American politics is basically a two party system that offers very different policies. Ezra Klein in "Why We're Polarized" explains how this happened. At one time it was common for some people to vote for Republican at one level and Democrat at another. This is no longer normal.
Each party had a diversity between liberal and conservative views depending on various issues. Things started to change when civil rights were enacted. For many this was a clarifying event and each party handled the change differently becoming a key voter concern. In 1944 only 5% of eligible blacks were registered and had little influence on national elections.
Democrats needed the support of southern Democrats. To get their support Franklin Roosevelt had to overlook anti-lynching legislation in order to implement the New Deal. A few decades later Barry Goldwater ran as Republican for president, advocating state's rights winning most of the former Confederate states being part of a sorting process.
Political identity has united many other identities. Racial attitudes could easily align with gun rights, tax reductions, LGBTQ rights, etc. It has reached the point where surveys have shown that increasing number of parents would be most upset if their child chose to marry someone of the opposite political persuasion.
Being intelligent too often takes a back seat to political reasoning. After a social experiment the author concluded "People weren't reasoning to get the right answer, they were reasoning to get the answer they wanted to be right."
Trump was seen by many Republicans who did not like him, as their best bet to get elected and get the judges and tax reductions they wanted.
Prior to 1970 party nominations were settled by party officials. Primaries opened up to members, but those most fanatical had a greater influence.
"It is easy to be in the middle of a muddle it's not easy to be in the middle of a chasm" This leads to fewer persuadables. A more effective strategy than trying to motivate swing voters is to activate your base to get them out to vote and demonstrate their support.
Most democracies have adopted a Parliamentary system that binds the legislative and executive systems, meaning that if one party loses an election another party will take over both systems. In contrast the United States has a Presidential system in which it is possible and fairly common for each party to have a share of the power and impede the efforts of the other party. This provides opportunities for the minority party to block legislation. "Bi-partisan cooperation is often necessary for governance, but irrational for the minority party to offer."
When newspapers dominated political coverage, most tried to avoid antagonizing either party to maximize their profits, although some papers took sides. When television and social media overtook newspapers, to maximize their profits some tried to be the most appealing to one side or the other., example Fox News.
The media decides what is newsworthy. For example Hilary's emails were given more attention than her policies. In 2016 Trump was given more media coverage than all of his 15 primary competitors combined. Obviously his ability to corral media coverage was among Trump's greatest skill.
Emotions matter more than reasoning and apparently our emotions are most stirred by how we feel about the other side. Media very often flames our feelings.
How do we improve the situation? Klein makes a few suggestions.
Instead of gerrymandering at state level a proportional representative system would represent the voters more fairly (and encourage more voting, more discussion and give third parties a fairer chance). It is too common for one party to win the popular vote, but end up with fewer representatives. This distorts the will of the people.
In 2040 it is projected that 70% of Americans will live in the 15 largest states meaning that that 70% of Americans will be represented by 30 Senators while 30% of Americans will be represented by 70 Senators. The electoral college already distorts who gets fair representation.
Votes should be as easy as possible. Restricting voters lessens credibility.
Washington DC and Puerto Rico should be states. Blocked for political reasons as too many blacks and Hispanics frighten otherwise fair minded Republicans. Author feels would increase Republicans veering from racist strategies as they would have to compete for their votes.
The author is more introspective than most political commentators. "We will never know how fully we have been shaped by our contexts" We all need to be more mindful that we are influenced by more than one of our identities.
Klein, back in 2019 pointed out that the debt ceiling was unnecessary. As we now know it has become a very difficult partisan issue.
Most voters are focused on national politics, but in reality we have more influence on a local scale. The author suggests a focus on our local level would eventually influence national concerns. In the U.S. there are 537 elected federal officials, but in the entire nation (state and municipal), there are 500,000 elected officials. Many of the local officials will go on to campaign for federal offices.
The book covers the naturalness of polarizing in more depth and it is well worth reading.
The American voter is making me feel naive. It is hard to understand how they could support a man who lies, who brags, who displays ignorance, who denigrates in every direction and in my opinion has policies that hurt almost everyone. The best explanation seems to be that the Republicans and Mr Trump have consolidated a lot of one issue voters who do not analyze much beyond that one issue.
The 1% and those aspiring to it are focused on economic issues such as lower tax rates and de-regulation. Both of these issues if they had their way are very likely to hurt everyone else. They understand this as well as anyone. To maintain their status they have to offer something in order to gain control. The spin doctors have developed at least three categories that are reinforced by a few superficial issues. The main categories are gun rights, bigotry and abortion. There is a natural overlapping, but for many they are focused on their one issue. The Republicans have added in patriotism reflected in superficial aspects such as respect for the flag and other symbols and more critically military power.
Gun rights are supposedly based on the second amendment, but in truth it can be interpreted quite differently than the NRA has chosen. Aside from constitutional justification (some might say twisting) they rely on fear. Fear feeds on bigotry. The reality is that Americans have put themselves in great danger from accidents, suicides, impulsive responses, abusive power that in fact they have a scary rate of deaths by guns. Gun rights garner so much emotional support that its advocates are not swayed by policies on other issues.
Bigotry is really just prejudice taken to more extremes. We all make pre-judgments as part of our heredity. We do not readily understand the other. We tend to congregate around those we feel most comfortable with. Demographic trends are that the establishment white race is losing power. Traditionally older straight white males have had the most power and they can see that power is diminishing. We live in a global society whether we leave our neighborhood or not. Former colonies are asserting their rights. Women, homosexuals, ethnic minorities and even youth are much more assertive and disrespectful. When jobs are hard to come by it is easy to blame the "others." We are stronger as a group when everyone gets an equal chance to contribute. Bigotry is very often counter-productive--check http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2019/06/dying-of-whiteness.html
Abortion is very emotional. Life is sacred and abortion is literally murder. But we have to acknowledge that when faced with an unwanted pregnancy people (men as well as women) it is seen as a life threatening situation. If legal abortion is not available many (including conservatives and even Christians) would seek illegal abortions, even crude versions. Women die, experience infertility, other lives are "ruined." One study demonstrated that a significant reason for a decline in crime rates was that after abortion was legalized fewer potential criminals were born, i.e. for the most part those born in poverty and dysfunctional parenting.
One obvious solution is sex education coupled with easier access to contraception. Also make parenting easier with supportive economic policies and more tolerance. It seems that many of those opposed to abortion are also concerned about promiscuity and thus are also against anything that enables more sex outside marriage. Some feel the only justification for sex is procreation. Many feel promiscuity must be punished (stated by Trump himself) and frown on those who are guilty. In reality promiscuity is often harmful to both individuals and society, but sex is also perhaps the most effective bonding agent which can lead to strong family relations.
How does all this relate to Mueller's report? America is polarized. Outside political realities people are unique, but the political structure Americans live in force most of them into one of two parties. Sure other parties do receive votes, but if you are really determined to affect the outcome it is logical to choose one or the other party.
What I believe has happened is that government has developed to be very complicated and very distant that few really analyze the choice. Loyalties among relatives and friends are common and social pressures to stick with the team are underlying. Big money and ever developing modern technology are used to manipulate us. Check http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2016/07/dark-money-by-jane-mayer.html
What that boils down to is that most Americans are committed to one of the parties and do not pay much attention to the other party except to find criticism.
I guess the slick lawyers would say the case against Donald Trump is circumstantial at best and likely rigged by the Deep State. But when circumstances were being attributed to the Democrats facts were twisted and spun and I must admit seemed extremely false. The Benghazi attack was a very unfortunate occurrence, but not particularly unexpected. A dangerous place in which those directly involved realized was risky. The Obama administration had its role by opting to get involved in Libyan rebellion, but Republicans were very quick to attack and tenacious when they felt they could spin it into something evil.
What is visible to anyone who read the report or even just followed the news from a reliable source is the evidence casts strong suspicions. Multiple contacts between Trump's team and the Russians tied to actual policies and public statements. Trump rejected government intelligence resources in favor of Putin. Trump made many public obstruction efforts which by themselves would indicate he is hiding something. He is the first presidential candidate to refuse to reveal his tax returns. On top of all that the Mueller report is obviously reminding us of the many instances of obstruction and contact that Russians made determined and systematic efforts to turn the election to Trump's favor. One must wonder why and note that Russia has indeed attained some of its goals.
A good hunk of Trump's supporters are indifferent or even adamant the whole process is rigged against a man who has done commendable things they feel are worth whatever it took.
The commendable things include a very harsh campaign against desperate refugees both from south of their border and from the Mid East. De-regulating has progressed, but without too close a look in fact are removing financial and environmental protections for everyone. Budget cuts to education and health care stand to have long term disastrous results. Withdrawing from the Paris and Iran Nuclear agreements are having potentially catastrophic results. Bending the Supreme Court and lower courts to conservative (Trumpian) outcomes which will drag on for decades with likely unhealthy consequences. To top all that off, security measures to protect their election integrity are being sidelined.
To me an underlying problem is inequality. It has always been that those who have power are able to set the rules and build increasing wealth and power. The only thing that breaks this trend is a revolution. Revolutions are stigmatized by those in power and for most of us they are frightening because they upset our comfortable status quo.
The wealthy and powerful are able to draw in enough of the masses to defend the status quo sometimes, as now by diverting attention from the real problems. In a recent blog about "Amusing ourselves to death" it was assumed we are headed for a dystopia, but that there are two contrasting versions of the vehicle. "1984" represents a harsh path with censorship, a police state, etc. "Brave New World" by contrast suggests the path may involve pleasurable things (diversions) like drugs and sex. One can see both trends. check out http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2018/05/amusing-ourselves-to-death.html
On one hand we can see censorship and police state trends globally. On the other hand the world seems relatively sexually liberated and literally millions even perhaps billions are using drugs to deal with life's unfairness. Entertainment permeates our lives, even to imbibing news. In education one can see trends towards money making while the arts and philosophy take a back seat.
What can be done? The Democrats are at present opting for a slow walk feeling they can win big in the next election. The Republicans are using their resources to stomp down on the truth and divert attention. The Democrat presidential candidates smelling an opportunity are bringing up policies that appeal to progressives, but scare many moderates. One can imagine the Republicans will welcome a top heavy progressive Democrat candidate, yet the Democrats seem to want to outdo one another.
The testimony did in fact reinforce a lot of damning evidence that may overcome the Republican attacks and Trump's vociferous claims of vindication. There are also several ongoing investigations that may prove to be more damaging, but time can also diminish their impact. The Democrats need to voice the evidence more loudly. The Republicans were continually rebuffed on their Benghazi attacks, but continued and it probably was a factor in Hilary Clinton's defeat. We can be certain the Republican spin machine will be loud and over whelming.
Naomi Klein noted that progressives have many separate causes, but they are not united as the Republicans are. Some deep thinking needs to be done. For example Naomi points out the alliance between native groups and environmentalists have given each more power towards their goals. Many groups are devoted to overcoming discrimination against homosexuals, females, the disabled, racial and religious entities. Climate change has energized many activists. Others are trying to use gun controls to make a safer country. Still others are concerned about inequality. There is a little overlap in these concerns, but if each group realizes they have more power working together great things can be accomplished. Compromises will need to be made, but respecting the concerns of other people can enable a much better result. The sooner these compatible causes work together the sooner they can assert themselves. Check http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2018/05/naomi-klein-writes-another-insightful.html
As many of you know I am Canadian and we have our share of problems, but we have more than two parties and the "extra" parties do have some power, so we have more choices. I also believe proportional voting would give even more choices that would give better government. As Canadians we are small and we know it--what happens in United States has a profound effect on us. What are you going to do about it?
