How do we heal the political divisions in America?

I'm going to spare the system the RAM usage and quote only your comments that are relevant to my responses.

Well, I was wrong. I thought it was clear and widely known that the polarization began right after laws changed making news broadcasts a profit center and immediately Fox News and Rush Limbaugh began constructing a right wing, biased "news" network to collect right wing advertising revenue and use it to fund right wing candidates and propaganda. I thought it was accepted that after a few years of that and the explosion of right wing radio talk shows, finally the liberal/progressive forces began striking back (weakly) with a few leftward radio talk shows, and then it all mushroomed into left vs. right on TV and radio. And they fed their respective audiences their biased pitch which deepened and deepened and deepened. Remember that prior to that when we had the Fairness Doctrine, the Equal Time Rule, and the S.C. had said that the main responsibility of corporations was to "provide a public good", news was more balanced and usually when a partisan commentary was aired after the main news of the day, a counterpoint from the opposing side was then aired as well. But back in 1974, SCOTU Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote that in the case of newspapers, a government "right of reply" requirement ("Equal Time Rule") "inescapably dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate." IOW the Equal Time Rule doesn't allow for sufficient conflict and division.

And without addressing this polarized "news and commentary" onslaught of bias, people will continue to listen and watch their favorite pitch person and source. And that, in my opinion, is the main cause of the division, which then some politicians jumped on (as Murdoch intended) and morphed their own pitch into an extremist, intolerant, fevered bias and cultivated a matching "base" among the public.

Those among us who are committed to their extremist leaders will probably continue to support their extremist leaders. And the Parties are now requiring their candidates to "toe the line" on policy or risk being opposed by their own Party (or is this just the standard for Republicans?). So any change in extremist leadership may be slow coming. And time is important if we are to avoid a national disaster.

And don't forget the impacts of gerrymandering and Citizens United.

 

Quote me. Where did I "start out assuming that the only reason the left has political opposition is because of Fox news and talk radio"?

 

Off topic, and very incorrect. There is no country without private ownership of business, including Cuba where they are moving gradually to worker co-ops.

 

Interesting how the author starts by denying any "male conspiracy" and then unwittingly affirms it along with sexism.

No conspiracy there. The conspiracy is only in the spin of the presentation of it.

We'll keep waiting for you to post an actual conspiracy of the left.

 

No, she did not. That remark was clearly directed at a minority of Trump supporters. She was careful to say "some" several times, and clearly it was only the ones who were racists, Are you saying that all middle Americans or even all Trump supporters are racists? Who's insulting now?.

Hillary said nothing more than that "deplorables" were...uh...deplorable. And racists clearly ARE deplorable

You talk about someone insulting his listener's intelligence? Trump lies through his teeth nearly constantly, often about things where he and his listeners KNOW he is lying, yet he continues to do so. That insults my intelligence and I truly don't understand why it doesn't seem to insult everyone's

 

You might find it interesting to review the history of the Fairness Doctrine, the Equal Time Rule, relevant S.C. rulings, and the history of Roger Ailes and Murdoch back in the day and their organizational response to the changes in the law.

 

Conspiracy theories aren’t just for conservatives....

Yet Krugman is mostly wrong that nuttiness is found mainly among conservatives, and his misperception actually reveals a great deal about U.S. politics. People of all political persuasions believe their views are objectively right and others hold positions that are arbitrary and asinine. Daniel Kahan finds that partisan commitments make people look for evidence to justify their conclusions. Even when, say, liberals come up with a correct answer, it may not have been because of their high esteem for evidence. They just got lucky.....snip~


Oh my.....guess where you just landed.


So are all Americans created equal when it comes to fearing collusion and conspiracies? Our recent research suggests that they are. As part of a 2012 national survey, we asked respondents about the likelihood of voter fraud as an explanation if their preferred presidential candidate did not win. Fifty percent of Republicans said it would be very or somewhat likely, compared to 44 percent of Democrats. This contradicts claims by Jonathan Chait that Republicans believe in electoral conspiracy theories far more than Democrats do.

The upshot: near symmetry between left and right.



If Republicans and Democrats are equally prone to believing in conspiracy theories, where then is the liberal equivalent of climate change denial? An obvious possibility is the belief that Big Oil conspires to marginalize unfavorable findings or block alternative energies. Our survey, for example, shows that 52 percent of Democrats believe corporations are conspiring against us.....snip~

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ust-for-conservatives/?utm_term=.13df5d54eb54


So yes your White Racist Conspiracy, oh and as WAPO points out. Your Leftist Corporation Conspiracy theory is another.

 

I think we either try to correct it through legislation, or we are facing national disaster.

 

(I said it that way for a reason provided by the right. I didn't say "one for the right and one for the left" because in deference to the right, they normally refer to "MSM" as "liberal" and the enemy of sorts and they don't seem to see any "middle of the road" or balanced news sources to exist.) The idea that there is any such thing a s a balanced news is laughable. There pretty much never has been nor will be. News like politics is one of those things people go into with the idea of making some sort of positive difference in peoples lives. Sounds pretty good right up until the time you suddenly discover that even the smartest of us don't really have any idea how to go about that. The greatest good for the greatest number sounds great until you figure out that the concept is itself unquantifiable in any meaningful way.

The media are in it to make money/gain prestige/or any other number of things in no particular order. If you don't make enough money to stay in business the other things fall by the way side. NPR would have died years ago without substantial government funding. and I'd certainly miss my classical music fix it provides. You have to find someway to pay your expenses or your message dies aborning. And if your funding depends entirely or even mostly on public largess it would behoove you not to bite the hand that feeds you. Ergo you tend to avoid things that you ought to scream to high heaven about for fear of compromising that funding. Therefore NPR tends to be all the news their government patrons thing you ought to here.

 

Her actual quote was " you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables." Saying half is different from saying "some", and it doesnt denote a small minority. It denotes half.

 

I will not because below is a perfect example, you're not even willing to be honest with yourself so why should I waste time chasing what you're not willing to process any way but what you believe

What minority,

• Clinton: 65,844,610 (48.2%)
• Trump: 62,979,636 (46.1%)
• Others: 7,804,213 (5.7%)

When she says Half, you do understand that this number is 31,489,818 and you think his base of 62 million was going to just say "I'm not who the old pompous snatch is talking about " Riiiiiiiight?

That's how the left always approach a gaff, throw the insult out there and then claim
" I wasn't talking about you you personally" or just blast their enemy with whatever hurtful thing and then with an empty soul claim "I'm so Sowwwwy!" only when it effects their career and bottom line

 

Trying to blame it all on the conservatives, I see. That means you're part of the problem, not the solution.

 

Hillary wasn't running a child porn ring from a pizza parlor. That isn't a perspective. That is a fact.

Obama was born in Hawaii. That isn't a perspective, it is a fact.

Trump did not have the largest crowds in history at his inauguration. Fact not perspective.

It isn't just a matter of perspective. The right-wing media has been perpetuating crackpot conspiracy theories for decades now. And they have twisted so many minds that people don't know the difference between fact and opinion anymore.

Equating the left and right in this regard is just more false logic. The so-called left mainstream media can get it wrong from time to time, but they don't create crackpot conspiracy theories. The right comes up with this crap every single day!!!

 

I think this is what they call a non sequitur. Do you care to address what I actually said?

 

Legislation to do what, control the media? I'm thinking we'll just have to hunker down and ride this out as best we can.

Russian efforts to exacerbate the issue by spreading all manner of grassfires are not helping, though. Maybe something could be done about that at least.

 

Nice excuse, but you just proved you are part of the problem when it comes to healing divisions: finger pointing blame is a major cause of division.

People such as yourself label me a RWer, yet the far Righties label me a LWer. The only time I use the term "MSM" is derisively because it's idiotic. I've often pointed out that the "MSM" is a business, not a vast, left wing conspiracy yet you just labeled me as such by virtue of your past accusations that I'm part of "the right". How can divisions heal if someone lies about others?

 

Also the demonization of the NRA by the Left as the most powerful, most evil force in America. Probably one of their longest, most-sustained LW conspiracy theories. Anyone with common sense knows that the NRA isn't even on the top 50 list of Washington lobbies.

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/pat-davis-congress_us_5af5d9a4e4b0e57cd9f943d9
A Democratic congressional candidate is out with a new TV ad using far more explicit language than the usual political spot.

“**** the NRA,” Pat Davis says in the 15-second ad. “Their pro-gun policies have resulted in dead children, dead mothers and dead fathers.”

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/pelosi-gop-congress-beholden-nrs-gun-interests
House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi accused Republicans in Congress of being “a wholly-owned subsidiary of the National Rifle Association and Gun Owners of America”

https://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/harry-reid-gun-control-nra-puppets-214452
Reid starts new gun-control push, calls Republicans 'puppets' of NRA

 

I give up. Where?

Right. Based on 4 questions for which I can show you known evidence.

Another one for which there is known evidence. It's a known, published FACT that Exxon Mobil developed research in 1977 that found global warming was likely if fossil fuel use was continued AND that Exxon Mobil buried the study and later denied it and spread claims that countered it. No conspiracy there. We also know that oil companies' spending on lobbying from 1998 to 2010 was over $3 billion - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying_in_the_United_States
And the 5th top lobbying industry in the U.S. in 2017 was the oil and gas industry - https://www.statista.com/statistics/257364/top-lobbying-industries-in-the-us/

Show me a major player in the climate change study leaders who did similarly.

 

Is that it? I assumed nothing. Maybe you don't know what "deference" means. Righties never mention any MSM that they believe to be neutral. They always speak of "liberal MSM" and "the MSM is leftist" and such. So that sets up two categories: media that leans to the far right, and everyone else. I didn't create those categories! The righties did and I "honored" them. So no, I didn't "start out assuming that the only reason the left has political opposition is because of Fox news and talk radio".

 

Of course that is your objective opinion. I would say that as long as left minded, Marxist progressives, breathe air and vote in America......we will have conflict.

 

I answered your question. You just do not like the answer.

I also corrected your false assumption as to the cause of the problem. You don't like that clarification either.

 

So ending the Fairness Doctrine and and the Equal Time Rule were "conservative" deeds? Who knew?

 

Good point, but I think that with the goal being to avoid feeding polarization, presenting two popular and strongly opposing viewpoints nips the polarization in the bud, and those who hold other viewpoints with enthusiasm could in those days ask for equal time for their views, and they were at least occasionally granted as I recall. The point being that ending polarization in my scheme of things means getting the opposing views out on the same media, and at the same time when possible.

Don't get me wrong, however. I think we very much need some sort of effective ranked choice voting system. And I think it can only benefit the effort to bring the polarization back to a reasonable level.