But that is not the issue. The issue, as is well known among people who follow this sort of thing, is that geremandering is now, quite literally, an exact science. This means that almost all elections in the country are in safe districts, and the real action consists not of winning the election but of winning the primary --- which means catering to the more extreme elements of society since they are the ones that join parties and obsess about who their candidates will be.
To fix America, it's not enough to give everyone a big hug and promise to bring a different tone to Washington, and that applies even to Kerry. Redistricting has to be changed --- either by putting in the hands of apolitical technicians or, my favorite idea, using the same technology that is now used to create districts, only reversed to create maximally competitive (rather than minimally competitive) districts.
Good luck with either of options, as this is a states rights thing. The only entry would be some sort of civil rights argument, and, while I believe that would be valid, I also believe that not enough of the country would care, or see this as an issue, until we are past the point of no return.
Reply here.
(My reply is not incompatible with your ""Heh,"" however.)
Maynard: yes, sort of. Gerrymandering is one issue; this is another, albeit a related one. What interests me about the NYT claim is that it helps to raise the question of why 'Beltway politics' is the way it is, and I agree that a large part of the story has to do with redistricting. I know, good luck getting a lot of public attention for the redistricting reform movement-- but every little bit helps.
Ted: I apologize for compressing. "'Heh'" was intended to convey "interesting, but many objections come to mind; they must wait for later, as I must clean my kitchen."
Ah. I thought ""heh"" meant: blame Glenn Reynolds.
Heehee. I was intending to make fun (?) of the amorphous sometimes-endorsement of Reynolds' "heh," which comes with "take-back options" pre-installed.
Tierney is reliably misleading.
"The polarized nation is largely a myth created by people inside the Beltway talking to each another or, more precisely, shouting at each other.
This assumes that the polarization is on both sides, but the Democrats have not become more leftist or more militant. The conservative Democrats are almost all gone, and there are fewer moderates, so the Democrats are weak. But the remain Democrats are about the same as ever, and if anything a bit more moderate. The Democratic left wing scarcely exists. The center has been moved right.
The fact is that the Rove-Delay wing of the Republican Party has adopted an ideological scorched-earth policy, destroying or intimidating not only Democrats, but also the hapless few remaining moderate Republicans. The hard-core right is about 30% of the population, but it controls the Republican Party which controls the government. Their strategy is to sow dissension and mistrust, and it's been working.
The poll results probably only tell us that a certain proportion of the Republican voters don't have the least idea what they're voting for. Or perhaps it tells us that a lot of conservatives believe that they are moderates, because they're not quite mentally ill yet. The results do not tell us that the nation is not polarized.
The fact that self-described moderates voted for Bush is also testimony to the skill of the Rove team and the worthlessness of the media. Kerry was the obvious, overwhelming moderate choice in 2004.
Tierney's message is presumably that both sides need to cool down, but the parity isn't there. What needs to happen is for the hold of the rightwing 30% to be broken.
Did I mention that I hate it when y'all get serious here. I realize you want to be sensible, rational, moderate, and all that in your political life, but you're going to all have to grow up and realize that the Tooth Fairy and the Great Pumpkin don't exist. The Delay-Rove right wing declared war over a decade ago, and by and large they're winning. (And yes, they probably will end up cheating their social-right constituencies, but by that time they will have restructured American government entirely).
Whoops. I didn't see that that thread was a year old. I was misrouted.