I think a lot of this is from the concentration of broadcast media on the right. Most conservative Republicans I know get all or nearly all their news from one media source (Fox) and the same few talking heads (Rush, Hannity, etc.) Those media sources do well when they push the envelope of sensationalism. If Republican candidates want to get valuable air time on those programs, they have to compete with each other to be more extreme to get play. Bush speech writer David Frum said it best: "Republicans originally thought that Fox worked for us and now we're discovering we work for Fox." Is there a conservative version of NPR? Assuming you believe CNN, ABC, NBC and CBS are left-leaning (I don't really think CNN is, but whatever), at least it's diversified. There definitely are right wing equivalents of the Huffington Post and the NYT, so I don't really think you can pin the growing ideological rigidity of the right on internet-based media or print. But I don't know that older media consumers really look at those places as much as they do TV and radio for news.
Interesting take. I disagree with it completely, but it's nice to see how the FoxNews bogeyman works for the left wing. I'm a bit surprised you didn't mention the Koch Brothers, whoever they are.
I think Obama is the most divisive president ever. The promulgation of class warfare, Obamacare, punitive actions against non unionized sectors of the economy.... I mean, all those points are debatable if they are right or not, but he has set people against each other like no president in my life (JFK forward).
Most of this has to do with perception rather than reality. These things can be attributed to the rhetoric surrounding his presidency rather than his actual policies.
Is it "promulgation of class warfare" to point out Mitt Romney paid 14% in federal taxes? Or that middle class wages have been stagnant for more than a decade? I think there's a growing sense in our country that a lot of people are barely treading water. Just like Reagan sensed that people were tired of regulation in the early '80s, he seems to be tapping into that. Promulgating it? *shrug* The next time Obama actually leads on an idea will be the first time, as far as I can see. Obamacare, as has been endlessly pointed out, was first a Nixonian idea. Then the Republican alternative to Hillarycare in the early 90's. Then Romneycare. This isn't some new radical leftist plot. Democrats gave up on Single Payer and adopted the Republican platform, while Republicans slid farther to the right. Now Democrats are divisive for not moving even farther to the right? "Punitive actions against non unionized sectors of the economy"...I don't even know what that means. You mean like when he extended the Bush tax cuts to everyone? Or he signed the payroll tax relief bill? Or picked up the pieces of the Bush-initiated mortgage bailout? Which of those were punitive to those non-union sectors? I don't really see it. I see him as being a stooge for unions at times, yes, but his largest donor base is Wall Street. You think Wall Street is throwing all that money at him because he hates them? He has done some things that nearly everybody can get behind. We just don't talk about them. Killing Bin Laden. No major terrorist acts on US soil during his presidency. (Hey, Bush always took credit for that, so why can't Obama?) Not fucking up Egypt/Libya/Tunisia, turning any one of them into the next Afghanistan. Getting out of Iraq. These are divisive times. Have been since Clinton, really, and it wasn't exactly peaches and roses for his presidency. People are more extreme in their politics on both ends, making compromise practically impossible. What would a non-divisive president even look like? I'm having a hard time picturing such a person.
I don't think I "dismissed any criticism." Read it again. I describe him as an occasional stooge for unions. I make it pretty clear he's in bed with Wall Street. I pin some of the blame of the mortgage bailout at his feet, although it was initiated by Bush. I'm not even really denying that he's divisive. I'm just pointing out that BP's particular claims seem kind of screwy. I posed what I thought was a pretty interesting question: What would a non-divisive president look like? Personally, I doubt Bill Clinton would be considered non-divisive now. I doubt you'd see a dime's worth of difference in policy between he and Obama, although you could count on more sleaze. How about Denny's fetish, Ron Paul! No way he'd alienate anybody! lol Newt? Santorum? Hillary? Romney? Wait, Romney? Hmmm. Maybe I finally understand Romney's not-exactly-popularity-but-sort-of-least-unpopularness. Romney is probably the least divisive candidate who could compete right now, because he's agreed with everybody at some point. Don't like his views on abortion? Just go back 7 or 8 years. Don't like Romneycare 2010? That's ok, because that's all in the past! Things are so polarized now that a spineless shill like Romney may just be the ticket, because he's so used to being everything to everyone. Nobody despises vanilla, especially when it can transform itself into milk toast. The truth is that most people reading this will snort and say, "Fuck that. I want someone who is not divisive, but also with a spine." In other words, one's definition of non-divisive is probably somebody who mostly agrees with oneself (and of course one's own increasingly polarized viewpoint). Which, I suppose, is why I found Dubya divisive and Obama not, while somebody else may feel quite the opposite.
You know what, mook? Divisive doesn't mean shit. Conviction and good policy that works for the vast majority is what counts. People have been very partisan since Jefferson beat Adams. People hated Reagan, yet admitted he had convictions firmly held. He was so divisive, he won reelection by one of the greatest landslides in our history. He lost Mondale's home state and D.C. And that's it. Conviction and policy! Yet your memory of things, or sense of history, are blinded by partisanship. There's a new-ish verb (noun, too) named after a man your heroes savaged. Bork. Your heroes were saints during the John Tower nomination hearings, as well. Or how about the terrible treatment of Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill? All that fresh in people's memory by the time Clinocchio became president (twice, neither time with a majority). I don't dislike Obama. He seems like a good guy. He just has been as ineffective as Jimmy the Idiot Carter as president, and what has been done during his presidency has hurt many millions of people and will have terrible effects for years to come. No excuses. Puhleeze.
If divisiveness doesn't mean shit, I don't really get why you aren't whining to the OP instead of me. I'm trying to stay on topic. Anyway, yes, conservatives are endlessly victimized while liberals are endlessly evil character assassins. Obama is completely ineffective, except he's also completely destroying the country. My favorite piece of bad writing in the Star Wars saga is when Obi says, "Only the Sith deal in absolutes." I don't think George Lucas is smart enough to know how witty that was.
I don't give a rat's ass about conservatives. They haven't done very well when they controlled everything. The OP is just objective data. As objective as they can get it, anyhow. My beef isn't with Obama being divisive. It's that he isn't dragging everyone kicking and screaming down the right path. Like his new mortgage initiative. It's far too little, and 3+ years too late. He had his shot with $800B instead of this paltry $30B, and he could have done some good from the start. It's a cheap ploy to win votes at election time. And you, if you had convictions about your beliefs, would be laughing your ass off at Obama's hypocrisy. You have to admit the whole class warfare thing rings hollow because his actions have been to make the rich richer and he's done zip for the common person. In fact, the opposite - there's a lot of people graduated from college during his term that have 3+ years of unemployment. The damages to the nation of another 4 years of his economic policies means those people go 8 of their most productive years without jobs. Feel free to apologize for him all you like. I'm not buying what you're selling.
It is when it's a half-truth. Romney paid the full amount when it was income. Using his investment taxes on capital gains for money that has already once been taxed fully is dishonest, and it's pretty much in line with what Obama does. Rhetoric such as this is only to try and sucker in idiots who don't want the full story. Same with the "Buffet's secretary pays more in taxes" lie. Guess what? I pay more than both of them because I own my own business, and I'm solidly middle class. Raising the top marginal rate to 40% or higher does nothing for me and 99% of those who work. Looks like it's working on you, though. What does that say about you? Perhaps you should ask yourself that question, because you come off as not only hyper-partisan, but extremely ignorant to reality.
