Is the degree of polarization between Democrats and Republicans unusually high from an historical perspective?

1860s, brah.

It benefits the two party system to distinguish themselves from the other party as if there are
huge differences.

The media also likes to play up their differences, the good versus evil , blue versus red makes for a great Hollywood storyline and keep the two party system intact.

They are not always disagreeinig though. The democrats and republicans always support Israel with the same level of intensity.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/house-resolution-passes-following-dueling-critiques/

The House on Tuesday approved a nonbinding resolution rebuking a United Nations report on last winter’s conflict in Gaza, after architects of both the U.N. report and the House resolution recently criticized the other’s work as inaccurate.

The resolution, which passed 344–36, called the investigation of the conflict — led by Richard Goldstone, a South African judge — “to be irredeemably biased and unworthy of further consideration or legitimacy.” Twenty-two House members voted present on the resolution.

Its always been there. It’s more visible now that we have the internet and cable/satellite television.

It is worse than it has been in the past. It seems like it is more of a game. Heck, George Senior looks like a Gentleman and a Statesman compared to Duyba, and I REALLY didn’t like George Senior. thought he was a bit weaselly at the time.

Unfortunately the right-wing Republicans are still far too influential inside their party. I guess everyone in Germany is shocked (including all our conservatives) by the greatly exaggerated opposition to having health insurance for everyone in the US – a model that’s been in place in Germany for many decades and which for example saves the lives of unborn babies because of good prenatal care for everyone. Just this one obvious contradiction puzzles me. How can anyone be “pro-life” and against health care for everyone? Especially in a developed country.

Liberals are becoming more liberal to the point of extremes.

Conservatives are remaining the same (by definition being conservative)

If todays liberals were around in the late Thirties they’d be reisisting the US’s entry into WW2 and we just might all be speaking German now.

A big reason why the parties seem so divided today is that we’re now at the end of a forty year process of the parties sorting themselves into much more ideologically contiguous groups. Coming out of World War II, both the Republican and Democratic party each had essentially two wings. The Democrats had a progressive, new deal wing, and it had its Dixie wing – much more conservative on many issues, but able to make common cause with the progressives on some economic issues. The Republicans also had two wings: the right-wing conservatives, and the more progressive New England-type Republicans (known later as Rockefeller Republicans).

Because of these divisions, you had different wings working together all the time. Sometimes the Dixiecrats and the right-wingers would work together, and sometimes the Rockefeller Republicans and the progressive Democrats would work together. As a result, you had the illusion of bi-partisan cooperation.

Beginning with Strom Thurmond’s run for the presidency (as a third-party candidate) and then continuing apace with the passage of the Civil Rights Act, these wings began to resort themselves. First, the Southern Dems slowly became Republicans, either by switching parties outright or by being replaced by Republicans. This process was basically completed by the 1990’s. Then, beginning much later, many of the more progressive Republicans either retired, were defeated or switched parties themselves. That process is still continuing.

As a result, the two political parties are now much more ideologically homogeneous than they were even a few decades ago. That is not to say that there is no diversity within the parties. The Democrats especially continue to have a robust “Centrist” wing that clashes with the progressive wing all the time. The GOP has somewhat less diversity, though that’s partly the result of being in the Minority and having smaller numbers at the moment.

Finally, I would just point out that another big reason why we are seeing so little cooperation between the two parties in Congress is that the GOP has made a political calculation that the best strategy for them is to oppose the President’s agenda, regardless of the shape of the final legislation. They may be right or they may be wrong, but at the moment that decision means that near unanimous rejection of all significant legislation supported by the majority.

I don’t want to get into an argument about the merits of different parties, but if the Republicans are opposing new legislation simply because they do not want to see the Democrats succeed then this is partisan politics at its worst, putting their own and their party’s interest above that of the country. I would be very curious to know if that kind of thing has been done in the past by either party.

Consider the possibility that conservatives don’t want the current healthcare system that successfully preserved my quality of life screwed with.

@proXXi ; yeah, to hell with everyone else who dies because they can’t go to the doctor or fill their prescription! I got mine!~

@Judi. That’s not my attitude. Rather I see healthcare ‘reform’ the same way one should view healthcare: First do no harm’.

The current models don’t do this.

I will give you a little credit for being able to look beyond the typical reform proponents perspective (it’s all being resisted for the insurance lobby) and instead accuse me of being selfish.

@mattbrowne “Just this one obvious contradiction puzzles me. How can anyone be “pro-life” and against health care for everyone?”

There is no contradiction: you can be for life and against being generous with other people’s money. The reason our conservatives are shocked by American conservatives’ opinions is because conservatism is only a label in our countries. Your president and mine call themselves conservatives yet denounce the barbarity of American style capitalism, now that’s a contradiction.

Apparently it was far worse in the 1800s:

http://us.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/wayoflife/08/22/mf.campaign.slurs.slogans/index.html

It was nasty at a personal level. Aaron Burr killed Alexander Hamilton in a duel. It does not get much nastier. But was it more partisan?

Well, a lot of the Democratic Republicans thought Burr was the shit for killing the father of the Federalist party (Hamilton). A fair number of Federalists probably would have felt the same way if the situation was reversed.

There was also a brawl between a pair on congressmen during a session back in the day. One of them was using a fire poker and had a criminal record. Good Times. I wish I could remember the names of the politicians, but you wouldn’t recognize them any way.

@Jack_Haas – Other people’s money? So when investment bankers create speculative bubbles which earns them generous bonuses, it is their money? When the bubble bursts they point out they have a contract and no one can touch their bonuses. Most banks cannot be allowed to break down to avoid whole countries breaking down. Now everyone has to pay the bill, and people who earn little can keep even less or lose their jobs and cannot afford health insurance anymore.

Is it really unfair to ask the rich folks, for example the investment bankers, to contribute a little more to the common good so everyone can have health insurance? Other people’s money? Would they really face an emotional breakdown if they have to sell one of their two yachts? Even the upper middle class folks still live a comfortable life. Come on, solidarity is what keeps modern societies alive. People who earn more should be generous and not resist health care for everyone. Ultra conservative greed and selfishness really is a disgrace (a disgrace that is mentioned in the bible several times by the way) and this is the reason why many moderate conservatives in France and Germany and other European countries are shocked by this attitude. But we are all aware that the advocates of unbridled predatory capitalism are a minority in the American Republican party. But they should be kept in check. Because ultimately they have the potential destroy free market societies.

@mattbrowne Matt we’ve had this conversation already and I don’t feel like starting this again. You’re definitely painting a very simplistic and unrealistic vision of both situations (US and European realities).

@Jack_Haas – Yes, we did on wis.dm and I agree the whole situation is more complex, but certain elements I mentioned above are real or they do represent my political opinion. In the US I would be considered to be a moderate liberal. I believe in solidarity. I admire Obama for going to Chicago after he graduated to become a community organizer instead of getting hired by a Wall Street company trying to earn tons of money.