The seeming inability or unwillingness by either political party to form what the authors call "enduring national coalitions" might be more a measure of our perilous division than a failing of political will or competence. As a moderate to conservative Republican, I don't want my party to continue seeking middle ground with a political foe that has accelerated since the mid-20th century its movement Left to a new level of anti-constitutional kookiness that has become unbending dogma.
A "pox-on-both" parties' approach does not investigate, clarify and, thus, cannot narrow this divide.
The GOP is trying to seek a middle ground? 🤔 Is that a joke? TRUMP wants to lock up his political enemies. I don't hear Harris saying anything like that form of fascism coming from Trump and the GOP.
No, it wasn't a joke. You assume that because he is the Republican's nominee, he speaks for all republicans. He does not. Did you look at the survey referenced in the essay? Three issues stood out as being "common ground" between both parties: inflation, crime, and drug addiction, in that order. Trump has complained about inflation, which has been the highest of any president since Carter! I've heard Harris say very little about inflation; after all, it occurred on her watch. In the current campaign, her biggest "promise" regarding inflation was to encourage more fracking. As the economy is a derivative of energy, I see this as an excellent way to reduce inflation. But I also harken back to her promise in 2020 to ban fracking. Hence, my skepticism in casting a vote in her direction.
My family has been victimized by gun violence, but we all agree that controlling gun ownership is not the answer to that problem. Better mental health care and greater emphasis on family are critical to curbing gun violence. Many democrats would agree with that, where as most republican's do not see gun violence as a problem.
I consider myself conservative, though not specifically a republican nor democrat. I share the authors frustration with government's inability to do anything besides make speeches and pass gas! The only way government can improve is to relearn how to negotiate constructively and in the best interests of the nation instead of the party. Pointing fingers and scapegoating are symptomatic of the times and accomplish nothing but widen the gap.
Much of this division is the result of public-private partnership of government +business+NGOs. Immigration, trans ideology, Dei, BLM, and Censorship have all been enacted upon the people behind their backs and without any democratic input. They have all found a way to use government funds and heft to direct tax dollars towards programs that haven't passed through Congress. The people are left wondering what in the world is happening as they don't remember any of this being discussed. It's a global fascism.
First, this won't be a stalemate election. Trump already has 312 electoral votes sewn up (history shows even the New York Slimes must add 2.1 to EVERY Trump poll, meaning he isn't "narrowly" winning anything. He is winning big. Second, EVERY single indicator is that the entire US electorate has moved a minimum of 5 points to the right, some 10. CA yesterday showed Harris up 24. Well, Biden won by 29 in 2020 and . . . TRUMP UNDERPOLLS BY 2 POINTS. A more than seven point lead is a massive shift for CA. Right now the "battleground" states are ME, VA, NM, NM, and NH. I expect Trump will lose four of the five, but the fact that they are battlegrounds (which they were not in 2016 or 2020 should tell us something.
So long as you have the three giant liberal bastions of NY, CA, and IL, and three giant conservative bastions of FL, TX, and OH, nothing will happen. But the direction is far more itoward moving the forward to the right than the last three to the left, especially after four more years of liberal policies hollowing out those first three states. Even CA lost population in the last three years. Meanwhile, AZ, FL, GA, TX are gaining population like mad, meaning the 2028 EC won't be as close as this one.
"Democrats, meanwhile, hold clear advantages with their positions on abortion, health care, and adherence to political norms." I disagree with this statement. Yes, Trump has violated some norms in his speaking style and choice of words . He speaks in a often vulgar, blunt, non presidential way.
But the first time I saw the legitimacy of a president contested, over and over by leading media AND democrat politicians, was Trumps 2016 election. Remember Russia Gate? Remember Russia got Trump elected ?
The entire covid playbook was a violation of constitutional norms and of the constitution itself. Deadly epidemics, btw, were common at the time the constitution was written. The founders did not create an exception, in the case of epidemics, to the rights of free speech, religious freedom, and the right of assembly. Furthermore, Biden administration has been attacking the first amendment constantly - and for political ends.
Trumps trash talk is just minor compared to what the Biden administration has been doing to the first amendment.
A registered independent the last 64 years I have been voting, I have voted democrat as well as republican and have been disappointed in most of my votes. Most votes could be seen as 'lesser of two evils'. I'm tired of the Trump's rhetoric of the last four years although I support many of his past and proposed policies, the Kamal? I'll not vote for someone who has no principles. She will just be a school for the megabucks.
This is very interesting and there's a lot of truth to it. We are a long way from the 1950s of Daniel Bell and Talcott Parsons, who envisioned constantly shifting coalitions, with reduced roles for ideology. But, in addition to finding a workable coalition that could overcome the deadlock and make effective policy possible again, we have a fundamental issue to face. Can the current pandering competition become a lever to that end (if the emotional spasms of the right could be subdued)? It is a nice thought. But all that would take time and the real problem is that the next administration should, really, if we are to have any hope as a nation and a world, find a way to issue an effective Call to Arms on climate issues. Time is running out. This is not "only" a matter of getting into a position to exploit the engineering solutions to limiting further climate damage. It is a matter of facing our Lampadusa moment: we are absolutely at the point where "everything must change so that everything can remain the same" and that will require true, visionary leadership, on the level of Churchill and FDR. That means getting past Trump's atavistic love of the gasoline economy (which basically promises to deliver the technology of the future to the Chinese). That means getting past the Democrats' timidity to deal with climate-driven migration (to maintain social stability in this country). Much must be done, and groping around on past premises won't do it. That's what it would mean to "win big" (or, more likely, "lose big).
If not for the electoral college, Democrats would have easilly won every election with the popular vote. I'd say that Democrats are far more inclusive and working towards a durable majority than the GOP which is the party of hate, division and, increasingly, fascism.
A year ago I would have agreed with that statement. Now, not at all. The democrats support for Hamas and constant criticism of the Israeli government gives lie to any claim of democrats being the party of inclusion. Democrats who call for criminalization of so-called "climate deniers" is further evidence of the fascist tactics now employed by the democratic party.
Sadly, there are still some in the republican party who would make war against the LBGQT community. They are in the minority, though they, like AOC and her wackiness, get all of the press coverage.
You need to study the Constitutional Convention and understand its context for creating the Electoral College. It was intended to prevent just exactly what you advocate-a majority that fails to heed or even understand the needs of the minority. That majority-minority swing has been working for years, and you would do away with it. That is foolishness. I'm not saying you're wrong, mind you, just that you need to be careful what you wish for. If there be defects in our government, let us mend them in constitutional ways and not wholesale ravaging of the system.
The Constitution was discussed, structured, and ultimately codified to ensure that republican principles would control government. Those principals include a rule of order that forces the majority to incorporate the needs of the minority to govern effectively. That is the principle that the authors of this essay are trying to espouse. Suggest you add "The Framer's Coup," by Michael Klarman, "Ratification," by Pauline Maier, and "American Covenant," by Yuval Levin, to get a better understanding of the how the Constitution came to be, and why we need to re-embrace it's principles if we are to escape the political miasma that now envelops the country.
The seeming inability or unwillingness by either political party to form what the authors call "enduring national coalitions" might be more a measure of our perilous division than a failing of political will or competence. As a moderate to conservative Republican, I don't want my party to continue seeking middle ground with a political foe that has accelerated since the mid-20th century its movement Left to a new level of anti-constitutional kookiness that has become unbending dogma.
A "pox-on-both" parties' approach does not investigate, clarify and, thus, cannot narrow this divide.
The GOP is trying to seek a middle ground? 🤔 Is that a joke? TRUMP wants to lock up his political enemies. I don't hear Harris saying anything like that form of fascism coming from Trump and the GOP.
No, it wasn't a joke. You assume that because he is the Republican's nominee, he speaks for all republicans. He does not. Did you look at the survey referenced in the essay? Three issues stood out as being "common ground" between both parties: inflation, crime, and drug addiction, in that order. Trump has complained about inflation, which has been the highest of any president since Carter! I've heard Harris say very little about inflation; after all, it occurred on her watch. In the current campaign, her biggest "promise" regarding inflation was to encourage more fracking. As the economy is a derivative of energy, I see this as an excellent way to reduce inflation. But I also harken back to her promise in 2020 to ban fracking. Hence, my skepticism in casting a vote in her direction.
My family has been victimized by gun violence, but we all agree that controlling gun ownership is not the answer to that problem. Better mental health care and greater emphasis on family are critical to curbing gun violence. Many democrats would agree with that, where as most republican's do not see gun violence as a problem.
I consider myself conservative, though not specifically a republican nor democrat. I share the authors frustration with government's inability to do anything besides make speeches and pass gas! The only way government can improve is to relearn how to negotiate constructively and in the best interests of the nation instead of the party. Pointing fingers and scapegoating are symptomatic of the times and accomplish nothing but widen the gap.
How do you build consensus with a party of censorship and open borders?
Much of this division is the result of public-private partnership of government +business+NGOs. Immigration, trans ideology, Dei, BLM, and Censorship have all been enacted upon the people behind their backs and without any democratic input. They have all found a way to use government funds and heft to direct tax dollars towards programs that haven't passed through Congress. The people are left wondering what in the world is happening as they don't remember any of this being discussed. It's a global fascism.
First, this won't be a stalemate election. Trump already has 312 electoral votes sewn up (history shows even the New York Slimes must add 2.1 to EVERY Trump poll, meaning he isn't "narrowly" winning anything. He is winning big. Second, EVERY single indicator is that the entire US electorate has moved a minimum of 5 points to the right, some 10. CA yesterday showed Harris up 24. Well, Biden won by 29 in 2020 and . . . TRUMP UNDERPOLLS BY 2 POINTS. A more than seven point lead is a massive shift for CA. Right now the "battleground" states are ME, VA, NM, NM, and NH. I expect Trump will lose four of the five, but the fact that they are battlegrounds (which they were not in 2016 or 2020 should tell us something.
So long as you have the three giant liberal bastions of NY, CA, and IL, and three giant conservative bastions of FL, TX, and OH, nothing will happen. But the direction is far more itoward moving the forward to the right than the last three to the left, especially after four more years of liberal policies hollowing out those first three states. Even CA lost population in the last three years. Meanwhile, AZ, FL, GA, TX are gaining population like mad, meaning the 2028 EC won't be as close as this one.
The modern primary system is the key driver to the highly polarized and narrow parties. Thank you to the reforms of the 1970s.
Truth
"Democrats, meanwhile, hold clear advantages with their positions on abortion, health care, and adherence to political norms." I disagree with this statement. Yes, Trump has violated some norms in his speaking style and choice of words . He speaks in a often vulgar, blunt, non presidential way.
But the first time I saw the legitimacy of a president contested, over and over by leading media AND democrat politicians, was Trumps 2016 election. Remember Russia Gate? Remember Russia got Trump elected ?
The entire covid playbook was a violation of constitutional norms and of the constitution itself. Deadly epidemics, btw, were common at the time the constitution was written. The founders did not create an exception, in the case of epidemics, to the rights of free speech, religious freedom, and the right of assembly. Furthermore, Biden administration has been attacking the first amendment constantly - and for political ends.
Trumps trash talk is just minor compared to what the Biden administration has been doing to the first amendment.
A registered independent the last 64 years I have been voting, I have voted democrat as well as republican and have been disappointed in most of my votes. Most votes could be seen as 'lesser of two evils'. I'm tired of the Trump's rhetoric of the last four years although I support many of his past and proposed policies, the Kamal? I'll not vote for someone who has no principles. She will just be a school for the megabucks.
This is very interesting and there's a lot of truth to it. We are a long way from the 1950s of Daniel Bell and Talcott Parsons, who envisioned constantly shifting coalitions, with reduced roles for ideology. But, in addition to finding a workable coalition that could overcome the deadlock and make effective policy possible again, we have a fundamental issue to face. Can the current pandering competition become a lever to that end (if the emotional spasms of the right could be subdued)? It is a nice thought. But all that would take time and the real problem is that the next administration should, really, if we are to have any hope as a nation and a world, find a way to issue an effective Call to Arms on climate issues. Time is running out. This is not "only" a matter of getting into a position to exploit the engineering solutions to limiting further climate damage. It is a matter of facing our Lampadusa moment: we are absolutely at the point where "everything must change so that everything can remain the same" and that will require true, visionary leadership, on the level of Churchill and FDR. That means getting past Trump's atavistic love of the gasoline economy (which basically promises to deliver the technology of the future to the Chinese). That means getting past the Democrats' timidity to deal with climate-driven migration (to maintain social stability in this country). Much must be done, and groping around on past premises won't do it. That's what it would mean to "win big" (or, more likely, "lose big).
If not for the electoral college, Democrats would have easilly won every election with the popular vote. I'd say that Democrats are far more inclusive and working towards a durable majority than the GOP which is the party of hate, division and, increasingly, fascism.
A year ago I would have agreed with that statement. Now, not at all. The democrats support for Hamas and constant criticism of the Israeli government gives lie to any claim of democrats being the party of inclusion. Democrats who call for criminalization of so-called "climate deniers" is further evidence of the fascist tactics now employed by the democratic party.
Sadly, there are still some in the republican party who would make war against the LBGQT community. They are in the minority, though they, like AOC and her wackiness, get all of the press coverage.
You need to study the Constitutional Convention and understand its context for creating the Electoral College. It was intended to prevent just exactly what you advocate-a majority that fails to heed or even understand the needs of the minority. That majority-minority swing has been working for years, and you would do away with it. That is foolishness. I'm not saying you're wrong, mind you, just that you need to be careful what you wish for. If there be defects in our government, let us mend them in constitutional ways and not wholesale ravaging of the system.
The Constitution was discussed, structured, and ultimately codified to ensure that republican principles would control government. Those principals include a rule of order that forces the majority to incorporate the needs of the minority to govern effectively. That is the principle that the authors of this essay are trying to espouse. Suggest you add "The Framer's Coup," by Michael Klarman, "Ratification," by Pauline Maier, and "American Covenant," by Yuval Levin, to get a better understanding of the how the Constitution came to be, and why we need to re-embrace it's principles if we are to escape the political miasma that now envelops the country.