[DallasFlier]

Originally Posted by mriff

I was also surprised by this. In particular on the sometimes contentious debate in the Obama/evolotion thread.

In my experience, two of the things which are most impossible to debate without it becoming excessively heated and combative are evolution and abortion. There seems to be very little middle ground on either of those issues, and all too often it degenerates into a name-calling dogfight, just as it seemed to here. I really hesitate to even wade into any of those any more. I did briefly here, thinking it might be better, but quickly decided it wasn't.

[mriff]

You're right DF. That's my experience as well. Probably shouldn't have started that thread.

[djm2]

But in an abstract sense, isn't that really the problem -- not just with evolution and abortion but frankly with issues across the entire political spectrum? We have, as a nation I suspect, largely lost the ability to have honest disagreements but yet a willingness to work together to find the middle ground that represents advancing the common good.

I'm old enough to remember Hubert Humphrey working together with Strom Thurmond on issues in the Senate. Does that happen any longer? (Well, obviously not Hubert and Strom. ) If it does, it is kept "back office" as opposed to being brought front and center as one of the strengths of the democratic system.

The two parties now try to represent their small constituencies to a greater degree than their (IMHO) true responsibility: the American Public as a whole. And that makes me sad.

Perhaps sometime I will write up some of the ramblings that indulge in when sucking on a martini. These pertain to why we in America have degenerated into political polemics without the possibility of compromise. And no, I don't think that I have a naive distorted reality of the "good old days." I know how nasty Jefferson and Adams got in their fights with one another.

[DallasFlier]

djm, to a great extent I agree with you. My theory of why everything is so polarized these days lies with the gross gerrymandering done by BOTH parties to create "safe districts" for themselves all over the country. Its gotten to the point where the districts which elect our Senators and Congressmen/women are mostly VERY liberal or VERY conservative, because they've been drawn that way on purpose - with both parties being equally guilty. I think it used to be where a lot of moderates were elected, because a lot of districts were pretty moderate on a whole. Now, that's no longer the case and to get elected, you must be VERY liberal or VERY conservative, because of how the districts are drawn. They've pretty much gotten rid of the moderate middle as voting districts around the country have been redrawn over the last couple decades.

[djm2]

Very good point DF. It also keeps the seats safe. But what is surprising is that the country is still largely centrist -- at least if you look at the reputable polls. And yet the extremists dominate the political discourse.

[JSanders]

Originally Posted by DallasFlier

everything is so polarized these days lies with the gross gerrymandering done by BOTH parties to create "safe districts" for themselves all over the country.

To comment only on that, I can't agree.

I've been intimately involved in two decennial redistricting efforts, both on the federal and state legislative levels. Your are correct that 'safe' districts are created for incumbents.

But ever since the US Supreme Court ruled (in the 80s, I think, I don't recall exactly) that race can be a determining factor in drawing district lines, those elected have become more polarized. That in effect does create conservative Republican and liberal Democrat districts, but it really creates white and black districts, which is the purpose (and now hispanic districts).

Before race drove redistricting, basically it was almost entirely incumbent protection and they represented more widely raging demographics, like you said. But believe me--the Strom Thurmonds, Jesse Helms, Walter Mondales, Huey Longs, Everette Dirksens, Lister Hills, and Tip ONeills were JUST as liberal and conservative in their politics and the issues were just as polarizing as today.

[djm2]

Originally Posted by JSanders

To comment only on that, I can't agree.

I've been intimately involved in two decennial redistricting efforts, both on the federal and state legislative levels. Your are correct that 'safe' districts are created for incumbents.

But ever since the US Supreme Court ruled (in the 80s, I think, I don't recall exactly) that race can be a determining factor in drawing district lines, those elected have become more polarized. That in effect does create conservative Republican and liberal Democrat districts, but it really creates white and black districts, which is the purpose (and now hispanic districts).

Before race drove redistricting, basically it was almost entirely incumbent protection and they represented more widely raging demographics, like you said. But believe me--the Strom Thurmonds, Jesse Helms, Walter Mondales, Huey Longs, Everette Dirksens, Lister Hills, and Tip ONeills were JUST as liberal and conservative in their politics and the issues were just as polarizing as today.

I agree with the point in red, but question the point in blue. The differences between the perspectives were clearly as broad, but I don't believe that the polarization and unwillingness to compromise was as great. But then my perspective andd frame of rreference goes back to the 50-60s.

[DallasFlier]

Originally Posted by JSanders

To comment only on that, I can't agree.

I've been intimately involved in two decennial redistricting efforts, both on the federal and state legislative levels. Your are correct that 'safe' districts are created for incumbents.

But ever since the US Supreme Court ruled (in the 80s, I think, I don't recall exactly) that race can be a determining factor in drawing district lines, those elected have become more polarized.

Hey JS, you opened by saying you can't agree, but then in what I highlighted above, basically said exactly the same thing I said. I said over the last couple decades (which jibes with your recollections of "the 80s") the election process has resulted in electing much more polarized representatives.

Yes, there were always some far-left and far-right Senators/Reps, but not in nearly the numbers we see today. So what are you disagreeing with?

[Giselle9938]

What if my opinion changed for a post I read on another area? LOL!! JK

[wabbit]

why would political differences matter, its sorta like religion.

[dmead]

because protestants hate catholics and vice verca. muslims hate chirstians and jews and generally it is the same on the other side of the coin. liberals hate conservatives and vice versa. the list goes on and on and on.

oh wait were you being sarcastic?

[mriff]

Originally Posted by dmead

because protestants hate catholics and vice verca. muslims hate chirstians and jews and generally it is the same on the other side of the coin. liberals hate conservatives and vice versa. the list goes on and on and on.

oh wait were you being sarcastic?

Hey, I don't hate anyone. But then again, I'm a liberal. Or so I've been told.

[wabbit]

Originally Posted by dmead

because protestants hate catholics and vice verca. muslims hate chirstians and jews and generally it is the same on the other side of the coin. liberals hate conservatives and vice versa. the list goes on and on and on.

oh wait were you being sarcastic?

hehe

[jsconyers]

Originally Posted by dmead

Oh wait were you being sarcastic?

I've always been told sarcasm is the recourse of a weak mind