What happened to "not a blue-red America, the United States of America" message?

[KingSweden]

I think we’ve passed the point of no return. Politics went from two sides having different ideas on how to solve problems to a football game where everyone cheers for their team to defeat the other side to a toned-down version of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict where the two sides hate each other on a personal basis because of their affiliation with the other side. Hence why a Trump supporter flipped me off and screamed “Get a job!” at me while I was on my way to work.

As America becomes more and more polarized, and particularly as white conservatives continue to lose the culture wars, American politics will be split down racial lines as America becomes a minority-majority nation. The Republican Party will be the White party and the Democratic Party will be the Black Party. When this happens, look forward to South Africa/Rhodesia style Apartheid.

TL;DR it’s only going to get worse.

Politics was always like that; the purpose of the Obama speech was to try to forge a post-Bush Vs Gore future.

There are a few big problems that could be identified. I'll try and be fair, and say things that can easily be diagnosed across the board regardless of political affiliation (yes, including the beloved "centre").

- too much focus on symbolic issues (left right and centre) than policy; and the media are definitely culpable in this. The culture war in general has become a burden on both parties.
- economic discontent across the board with no clear solutions in sight.
- a political system that is based around WTA that normally leaves half the population unsatisfied.
- perhaps a stranger point that will hurt a lot of people here: the massive surge of demography, political targeting, Electoral Collage coverage etc has trained people and politicians to view voters as demographics rather than people.

This last point is quite fair, IMO.

I should add that concentrating so much power in DC has raised the stakes politically to a point of partisanship our constitutional system is not designed for

[courts]

I think we’ve passed the point of no return. Politics went from two sides having different ideas on how to solve problems to a football game where everyone cheers for their team to defeat the other side to a toned-down version of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict where the two sides hate each other on a personal basis because of their affiliation with the other side. Hence why a Trump supporter flipped me off and screamed “Get a job!” at me while I was on my way to work.

As America becomes more and more polarized, and particularly as white conservatives continue to lose the culture wars, American politics will be split down racial lines as America becomes a minority-majority nation. The Republican Party will be the White party and the Democratic Party will be the Black Party. When this happens, look forward to South Africa/Rhodesia style Apartheid.

TL;DR it’s only going to get worse.

Politics was always like that; the purpose of the Obama speech was to try to forge a post-Bush Vs Gore future.

There are a few big problems that could be identified. I'll try and be fair, and say things that can easily be diagnosed across the board regardless of political affiliation (yes, including the beloved "centre").

- too much focus on symbolic issues (left right and centre) than policy; and the media are definitely culpable in this. The culture war in general has become a burden on both parties.
- economic discontent across the board with no clear solutions in sight.
- a political system that is based around WTA that normally leaves half the population unsatisfied.
- perhaps a stranger point that will hurt a lot of people here: the massive surge of demography, political targeting, Electoral Collage coverage etc has trained people and politicians to view voters as demographics rather than people.

oh absolutely.there's something very dehumanizing about modern politics in general..and by modern i obviously mean sometime starting around the 70s..great post

[Alabama_Indy10]

The GOP Either side refusing to compromise with the Democrats on anything.

FTFY

[Darthpi – Anti-Florida Activist]

I think we’ve passed the point of no return. Politics went from two sides having different ideas on how to solve problems to a football game where everyone cheers for their team to defeat the other side to a toned-down version of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict where the two sides hate each other on a personal basis because of their affiliation with the other side. Hence why a Trump supporter flipped me off and screamed “Get a job!” at me while I was on my way to work.

As America becomes more and more polarized, and particularly as white conservatives continue to lose the culture wars, American politics will be split down racial lines as America becomes a minority-majority nation. The Republican Party will be the White party and the Democratic Party will be the Black Party. When this happens, look forward to South Africa/Rhodesia style Apartheid.

TL;DR it’s only going to get worse.

I would agree with a fair bit of this, though maybe not all of it. On the specific issue of "solving problems" I would add that there is probably less agreement than ever between the parties on what problems society faces. There are a lot of things Republicans view as a crisis that Democrats view as either not a big deal or as a positive, depending on the issue, and vice-versa. Obviously there are some areas where there is an agreement on what the problem is and the debate is about how to solve it - like the opioid epidemic - but I feel like there are fewer examples of that now than there have been historically.

[Xing]

"The other side did it! They're horrible, repugnant, un-American morons who don't belong in this country! And they're so divisive and mean too! "

[Devout Centrist]

It’s called rhetoric

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Look at Europe; the answer is no. Democrats are center/center-right on most issues.

I wish the Democratic Party was further left on economic issues. The only things they seem to consistently move left on is social issues, which aligns better with the donor base. The party has only moved left on other stuff begrudgingly, in a limited fashion at that, and often in ways that do not inspire trust (re: New Jersey millionaire tax).

People like Reaganfan have no idea what they are talking about, and take America's whole political situation for granted. Conservatives have had it easy since the 90s, and the next 30 years will probably not be kind to their ideas.

Well most people don't understand political cycles and assume that "this time is different". Kind of like the stock market.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Democrats blaming Republicans fully for not getting their agenda passed  is funny since they had 59 and 60 senators in 2009-2010 and huge majorities in the house.

[Jeffster]

Democrats blaming Republicans fully for not getting their agenda passed  is funny since they had 59 and 60 senators in 2009-2010 and huge majorities in the house.

Reid should have nuked the filibuster in Jan. 2009. It was clear the Republicans would continue to abuse the filibuster after breaking the record in the 110th Congress (2007-2008). Republicans benefit from the filibuster much more than Democrats based on each parties priorities, so it makes more sense for the Dems to nuke it anyways. My theory after seeing what happened, is that the elites running the Democratic party don't really want a left wing economic agenda to pass, and like having the filibuster as an excuse why they couldn't get any of their big promises done for their base.

[junior chįmp]

The GOP Either side refusing to compromise with the Democrats on anything.

FTFY

Except this just isnt true. The GOP meticulously planned to obstruct Obama at all costs.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[junior chįmp]

The GOP Either side refusing to compromise with the Democrats on anything.

FTFY

Except this just isnt true. The GOP meticulously planned to obstruct Obama at all costs.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And Dems passed a healthcare bill without a single vote in either chamber from the opposition. Literally, both sides do it.

Because that's how they planned it. When Obama was elected in 2008, the GOP leadership met before he was even inagurated to plan out how to obstruct his administration:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Virginiá]

And Dems passed a healthcare bill without a single vote in either chamber from the opposition. Literally, both sides do it.

Well hold on there, so if in a two party system, the minority party in Congress basically decides to not support anything the president's party wants no matter what, even if its something they might normally be fine with (not that they would be fine with ACA, but stay with me here), is the federal government majority party supposed to put that policy change on the backburner indefinitely? Don't you see how that could be problematic? There should be an assumption that if a party consolidates control over the federal government, they get leeway in creating policy, especially if they were elected with strong majorities in what could easily be interpreted as a mandate to do something.

For instance, I was never against tax reform at all costs. I am vehemently against tax cuts for the wealthy, but even I can tolerate some of that so long as Republicans pay for all/most of it. Ditto for tax cuts for other entities/people. But they didn't do that. They didn't even really try, which is an insult to future generations of this country. If they had produced a tax cut package that was much less fiscally reckless and operated on a 10 year window, and actually held a full slate of hearings on it and took input from others (something the PPACA passage did but the Trump tax cuts didn't), I wouldn't have held it against them, nor if some Democrats voted for it.

The majority party should be able to pass legislation and not have the minority party leaders organizing a full blockade on bipartisan support for partisan reasons, so long as the majority party is acting in good faith, and so long as the legislation isn't creating huge problems for current or future generations. But I guess the problem is that good faith actions are hard to come by anymore.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

It ended when the GOP got together on January 20, 2009 and said they wanted Obama to be a one term president and that they should make no effort to cooperate with him.

That may have been the culmination of the process, but the die was cast in 1994 when Newt Gingrich captured the House.  This event pretty much ideologized the parties and caused conservatives, even moderate conservatives, to have no practical reason to be Democrats anywhere in the country.

[Devout Centrist]

The GOP Either side refusing to compromise with the Democrats on anything.

FTFY

Except this just isnt true. The GOP meticulously planned to obstruct Obama at all costs.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And Dems passed a healthcare bill without a single vote in either chamber from the opposition. Literally, both sides do it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/17/us/politics/17mcconnell.html?pagewanted=1&hp

And as a bit of an aside, the Democratic Party has oftentimes prioritized bipartisanship over obstruction, even when the latter was more popular. Even under the Trump administration, Democratic politicos have been far more willing to support Republican nominees and bills, sometimes to their own detriment.

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

https://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/17/us/politics/17mcconnell.html?pagewanted=1&hp

And as a bit of an aside, the Democratic Party has oftentimes prioritized bipartisanship over obstruction, even when the latter was more popular. Even under the Trump administration, Democratic politicos have been far more willing to support Republican nominees and bills, sometimes to their own detriment.

^^^

[gerritcole]

It went the same way as "Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country,” and the " I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."

While all 3 are ideals that the nation should aspire towards, they never reflected the realities of the nation.

Specifically about Obama's quote; people want affirmation now, no longer information (both sides). it's quite easy to only hear the news you want to hear. the 'other side' becomes increasingly demonized and now here we are

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

Seriously, can you imagine anyone from the GOP saying anything about unity or "both sides" or any of that crap? I might hate them, but they play to win. The Dems should take a page and quit the moral high ground BS that had castrated them for years.

Republicans oppose the alt-right [1].  But there are "respectable" Democrats who praise antifa.

1: By alt-right I mean the actual alt-right, the people who call for resegregation and talk about "white genocide."  Opposing intervention in Syria or making fun of SJWs does not make one alt-right.

[Sestak]

Seriously, can you imagine anyone from the GOP saying anything about unity or "both sides" or any of that crap? I might hate them, but they play to win. The Dems should take a page and quit the moral high ground BS that had castrated them for years.

Republicans oppose the alt-right [1].  But there are "respectable" Democrats who praise antifa.

1: By alt-right I mean the actual alt-right, the people who call for resegregation and talk about "white genocide."  Opposing intervention in Syria or making fun of SJWs does not make one alt-right.

which "respectable" Dems are you referring to?

[Badger]

Nothing happens to it. The country united to elect the GOP.

Nope. Gerrymandering and the Electoral College did that.

[Badger]

The Democrats soared to the far left.

In 2000 when Al Gore ran, 22% of Democrats identified as "liberals". By Obama's time a decade later, that number doubled into the 40% range.

Obama ran opposed to same sex marriage, by his second term he lit the White House in the rainbow flag and issued federal directives to schools about transgendered bathrooms.

Obama started defending criminal felons due to their race, people who used to be out-right condemned by both political parties.

They became the crazies. Trump's America has always been there.

If you look closely, and really squint hard, you will see that support for gay marriage was at most a evenly split 2 slightly supported measure in the beginning of Obama's presidency and by the end of his presidency the vast majority of Americans have come to accept and even support it. Present company excepted of course.

With that last point in mind, naso, who's the true extremist here out of sync with the views of America. You or Obama?

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

Seriously, can you imagine anyone from the GOP saying anything about unity or "both sides" or any of that crap? I might hate them, but they play to win. The Dems should take a page and quit the moral high ground BS that had castrated them for years.

Republicans oppose the alt-right [1].  But there are "respectable" Democrats who praise antifa.

1: By alt-right I mean the actual alt-right, the people who call for resegregation and talk about "white genocide."  Opposing intervention in Syria or making fun of SJWs does not make one alt-right.

which "respectable" Dems are you referring to?

Keith Ellison

[Sadader]

And Dems passed a healthcare bill without a single vote in either chamber from the opposition. Literally, both sides do it.

Well hold on there, so if in a two party system, the minority party in Congress basically decides to not support anything the president's party wants no matter what, even if its something they might normally be fine with (not that they would be fine with ACA, but stay with me here), is the federal government majority party supposed to put that policy change on the backburner indefinitely? Don't you see how that could be problematic? There should be an assumption that if a party consolidates control over the federal government, they get leeway in creating policy, especially if they were elected with strong majorities in what could easily be interpreted as a mandate to do something.

For instance, I was never against tax reform at all costs. I am vehemently against tax cuts for the wealthy, but even I can tolerate some of that so long as Republicans pay for all/most of it. Ditto for tax cuts for other entities/people. But they didn't do that. They didn't even really try, which is an insult to future generations of this country. If they had produced a tax cut package that was much less fiscally reckless and operated on a 10 year window, and actually held a full slate of hearings on it and took input from others (something the PPACA passage did but the Trump tax cuts didn't), I wouldn't have held it against them, nor if some Democrats voted for it.

The majority party should be able to pass legislation and not have the minority party leaders organizing a full blockade on bipartisan support for partisan reasons, so long as the majority party is acting in good faith, and so long as the legislation isn't creating huge problems for current or future generations. But I guess the problem is that good faith actions are hard to come by anymore.

I’d go as far to say that just getting the 60 Dems to agree to it was significant enough “bipartisanship”, given the fact that the Democratic senate caucus has to be extremely ideologically diverse to hold any chance of reaching a majority, let alone a filibuster-proof one. The ACA was a great bill for compromise, and should have been voted for by Republicans, but them categorically refusing any support for Obama killed any hope of bipartisanship.

Honestly I think that the best solution here is for a complete constitutional change of Congress to make it a parliamentary system akin to Germany’s.

[Bojack Horseman]

And Dems passed a healthcare bill without a single vote in either chamber from the opposition. Literally, both sides do it.

Well hold on there, so if in a two party system, the minority party in Congress basically decides to not support anything the president's party wants no matter what, even if its something they might normally be fine with (not that they would be fine with ACA, but stay with me here), is the federal government majority party supposed to put that policy change on the backburner indefinitely? Don't you see how that could be problematic? There should be an assumption that if a party consolidates control over the federal government, they get leeway in creating policy, especially if they were elected with strong majorities in what could easily be interpreted as a mandate to do something.

For instance, I was never against tax reform at all costs. I am vehemently against tax cuts for the wealthy, but even I can tolerate some of that so long as Republicans pay for all/most of it. Ditto for tax cuts for other entities/people. But they didn't do that. They didn't even really try, which is an insult to future generations of this country. If they had produced a tax cut package that was much less fiscally reckless and operated on a 10 year window, and actually held a full slate of hearings on it and took input from others (something the PPACA passage did but the Trump tax cuts didn't), I wouldn't have held it against them, nor if some Democrats voted for it.

The majority party should be able to pass legislation and not have the minority party leaders organizing a full blockade on bipartisan support for partisan reasons, so long as the majority party is acting in good faith, and so long as the legislation isn't creating huge problems for current or future generations. But I guess the problem is that good faith actions are hard to come by anymore.

I’d go as far to say that just getting the 60 Dems to agree to it was significant enough “bipartisanship”, given the fact that the Democratic senate caucus has to be extremely ideologically diverse to hold any chance of reaching a majority, let alone a filibuster-proof one. The ACA was a great bill for compromise, and should have been voted for by Republicans, but them categorically refusing any support for Obama killed any hope of bipartisanship.

Honestly I think that the best solution here is for a complete constitutional change of Congress to make it a parliamentary system akin to Germany’s.

I’ve been saying this for a while. The only way to fix it is to go to a confidence system, where if certain things don’t get passed then it’s back to hanging out in your strip mall campaign office because there’s an election coming in six weeks.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

And Dems passed a healthcare bill without a single vote in either chamber from the opposition. Literally, both sides do it.

Well hold on there, so if in a two party system, the minority party in Congress basically decides to not support anything the president's party wants no matter what, even if its something they might normally be fine with (not that they would be fine with ACA, but stay with me here), is the federal government majority party supposed to put that policy change on the backburner indefinitely? Don't you see how that could be problematic? There should be an assumption that if a party consolidates control over the federal government, they get leeway in creating policy, especially if they were elected with strong majorities in what could easily be interpreted as a mandate to do something.

For instance, I was never against tax reform at all costs. I am vehemently against tax cuts for the wealthy, but even I can tolerate some of that so long as Republicans pay for all/most of it. Ditto for tax cuts for other entities/people. But they didn't do that. They didn't even really try, which is an insult to future generations of this country. If they had produced a tax cut package that was much less fiscally reckless and operated on a 10 year window, and actually held a full slate of hearings on it and took input from others (something the PPACA passage did but the Trump tax cuts didn't), I wouldn't have held it against them, nor if some Democrats voted for it.

The majority party should be able to pass legislation and not have the minority party leaders organizing a full blockade on bipartisan support for partisan reasons, so long as the majority party is acting in good faith, and so long as the legislation isn't creating huge problems for current or future generations. But I guess the problem is that good faith actions are hard to come by anymore.

I’d go as far to say that just getting the 60 Dems to agree to it was significant enough “bipartisanship”, given the fact that the Democratic senate caucus has to be extremely ideologically diverse to hold any chance of reaching a majority, let alone a filibuster-proof one. The ACA was a great bill for compromise, and should have been voted for by Republicans, but them categorically refusing any support for Obama killed any hope of bipartisanship.

Honestly I think that the best solution here is for a complete constitutional change of Congress to make it a parliamentary system akin to Germany’s.

I’ve been saying this for a while. The only way to fix it is to go to a confidence system, where if certain things don’t get passed then it’s back to hanging out in your strip mall campaign office because there’s an election coming in six weeks.

Tearing down checks and balances will make things in this nation ten times worse.

[Pericles]

I think it's best to have a parliamentary system, but have it be elected by proportional representation. Under FPP and a unicameral system the lack of checks and balances would be a serious problem as one party can basically form an elective dictatorship and gain much greater power than their support should allow.