133743Hokie wrote:
Began with Clinton and went full force with W.
Hmm. I think it really went to shirt during FDR. Technically, it started before the ink on the constitution was dry.
I wasn't alive then, but during the Clinton years, and at least part of the W years, politicians had friends from the other side of the aisle, and the level of discourse was generally polite. It has eroded significantly in the past 15 years.
I'm not sure it doesn't have to do more w/the internet and social media, than anything else. Previously, when pols went back to their home states, there was little communication or discussion about other pols. These days, you can keep up your animosity 24/7, from anywhere in the world.
133743Hokie wrote:
Began with Clinton and went full force with W.
Hmm. I think it really went to shirt during FDR. Technically, it started before the ink on the constitution was dry.
I wasn't alive then, but during the Clinton years, and at least part of the W years, politicians had friends from the other side of the aisle, and the level of discourse was generally polite. It has eroded significantly in the past 15 years.
I'm not sure it doesn't have to do more w/the internet and social media, than anything else. Previously, when pols went back to their home states, there was little communication or discussion about other pols. These days, you can keep up your animosity 24/7, from anywhere in the world.
Naw, it started deteriorating with Nixon and then really accelerated with how the left treated Reagan and later Clinton treated people calling out his illegality. The left's anger management issues started well before the internet, it's just become another vessel for it.
133743Hokie wrote:Reality is that neither party does. They act for the better good of their own self interest and for the good of their financial contributors. What you or I back in their home district wants is irrelevant. We're the saps that believed them and put them there and,with gerrymandering and incumbency, will allow them to stay there as long as the gravy train is flowing for them.
All true, and both sides are guilty of that grift. OTOH, I have nothing in common with someone who feels like socialised medicine or other western European socialist ideas are the direction in which we should take this country. They have no respect for our founding principles, so I don't care what they think. Nor am I willing to compromise with them.
The only solution left is to keep fighting it out at the ballot box. If that means shiite-canning leadership or clown's like McCain, then so be it.
"I predict future happiness for Americans, if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." - Thomas Jefferson
133743Hokie wrote:And that's your problem and one of the main reasons US politics is so f****d up now. Party before country tends to keep the country in a mess like we are right now.
No it's hand wringing over "unity" and the pussification of the American politician.
Politicians need to do the job they were elected to do and not worry about what the opposition thinks.
It's the whole foundation of our adversarial system that has become bastardized by caring what the other side thinks.
You may want to look at your history books a little bit more.
Kong's right. They set up a highly deliberative law making process to hedge against rash decision-making.
"I predict future happiness for Americans, if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." - Thomas Jefferson
133743Hokie wrote:And that's your problem and one of the main reasons US politics is so f****d up now. Party before country tends to keep the country in a mess like we are right now.
No it's hand wringing over "unity" and the pussification of the American politician.
Politicians need to do the job they were elected to do and not worry about what the opposition thinks.
It's the whole foundation of our adversarial system that has become bastardized by caring what the other side thinks.
You may want to look at your history books a little bit more.
Kong's right. They set up a highly deliberative law making process to hedge against rash decision-making.
Deliberative, yes. With the house and senate serving very different functions. But not intentionally adversarial.
133743Hokie wrote:
Began with Clinton and went full force with W.
Hmm. I think it really went to shirt during FDR. Technically, it started before the ink on the constitution was dry.
I wasn't alive then, but during the Clinton years, and at least part of the W years, politicians had friends from the other side of the aisle, and the level of discourse was generally polite. It has eroded significantly in the past 15 years.
I'm not sure it doesn't have to do more w/the internet and social media, than anything else. Previously, when pols went back to their home states, there was little communication or discussion about other pols. These days, you can keep up your animosity 24/7, from anywhere in the world.
Naw, it started deteriorating with Nixon and then really accelerated with how the left treated Reagan and later Clinton treated people calling out his illegality. The left's anger management issues started well before the internet, it's just become another vessel for it.
Yep. Bork is often cited as a turning point as well. If you look at the Bork rhetoric it's no different than you see today.
People also forget that it was a lot easier for congress to get along because Republicans were a permanent minority for quite some time. Democrats controlled congress through Reagan's two terms I believe.
133743Hokie wrote:
Began with Clinton and went full force with W.
Hmm. I think it really went to shirt during FDR. Technically, it started before the ink on the constitution was dry.
I wasn't alive then, but during the Clinton years, and at least part of the W years, politicians had friends from the other side of the aisle, and the level of discourse was generally polite. It has eroded significantly in the past 15 years.
I'm not sure it doesn't have to do more w/the internet and social media, than anything else. Previously, when pols went back to their home states, there was little communication or discussion about other pols. These days, you can keep up your animosity 24/7, from anywhere in the world.
Naw, it started deteriorating with Nixon and then really accelerated with how the left treated Reagan and later Clinton treated people calling out his illegality. The left's anger management issues started well before the internet, it's just become another vessel for it.
Yep. Bork is often cited as a turning point as well. If you look at the Bork rhetoric it's no different than you see today.
People also forget that it was a lot easier for congress to get along because Republicans were a permanent minority for quite some time. Democrats controlled congress through Reagan's two terms I believe.
The D's held majority for ~40 years before Reagan. Of course they weren't as adversarial. I think this began in the 60's when several factors came into play: race riots, FDR, LBJ, etc.
"I predict future happiness for Americans, if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." - Thomas Jefferson