Source: The Fix

Category: Digital Media, Philosophy, Politics

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

15 Responses to “The Ideological Middle Is Dead in Congress”

  1. wally says:

    How about: big money coming in from outside local districts?
    And that has happened with the apparent blessing of the Supreme Court, which seems to have no idea of the damage it is doing.

  2. jhawkins90 says:

    I think its a couple of things. 1) If redistricting actually has this effect, then it should make the parties at large more polarized. This means that whatever happens at the house should have some spillover effects into the senate, and 2) I think that the importance of redistricting has been overplayed. The immigration flows of recent have had people move closer and closer to like minded people. There’s been a lot of ideological self-sorting. This should show up in statewide elections just as it does in district elections.

  3. hlowe says:

    When did Fox news and the echo chamber become so influential?

  4. RW says:

    What killed it in the Senate could be related to how primary elections are constructed but what finishes the job in both houses is the nature of enforcement: It’s typically not a career ender for a Democrat to cross party lines but, these days, it usually is for a Republican to do that and, just as bad money drives out good, so does bad cess drive out good will; if one side refuses to compromise the end result is the same as if both sides refuse.

    That’s also a problem with the limp narrative of faux balance because, well, both sides must be responsible, they both must do it, right? Hmmm, no: in the real world as well as in game theory, they don’t.

  5. swag says:

    The right-center middle and corporatocrats are the Democratics in Congress.

    The right-wing nutjobs and kleptocrats are the Republicans in Congress.

    True, then, there is no “ideological middle” there.

  6. CD4P says:

    Re: “The Ideological Middle Is Dead in Congress”

    Provides the fertile ground for significant campaign contributions to sway the votes… or am I being too cynical?

  7. Herman Frank says:

    Brothers and Sisters, we are joined here to lay to rest the Institution which was known as “Congress”.

    Over the life and times of this cherished Institution we have seen it lay to waste by the cancer of ideology. It started “hearing voices, seeing ghosts and experiencing convulsions”. Sadly enough the Institution refused to take the needed medicine of common sense and a sense of common service to the electorate at large. The extra medicine of “seeing the larger picture” could never be swallowed by it.

    We cherish the memory of the times that Congress was with us, amongst us, taking care of us, and being one of us. We are looking for wiser men to find a cure for this cancer of ideology. May it come soon so as to help us forward in these times of strive and discontent.

  8. Willy2 says:

    I have a different view.
    (Source: Peter Orszag, former budget director under Obama.).

    If redistricting would cause this ideological divide then the Senate shouldn’t have been divise at all. Because the make up of the states didn’t change at all over the years.

  9. NoKidding says:

    It says by vote, but who can be trusted to rate how “conservative” or “liberal” a bill is?
    What proportion of 1982 bills were deemed “conservative” or “liberal” vs 2012?

    How often do individual reps stick with the party when the result of the vote is already known? Why throw up empty protest votes that make you a campaign target if there’s nothing to gain from it?

    Remember Dems were impeaching Reagan in the 1980s for acts that are standard operating procedure today.

  10. DeDude says:

    As the country has become more polarized in its tribalism it is not a surprise that our elected bodies have done the same. There is no overlap because each side has become so consumed by tribal identity making issues of policy just an attachment to the tribal identity. As a result if a democrat propose a health care reform policy that is identical to that proposed 15 years earlier by a GOP leader not a single republican will vote for it. That kind of insanity is possible because the issue driving votes is not the policy itself, but the tribal identity of the people who proposed it. If it is proposed by someone from the other tribe it must be opposed no matter what it is. Those who dare to try voting according to how sensible the policy is or compromise are subject to extreme reprisal from the tribal enforcers. Essentially they are driven out of the tribe and in a 2 party system that means out of politics. In the mean time the actual policy has been taken over by the interest of corporations so the consequences of who wins have become less even as the fighting has become more intense.

  11. WFTA says:

    I would suggest that the most liberal Democrat of 2012 is more conservative than the most conservative Democrat of 1982.
    There has been a spectrum shift to the right. There is barely a progressive movement in this country. Occupy notwithstanding, there is no radical left. There is no shortage of radical right.

  12. rj chicago says:

    I weep for what was the greatest republic since the dawn of modern history. US is and has never been perfect – don’t expect it to be as it is instituted by men – but when events unfold in the manner they have in the last 50 years I truly question if this nation (?) will survive. Those of you who want socialism – good for you – you got what you want – Now leave me the hell alone please!

    • DeDude says:

      We got socialism???

      Sure I will leave you alone – you are obviously raving mad, and hallucinating.