Is it possible that the parties are so divided because republicans control all branches of government?

Question

I mean, if there were checks and balances, we would have to blame dems too, for not checking the repubs. So, has Bush, in his quest to load all positions in gov't with his buddies, qualified or not, divided this country to this extent? And I already know that this isn't the first time we have been divided, just the MOST we have been...

super, go back to school. Cabinet posts and judicial seats on the supreme court are appointed (by someone who didn't win the majority vote) blind patriotism...

Answer 1

One of the biggest problem we have with the Republicans having so much control is with their use of "Gerry-mandering". That's when the powers in charge manipulate the areas of congressional districts in order to retain or acquire more control.
You should see a map of Texas. It's more complicated than a jigsaw puzzle. It has crossed out the influence of black and Hispanic voters almost completely (thanks, Tom DeLay - I hope you burn in hell you rotten sonuvabitch).
I'm a pragmatist. And looking back on history the one thing I've realised that is clear as day is this - when the pendulum swings too far one way, it swings back just as hard the other way.

And I believe that's already started to happen.
Good luck, neo-cons. I think you're going to need it.

Answer 2

No, this is not the time this country has been most divided. Try the War Between the States, my friend, when over 500,000 men were slaughtered. Lincoln kept the country together, but it was a close thing for awhile. Democrats in control? Try something like forty years, between WWII and Reagan. The Republicans in Congress were shut out of everything. They had very little say in what went on. So we got the New Deal, The Great Society, and Vietnam. As far as Bush's "buddies", they're few and far between. If you read the news everyday, you'll quickly learn that a lot of people in the Pentagon hate Rumsfeld, and the career diplomats at State despise Condi. For a parallel example, read any good account of the Lincoln presidency and you'll find that pretty much everybody in his cabinet thought he was a joke. Same with Reagan and Nixon. The only president who received absolute 100% loyalty was Clinton. Only one guy got out of line and he did the right thing and "committed suicide".

Answer 3

See---the thing is, just because the republicans have control of all branches of government, at the moment, doesnt mean that democrates have no input or influence on decisions made in congress.

We need different parties because they reflect the differing opinions of the people. People will always have differing opinions. And, all parties have been, on many occations, in agreement with each other.

This is not the MOST. There have been many occations and it isn't going to be the last.

*In response to your added commentary: I seriously do not believe that the majority of all those who have been appointed to cabinet posts and judicial seats on the supreme court are what have divided the opinions of this country. blind knowledge and assumption...

Answer 4

I think polarization results from the way both parties market their ideas based on opinion polls. Both parties commission polls in various geographic areas, to determine public opinion there. If a given area shows a significant majority against them, they don't even try to gain support there. They spend their money in geographic areas where they already have substantial support. In the short run, this is the most efficient way to win elections. But as a result, the people in the opposing areas never even hear much to challenge their opinions, but just information that supports what they already think.
I understand why the parties do this, but it is problematic because it creates greater division than existed before.

Answer 5

Of course this is not the MOST we have been divided. We were more divided during the Vietnam war, though the divisions ran through the Democratic party, not between parties. And we were of course WAY more divided during the Civil War. We're not quite at that point yet!

Answer 6

Yes, very much so. I think its plain wrong to let either power ever have as much power as the republicans have now. And unfortunately this Foley scandal is a direct result of this. Absolute power corrupts, and despite how hard they try and spin this and blame the democrats, the republicans are knee deep in there own excrement because of this. And America suffers.

Nice post Cheyenne.

Answer 7

I disagree this is the most we've been divided. We were pretty darn divided during the Reagan Administration as well. Vietnam era? Couldn't have crossed that divide with Scotty's transporter beam. The thing is that when Dems aren't in power, they rave about the "great division". When Reps aren't in power, they rave about the "moral decline".

Answer 8

That may be part of it but I think the main problem the whole nation is divided is that this administration with help from congress has intentionally encouraged division. When the Pres and Vice Pres lable those who disagree as bad Americans the pattern is set.

Answer 9

There is some truth to your statement. When Clinton was president and the Congress was Republican, both parties needed to work together to pass legislation. But Republicans destroyed any semblance of bi-partisanship when they went after Clinton for the Monica thing. It was all about power for them, they wanted everything. Now they have it and as they say: "Power corrupts and Absolute power corrupts Absolutely"

Answer 10

" A house divided can not stand". The founding fathers wanted a representative democracy where all voices could be heard. There is a lot more polarization now because many people feel their points of view are not being considered by their legislators. Add to that the president's extension of his presidential authority and we have one angry electorate out there....