What does the phrase "the country is divided" mean?

That the country is divided into different ideologies, as we saw evidenced in the close elections this November.

PS Your dog is a cutie. Looks a lot like my male. :)

^ So, the “divided” units are the political parties?

Is this different from other times? Is there a time where only one party received votes?

And is this “divide” a good or bad thing?

@hello321 We generally pick a political party based on personal ideology, so I’d say that’s a fair conclusion. Although I personally feel it’s extremist factions of both parties who are pushing the divisiveness rather than compromising, as we’ve done in the past.

There were some very interesting elections, see below if you’d care to get into details.
https://www.history.com/topics/us-presidents/presidential-elections-1

My opinion is that the way it’s being handled by our country’s leaders, both parties inciting violence, is not a good thing for the American people or the trust in governement here in the US.

@KNOWITALL: “Although I personally feel it’s extremist factions of both parties who are pushing the divisiveness rather than compromising, as we’ve done in the past.”

Correct me if I’m wrong. You’re saying that some time in the past the two major parties (and the people they represent) represented ideologies that were more alike, and that is a good thing?

Additionally, you talk about “compromise” in a positive sense. This implies that the two parties (and therefore the two groups of people you have identified as “divided”) have similar goals. Correct?

@hello321 I think they handled the different ideologies in a more mature way that was better for the American people. They fought it out themselves and reached a compromise, instead of inciting Americans to fight those political battles for them. That’s my opinion.

Yes, many including myself, feel that legislation, nee relationships of all kinds, is impossible without compromise. I do not believe the two major parties have similar goals, no.

Thanks.

So, you’re saying that the two major parties themselves – and not necessarily the people they represent – are the ones who are acting differently by not finding compromise.

Note: I’m just attempting to understand the phrase. I see the two corporate parties are quite similar and having similar goals. And when they act in bipartisan ways, it’s usually very harmful. Having two right-wing parties agree on things is not a goal of mine.

That said, I’d love to hear more about this concept of compromise. Since you believe that the two parties don’t have similar goals, how do you see compromise playing out?

Taking the parties out of the equation and just looking at public interests, what could theoretical lawmakers achieve if they were to approach this from two sides in an attempt to find a compromise. For example…

Note: This is purely theoretical, as I don’t believe there is a major party that holds position of “Party A”.

Party A: Healthcare is a right, should be guaranteed regardless of income or employment status, and should be free. Acceptable rate of unnecessary death and bankruptcy related to healthcare: 0.0000%

Party B: Healthcare is not a right, and should be eligible to those who can afford it. The priority should be to allow industries to profit off denying services (private health insurance) and the entire industry should be commodified. Acceptable rate of unnecessary death and bankruptcy related to healthcare: 100%

In this scenario, what type of compromise is possible. Would this be a scenario where we’d look at the parties as being “divided” and hope for compromise? What would the acceptable rate of unnecessary death and bankruptcy be?

In this theoretical, one party’s goal is to provide healthcare, the other is to make money.

@hello Correct. Rather than compromise, legislature is setting the American people up to literally fight their battles.

That hypothetical is difficult to answer because it’s very black and white, no gray areas. In your scenario, taxing the rich to pay for the poor would be the obvious compromise.

Aa far as acceptable death and bankruptcy, I’d compromise on caps based on multiple factos that include grey areas.

Why couldn’t we do a Medical Relief bill, based on Covid relief, so people are able to get a deferral on taxes or a mortgage, based on income?
I know a man here now who chooses to die with a large brain tumor rather than fight it and go into debt. This is a huge issue in rural areas like mine. We may be the butt of the joke due to dental care, but it’s a much bigger symptom of the income gap and it’s affect on real people. If your child needs clothes and you have am abcess, the child comes first. But go to jail and taxpayers pay for your dental work. It’s completely backwards.

Thanks.
To be clear – I think there is no “Party A”, but there is a “Party B”. And the way compromise works is that we start with 2 parties that are very close in position on the issue, with acceptable rate of unnecessary death and bankruptcy rates high. They both demand the protection of an industry (private healthcare) that profits off of denying healthcare and provides no value. From this position, Party A approaches Party B with a compromise proposal of a severely compromised position, and they end up with nothing. Things get worse.

I just find it fascinating that what I see as a lack of diversity of division among leaders is seen as too “divided” among many. When pundits use that phrase, I always suspected it was not shared by people, who generally are not looking for the two corporate parties to agree. There is a desire to win.

Compromise on something as basic as healthcare means that we are saying that we want people to die and go bankrupt. Period. Talk of “affordability” is patently absurd, and is used to obscure the fact that we are saying that we don’t want to take pennies from someone with two yachts in order to have a functional society.

I don’t want compromise, because I think the two corporate parties share the same class interest, and their compromise will always exclude working people. I don’t want compromise on basic rights, because a little bit of evil is still evil. We don’t allow 50% of black Americans to be enslaved. We end slavery.

Anyway, thanks for explaining. I hear the term so much since the concept started being pushed a few years ago. I was wondering if people really had any idea what they meant. You seem to.

I think the division is more about what we believe than what is reality. It’s not that Democrats and Republicans actually have radically different ideas, it’s that we believe that they do and so we view those on the other side as enemies who out to destroy our way of life that must be destroyed first. That is the division. It is manufactured and someone is benefiting from it.

@Demosthenes: “That is the division. It is manufactured and someone is benefiting from it.”

Yep. The Democrats and Republicans.

@hello321 Ah, so the question was ‘should our ideals be compromised to suit Congress or vice versa?” I would agree with you, of course.

@Demosthenes I’m not so sure I would agree with you on that. There are some things that the party itself will not compromise on for various reasons. Illegal Immigration and later-term abortion are two I don’t see Republicans changing their stance on anytime soon.

To me it means Democrats WANT to hate everything Republicans suggest or do and Republicans WANT to hate everything Democrats suggest or do. They don’t even listen to the details, just an automatic you’re horrible and the enemy.

A Democrat could suggest the exact same thing as a Republican, but if it comes from a Democrat 90% of Republicans will say the idea is horrible and vice versa.

No one thinks for themselves anymore, just totally manipulated by the party line and the media they listen to and watch. They don’t listen to anything in full, like a full press conference, full speech, full presentation, but rather snippets and clips and then the interpretation and spin of someone else and adopt their interpretation.

Not everyone, but a large part of the country.