The tone of political debate on major controversial issues these days

Eh, I've heard conservatives mention "move to Canada", albeit it's rare because Canada is actually further to the left. Leftists also mention armed rebellion, albeit it's only the really crazy ones. My family does dicuss the possibility of armed rebellion, but it's only if the government changes what it's doing to an insane level, like, say, cancelling an election to keep the president in power.

What political persuasion is your family, for reference?

Black Humor: Distance from militants, then? >_>

I think what Rott was referring to earlier was that, in a sense, America is currently the most conservative "developed" nation.

Correct.

I think the problem is that the two parties have really transformed into opposites who refuse to acknowledge that there might be common ground. The Republicans are no longer Republicans; they are now the "anti-Democrats." Similarly, the Democrats have stopped being Democrats so they could become "anti-Republicans". The former occurred when Newt Gingrich became Speaker of the House. The latter is somewhat more difficult to place; I'd say it's probably because of Pelosi. In both cases, the catalyst was the election of a president who was seen, reasonably or not, to be a very staunch liberal or conservative by their respective opponents.

@Rott: Depends on how you define "conservative". Japan could be considered more "conservative" than America in some ways, although it certainly isn't your version of conservatism.

@GMH: My family is conservative, both economonically and socially, but much more so economically. I myself am pretty much just economically conservative, albeit with a few social issues (like abortion and the death penalty) that I'm also consevative on.

Worth a read: Climate of Hate

Where’s that toxic rhetoric coming from? Let’s not make a false pretense of balance: it’s coming, overwhelmingly, from the right. It’s hard to imagine a Democratic member of Congress urging constituents to be “armed and dangerous” without being ostracized; but Representative Michele Bachmann, who did just that, is a rising star in the G.O.P.

And there’s a huge contrast in the media. Listen to Rachel Maddow or Keith Olbermann, and you’ll hear a lot of caustic remarks and mockery aimed at Republicans. But you won’t hear jokes about shooting government officials or beheading a journalist at The Washington Post. Listen to Glenn Beck or Bill O’Reilly, and you will.

—R.J.

Canada isn't as leftist as people say. For one, you'll probably pay less taxes in Canada than you will in California.

^^ See, that was what I was wondering about too...

Actually you definitely pay less taxes in Canada than you do in California. But I think overall the issue at hand is that rather than attempt any sort of real political discourse, as in, trying to figure out opposing sets of policies and letting people decide which is better via an election, all we have is realpolitik.

The senate is constantly deadlocked and with lowering the bar on filibusters, it's deadlocked more often than not, in a system that is basically designed to be impossible. You've two parties, which means statistically speaking it is going to be split 50/50 (unlike multi-party systems in the rest of the West) and you need 60 member supermajority to break through the 'threat' of a filibuster, let alone an actual filibuster.

The concept of political discussions was meant to be academic not adversarial.

I'm going to have to add my voice to those saying "the claim that 'both sides do it' is bull". Let's see the "left" match this.

Found this via Google:

http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=621

silver, do you truly think anonymous folks at a rally using violent rhetoric is completely equivalent to major political candidates and prominent national celebrities using violent rhetoric? Or are you just grasping for a "they do it too!" bennie?

I mean, here's someone with a daily radio show, 3 hours a day, 15 hours a week, reminding her audience "...and if ballots don't work, bullets will!" Is this really the same as an anonymous guy holding a sign in a crowd at a rally?

—R.J.

What rjung said.

Both sides use crazy violent rhetoric, but conservatives use it to a much greater depth, extent, and level. As someone else observed, well, maybe it's because leftists tend to be more dovish and right-wingers tend to be more hawkish, but that is just an explanation—not an excuse for such behavior by any means.

BUT, the fact that one side does it to a greater degree than the other does not let that other side off the hook. Violent Crazy Rhetoric should be condemned on an objective level. Remember, rhetoric spewed by a anti-war protest march can inspire a nutjob just a much as that spewed by a conservative talk radio host.

edited 11th Jan '11 12:10:40 PM by OscarWildecat

Personally, I'd like it if they could just run the country instead of wasting their time spouting off a bunch of rhetoric.

Remember, rhetoric spewed by a anti-war protest march can inspire a nutjob just a much as that spewed by a conservative talk radio host.

No. The random shouter at an anti-war protest has FAR less broadcast dissemination than the conservative talk radio host, in almost all cases.

(The exceptions are when someone says something really iconic and everyone starts shouting it, in which case it's not "some random shouter" anymore; or when said shouter gets involved in actual violence, in which case it's now a newsworthy event.)

Personally, I'd like it if they could just run the country instead of wasting their time spouting off a bunch of rhetoric.

This applies better to the Democrats, for two reasons:

1. They were in power, and thus actually had to do governing work. (As opposed to the minority party, whose best short-term electoral strategy is to throw as much shit at the majority party as possible in order to get them to lose re-election.)
2. Democratic leaders and candidates consider it in very bad taste and highly improper to spout such rhetoric, as much as riled-up liberal activists might spout this bullcrap. On the other hand...

edited 11th Jan '11 12:19:38 PM by GlennMagusHarvey

Part of me was slightly irritated that the POTUS spent a whole lot of time running all over the country giving speeches about this that and the other.

Um, sir, couldn't you just run the country from your desk?

Small gripe, I know.

Remember, rhetoric spewed by a anti-war protest march can inspire a nutjob just a much as that spewed by a conservative talk radio host.

Sometimes rhetoric plays no part in setting off a nutjob. For example, Hinckley's assassination attempt of Ronald Reagan was sparked by Jodie Foster.

edited 11th Jan '11 12:24:45 PM by MajorTom

This.

@GMH: While what you say may be true, I don't see a difference between 10,000 small voices and 1 large one when it comes to this issue.

pvtnum 11: Part of me was slightly irritated that the POTUS spent a whole lot of time running all over the country giving speeches about this that and the other.

Um, sir, couldn't you just run the country from your desk?

Small gripe, I know.

No, the POTUS is not allowed, by the Constitution. He/She can affect how policies are implemented, up to a certain extent, but he/she cannot change policies themselves. To that end, all he/she can do is to drum up support that might hopefully influence members of Congress to vote a certain way.

Major Tom: Sometimes rhetoric plays no part in setting off a nutjob. For example, Hinckley's assassination attempt of Ronald Reagan was sparked by Jodie Foster.

Very true. There is always going to be a baseline level of probability of nasty shit like this happening. The proper question is not how to eliminate it but how to minimize it, through such things as mental health care and risk identification strategies.

Oscar Wildecat: @GMH: While what you say may be true, I don't see a difference between 10, 000 small voices and 1 large one when it comes to this issue.

But the difference here is not between 10,000 small voices and 1 large one, it is between 10,000 small voices and 10,000 large ones.

edited 11th Jan '11 12:29:17 PM by GlennMagusHarvey

Given that a lot of the hollywood elite likes to express their expert opinion about world issues and affairs, I wouldn't put it past some nutjob being galanized into action based off of the opinion of a hollywood elitist.

Like, because they act in a movie or TV show, that entitles them to instant-credibility on matters they have no formal training on.

I have no fromal training on such matters, so why should anyone listen to me?

EDITS: GMH - Hence why I said it was a small gripe.

edited 11th Jan '11 12:31:32 PM by pvtnum11

Actors more often talk about the latest African clusterfuck and so on, not domestic policy.