Polarized, or not?

A friend of mine talked about this interview with Ezra Klein this weekend, so I checked it out, and got a very take than he did. My friend talked about how polarization is ripping the country apart and leading us to fascism. That’s sort of included, but there is also quite a bit about how media has to be sensational to keep readers, unlike the days of once a day subscription newspapers. Klein also says issues like religion, geographic location and a couple others are “stacked”, that is, liberals and conservatives don’t have as many places in public where they come together. Combine that with media, and we are relating to caricatures of each other instead of to real people.

He has a real interesting personal bit about how he came back to Lao Tzu as an adult and saw how it applies to the flipping of the Presidents and congress from extreme to extreme that we’ve been experiencing. My friend related that to how Germany was very liberal just before Hitler. I didn’t think that was a very good analogy. I also don’t think Klein is talking about individuals actually wanting to be polarized. If anything, Klein and Tippet are talking about how we are tired of it and are looking to somehow get our country back from bad leaders and bad media.

I agree we are polarized and it might be ripping the country, but we’ve been through worse. I don’t think that’s what lead this country to the current Fascism though. Although we do have a dic[tator] in office thanks to those who are easily bought off to not follow what the people want and yet those who love authoritarian regimes love the orange critter occupying the Big House in Washington D.C. currently.

Germany is very liberal again, but I do agree with you that that analogy your friend used was a bad one.

The contempt Mr Klein spoke of is what I see in Mriana’s post. I do not criticize her personally, but use the post as an example. It is beyond anger, which might be reconciled. And it is perfectly aligned with Hillary’s “deplorables”.

I think the idea of caricatures is right on. I accept that we see and hear only extremes in the news and since most people don’t have the luxury of enough time to investigate or think past those extremes we accept influences we should reject.

I suggest that requiring a majority of both parties in the House and in the Senate would eliminate most of the extreme actions we have seen from both parties, especially recently.

I truly do not see my view of T rump moving inexorably toward a stronger and stronger dictatorship, as an extreme caricature. I think what he is heading for is a power situation similar to Putin’s dictatorship in a mafia style kleptocracy.

And it should be clear to ALL that T rump is not at all about healing our national divide which he has obviously trolled for constantly since he began his journey to become dictator, when he 1st came down that escalator to call Mexicans murderers, rapists, and drug dealers. He has done nothing but rile up his base and troll the rest of the public.

The alt right does not want to end polarization. Some of them want civil war. T rump does not want to end polarization. He needs intense polarization to keep his constituency excited enough to get out and vote for him.

Trying to tolerate anything T rump, is a fool’s errand.


I suggest that contempt for an individual is much different than contempt for his ideas and anger at his actions. One should respect the office even if he does not respect the individual.

One should respect the office even if he does not respect the individual.
Winning the electoral college does not automatically give you a pass. That is the definition of authoritarianism. You've shown plenty of contempt here Bob, so it's pretty hard to hear any sincerity in this "respect the office" thing.
Winning the electoral college does not automatically give you a pass.
No, but the office does get a pass.
That is the definition of authoritarianism.
It is our Constitution that gives authority to the office.
You’ve shown plenty of contempt here Bob
I sincerely hope not. I do not attack the individual; I may attack the individual's ideas, just as you do.

Bob, I gave T rump the benefit of the doubt, until he very quickly began showing that the Majesty of the Office was not going to bring out his “true character” or at least not one that was an upgrade… and I continued to most often refer to him as POTUS as a respect to that office… until he has eventually vastly expanded and is gradually increasing and consolidated his use of executive powers. He has essentially asserted that his power is without limit in various areas.

Oh my, I could go on. Anyway here, I should just say, T rump has disrespected the office of POTUS, drowning it in thick pools of corruption, and replacing it with a burgeoning autocracy, starring him.

The office of the Presidency does not currently exist, as far as I can tell. The title for DonJohn T rump, is now DOTUS.

I gave T rump the benefit of the doubt, until
Yes, lots of people have. Probably as big or bigger a mistake as we made with Obama.

I would cut of his thumb if I thought it would stop the tweets. I suspect quite a few Senators would help.

Note to the Secret Service: I didn’t really mean it. I would never do such a thing. It was just a figure of speech.

I have respect for the office of the president. I just have no respect for the dotard. I have a lot of respect for President Obama. However, I’d be just as disturb if someone did harm to the creature occupying the White House currently as I would if someone harmed President Obama. I would never want that, no matter how little respect I have for a person.

So let’s get an actual President to fill the office, not some scammer who wants to be Dictator. Then we can respect it once more.

The use of the word “deplorable’s” was an unfortunate mistake and it happened in response to a spontaneous comment made by a Clinton supporter. Though I voted for her and would do so again if faced with the same choice, I am by no means a fan of Hillary Clinton and the reason is she’s far to conservative in her politics. However, her inept use of the word “deplorable” in no way compares with the way Donald Trump introduced himself to the American people describing Mexicans as “rapists and murderers”. He had plenty of time to think about his first serious address to Americans and he knew exactly what he was going to say. His remarks were calculated and intrinsic to his core personality. The way he’s lived his life amply shows this to be true. Conversely, I’ll wager any amount of money that Hillary Clinton regretted her ill advised comment within minutes of saying it, if for no other reason than knowing that some would find it distasteful and that’s something you don’t do when you’re running for president. For those who seem to have some deep seated psychological need to “hate” (not dislike or disagree with) Hillary Clinton the phrase “the deplorable’s” has become a shibboleth to reinforce their narrow minded prejudices.

Excellent point. This is part of the meme/sound bite problem. An off-mic, spontaneous statement gets equal weight to a well planned speech.

In looking up “shibboleth” I found various subtly different definition usages. The 1st definition in Webster’s seemed most relevant as the term was used above.

shibboleth - “a word or saying used by adherents of a party, sect, or belief and usually regarded by others as empty of real meaning”

Yes the Righties have lots of those kinds of shibboleths.