![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
rick-day.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpolitics
According to this study released Friday, the old Pogo axiom "We have met the enemy and he is us" is pretty much proven true in politics, particularly by commenters (myself included) of political discussion.
Republicans and Democrats are less divided in their attitudes than popularly believed, according to new research. It is exactly those perceptions of polarization, however, that help drive political engagement, researchers say.
"American polarization is largely exaggerated,” says Leaf Van Boven of the University of Colorado Boulder, especially by people who adopt strong political stances. And when people perceive a large gap between political parties, they may be more motivated to vote.
Um, that sounds like us. Us as in people who argue over the Internets about how bad the other side is.
Want to argue that this is NOT all in YOUR mind and not the reality of the masses?
Um
They found that the actual gap between the parties' political attitudes has not increased substantially over time and that members of both parties have consistently overestimated the size of that gap.
Moreover, Chambers' team found that those who perceived the greatest political polarization were more politically engaged – for example, more likely to have voted in the last election, tried to influence the vote of other voters, attended political rallies, or donated money to a party or candidate.
or...argued about it over the internet.
Per Rule 8 *grimace*, my opinion is I feel like this is exactly why I refuse any tags like LBRL, or CON or DEM or GOP or LIB or GRN... any tag other than "skeptical independent", a foe of the status quo. Yet I am guilty of condemning neocon positions, not because of what liberals say they might do, but because of what THEY say THEY want to do. But liberals maintain the status quo, so I am not with that label either.
Do you agree with the premise of the study, that the only people who feel the enemy is at the gates are those like us who are intellectually involved in politics the way the average voter is into sport franchises, and feel compelled by win/loss brainwashing to demonize an 'opposing' ideology as a downfall of civilization/liberty/freedom etc?
Or are we the proverbial hounds at the gate/canary in the coalmine, etc? You know, someone paying attention to dangers instead of the central masses.
Oh, and in before cognitive dissonance. Be careful how you answer!
(no subject)
Date: 30/1/12 21:23 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 30/1/12 21:30 (UTC)You asked, so....
(no subject)
Date: 30/1/12 21:33 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 30/1/12 21:36 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 30/1/12 21:45 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 30/1/12 21:55 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 31/1/12 01:57 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 31/1/12 02:14 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 30/1/12 22:10 (UTC)less in tune with the mainstream reality.
You could turn that around and say that those who are aware of all the details are also more aware of the differences in those truths. Which is frankly a rather realistic conclusion.
We all use some hyperbole in our lives, to get clarity, it's when clarity gets overshadowed by hyperbole that it all turns to shit.
(no subject)
Date: 31/1/12 00:31 (UTC)Actually, what that most points to is things being different at all the subtle levels, but similar in the broad strokes. Which does fit with my personal observations. Mitt is Obama lite, Obama has been tarred with being just like bush. And yet, there *are* vast differences, you just have to be paying attention to see them.
(no subject)
Date: 31/1/12 00:54 (UTC)I don't think the study says anything about wrong and right btw, it seems to be all about how people (the majority and other groups) perceive things in politics and their stances in accordance to that. The study isn't shaped to examine actual scale in political differences.
(no subject)
Date: 31/1/12 01:25 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 31/1/12 01:51 (UTC)It seems we are in some rough agreement then.
(no subject)
Date: 31/1/12 06:47 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 30/1/12 22:29 (UTC)Today, sports is like a rag soaked with rancid piss. No matter where I go, I can't avoid the pissy smell. Over the years, the programmers have discovered that hype begets further hype. Build it, and they will watch.
Before ESPN, news was a loss leader, a service the stations had to provide to comply with the terms of their FCC granted licenses. No news, no license. A few started experimenting with ESPN-esque 24/7 news (hairy eyeball at you, Turner). Low production cost, since there need be no writers. And since Orson Welles paved the way (http://peristaltor.livejournal.com/87807.html) of keeping people tuned in between the commercials, news began to show a profit.
That profit incentive now dominates the air. We are force-fed a blast commercials mixed with controversy with only a smidgen of information useful to anyone, and it's called news. The more the individual stations/networks tried to keep their eyeballs sticky, the more this "gap" has grown.
What bugs me is how painfully narrow the "debate" has become. Where are the real debates of the past, the Knights of Labor and the Farmers League? The Gold Bugs v. the Silverbugs? Where are the Kansans calling to raise "less wheat and more hell?" Where are the Smedley Butlers when we need them? The political scene has become an over-amplified death match between contestants so lacking in both color and true contrast they appear as a beige-on-beige blur in suits.
(no subject)
Date: 31/1/12 04:46 (UTC)Well done.
(no subject)
Date: 31/1/12 06:48 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 31/1/12 00:00 (UTC)- Saul Alinsky
I think most of us who are politically active could occasionally use more fiber in our diet.
(no subject)
Date: 31/1/12 02:17 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 31/1/12 03:22 (UTC)heh..
(no subject)
Date: 31/1/12 01:05 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 31/1/12 02:35 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 31/1/12 03:02 (UTC)IMO the Powers that Be tm are using both parties to fulfil their agendas.
all I could think of...
Date: 31/1/12 03:25 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 31/1/12 20:05 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 31/1/12 05:16 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 31/1/12 06:50 (UTC)I don't care if it's polarized, as long as it's HOT!
(no subject)
Date: 31/1/12 07:01 (UTC)Seldom in the morning!
:P
(no subject)
Date: 31/1/12 07:05 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 31/1/12 16:50 (UTC)