarized cause. If we really are getting more brittle, it's either some mass psychological phenomenon (unlikely), or it's the current political environment. I go with option B. And I think the current political environment is created mainly by our leaders' actions and statements. While conservative reactions to those actions and statements contribute to the polarization (including mine), they are in reaction to the events and tone defined by our leaders.

Look, Dick Cheney told a Senator to "Fuck off" on the Senate floor. Bush as much as through out the "You're with us or you're against us" fallacy. I listen to Talk Radio but with a tremendous grain of salt to go with it. Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, Savage, etc... all have been throwing bombs at the left for ten years or more. In a way they serve the Right quite well because it allows you, and others, to make the claim that Rightist politicans don't engage in the retorical bomb throwing the left does. They don't have to, because talk radio takes care of it for them.

I don't think either side is primarily "responsible" for the nasty ad hominum tactics that are being used today. Nor do I think ad hominums are isolated to our time period. Look at the election of 1800 for a great example of political muckraking and the politics of "personal distruction". What I'm asking is whether others perceive, as I do, an increasing shrillness to political discourse in the US generally?

[Lord Mhoram]

Zarathustra,

I don't know my Nixon history as well as I should, so maybe you can help me out here, but I don't believe that this vilification you've mentioned extended beyond covering up his own corruption, did it? In other words, did he attack the media for its political persepctive on the issues, or because the media went after him for his crimes? I had the impression it was entirely self-serving and not ideologically based.

Fundamentally Nixon didn't believe himself accountable to the press or to anybody else. His exercise of power stemmed from a very ideological conception of executive power -- what historians refer to now as the concept of the "imperial presidency." His contempt for the press (for all sorts of tangential but related ideological reasons, such as their "elitism" and liberalism) and his administration's shocking cover-up of their own crimes stems from those ideological values. The press's "political perspective" was one that valued transparency, which he disdained.

Regardless, this doesn't address the examples of our leaders attacking the voters.

Okay, now I'm unclear on what you're talking about here.

It's examing the causal factors of a purported phenonenon.

As I indicated with the HUAC example, this purported phenomena is, simply put, small potatoes.

At least two of these people are paid commentators for Fox. It's their job to tell us their opinions. While it's true that they were once worked in the government, I don't believe they are comparable to past presidents weighing in on a current issue ... and not simply weighing in, but calling their ideological opponants racist and potential terrorists (Carter's and Clinton's positions on the Tea Party, respectively).

Heh. Well first of all, their analysis is, as you might put it, the examination of the "causal factors of a purported phenomena." That's principally what it is is. But let's talk about it. I am so glad you mentioned Fox News, because the incestuous relationship between that network and the Republican Party is what's truly, in my view, unprecedented about the contemporary American media. The Bushes have not participated in that relationship. They're the exceptions to the rule. There's no other way around it: you for some reason think that the Republicans are not as clear in their opinion of what the Tea Party is and what it stands for. I say we know very well what Republicans think of the Tea Party. They had better, because a lot of them, like John McCain, Charlie Crist, and others, will lose primaries this year if they displease the Tea Partiers. They hate Bush almost as much as they hate Obama. What would he have to say about them that wouldn't hurt his party? I should say I've never understood the decorum surrounding former Presidents. Teddy Roosevelt went so far as to run on a third party ticket to make his political displeasure known. There's nothing wrong with such a statement from a former President.

I didn't say when it began. I'm just addressing the hypothetical claim of this thread. I'm saying (and have said) IF there is increased brittleness, the actions/statements of our leaders--combined with increased access to information and opportunities to share opinion on thos actions/statements, are large factors.

When you state it so broadly, I agree. I guess the difference is you think only one party is actually responsible. I'm not surprised.

It has empowered the individual citizen to express his views in a way that is nearly mystical, if you want to use that word. Every Average Joe is now a self-publisher. I don't think the importance of this fact can be over-stated. It's a difference of degree that has transcended into a difference in kind.

Alright, so normatively, do you think this is a good thing or not? That's the central question here.

Ser Scot,

I don't think either side is primarily "responsible" for the nasty ad hominum tactics that are being used today. Nor do I think ad hominums are isolated to our time period. Look at the election of 1800 for a great example of political muckraking and the politics of "personal distruction".

I agree. 1800 is a good example, by the way. That was Jefferson's first election to the Presidency. During his first term, his vice-president, Aaron Burr, shot and killed the leader of the opposition party, Alexander Hamilton, in a duel mostly having to do with slander against Burr in the media. Also during that term, Jefferson engineered the impeachment trial of a Supreme Court justice against whom he was politically opposed, and spoke bitterly and furiously against the federalism of his cousin, Chief Justice John Marshall. (That's a little anecdote for everyone with their panties in a bunch over Obama's Citizens United complaints.) So when did divisiveness start again?

The Founding Fathers, minus Washington, were political animals of the fiercest and most admirable sort.