I think current internet discourse also drives people to political extremes. If I defend a Bush policy, I'm suddenly a neo-con, despite having legitimate criticisms of other Bush policies. The opposite is also true of the right, though I haven't found much of any of Obama's policies I agree with.

Just like water drains to the lowest level it can, so does discourse, and we end up with a lot of shrill demogoguery. Do I like this president? Not really. Did I vote for him? No, I didn't. Do I think he's the antichrist? No, I don't. Would I support a policy of his I agreed with? If/when I find one, yep.

I resent that I have to be assigned "a side".

The 2 party system defines American Democracy. The now in power Progressive Movement which began with Woodrow Wilson pushes an elitist agenda not very much different than the far right elitist characterized by the KKK. Both extremes want you to tow the party line regardless of your personal views. This is what shapes the political discourse in this country whether on the Internet or schools or newspapers periodicals. The views of the center - silent majority, are seldom reflected in the Halls of Congress, the SCOTUS or the POTUS.

(01-08-2010 05:02 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  BGSU -

I’ve been thinking about this a little more on this slow Friday afternoon, aaaaaaaaand since I'm certain you are just dying to know ...

Thanks! Actually, that's the sort of response I was looking for.

(01-08-2010 05:02 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  Yes I know, broad brush and all. "Liberals" aren't a cohesive unit any more than "gays", "conservatives", "women", "americans", "boy scouts" "Toledo Football Fans" or any other large group of people.

Exactly!

(01-09-2010 02:18 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  The 2 party system defines American Democracy. The now in power Progressive Movement which began with Woodrow Wilson pushes an elitist agenda not very much different than the far right elitist characterized by the KKK.

Beg to differ here, TR referred to himself as a "progressive," and many of his policies fall right into that category. His falling out w/ Taft was explicitly stated b/c Taft didn't continue w/ TR's progressive policies.

He was also very much an elitist, figuring his Harvard education could dole out progressivism in the correct way, as opposed to the populism of the Dems.