Do you actually care about anything?

[Battista Minola 1616]

I only care about owning the libs.

[Battista Minola 1616]

Good answers guys, keep it up.

I am learning from the troll master.

[Battista Minola 1616]

Why had this thread to be derailed by a stale discussion about L'Homme Orange?
But since we are there.

I don't comment on Ferg because I'm not even sure he is trying to make a substantive argument.

However I am pretty sure that the argument CraneHusband was trying to make is broadly similar to the following (thanks, brucejoel99):

I disagree. The U.S. has almost always exhibited some degree of political polarization:



However, our current era of such is largely related to economic pressures resulting from income inequality, which drives citizens to choose more ideologically-extreme options. This chart shows the share of pre-tax household income received by the top 1%, top 0.1%, & top 0.01% in the U.S.:



As we can see, the level of income inequality mirrors the level of political polarization: if you look at the beginning of the charts (so, the late-1800s & early-1900s), levels of political polarization & income inequality were high. This obviously coincides with the Gilded Age, an era known for its lack of substantive business-structure regulation & labor laws in spite of there being massive industrial growth. This subjected much of the working-poor to harsh-working conditions & allowed the elite to gain untold riches. This - along with an often jingoistic & dis-informative press - radicalized the 2 flanks of the population until progressive reforms were enacted under Teddy Roosevelt. Polarization later rose slightly during WWI & the year after due to the 1st Red Scare, but decreased during the Roaring Twenties & continued to do so even further when FDR enacted the New Deal in response to the Depression, which further reduced income inequality.

Any of this sound familiar? Well, we're obviously currently in a 2nd Gilded Age, triggered by the ideology of seemingly-perpetual deregulatory reforms that were initiated in the 1970s & cuts to social-spending (outside of health-care) that culminated in Clinton's passage of "the end of welfare as we know it." In the social-issue realm, one of these deregulatory reforms was the 1987 abolition of the FCC's Fairness Doctrine, which required all news broadcasters to report only the facts with as little bias as possible. This led to the rise of conservative talk-radio & the subsequent moral panics of the late '80s & early '90s. At that point in the first chart, we can see polarization begin its climb to its current levels today. This was made even worse by the infamous Citizens United case, which allowed unlimited amounts of corporate PAC money to pour into our elections. This - combined with the fact that the average American family never really recovered from the Great Recession - has created an immense amount of pressure &, in turn, radicalization.

[Battista Minola 1616]

Why had this thread to be derailed by a stale discussion about L'Homme Orange?
But since we are there.

I don't comment on Ferg because I'm not even sure he is trying to make a substantive argument.

However I am pretty sure that the argument CraneHusband was trying to make is broadly similar to the following (thanks, brucejoel99):

I disagree. The U.S. has almost always exhibited some degree of political polarization:



However, our current era of such is largely related to economic pressures resulting from income inequality, which drives citizens to choose more ideologically-extreme options. This chart shows the share of pre-tax household income received by the top 1%, top 0.1%, & top 0.01% in the U.S.:



As we can see, the level of income inequality mirrors the level of political polarization: if you look at the beginning of the charts (so, the late-1800s & early-1900s), levels of political polarization & income inequality were high. This obviously coincides with the Gilded Age, an era known for its lack of substantive business-structure regulation & labor laws in spite of there being massive industrial growth. This subjected much of the working-poor to harsh-working conditions & allowed the elite to gain untold riches. This - along with an often jingoistic & dis-informative press - radicalized the 2 flanks of the population until progressive reforms were enacted under Teddy Roosevelt. Polarization later rose slightly during WWI & the year after due to the 1st Red Scare, but decreased during the Roaring Twenties & continued to do so even further when FDR enacted the New Deal in response to the Depression, which further reduced income inequality.

Any of this sound familiar? Well, we're obviously currently in a 2nd Gilded Age, triggered by the ideology of seemingly-perpetual deregulatory reforms that were initiated in the 1970s & cuts to social-spending (outside of health-care) that culminated in Clinton's passage of "the end of welfare as we know it." In the social-issue realm, one of these deregulatory reforms was the 1987 abolition of the FCC's Fairness Doctrine, which required all news broadcasters to report only the facts with as little bias as possible. This led to the rise of conservative talk-radio & the subsequent moral panics of the late '80s & early '90s. At that point in the first chart, we can see polarization begin its climb to its current levels today. This was made even worse by the infamous Citizens United case, which allowed unlimited amounts of corporate PAC money to pour into our elections. This - combined with the fact that the average American family never really recovered from the Great Recession - has created an immense amount of pressure &, in turn, radicalization.

That’s literally a two year old Reddit post copied word for word.

Well then thanks to the reddit user. And brucejoel99 has some (many) things to explain.