Why is American politics so divisive?

[Accounting Troll]

I find it remarkable that the differences of opinion in American politics seems to cause so much emnity in political discussion. Many of Bush's critics regard him as the anti-christ and feel that America would become a true utopia under a Democrat government. However, I think that there are very few practical differences between the Republicans and the Democrats. Consider the following examples:

 

Bush has earned the emnity of the environmentalists by pulling out of Kyoto. However, Clinton got round the agreement by buying pollution rights from other countries and getting American forests to be counted as carbon sinks. The Democrats critisised Bush's decision over Kyoto in the 2004 election campaign, but they refused to commit themselves to reducing carbon dioxide emissions in the event of a Democrat victory. The only reductions in American carbon dioxide emissions in the Clinton years were caused by corporations realising that they could save money through greater energy efficiency.

 

Bush has often been attacked over his actions in the war on terror, however these actions have generally been supported by the Democrats. The invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and the infamous Patriot Act all had strong Democrat backing.

 

While it has been argued that Bush only invaded Iraq for its oil, Clinton's record isn't much better. Just before his impeachment hearing, he ordered the bombing of Iraq to get the hearing delayed. This caused a global wave of anti-American feeling that contributed towards the growth of Al Qaeda and helped alienate America's allies.

 

Bush ended up looking bad because his tax cuts mostly benefited the rich members of American society. However when Bill Clinton balanced the budget, he decided he could do it by slashing welfare payments. Slashing welfare benefits always hits poor people harder than rich people.

 

Bush's stance against gay marriage, including a proposed constitutional change, has caused a lot of controversy, but Clinton signed a bill outlawing gay marriage.

 

My theory is that American politics is so decisive precisely because the Democrats seem to be getting their policy ideas from the Republican manifesto. As politicians cannot campaign on issues, they are reduced to claiming that their opponents are incompetant or dishonest. Whoever ends up with the least mud sticking on them wins.

[FullAuto]

Or just whoever is the richest.

 

The invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and the infamous Patriot Act all had strong Democrat backing.

 

Thanks to the current political climate, I think they had to back them. Not doing so would have been construed by many as being 'un-American'.

Clinton just got blowjobs, at least he wasn't a cokehead. Perhaps Bush has taken more flak than he should have, but his decisions have not done the world any good, except by accident.

[Accounting Troll]

I think Al Gore would have been hounded out of office if his revenge in the aftermath of 9/11 had been judged insufficient by the American people.

 

And Clinton was certainaly not motivated by altruism towards other countries.

[FullAuto]

Name a political leader who has.

[Zombie]

Bush has often been attacked over his actions in the war on terror, however these actions have generally been supported by the Democrats.  The invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and the infamous Patriot Act all had strong Democrat backing.

You have to remember that in the wake of the terrorist attacks in September 2001, it was (and still is) considered unpatriotic to disagree with Bush concerning how he is handling the war on terror. Democrats know this and therefore side with Bush just to get reelected for another term. See, any disagreement with the policies, and the voters think that a candidate is a bad choice. Democrats need to gain seats in the House to pass the bills they want, so opposing Bush is a political death-sentence for any chance at reelection. Rightly so, the Democrats keep their mouths shut and agree for the time being.

 

While it has been argued that Bush only invaded Iraq for its oil, Clinton's record isn't much better.  Just before his impeachment hearing, he ordered the bombing of Iraq to get the hearing delayed.  This caused a global wave of anti-American feeling that contributed towards the growth of Al Qaeda and helped alienate America's allies.

Which Bush? George Herbert Walker Bush (41st President of the United States) sent American troops over to the mid-east to push back Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait. Since Kuwait is a major oil producing country and friendly with the US, we needed to protect our interests as we were not on good speaking terms with Iraq. The subsequent invasion of Iraq was simply to prevent a future reinvasion of Kuwait.

 

George W. Bush (current president of the US) sent troops in to invade Iraq because of a few factors. The main one being that Saddam Hussein almost succeeded in having George W's father killed. The second invasion of Iraq was not because of oil, or Saddam's involvement in the spread of terrorism. It was simply payback.

 

- Zombie

[Accounting Troll]

Zombie, it sounds like the Democrats don't have a very high regard for the American voters then. They don't expect the voters to be able to distinguish between questioning the way the war is being handled and questioning the moral justification of the war. And they don't expect the voters to notice that they are agreeing with the Republicans on the conduct of the war I mean, even Bush had admitted that mistakes have been made.

 

Ironically, most European political commentators were predicting that the 2004 election campaign would effectively be a referendum on how Bush was handling the war on terror... :mad:

[sir-roosio]

You have to remember that in the wake of the terrorist attacks in September 2001, it was (and still is) considered unpatriotic to disagree with Bush concerning how he is handling the war on terror

 

Hmmmm, sounds like someones been slipping subliminal messages into The Simpsons to me!

[infael]

Unfortunately (and I am American by birth), people here are pretty dumb and easy to deceive.

 

Bush fits the Bible's description of the Antichrist. And who's to say he isn't, especially since the Jews see time as cyclical, meaning there'll be more than 1 Antichrist...

[Strong Bob]

Unfortunately (and I am American by birth), people here are pretty dumb and easy to deceive.

 

Bush fits the Bible's description of the Antichrist. And who's to say he isn't, especially since the Jews see time as cyclical, meaning there'll be more than 1 Antichrist...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bush hasn't enforced a law making people install microchips in their hands and foreheads and isn't named Christ.

 

He doesn't fit.

[DoomMunky]

As a semi-well-informed American, I think the problem with the Democrats is that they don't really know how to combat the ridiculous rhetoric of the Bush Camp. If they just spoke up and honestly showed how spurious his record has been, something might get changed, but then THEY would all get dragged through the political mud and nothing would change.

 

Also, on the rhetoric issue; most pols speak the same 'language', and the Bush Camp has done such an incredibly good job at appropriating the catch-phrases, buzzwords, and tone of the debate in this country that any time an opponent wants to take them on, they are forced into using the 'language' of the enemy.

 

It's all a wash, anyway. The Dems AND the Repubs are both in the pocket of Nike, Westinghouse, GE, etc., and nobody, NOBODY wants to rock the boat and miss out on the gravy train. There's a few brave souls trying to change the system from within, but they are so vastly outnumbered that all they can do is give the few of us with time to be informed on this stuff the hope that all is not yet lost.

 

There you go! A pocket-review of Progressive American cynicism for you! (Though most good progressives would know more about how things need to change, and would strongly resist being called cynics: most of them aren't. Just me!)

[sir-roosio]

Bush is not the current antichrist. . . HERES WHO IS

 

quake in fear mortals!

[Strong Bob]

Why is Noel Edmonds on his side? Well someone has to be.

 

I didn't have to read the rest. This pretty much had me on the floor.