in his 2004 democratic national convention address, obama said "Well, I say to them tonight, there is not a liberal America and a conservative America -- there is the United States of America." it was a wonderful idealistic message that we can all come together when it comes to the common good.

unfortunately, our country remains evenly split and deeply divided. the same states are red an blue as they were in 2004 and 2000 , and similar to 1996 . it's a trend that is new since the 1980's. here\'s a website that has electoral maps for elections since 1900.

there are differences in voting patterns based on educational attainment and income. people tend to vote based on their party affiliation: see the pie charts at the bottom of the page.

how did we get here?

i have seen some speculation that people tend to seek out others with similar beliefs, and that leads to their beliefs getting more extreme as a whole. i have heard that neighborhoods become polarized in terms of voting for one candidate or another, and that democrats do better in areas of large income disparity and republicans do better in areas of small disparity.

i also think that the media contributes. (no, i'm not calling it the "liberal media".) there are the 24 hour cable networks that are constantly trying to make a story out of something, and talking things to death, making issues out of non-issues, or things that i suspect would not have been reported on in years past. also, there's plenty to be found on the internet. only in 2008 could you have the sarah palin phenomenon. only a limited few conservatives, alaskans, and rush limbaugh had heard of her prior to her nomination. 10 days later, everyone knew who she was (at least a little bit, and can recognize her image).

so, we all come to the elections with our minds already made up, for the most part. closed minds. i'm as guilty of this as any. but i have my reasons for voting democratic!

how do we get out of this mess and move the country forward?

I don't know how to get the country to move forward. All I know is if the Neo-Conservatives win another election I will want to move to Canada or someplace else. I don't want to be around when our country goes down the toilet.

I called the Republican party Neo-Conservatives because that is what they have become. I'm not saying that all Republicans are Neos, but it seems that the party as a whole has is headed that way.

LOL
i said when if GWB got elected in 2001 I was moving to europe! too bad I didn't have the means...

A lot of Democrats said the same thing. Unfortunately, none of them were serious. The fact is, it is difficult to move to Europe. Many European countries, particularly Western European countries, have stringent requirements for those taking up permanent residence, including having a definite means of supporting oneself BEFORE coming, or bringing in a SIGNIFICANT wad of cash with you. On top of that, they will tax you to death when you get there. The average American living below the poverty line still has more square feet of living space than the average middle-class European.

:rolleyes: I wish people would stop threatening to move out of the country. If you really think you'd have a better life in Canada, do it. Jeez.

I consider myself to be partly responsible for Bush being in office now. I voted for him the first time around. Confused? Here's my story:

I was raised a Republican. Both of my parents are still republican and very conservative. While living at home I always viewed politics the way they did, I mean I was just a kid, what else was I supposed to think? Shortly after high school GWB was running for his first term as President. Still "agreeing" with everything my parents had taught me I voted for him. I remember a friend of mine saying that if he gets in office our country will start to fall apart...job loss...recession... Of course I did not listen to her.

About half-way through Bush's first term I started to question my political beliefs. To be honest I actually voted for Bush because of one issue...abortion. I'm not fully pro-life, in cases of rape or incest. I started to realize that I had become a "single-issue voter" I had voted for Bush because of one issue. That's one of the biggest mistakes I've ever made.

I am now a registered Democrat and my parents and usually don't talk about politics to avoid arguments.

I actually liked McCain somewhat...I thought if he was elected he would be a definite improvement over Bush. He seemed more moderate and able to make his own decisions, regardless of party lines. However, now that he has chosen Palin as his running mate there is no way I can vote for him. She seems like a pick to grab the Hillary voters and to appease the neo-cons who thought McCain was to middle of the road.

I have since promised myself to never again be a single-issue voter. I hope if there are other single-issue voters out there that they too "see the light" The republican "tax breaks for the rich and the wealth will tricle down" system obviously isn't working.

it looks like the same old electoral map. i figure that americans will get what they want come election day, one way or another. i think we need to avoid sensationalism and stick to the issues and plans for the future.

Well, if you keep insisting on calling everyone who disagrees with you a "Neo-Con", then I don't think this current division is going to improve. That's what I think is dividing this country. Each side is so intolerant or the other, we've become feuding neighbors.

I do my best to tolerate and accept people regardless of my deep-seated disagreements with their political ideologies. I think if we stopped throwing names around and threatening to leave if we aren't happy, we'd all be able to get along better and discuss the real issues.

I don't call everyone I disagree with a Neo-Con. Like I said before, there is a huge difference between a republican and a neo-con. Some republicans like to throw around the fact that they are the party of Lincoln, when in fact the republican party today would be completely unrecognizable to Lincoln. Republicans of his day were more middle of the road, not so far right.

I also do my best to tolerate people and accept them for them. My best friend loves Palin, I can't stand Palin, yet we get along great!

one of the issues that divides our country are values, or the "culture war". to me, it often seems like social conservatives are trying to say they are in possession of morality, while others are amoral or immoral. but clearly we all have our own moral compass with which we decide what is right and wrong.

i came across an interesting website made by a psychologist, jon haidt. he has several hypotheses regarding the moral foundations of politics and the "culture war", specifically, that social conservatives' beliefs are based in additional dimensions including ingroup/loyalty, authority/respect, and purity/sanctity.

you can take online tests of your moral dimensions on yourmorals.org . i just took a couple, and it's interesting because it shows you where your scores lie compared to self-identified conservatives and liberals who have already taken the tests. i landed to the left of liberal!

another interesting self-test at the political compass

mai tai - I took several of the tests at yourmorals.org. Most tests placed me left of liberal also!

I think we have to encourage citizens to see that life is gray. It is not black&white (I do not mean race here). I think republicans or single issue voters are not able to see outside of black&white, and do not see that this is much too simplified a view.

I think that the Palin image of a mother on the convention stage holding her infant and welcoming her pregnant teen daughter is in a way a good image that steers us from the old white male presidential image. While that of itself is a good thing, she is not going to help us with the big problems in our country that are linked to the large divide between the rich and the poor. As a feminist, I regret having to say this.

When any of you consider abortion, brought up in this thread, please consider hand-in-hand at the same time the global inequity and disempowerment that girls and women face globally, with regard to education, work, income/lack of income, child-rearing, and sexual encounter negotiation. These things must be considered together.

I frankly think we have a lot of thoughtless citizens in our country, that close their eyes and minds to the gray nuances that affect us, that are unwilling/unable to look at the social issues facing us.

mai tai and KTBear,

I thought you both, or at least mai tai, stated that you wished there was LESS social divide (as Obama stated in 2004), and yet you are both thrilled to have scored left of liberal. So you both must be partially to blame for the great country divide!!! lol I actually scored juuusttt right of the middle, which is exactly what I expected. I am VERY middle of the road, but also a registered Republican, as most of my ideals fall within this party. I am proud to be my own individual and not always following my party's ideologies.

It's okay to be proud of one's political philosophies. In fact, I think that some of the reasons for today's problems stem from the fact that we can't say "Yes. I'm liberal. This is what I believe. Now let's work together and get something done." There's a total difference between having opinions and using those toward a compromise, and pretending one's views are more middle of the road then they are. Honestly, both the Democratic and Republican parties are much more centrist than many (most?) of their members would hope, but we go along with it. Why? Because we're stupid? Nope. Because we don't have other options? Nope. Philosophy. Philosophy. Philosophy. When presented with a novel situation (think 9/11 or our current market collapse), each party will (hopefully) return to its philosophy to guide its actions.

It's really okay to disagree. It's healthier that way. It enables us to communicate what's important so that we don't feel resentful afterward. We need to move beyond the 60s.

I normally do not do this, i.e. get involved in the middle of A and B, but I am going to make an exception here. FutureDrandWife, I am curious, what criterion (or criteria) did you use to determine, apparently unequivocally, that one or either of these posters were "thrilled"? Is it the fact that they used emoticons?

To me, this is but a small example of the way we project our own perceptions onto the actions/words of others and use our projections to supplant reality. Please note, lest there be further projection, that I have not singled out any one group as exclusively responsible for this - persons of all political persuasions do this quite frequently these days.

The polarization and amount of vitriol coming from both sides is both fascinating and frightening to me.

Sisriver's post is outstanding and accurately underscores the problem, and yet we do not wish to look at it more closely, to expand it and to look for solutions in that framework. We appear to be much more eager to keep to our camps and fling words across the barricades.

The MomVP thread has been quite illuminating - when anyone veers into the issues (and not just the abortion issue), the discussion stagnates or quickly finds its way back to abortion and/or bickering over labels, etc. We seem to be unable to divorce ourselves from our (in my opinion quite imaginary) affiliations and THINK about the significant issues affecting our country AND the world today.

Can we begin our discussion from a place of union (it is a hallowed word, it is what defined this nation, it should be safeguarded and revered)? For example, do we all agree that all persons should have access to quality health care? If not, which groups should not have access (transients, persons who are unable/unwilling to work, the poor, immigrants (legal/illegal?)? Can we begin to take the issues apart this way and see where our disagreements are, then look for the wisest compromises and make sound political decisions based on our conclusions? I don't know.... I am hopeful, but skeptical.

AnnaM, I see this post, perhaps quite incorrectly, as a thinly veiled charge that we, the United States, have a far superior standard of living than Western European countries, and are more tolerant of immigrants. I am wondering about how much of this is true.

For the sake of this discussion, I began considering France (since I have a little more knowledge about it than about other Western European countries). My father was a born and raised classic American who acquired permanent resident status in France. I was born and raised in Europe and became a permanent resident of the United States when we moved back (I was a teen). [In case you are wondering, I had to be a permanent resident, rather than a citizen of US for a long time for family/inheritance/historical reasons.] Interestingly, the hassles, the challenges and the complications of the immigration process were not very different at all for my father and me. Furthermore, I have worked (as a contractor) for the US DOJ (strictly Immigration Review cases) for a decade, and if anyone believes that immigration into the US is an easy task, I will have to disagree quite strongly (unless we are talking about the lottery program, which applies to only a small fraction of immigrants). Another interesting note about France and the US. The current net migration rate into France is approximately half of that for the US according to the latest data, so yes, there are more people trying to migrate to the US. However, the difference between foreign born population fractions is not nearly as large (almost 9% of the population of France is foreign-born compared to the approx. 10% in the US).

On the standard of living - it depends on what we value and how we define living. If we attach our definition of a good life to square footage (and I will withhold comment on this, given the current economic quagmire), then we certainly do have quite a leg up on the French. Here are some other facts that may be useful to keep in mind:

1. Everyone in France has access to health care (even those foreign-born persons).
2. Infant mortality in France is 2 times lower than it is in the US.
3. Life expectancy in France is more than 2 years longer than in the US.
4. A smaller percentage of the population is afflicted with HIV/AIDS in France compared to the US.
5. The percentage of people living in poverty in France is 2 times lower than it is in the US. However, the unemployment rate is at least 2% higher in France.
6. Educational attainment is 1 year higher for both men and women in France, compared to their US counterparts.
7. Laws guaranteeing equal pay for women have been on the books in France since the early 1970s (however, compliance in industry is far from perfect).
8. Mandated, job-protected, paid maternity leave begins at 34 weeks of pregnancy and extends to 10 weeks post-partum for all working women in France. This paid leave can be extended until the child reaches the age of 3 (and it can be either mom or dad who chooses to go on the extended leave).
9. Affordable, licensed childcare of good quality is virtually a birthright in France.
10. College education and professional education, e.g. medical school, are free.

Sure, France and other European countries have their own large sets of problems and are far from perfect, but the insinuation that the US is far superior and the incendiary scare-slogans like "they will tax you to death", are curiously free of facts and a little extreme, no?

Sweet,

Yes, of course I determined that mai tai and KTBear were thrilled to be left of liberal based on emoticons and punctuation marks. Stating "I scored left of liberal!! " seems pretty obvious to me that she is thrilled about that.

Regardless, when I had started typing my response, sisriver's comment was not yet posted so I never saw it until now. I agree she makes some wonderful points. Although you may not see this, I do not always stand behind my party lines on issues. I decide for myself about what I feel is right or wrong. I actually disagree with my party on many issues (global warming and conservationism in general, abortion exceptions [health of mother, rape, incest, health of child ie. major deformities or illness] and more). However, my ideologies mostly align with the Republican party.

Oh, and I support gay rights as well (against ultra-conservatives)

my beliefs are my beliefs, and i was simply stating where i scored on that test. yes, i want this country to come together to do what's best for the country and our common interests. no, for the most part nothing you can say will change my beliefs. and no, you're not better than me in any way because you scored more middle of the road. everyone is entitled to their beliefs.

one thing that has been commented on here is the lovely tradition of using the word "liberal" as a slur, as in "g*ddamn liberals!" or "liberal media elite" with negative connotations of being out of touch, condescending, overeducated. well, i am an md as many/ most of you here. but i don't think i'm out of touch in any way. i'm a resident. i don't make that much money. i have >$100,000 of student loans. i rent, and drive a sh*tty car. and i generally don't think i'm condescending.

as i am learning more and more this election, liberal/ conservative is only one of several political dimensions. for example, i found out in one of the tests (link in previous test) that my views lie on the liberal and libertarian side of the diagram.

as i pointed out in the original post, obama's speech in 2004 was very moving because he made a good case for coming together as a country around our common interests. however, the electoral map is essentially the same as it was for the past two elections. there are the same red states and blue states. there are the same swing states. so people are essentially voting by party affiliation once again. our country is evenly divided. what do you all think it would take to get the majority of the country behind a great candidate? can it be done?

What is your problem?? I never said I wanted to change your beliefs, nor did I say I was better than you because I scored more middle of the road. Enough is enough already.

i got that sense from this post, in which you state "you both must be partially to blame for the great country divide !!!" and point out that you are middle of the road. notice: you are the one who used the word blame.

No, I don't think it can happen because a lot of people feel Obama is a great candidate and a lot of people feel McCain is a great candidate. From what I can tell, Obama is extremely left-wing and so a lot of more conservative people are diammetrically opposed to most of his beliefs and ideologies, as well as his policies. And Palin is pretty conservative so this is a major turn-off for more liberal people, as they feel that her pilicies would not be good for this country. However, I'm not a big fan of the electoral college. I think it discourages a lot of Republicans from blue states and Democrats from red states from voting, as they feel their votes don't really matter. Although the electoral college has been in place forever, and many feel it seems to be working, I think it creates a further divide in this country. Any thoughts??

i'm talking in future elections, is there any way that there can be a candidate we can all be excited about?

Usually when I use "lol" in a post, I'm being facetious. But it did seem ironic for you both to be so happy that you scored left of liberal (AKA radical) when you had seemed to be complaining about the country coming together. If you are left of liberal, I highly doubt you'd be willing to come together with more conservative people on any issue, so it seems odd you'd want the country to be less divided when you are so far at one end.

I was glad that when I took the test, it confirmed that I reach across party lines all the time, as that was I believe this post was all about... not just sticking to one side. If everyone is ultra-conservative and ultra-liberal, you can't expect there NOT to be "a country divided."

Ohhh... I certainly hope so. It is interesting though that a lot of Democrats support McCain, even Hillary's former Head of Fundraising. I think a lot of people felt McCain could be that guy of which you speak, although it no longer seems that way.

that assumption is wrong. for example, i'm against the proposed $700 billion bailout. particularly as initially written, the initial proposal grants a ridiculous amount of money, without restrictions or oversight to the treasury secretary. i'm not a lawyer, but i believe that it's unconstitutional. would it suprise you to find that someone with very liberal social beliefs also has respect for the united states constitution? or that i feel that we need to balance the federal budget?

the republicans haven't really done a great job of enforcing fiscal responsibility in the last several years. the iraq war is a huge drain on our budget. i think it's irresponsible to be living on borrowed money either as an individual or a country.

as has been commented on before, the social issues are very divisive. i feel strongly about these issues, and the values of tolerance. you know my views on abortion rights. i think social issues are a major driver for people's voting preferences. it's just too bad that elections get driven into a box regarding "god, guns, and gays". i don't know what can be done about this. people have strongly held beliefs. everybody believes they are right. another problem that i see is an oversimplification of issues- condensation of issues into a sound bite. i think this happens because of the format of current media. i also feel like maybe people don't have interest in hearing a longer or more complicated story.

mccain in 2000, with a moderate running partner, might have done it for me then. however, since then, he has increasingly voted in step with the republican establishment. he voted with bush 70% of the time eight years ago, but in the last couple of years, he has voted with bush >90% of the time. i can't support that. also, his choice of palin is a no-go for me.

How did you feel about Hillary Clinton??

I don't mean to change the subject, but here is one of the many reasons I have a lot of admiration for Thomas Jefferson:
"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. "
I wish more people spent a little more time studying the classics (in this case the political classics of our country) and a little less time being zombiefied (I may have just made up the word) by the large amount of garbage on TV.

I agree with you whole-heartedly. I too could have gotten on board with McCain in 2000. He seemed much more middle of the road then. I don't agree with the choice of Palin because she is further right than Bush.

Many people say that if McCain wins then we will have four more years of the same, when in fact, our country will be even more divided...I feel this because Palin is so far right. It seems as though McCain has either drastically changed the way he believes in the last few years or he has sold out to the far right to get votes.

I agree that our country looks the same as it did eight years ago as far as red/blue states are concerned. Many people's votes seem to "not count" because they live in a predominantly red or blue state. Sometimes I think it is no different than if all of the republicans occupied certain states and all of the democrats the others. The country seems so divided to me that, it really is like we have "two" Americas.

Maybe it would be better if we were two countries...a republican country and a democratic country, but then we might as well be China if we all believe the same. I don't know how to solve our problems. I'll stop rambling now. These were just my thoughts tonight.

I actually voted for Hillary Clinton in the primary. However, McCain will not get my vote. (I suppose McCain probably wouldn't get my vote anyway, seeing that I live in Oregon) I can't see how voting for McCain because of Palin is anything like if I voted for Hillary. Hillary and Palin are polar opposites. Anyone who votes for Palin because Hillary didn't make it is shooting themselves in the foot.

Futuredrandwife: as a side note, I always took your "lol" to mean that it was a joke. I don't want there to be any hard feelings. Sometimes I, other people I know (friends, relatives) get so wrapped up in politics that I forget there is so much more to each of us than who we support politically. I feel like at the end of the day we all basically want the same things: a healthy family, a happy life, a good income, a feeling of accomplishment, a healthy earth, a long life, and contentment....or at least those are the things I want. :grouphug:

KTBear: I'm glad you realized my "lol" was just my being silly!! I of course do not feel I am "better" because I consider myself pretty middle of the road. Most of my family is conservative, while most of my friends are liberal, so I have a great deal of varying beliefs surrounding me and it keeps me well educated on both sides, and allows me to see all issues from various points. I agree with you 100% that most people want those same things that you mentioned. I want the exact same things, and I, too, do not want there to be any hard feelings. I have been coming to this site for a long time in order to chat with well-meaning gals and to get some wonderful words of advice. I would never want that to change. :grouphug: