Is "lumping" people in categories more prevalent now?

Question

I see more lumping for the left and right than ever before.

I'm neither, but if I say the war is not winnable I'm a left leaning liberal. If I say the democrats only have "passion" when they have the numbers or public support, I'm a right winged lemming?

I believe "pork" has no business in the funding. If you want to set a date, set a date. Hell, make the date tomorrow, but don't buy votes with BS funding just to secure votes. It's as bad as continuing to fund a war of whack a mole.

Can I help it I don't believe in the entire left or right ideology in TOTAL?

Shouldn't we be deciding issues on their merits, not the talking points of the latest party briefing?

Don't we need a new political party that takes the "politics" out of the government.

How can we stand by and continue to lump everyone in a group, thus further dividing the country.

Have we gotten this damn petty and ignorant? It's not us against them, it's us against us. Don't fear the terrorist, fear our own implosion.

Hell yes...lets start the "American Party."

Where ideas aren't based on cooperations profits or hidden agendas.

The real voice of the people!

End the political warfare now!

Answer 1

Amen to that!
The good thing is, there is more of us, outsiders, every day.

Answer 2

I don't think its any worse now than before I just think its done for different reasons now. "Irish Need Not Apply"

You've got a good point about the left/right stuff. Its a simple minded non thinking way to analyse politics. Neither the left or the right have a consistent politicial philosophy. The left is for choice unless you want to choose what school to send your kids or how to invest your retirement money. The right is for choice as long as you choose one of the options they approve first.

The bottomline on politics is that there are two fundemental views. One view is that government is the servant of the people and its purpose is to preserve individual freedom. And for a government to serve that purpose it would necessarily be limited in power and scope. The other view is that people are the servants of government. Governments job is to serve the "greater good" exactly what that is will be determined by the government. There is no reason or necessity to limit the power or scope of that government.

It is clear that the founders of this country leaned toward the preservation of freedom and a limited government. Whereas the legislators that came up with income taxes, social security, welfare, medicad, government subsidies to private companies and particular industries, campaign finance rules etc. have taken the contrary view of government and have sided against freedom and for making citizens subjects of an all powerful government.

On your last point you are wrong. It is us against them. It is civilization and the rule of law versus the anarchy of terrorism. To bad those using that conflict as a political tool don't realise that Presidents and political parties don't lose wars nations do. And the citizens of the nation are the ones that pay the price of defeat, death and subjagation.

Answer 3

Unfortunately,I agree with what you pointed out entirely. Even though I'm generally a "Conservative Minded" thinker! The Partisanship has gone way too far! And there seems to be a large void in the middle of the U.S. political spectrum! This group is not fully represented by either the Republicans or Democrats. And there is no real central "Populist" view in the current system of Government! At one time we use to have politicians that we would refer to as "Statesmen",but they do not seem to exist anymore? These individuals could support either political spectrum,if they felt that the majority view would be best reflected by the singular issue that is being debated-by either party! They may generally hold a right or left view,on most issues-but could easily decide to support the opposite party position. If they personally felt it was a more preferable stance...even against his/her own party affiliations! In todays politics...he/she would probably end up fired or forced to resign-because they didn't tow the party line! Again...I am generally a Conservative thinker,but sometimes I do feel that the Libs have some valid concerns that need to be addressed. And not just opposed,simply because I hold a typically Conservative position. Or supporting it only along my Parties general position. If I am truly a "free" individual? I should be able to reflect my voterships views,even if it flies in the face of my parties stance-and not have to put up with any negative repercussions and lose my party affiliations! It's one of the reasons that I knew from Day #1. why Colin Powell would not seek political office,but would just retire quietly-as the "former" Secretary of State! Why? Because I don't personally believe that he (Colin Powell) has a Right or Left point of view! Some people tried to put a badge on him-over the WMD fiasco-Weapons of Mass Destruction. But seemed to conveniently forget that his job as the Secretary of State,requires him to express in words...to other World Leaders-his countries stance or position on any number of myriad issues',he isn't the 'policy writer',he is just the Spokesman! It would be fair to add that has a Soldier-he has served the U.S. under both political parties,and did whatever was required of him...Period! And truthfully...he was too polite and classy,to get caught up in the 'spit and venom' of modern day U.S. politics. But I can readily tell you that...if I was American-and he ran for office??? I would vote for him 'hands down',no matter what his party lines were! I once remember listening to someone on radio,who made the interesting comment that America is neither Red or Blue! But rather an 'in-between' shade of Purple. In other words...they (Americans) could go either way politically,depending on how important the issues' are to them. Compelling when you think about it! So how come the U.S. cannot put it 'a middle party' into their Political Spectrum or Arena? Other countries do. And alot of them benefit greatly from having more than two parties! It greatly increases voter participation and widens the perspective on policy initiatives,it also takes out the Black/White or Red/Blue perspective of Federal Politics. The middle party can swing either way,making the outcome of the debate...even more interesting and unpredictable!!! And I see this as being the problem with modern politics and politicians...they are getting to be all too damned 'predictable' ,you know which way they'll run. Even before they drop the ball! Hope this helps. Thx theerrander.

Answer 4

I am either a liberal conservative or a conservative liberal. Either way I lack the comfort of fitting in with either side. Most liberals find me too conservative and most conservatives find me too liberal. I just like to take every issue for what it is and look for answers that make sense. The truth is both sides are right and both sides are wrong depending on the issue you are looking at. We need a party that just looks for solutions and makes them work. We should have a report card on EVERY politician every 3 months. Sort of a "No Politician Left Behind" program that allows us to judge them SOLELY on the merits of their accomplishments. TALK is NOT an accomplishment. We don't need term limits, we need accountability. We can limit their terms now, if we just pay attention and make them accountable. Voting for someone because they belong to your party is no longer acceptable. Results, results, results! Get 'er done or get out! Power to the people. We already have it if we are not too stupid or lazy to use it.

Answer 5

T'was ever thus. Read literature from any era and you will see the same thing: Athenians and Spartans, Jews and Gentiles, rich and poor, patriots and traitors, believers and heretics, Georgia Bulldogs and Florida Gators, etc.

I think the answer to your question is more anthropological than political. Since we don't have fangs, claws or pachyderm skins, our only defense against the environment is society. With society you get tribalism; it is hard-wired into our survival instincts and we quite naturally gravitate toward it.

Check-out Eric Hoffer's "The True Believer." He argues that group and mass movement affiliation typically have more to do with psychological needs than empirical analysis. He says, "the less justified a man is in claiming excellence for himself, the more ready he is to claim excellence for his country, his religion, his politics or whatever his Holy Cause may be."

Answer 6

It's no more common that it ever was. But it's more obvious.

We've reached a stage where entire groups attack entire other groups, just for disagreeing with each other.

Prior to this, the attacking was usually unilateral, one small group attacking an entire category out of hatred and bigotry.

Now, everyone (except the moderates) are playing too.

Answer 7

George Washington even feared this at the beginning of of this nation.Political parties tear this nation politically apart.it's time we stopped them!