An interesting take

Even when HT posts start focused on public land issues they routinely sweep in much broader political philosophies and views. While not directly about public lands or hunting, I find this article link (and the referenced report) an extremely interesting snapshot into the current state of affairs in the US.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/...4ypeGg7qFQ0vbrWmZqzDz-jYLMw673Zqs3w7HbOHtSvco

The good news is that once you get outside these two elite groups you find a lot more independent thinking and flexibility. This is not a 50-50 nation. It only appears that way when disenchanted voters are forced to choose between the two extreme cults.
Roughly two-thirds of Americans, across four political types, fall into what the authors call “the exhausted majority.” Sixty-one percent say people they agree with need to listen and compromise more. Eighty percent say political correctness is a problem, and 82 percent say the same about hate speech.

Click to expand...

There's that dirty "C" word.

That is a great link, thanks for sharing. I fully subscribe to the Exhausted part of politics and the lack of many candidates that I feel represent me at all.

It really is amazing that everyone pretty much agrees that there is the large majority that is in the middle, however when it comes to the party primaries the moderate guys just never seem to get much traction so when it comes to the general election we have one guy on the extreme left against a guy (or gal) on the extreme right.

There really does need to be a "middle of the road" party.

npaden said:

It really is amazing that everyone pretty much agrees that there is the large majority that is in the middle, however when it comes to the party primaries the moderate guys just never seem to get much traction so when it comes to the general election we have one guy on the extreme left against a guy (or gal) on the extreme right.
There really does need to be a "middle of the road" party.

Click to expand...

^ 100% Agree. It also gets my goat when one criticizes a specific action of a candidate and then someone from that "team" admonishes you for something someone on the other team did. I.E. if you were to criticize Obama for his policy on X then someone says well Trump did Y. Or if you say you don't like Zinke's policy on public lands then someone says well Obama did ... This approach not only doesn't talk into account the fact that you think both parties are dumpster fires, but pretty much makes it impossible for parties to police their own.

When you vote for someone they represent you, the group that should be the loudest in condemning a political figures actions when they are deplorable are the people that voted them that candidate to represent them. (Yeah yeah I know, I must live in fantasy land)

npaden said:

It really is amazing that everyone pretty much agrees that there is the large majority that is in the middle, however when it comes to the party primaries the moderate guys just never seem to get much traction so when it comes to the general election we have one guy on the extreme left against a guy (or gal) on the extreme right.

There really does need to be a "middle of the road" party.

Click to expand...

Yup, a real frustration for many of us.

My read of the underlying report suggests why this is more difficult than it may seem at first blush, as the big "middle" is not really a coherent "middle". Sub-groups of the "middle" disagree on a lot if not most of the details, but what they agree on is that our discourse should be civil, compromising and pragmatic -- that no one owns the truth and those who disagree are not the enemy. But other than their distaste for the absolutist approaches of the two "wings", the "middle" doesn't really have common themes, platform of issues or solutions to rally around. For example, some may want more govt involvement in schools or medicine, others may want less. They both agree that zero or 100% are wrong (the wings' positions) but they don't agree on 35% or 65% or 50%. It makes it hard for a "centrist" candidate to get broad support and instead those in the "middle" pick one or two issues that are most important to them and then vote (while holding their noses) for the "wing" group that shares those one or two positions. (just like we see for some folks with the PTL issue here)

More likely than a viable moderate 3rd party is that one of the two existing "wings" will start to lose regularly (rather than flopping back and forth every cycle or two) and will be forced to be less strident and invite some of the moderate "middle" back into the fold, there by creating a little more aligned home for those in the "middle". But this group will remain subject to strong pulls from its wing back to the extremes at the first sign of electoral success - it can be seen in our history.

The 'middle' assigned flyover cannon fodder status with the opposing edges being the deciders?

noharleyyet said:

The 'middle' assigned flyover cannon fodder status with the opposing edges being the deciders?

Click to expand...

Indeed. The current party polarization you note coincides w a vacuum of leadership. Polls dictate the choices of party "leaders", rather than leadership. While this provides instant democracy, that result is spastic, reactive, and ruled by the negative case; we now vote against everything, rather than for anything.

Replace "leaders" with "handlers" and I'm right there with ya elkduds,

New find. Thought it might be relevant.

https://youtu.be/MpOJRAbBpZU

Every song I've listened to by this band has been excellent so far.

Thanks interesting article. I am part of the 61% percent that think people need to compromise. Other people, I am right. It would be more interesting to see the question “which issues would you consider compromising?” I bet that much less than 61 percent would have an answer.