Why are US politics so polarised and what can be done about it?

Dude the problem isn't hard science. Its Social sciences which are less and less even making a pretense at being scientific and education. DO you even no how many different economic schools of thought there are today or where somebody like Paul Krugman fits in? Economics is almost entirely politicized today.

 

Which goes to my point that only a portion of students are exposed to "all of these radical professors trying to indoctrinate college students".

 

You still have a core curriculum you have to take. Even a physics major still has to take some history classes, humanities classes and English classes.

 

But A) those classes are very few and B) Not every teacher in those types of classes have some type of agenda to "indoctrinate" the youth of America.

 

Speaking from experience virtually all the Humanities courses are very highly subject to indoctrination. Very few students take STEM classes anymore so the stuff about physics, chemistry, mathematics, graphic design, and computer science are largely irrelevant.

 

No they're not. Speaking from experience I have never been subjected to any professor spewing any political opinions. And I got a major in History and minor in Economics.

 

I just read an article, and it made me think about this thread. One of the polarizing issues is the POTUS himself and his base who will defend him, no matter what he says. Or they minimize the importance of his obvious lies. Today's example shows two things: 1. His complete lack of understanding regarding trade deficits, and 2. The fact that he will offer up a lie when one is not required.

From the article:
“[T]he bottom-line result is whether or not we can make a deal with the EU that’s fair. We you we lose about $151 billion trading with the EU. That’s a lot of money. And this is been going on for many years.
“They wouldn’t meet with the Obama administration and they’re meeting with us. So we’ll see what happens. We’ll see what happens.”

Right off the bat, Trump made clear that he’s still badly confused about the most basic trade details. He not only exaggerated the size of the U.S. trade deficit with the European Union – the $151 billion figure ignores services trade – the Republican also characterized the trade imbalance as proof of the United States “losing” money. That continues to be both wrong and bizarre.

But it’s that other point that stood out for me: in Trump’s mind, E.U. trade officials “wouldn’t meet with the Obama administration.” That’s true, just so long as one overlooks all of the meetings E.U. trade officials had with the Obama administration.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-...3KvaN_NUD51IV5xCv6ZrmqNvf-B4NHF81pN2AADmVo37U

 

MOst of the instructors in those intro courses are graduate students, and theya re going to be evaluated on how well they stick to what there instructors have handed them, and a high percentage of them are subjects like African American history, womyn's studies, political science classes, and please note at the university level these days there is no such thing as neutral and dispassionate these days.

 

Please note you are quoting MSNBC whose grasp of economics could best be summed up as limited to far left cant with no real understanding of that.

 

They are no more left wing than they ever been. There are simply more alternative voices out there and it has become more obvious. I mean its not like people haven't been referring to CNN as the Clinton News Network for nearly two decades now.

 

Then you simply didn't notice it because what you got in K-12 is no different these days. What school of Economic were your professors?

 

What year and from where if you don't mind my asking?

 

Why are U.S. politics so polarized?

In a word ... Trump.

He is accused of collaborating with the Russian government. He is accused of obstruction of justice (he has fired two directors of the FBI who were investigating the Russian connection), he has surrendered to the Russian government, his foreign policy is isolating the U.S. and abandoning our leadership in the world, his foreign policy decisions are a disaster (Iran can now make a nuke, he removed the U.S. as a power broker in the Mideast, we are the only country not a member of the Paris Accords, etc., etc.), he wants to build a wall to stop crime, he has created a Constitutional crisis attacking the Separation of Powers principle of our Constitution, and he wants to set a horrible precedent of executive power.

Why have the two sides drifted so far apart?

In a word ... Trump.

 

Nicely said. I'll only quibble with #3. I think the opposite is true. People do not value individualism as they did in the old days. Instead, each group tends to circle the wagons and do everything possible to keep opposing positions out. People seem to be willing to forego free speech in return for acceptable speech.

#1 is even more complex I think. People are able to hide behind a screen and keyboard when dealing with the internet. They are willing to insult people because there are no conseequences. You can see it all over this forum. The insults tend to anger people and make them bolster the ring of wagons. The internet allows bad behavior without consequences.

 

No offense Sandy but that is ridiculous and you are an old man so you know it. American politics was pretty polarized long before Trump ever decided to run for president.

Donald Trump couldn't have ever been elected president if U.S. politics were not already polarized.

 

Haha...what nonsense. Somehow I don't have the ability to understand if a professor veers off from teach the subject into a political or social rant?!....my lord hahaha
What does it matter what school I went to? Not sure where you're going with that question. Could you clarify?

 

Very good points, and factual as far as I can see.

Why are US politics so polarised and what can be done about it?

The polarization is due to the abridging of the PURPOSE of free speech. Yes, it has a purpose.

The ultimate biological purpose is to assure that information vital to survival is shared and understood.

The ultimate legal purpose in America is to enable the unity required to effectively alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights.

There is a legal process to end the abridging of the PURPOSE of free speech. It is outside of politics and has Citizens using their constitutional rights directly to form a lawful majority that can control their state.

http://algoxy.com/law/lawfulpeacefulrevolution.html

 

Strictly my opinion. But the modern polarization of American politics goes back in a major way to the growth of the religious right and the election of President Reagan in 1980.

Until the 1980 election social issues had not been a major factor. But reaction against Roe v. Wade just 7 years earlier led in a major part to the rise of religious conservatives in the GOP. Remember that prior to the 1980 election the GOP had actually been in favor as a party to the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA).

From the end of World War Two to 1980, the GOP had mainly been considered a "foreign policy" party. They were not especially prominent in their views on domestic policy much less on social issues. When the GOP took strong views on abortion rights, school prayer, and later on homosexual rights, the Democratic Party was aghast and appalled at what they saw as a "betrayal" by the GOP of a national progressive consensus on these social issues.

Okay, that's all I've got at present.

 

I thought you said you minored in economics? If you did why are you confused by me asking you what school you profs represented? There are at least a half dozen and probably more economic schools of thought, among these are the Vienna or Austrian School, the Fresh water school, and the Keynesian school. If they didn't identify which school they belonged to they were almost certainly Keynesians, who have a major problem with hubris.

 

But again....why does that matter? If they did "identify which school they belonged to" I certainly don't remember. A) it was a long time ago and B) I barely got through the classes as they were boring as fcuk, so I certainly didn't pay attention or care if they mentioned their school of thought.

 

Dont blame trump because liberals are sore losers

 

Oh please...BOTH sides act like whiny little ******* whenever their guy doesn't win.

 

Wrong

It is liberals who have declared all out war aginst the 2016 presidential winner

 

Sure thing...you're right...conservatives were overjoyed at Obama being elected

 

There is no comparison

Did obama face a 2-year Deep State Inquisition?

The answer is no