I've always been interested in what causes ideological divides between us, and why, for the most part, they seem so dichotomous. We like to think it's our logic, intelligence, and rational thought, but it may just be the way we're built.
People are different. We like different things, we pursue different careers, we approach challenges differently, we react differently when challenged or exposed to new things.
Yet in many areas, and over the majority of people, our tastes and preferences tend not to be a wide swath over a complete spectrum of possible reaction, but highly polarized. We either like it or we hate it. If we are engaged in the issues of movies, comic books, food, wine, cigars, or sports, we tend to either love or hate. Lukewarm and moderate reactions, for most, tend to be when we have no actual attraction to, or interest in, the subject at hand.
Politically, we tend to be polarized. Many like to fancy that partisanship, negative campaigning, or hyperbole in politics is new, but it's not. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson had to deal with it, as has every president or politician since. Much of the campaigning against Jefferson suggested that "cities would burn" if Thomas Jefferson were elected, and the tenor of political editorial did not change after he was elected. George W. Bush is alternatively evil incarnate and stupid, or a great guy. Reagan was the great communicator and, to some, the greatest president who ever lived--I'd be in that camp. Or he was a senile, a doddering old fool, a former B-actor who stumbled into the presidency of our stupid country, evil (naturally) and excited about the prospect of starting World War III.
It could be, and seems likely from an objective stand point, that neither analysis is true. Presidents and politicians of all stripes are products of their environments in many ways, and have situations they need to deal with, and motivations that range from what will benefit them personally (in their assessment) to what is best for the country to what God wants them to do to what will most benefit their legacy to what is, in their opinion, the moral choice. And most of them probably make most of their decisions using a mix of those inputs, rather than actually being all bad or all good.
While people often complaining about bickering, partisanship, and the polarized nature of our politics, I don't think they confront, as often, the fact that we are wired for that sort of polarization.
I'm a big fan of entertainment news, and often enjoy perusing the articles at Ain't it Cool News, hosted by left-leaning partisan head geek, Harry Knowles. While most of the articles themselves can be anywhere from liberal to leftist when they stray into politics, it's the TalkBacks that interest me. And the TalkBacks can be about politics, or anything else. If it engages people's interest--reports from a cleavage-baring L.A. Insider who calls herself ScriptGirl, or the latest reviews for The Dark Knight, to speculation on the upcoming Terminator Salvation, if it inspires a reaction there tends to be a lot of polar opposites, and very little middle ground.
"It's terrible! It sucks! It's the worst thing ever!"
"It's great! She's perfect! It's my favorite segment!"
"It'll be horrible. The director is horrible. The script writer is horrible. This looks terrible."
"He's a great director! The trailer looks incredible. I'm blown away!"
There are a few "boring" and "cautiously optimisitics", but these folks are decidedly in the minority.
Find a popular sports site, I'll bet you see much of the same thing. When it comes to the world of political blogging, I know you do. Check out the comments for any article at The Huffington Post and see how many centrist, middle-of-the-road positions are taken. Almost none.
Even sites where discussions are limited in their scope, like RedState.com, where liberals and leftists are booted from the conversation if they just regurgitate far-left talking points in the comments, even there, with the parameters set, most positions tend to take the furthest extremes allowed be the format. During an Ann Coulter dust-up a year ago, the positions were either "Ann Coulter is great for conservatives! It's what conservatism needs to be doing!" or "Ann Coulter is terrible for conservatives and should be disowned!" There were middle-ground comments, but few and far between.
Negative campaigning works--it's proven in every election cycle. Why? Because people are dichotomous. If you aren't bad, then you are good. Not "meh", but good. If you can expose enough people to negative information about a candidate, folks either hold on to their "my candidate is a god amongst men" position in the face of all negative tarring-and-feathering, or they see the light: "hey, I thought this guy was good, but actually he sucks!" Negative campaigning manipulates a naturally polar, dichotomous people to switch positions completely.
Even middle-of-the-roaders will often turn out to be fairly partisan, when pressed. Moderates tend to consider themselves moderate, because they consider their viewpoint naturally "right" or "correct", and thus, centrist--even though they may be as extreme in their views, when those views are examined by others, as anybody else. Additionally, moderates are rarely viewed as moderates when their "moderation" seems to favor one side or the other of an argument. Our polar personalities view the issue as all-or-nothing, so . . . "if you aren't with us, you're against us". This is just as much the case with Democrats and liberals when it comes to Joe Leiberman as it was with George W. Bush and the allies of terrorists abroad.
Another thing I observe frequently in the comments sections of entertainment sites, political discussions, and blogs of all kinds is this: natuer abhors a one-sided vacuum. That is, if everybody loves something, the haters will appear. If everybody hates something, the lovers will appear. It often seems that people are pulled to love something because everybody hates it, or that they are pulled to hate something because everybody loves it. I have wondered before if their are larger forces at work in terms of things that we see only on our "local" level.
While entertainent and food preferences may arguably be a matter of our own personal taste, certainly in areas of science or politics it should be reasonably clear what works and what does not, and we should all be able to agree. But afte thousands of years, we clearly do not. Could it be that our political opinions are matters less of personal rigorous thought and reflection, but are instead influenced mightily by larger sociological systems? That we are single neurons in a larger system of collective thought? That our dearly held political opinions, and actions based thereon, are just tiny parts of a large, organic soup that lets our societal organism evolve, over eons, systems that are better overall for the survival of the race, or bring us closer to the second coming of Christ, than anything else?
Whatever the case, I think we are wired to be polarized in our thinking about most issues. Very few folks occupy the middle ground, and they seem largely ineffectual--occasionally operating as catalyst for one extreme or the other to achieve a particular goal, but never actually being an initiator of some great, moderate piece of legislation. Most moderate legislation is brought about not by moderate politicians, but by compromises between left and right, between nadir and apex. Most revered politicians are at the far end of the ideological spectrum, whether it's avowed ultra-liberal Ted Kennedy or staunch conservatives like Ronald Reagan. Indeed, when a politician makes political compromises, like Ronald Reagan did, we tend to forget them, focusing on the idealized perfect conservative or liberal, rather than the real person who occasionally moderated their rhetoric in the interest of getting things done.
It's a complicated issue. And there's a lot more I could say. I'm not even arguing that our extreme polarizations are bad--I think they obviously serve a purpose. Or are the artifact of inherent drives and passions that do serve a real and important purpose. If polarization didn't work, we wouldn't have been around so long.
Seriously, they are. Which is a good thing. Using a modern secular myth to justify looting the private sector and punishing the tax payer is reprehensible, and the more people who wake up to the same, the better.
The Jawa Report has a breakdown on how Axelrod and the Obama campaign are trying to make fake grassroots campaigns to smear Sarah Palin, while, at the same time, leaving a trail of smoking guns everywhere. No wonder the left like's to tell us they are the smartest and most ethical folks out there!
The Journal of Feminist Insight blog has a breakdown of softballs Charlie Gibson tossed Obama vs. the prosecutorial nature of his questions for Palin. Pretty damning stuff, indeed. For Obama: How does it feel to win? For Palin: Do you have enough qualifications for the job your seeking? And on and on and on.
Not classy, Charlie.
Apparently to folks of the left, the ends will always justify the means. Ruin people, lie, cheat, steal, anything short of murder (and, hmm, who knows, maybe that, too) is okay if it means you get universal healthcare and progressive taxation. Learning that, on the left, the end always justifies the means is why I'm not a liberal today.
