Political Identity today comes first today before policy preferences

[Truthseeker]

Wyoming GOP voters are on the brink of ousting Liz Cheney for her outspoken criticism of Donald Trump

To explain Cheney’s predicament, it’s important to recognize that ordinary thinking about how democracy works begins with a mistaken premise.

We assume that voters first determine their interests and then support candidates who will best advance them. Although it lies at the heart of the theory of representative democracy, this assumption puts things backwards. In today’s hyperpartisan America, political interests are the product of political allegiances – not the other way around.

Partisan identity comes first, policy preferences trail behind.

Such is the case in Wyoming....

The trouble is that when individuals inhabit ideologically homogeneous social environments, they become increasingly vulnerable to belief polarization, the phenomenon whereby interactions with like-minded individuals lead us to adopt more extreme beliefs and attitudes.

The reason I'm citing this article is to show how disfunctional partisan politics is, not to criticize the Republican party or Trump. Besides the unreasonableness of identifying with a political party before actual policy today in the USA, partisan politics is divisive, and leads to a disproportionate influence by big money over ordinary citizens with little money because of the legal corruption of campaign donations.

In the latest legislature passed in congress involving climate change, drug prices, and increased taxes on some corporations, all of the Democatics voted for it in both the Senate and House, and all of the Republicans in both chambers voted against it. Such is the extreme polarization we have right now. According to the "classic model" of polls at FiveThirtyEight the Democrats now have a 73% chance of holding the Senate while the Republicans have a 79% chance of controlling the House. In the "deluxe version" the House odds are the same while the Senate odds drop to 61% for the Democrats. So chances are, little will be able to get done after the midterms.

 

[sun rise]

This tribalism, my tribe no matter what, is what we see today. Even when the politicians are against everything you want, it does not matter. My tribe comes first.

 

[Watchmen]

This tribalism, my tribe no matter what, is what we see today. Even when the politicians are against everything you want, it does not matter. My tribe comes first.

You beat me to it.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Liz Cheney was a key player in enabling and promoting the invasion of Iraq and was, consequently, one of those responsible for the numerous war crimes and the 500,000 Iraqi deaths resulting from the war.

May she face a crushing defeat in the elections and her political career until she fades into irrelevance much like Hillary Clinton has. Opposing Trump doesn't magically wash away her blood-stained history.

It strikes me as more than a little inconsistent for some liberals to talk about tribalism while glorifying such a person just because she criticizes their most disliked person from the "other tribe."

 

[Twilight Hue]

This tribalism, my tribe no matter what, is what we see today. Even when the politicians are against everything you want, it does not matter. My tribe comes first.

I think both Dems and Republicans want a one party rule.

 

[Revoltingest]

May she face a crushing defeat in the elections and her political career until she fades into irrelevance much like Hillary Clinton has.

What do you know of her replacement,
ie, are they better?

 

[mangalavara]

This tribalism, my tribe no matter what, is what we see today. Even when the politicians are against everything you want, it does not matter. My tribe comes first.

Well said.

Liz Cheney was a key player in enabling and promoting the invasion of Iraq and was, consequently, one of those responsible for the numerous war crimes and the 500,000 Iraqi deaths resulting from the war.

That’s an inconvenient truth for American Democrats and anybody else who exalts Cheney.

 

[sayak83]

Wyoming GOP voters are on the brink of ousting Liz Cheney for her outspoken criticism of Donald Trump

To explain Cheney’s predicament, it’s important to recognize that ordinary thinking about how democracy works begins with a mistaken premise.

We assume that voters first determine their interests and then support candidates who will best advance them. Although it lies at the heart of the theory of representative democracy, this assumption puts things backwards. In today’s hyperpartisan America, political interests are the product of political allegiances – not the other way around.

Partisan identity comes first, policy preferences trail behind.

Such is the case in Wyoming....

The trouble is that when individuals inhabit ideologically homogeneous social environments, they become increasingly vulnerable to belief polarization, the phenomenon whereby interactions with like-minded individuals lead us to adopt more extreme beliefs and attitudes.

The reason I'm citing this article is to show how disfunctional partisan politics is, not to criticize the Republican party or Trump. Besides the unreasonableness of identifying with a political party before actual policy today in the USA, partisan politics is divisive, and leads to a disproportionate influence by big money over ordinary citizens with little money because of the legal corruption of campaign donations.

In the latest legislature passed in congress involving climate change, drug prices, and increased taxes on some corporations, all of the Democatics voted for it in both the Senate and House, and all of the Republicans in both chambers voted against it. Such is the extreme polarization we have right now. According to the "classic model" of polls at FiveThirtyEight the Democrats now have a 73% chance of holding the Senate while the Republicans have a 79% chance of controlling the House. In the "deluxe version" the House odds are the same while the Senate odds drop to 61% for the Democrats. So chances are, little will be able to get done after the midterms.

That is why the parliamentary system of the British style is better. You have many parties, but each party votes monolithically on issues by law (otherwise you get disqualified from the party). It recognizes that people do think tribally and believes that democracy works best if there are many many competing tribes (ie parties) not just two.

 

[Truthseeker]

Liz Cheney was a key player in enabling and promoting the invasion of Iraq and was, consequently, one of those responsible for the numerous war crimes and the 500,000 Iraqi deaths resulting from the war.

May she face a crushing defeat in the elections and her political career until she fades into irrelevance much like Hillary Clinton has. Opposing Trump doesn't magically wash away her blood-stained history.

It strikes me as more than a little inconsistent for some liberals to talk about tribalism while glorifying such a person just because she criticizes their most disliked person from the "other tribe."

This is besides the point of this thread. I don't want partisan wrangling. That is exactly what this thread is advising against, among other things.

 

[Truthseeker]

What do you know of her replacement,
ie, are they better?

Besides the point, but nevertheless a good point.

 

[Truthseeker]

That is why the parliamentary system of the British style is better. You have many parties, but each party votes monolithically on issues by law (otherwise you get disqualified from the party). It recognizes that people do think tribally and believes that democracy works best if there are many many competing tribes (ie parties) not just two.

I do like the parliamentary system better, but the tribalism is still bad, and the money still corrupts the system wherever you go in all partisan politics all around the world. As far as I know the party members don't vote monolithically or they will get disqualified from that party, but that is not germane to my original point.

 

[sayak83]

I do like the parliamentary system better, but the tribalism is still bad, and the money still corrupts the system wherever you go in all partisan politics all around the world. As far as I know the party members don't vote monolithically or they will get disqualified from that party, but that is not germane to my original point.

What I meant was that in a parliamentary system, because there can be multiple parties, there is space for multiple positions represented by each party. Then often (but not always) we get coalitions that can provide a balanced middling ideology that skirts the extremes. In a 2 party system, the drift towards the extremes by both parties is inevitable.
I do not think one can stop people from being corrupted by moneyed interests. Only way to minimize it is to have a strong and independent body which carefully audits all politicians' income sources and red flags conflicts of interests. Maybe this auditing body should be answerable only to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court itself should be independent...i.e all its members elected by their own peer group of judges (and that only for a 10 year period) rather than the ruling parties.

Something like that may curb the worst practices.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Honestly though, wen I look at policy I always come closer to agreement with the rebublican side. So often it's a matter of picking the party that closest to what you believe in. It's not because of blind loyalty. If the Democrats would suddenly adopt conservative policies I'd vote cross party in a heartbeat.

 

[Revoltingest]

Besides the point, but nevertheless a good point.

Well, when deciding to vote against someone,
tis wise to know who one's voting for first.

 

[fantome profane]

Honestly though, wen I look at policy I always come closer to agreement with the rebublican side. So often it's a matter of picking the party that closest to what you believe in. It's not because of blind loyalty. If the Democrats would suddenly adopt conservative policies I'd vote cross party in a heartbeat.

That is understandable. But is insurrection a conservative policy? Is stealing voting machines a conservative policy? Is it conservative policy to threaten election officials when the vote doesn’t go your way? Is using fake electors to perpetuate a fraud on the United States a conservative policy?

And if not, why do you support these things?

 

[Wildswanderer]

I don't. I also don't support the liberal media hiding information to sway the election. There's not been a candidate that I wanted on either side for awhile so I have to pick whoever has the best overall policies.

That is understandable. But is insurrection a conservative policy? Is stealing voting machines a conservative policy? Is it conservative policy to threaten election officials when the vote doesn’t go your way? Is using fake electors to perpetuate a fraud on the United States a conservative policy?

And if not, why do you support these things?

 

[Twilight Hue]

That is why the parliamentary system of the British style is better. You have many parties, but each party votes monolithically on issues by law (otherwise you get disqualified from the party). It recognizes that people do think tribally and believes that democracy works best if there are many many competing tribes (ie parties) not just two.

I dunno. Look at Britain now. It's essentially a surveillance police state.

Nothing like it's former 'glory'..

 

[Wandering Monk]

Wyoming GOP voters are on the brink of ousting Liz Cheney for her outspoken criticism of Donald Trump

To explain Cheney’s predicament, it’s important to recognize that ordinary thinking about how democracy works begins with a mistaken premise.

We assume that voters first determine their interests and then support candidates who will best advance them. Although it lies at the heart of the theory of representative democracy, this assumption puts things backwards. In today’s hyperpartisan America, political interests are the product of political allegiances – not the other way around.

Partisan identity comes first, policy preferences trail behind.

Such is the case in Wyoming....

The trouble is that when individuals inhabit ideologically homogeneous social environments, they become increasingly vulnerable to belief polarization, the phenomenon whereby interactions with like-minded individuals lead us to adopt more extreme beliefs and attitudes.

The reason I'm citing this article is to show how disfunctional partisan politics is, not to criticize the Republican party or Trump. Besides the unreasonableness of identifying with a political party before actual policy today in the USA, partisan politics is divisive, and leads to a disproportionate influence by big money over ordinary citizens with little money because of the legal corruption of campaign donations.

In the latest legislature passed in congress involving climate change, drug prices, and increased taxes on some corporations, all of the Democatics voted for it in both the Senate and House, and all of the Republicans in both chambers voted against it. Such is the extreme polarization we have right now. According to the "classic model" of polls at FiveThirtyEight the Democrats now have a 73% chance of holding the Senate while the Republicans have a 79% chance of controlling the House. In the "deluxe version" the House odds are the same while the Senate odds drop to 61% for the Democrats. So chances are, little will be able to get done after the midterms.

Apparently, parents have failed to teach their children about how government works. There has to be compromise, because you can't always get what you want.

Extremists want to burn it all down (ala Steve Bannon) if they can't have their way. This is how children behave.

 

[Truthseeker]

What I meant was that in a parliamentary system, because there can be multiple parties, there is space for multiple positions represented by each party. Then often (but not always) we get coalitions that can provide a balanced middling ideology that skirts the extremes.

Yes, and something actually can get done, unl

I do not think one can stop people from being corrupted by moneyed interests. Only way to minimize it is to have a strong and independent body which carefully audits all politicians' income sources and red flags conflicts of interests.

I am talking about money for the campaign for the politician, not money that would be income. If there were no political parties and no campaigns, they would not be corrupted by money designated for their campaigns. Money stealthily put in the pocket of anyone in the government even if there was no parties that would be something that should definitely be monitored.

 

[Valjean]

Sometimes I fantasize about a ballot with no names, just questions about your opinions on relevant issues. The candidate receiving your vote would be s/he who accorded best with your political opinions.