Does Congress need more or fewer pure ideologues?
Asked by
ETpro (
34605
)
January 6th, 2013
We have a growing number of politicians now, particularly in the US House of Representatives, that care more about their ideological principles than anything else, and that seems to include the future of the USA. But the hyper-partisanship we see in Congress is not reflective of the American people, as this TED talk by Adam Davidson, co-host of Planet Money explains, most Americans are centrists.
Closed primaries are a big part of what creates the partisan gridlock problem. While over 40% of the US public are independents, not registered to either party, Republican primaries in particular are closed. Only registered Republicans are allowed to vote in the primary, and only the most partisan of those typically turn out for primaries, which are notoriously low-participation elections.
Add to that the gerrymandering done in redistricting, and you have a system rigged to become ever more partisan and hate driven. The primary system is rigged to select the most wildly partisan candidate, and the actual election system is rigged to make sure the rigging party’s candidate wins, no matter how distorted and far from mainstream public opinion their ideas may be.
Instead of electing a group of pragmatists willing to go where the evidence takes them, you get ever increasing ideological purity where facts are irrelevant, only ideological beliefs matter. You get people who firmly believe their ideology is perfect, and any deviation from it, any compromise, will cause the sky to fall.
Is this increasing partisanship and ideological purity a good thing? If not, what should we do to reshape the system so it no longer encourages it?
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
11 Answers
I concur with your observations, but we’re looking at the effects, and not the cause, of our current political partisanship. Follow the money.
I believe that over the long run, these things will even out. Demographics changes faster than redistricting. So I think it’s not really worth sweating the small stuff like gerrymandering.
Fluther needs fewer Ideologues
congress is a pretty good reflection of us so there is your problem as well as any position can be bought and paid for. It would help to get all this money out of elections. Would you like all the ideologues out, or just the one’s who you think vote against your interests?
I hope you’re not volunteering, @Jaxk.
@wundayatta
Not likely nor do I consider myself an ideologue. My positions are not based on political affiliation, my political affiliation is based on my positions. I’m not sure that can be said about some in Washington nor here on fluther.
Wundayatta! Jaxk! Go to your rooms!
I would prefer there were more realists than ideologues. Perhaps that is the way to better find middle ground (rather realistic ground)
@Jaxk You’re an ideologue in my book. But I don’t have a problem with that, nor would I wish you to go away because of it.
I woiuld also assume that I am an ideologue in many other people’s books. I don’t have a problem with that, nor do I think that’s a reason I should disappear. Being an ideologue does not keep you from being pragmatic or from negotiating or from wanting to get things done. It just means you are pretty consistent in your world view.
@bossob Actually, I think both problems are related. A small group of billionaires, CEOs of huge multinational corporations, and corporate trade groups like the National Chamber of Commerce started about 40 years ago to fund a 50-state network of far-right-wing think tanks and PR firms. They hired the best and brightest PhD’s they could get and tasked them with promoting the memes and bumper sticker slogans that would support the transfer of the nation’s remaining wealth to the most wealthy (themselves). To do that, they targeted destruction of unions, demonization of any opposing force, and the slow but deliberate conversion of the middle class workers into wage slavery. It’s amusing to see these PhD’s turn their manufactured venom even to the demonization of college education and PhD’s. That’s a prime example of how disingenuous these hired guns are.
Now, in the wake of the right-wing appointees controlling the Supreme Court deciding corporations are people and money is speech, the money flow to SuperPACs enormously favors the very people behind the “conservative revolution”. That revolution is what set the stage for the hyper-partisan environment. The real geniuses behind that revolution put the current closed primary system and redistricting in place to assure their control of the wheels of power. It may not work for them. People are catching on. But it won’t be for want of trying.
@wundayatta It’s a rare day when demographics outpaces redistricting. I would not count on that as a magical fix. Congress has been getting more divided along partisan lines now for 40 years. That tells me redistricting outpaces demographic shifts most of the time.
@Jaxk I agree.
@woodcutter Actually listen to the talk linked in the details. It does what I think is a good job of documenting the exact opposite. If you feel that the demographic statistics Adam Davidson cites are way off, I’d welcome proof of his error.
I would like ALL ideologues out. How they happen to come down on a particular issue is irrelevant. Ideologues are anathema to the entire process of good governance.
@majorrich Amen to that.
@wundayatta I’m going with the dictionary definition of ideologue. According to Merriam-Webster, it means:
1—an impractical idealist : theorist
2—an often blindly partisan advocate or adherent of a particular ideology
As to willingness to compromise, here’s a usage example that the dictionary gives, “As long as there are ideologues controlling both sides of the aisle, legislative compromise is out of the question.”
@all I wish I had stumbled on this TED talk before posting this question. Dr. Haidt’s explanation of the partisan divide and how to bridge it is extremely pertinent to this discussion.
Answer this question 
Composing members:
0
