Partisan Identification

Don't Count on Americans Hating Each Other Any Less Post-Midterms

Baffled by and fearful of each other, the political tribes remain consumed by loathing and dedicated to total victory.


Yenpitsu Nemoto IKON Images/Newscom

To judge by the reactions to last week's mid-term elections, casting votes isn't the key to settling political tensions in the United States. As I write, Republicans are publicly accusing Democrats of manufacturing ballots to steal elected offices, while Democrats charge that Republicans somehow gerrymandered state borders to swipe victories in Senate races. It's as if the members of America's two dominant political tribes so despise each other that assuming some degree of decency on each other's part is out of the question. So hang on for a ride that's not getting smoother anytime soon.

"Many Americans think people in the other party are ignorant, spiteful, evil and generally destroying the country," Kim Hart of Axios reports of a new poll conducted just before the election by SurveyMonkey. "About half of Democrats think Republicans are ignorant (54%) and spiteful (44%). Likewise, about half of Republicans think Democrats are ignorant (49%) and spiteful (54%). 21% of Democrats think Republicans are evil, and about the same share of Republicans (23%) think Democrats are evil."

That would be disturbing enough in itself—liberal democracies don't function especially well when voters think they're opposing not bad policy, but rather the personification of all that is bad and wrong. But this is only the latest survey to discover such antipathy between America's political tribes.

"Currently, 44% of Democrats and Democratic leaners have a very unfavorable opinion of the GOP," the Pew Research Center noted last year. "45% of Republicans and Republican leaners view the Democratic Party very unfavorably."

That built on earlier Pew data finding that "More than half of Democrats (55%) say the Republican Party makes them 'afraid,' while 49% of Republicans say the same about the Democratic Party."

And yes, it's getting worse.

"The percentage of partisans who really seem to hate the other party has skyrocketed since the turn of the millennium," write political scientists Marc Hetherington and Jonathan Weiler of the University of North Carolina. After 2000, "the percentage of partisans with hate in their hearts rose with each election: from the 20s and 30s for Democrats and Republicans in 2008, to 48 and 50 percent, respectively, in 2016. Clearly, hating the opposite political party is no longer a fringe thing." Hethington and Weiler draw on data compiled by the American National Election Studies.

So Americans are at daggers-drawn, and it appears that their mutual dislike is increasing in intensity.

Making the situation more potentially intractable is the vast gulf between the tribes not just in terms of their partisan associations, but also what motivates them. Hetherington and Weiler write that people are largely divided between what they call "fixed" and "fluid" personalities that represent very different perceptions of the relative safety of the world in which we live, the importance of fixed rules, and the relative merits of self-reliance versus obedience to established order. There's more to it, of course, but the important point, they say, is that these personality types have increasingly sorted themselves along partisan lines, with "fixed" types going Republican and "fluid" types aligning as Democrats. Many people fall along a spectrum between fixed and fluid, but have felt compelled in recent years to pick one partisan tribe or the other. Possessing entirely different, and seemingly innate, worldviews, the two tribes now have little common ground over which to peacefully engage.

In their analysis, Hetherington and Weiler delve into territory similar to that pioneered by social psychologist Jonathan Haidt with his moral foundations theory. Haidt believes that, in the American context, conservatives, progressives, and libertarians are largely divided by the extent to which they value six innate moral foundations that define what they consider important and good. Even the way they understand the meaning of such values as "fairness" are at odds, complicating the task of finding a shared language for discussion and making debates challenging because people have very different ideas of what makes for desirable outcomes.


Let's just say that the political tribes' brains work differently, and they're scared and baffled by what makes their opponents tick.

These differences have always existed, but not so clearly aligned with partisan identity, and not usually when the stakes were so high as they are now in political contests. I'll argue—again—that in a society in which everything is politicized, and in which winning an election means gaining control of lawmaking, licensing authority, and regulatory apparatus that can be and frequently are used to punish political enemies, nobody can afford to lose.

Lifestyle and occupations are now closely aligned with political identity—a "starkly divided world of latte-sipping liberals and bird-hunting conservatives," as Daniel DellaPosta, Yongren Shi, and Michael Macy of Cornell University wrote in a paper published in 2015 in the American Journal of Sociology. That means opponents' hobbies and occupations can be targeted for destruction-by-government without overtly running afoul of protections for what they believe and how they vote (although, emboldened by the political environment, politicians are going to that extreme, too).

If the tribes are unable to understand each other's worldviews or values, it's difficult to see how they settle their differences and learn to deescalate the country's cycle of political conflict.

"If Americans are this convinced that the other side isn't just wrong, but dumb and evil, they'll never be able to find enough common ground to solve real problems," Axios's Kim Hart remarked in her piece on partisan animosity.

Maybe there isn't much room for common ground. Perhaps the only path forward is to decentralize power to make it easier for people to live the way they want without being subject to the rule of the hated foe.

To the extent possible, we should decentralize power and declaw the government so that people don't have to worry what the enemy has in store for them.Or, we could just wait to see what a growing wave of tribal loathing does to the country.

NEXT: The Backpage Scandal Isn't What You Think

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “As I write, Republicans are publicly accusing Democrats of manufacturing ballots to steal elected offices, while Democrats charge that Republicans somehow gerrymandered state borders to swipe victories in Senate races.”

    See, both sides are making implausible charges!

    1. It’s actually dishonesty. The majority of the republican complaints about the election is democratic supervisors ignoring established law, which a judge agreed with.

      1. which a judge agreed with.

        And nothing else happened, hence the problem. I didn’t think Tucille engaged in false-equiv.

        1. Something did happen though. The election supervisors ignored the orders completely and the Dem lawyers ran to an Obama appointee federal judge to try to go above the state judge. In 2016 the Broward supervisor was actually fined by the state and given conditions of how to be supervised this election, which she ignored.

          I agree this probably needs criminal citations at this point as she is blatantly disregarding civil orders. The problem is the legal process is slow and requires an actual harn prior to relief for most cases.

          1. The election supervisors ignored the orders completely

            That’s what I meant. No legal repercussions thus far.

      2. Yeah. The DeRps are the world’s biggest victims. Eternally oppressed by the DeRps.

      3. “My Team is soooo much less worst than Your Team!”

        There. Fixed it for all of you cute little partisan hacks.

  2. So you are comparing a worst case plausible conclusion (Democrats stuffing ballot boxes while claiming incompetence as an excuse), to an ignorant and insane one (states are gerrymandered) and concluding both sides are equally bad. Right.

    1. But it’s a fluid insanity! (To be fair, I think the idea is a little bit of a strawman position).

      1. Maybe, but that is what Tuccile chose as his Democrat position. It implies he regards the GOP example as having equivalent quality.

    2. Not to mention that gerrymandering of districts, while certainly morally debatable, is legal, has been for a very long time, and is done by both parties.

      Manufacturing fraudulent boxfuls of phony ballots that get magically discovered in the trunk of the car has been going on for a while too, but it’s completely illegal and is 100% a democratic party dirty trick. There’s no equivalence there.

      1. Tucille also ignores that a judge has already ruled that Broward and palm Beach violated the law. They admitted to mixing invalid ballots into stacks of valid ballots. Democrat lawyers were seeking to count votes from illegal immigrants. Now we have an Obama appointee claiming it is unconstitutional to use signature comparison to verify identity… What the fuck Democrats. No ID, no signature… How do you want to combat fraud?!? Oh that’s right… You don’t.

      2. California also found a way to gerrymander entire parties out of the federal elections. Why aren’t democrats outraged by this?

        1. You don’t want to look at the California districting map. It gets redrawn every ten years, and for the past two “redraws” it’s been dominated by Democrats, making certain that existing districts remain safe for Democratic incumbents and contenders. The Republican Party is therefore essentially dead in California with little or no chance of recovery. Nobody can accuse the Republicans of gerrymandering to this degree or to this effect at any time that they had the power to do so.

      3. I’m not really sure it’s 100% a Democratic party trick.

        Over and over, Republicans have the opportunity to do something about this, and never do. Literally, Scott was legally entitled to fire Snipes at any time, and didn’t, even after the blatantly violated the law.

        The only conclusion I’ve been able to reach is that the Republican leadership have dirty hands, too.

        They’re probably less blatant about it, because the Republican base actually care about it if their elected officials are caught breaking the law, while the Democratic base really don’t care. But that makes it worse, because the Republicans will be hurt even more than the Democrats by equal exposure.

        1. Neither side cares if someone their side breaks the law. Even investigating potential wrong-doing is considered a “witch hunt” these days.

  3. “Democrats charge that Republicans somehow gerrymandered state borders to swipe victories in Senate races.”

    This is on a par with birther claims that Obama’s mother, decades ago, conspired to have Hawaii declared as her son’s birthplace because she knew he’d someday be running for President.

    1. Lots of people want to have been considered born in the US. That’s where all this birthright citizenship stuff comes from. Nobody has to be expecting to run for POTUS.

  4. Perhaps the only path forward is to decentralize power to make it easier for people to live the way they want without being subject to the rule of the hated foe.
    Good luck with that. Forcing others to live the way you desire is core to modern politics.

    1. The problem is the Left’s ideology is based on collectivism. Its base principles are incompatible with decentralization and individual autonomy. Especially in any aspect of life that touches on economics, which is just about everything.

      1. With Wickard v Filburn and National Federation of Independent Business v Sebelius it is everything.

    2. And with that one sentence we have expressed the foggy idealism of modern libertarianism. We are so far beyond the point of decentralizing power in this country it is almost hilarious to express the thought. That question was settled in 1865 and has remained so ever since. We have the government Robert E. Lee predicted shortly after the end of the war: “aggressive abroad and despotic at home”. What gives this author, or anyone, the idea that we are going to wake up one morning, drink a particularly stiff cup of coffee, march out and decentralize power in this country? Just because states are increasingly successful getting pot legalized?

      All that said, I can honestly say that I don’t hate Democrats. Or Republicans. “Hate” requires some significant level of emotional involvement, and neither party merits that. I view them both with equal contempt, and that’s about it.

  5. Screw ’em all.

    1. I say let’s get on with Civil War II already.

  6. I agree that decentralized power would be nice, but it’ll never happen. When one side views the other as evil, it’s morally necessary for them to fight that evil, and with every tool possible. We have a history of fighting evil abroad, why would we choose to not confront it at home?

    Thus, the key isn’t to decentralize and ‘live and let live’, it’s to somehow convince each other that people who disagree with them aren’t evil… and I have no idea how that will ever happen.

    We’re screwed.

    1. People tend to assume that those who disagree must have bad intentions, which really isn’t the case. Most people have good intentions. Will Smith caught some serious flack a while back when he said something along the lines of “I don’t think Hitler woke up every morning and thought ‘What’s the most evil thing I can do today?’ No, he thought he was doing good for Germany.” Of course Will had to apologize, but I think he was had a point. Did you see the video of Saddam being hanged? He was bewildered as to why anyone would want to do that to him. He thought he had only done good for Iraq. I don’t think socialists have bad intentions. Quite the opposite. They see how ‘from each according to ability, to each according to need’ works in a family setting, and they want an ideal society to operate the same way. Except that it doesn’t work. But not because of bad intentions. They think libertarians have bad intentions because we want people to keep what they earn. They see inequality as a terrible thing, so they figure we have bad intentions because we support inequality. Similarly many people think socialists have bad intentions because equality tends towards poverty. Thing is, most people don’t have bad intentions. Some people who have committed great evil have done so with good intentions. So we need to get over this assumption that our ideological opponents have bad intentions, and instead focus on results. Not that it will ever happen.

      /end rant

      1. Yes, I largely agree with this.

        But there’s no getting around the fact that predominantly the Left wants to impose a top down hierarchical society. They believe that people given a choice will often make poor choices (true of course) and that it’s up to society to appoint leaders and make rules and regulations to prevent those poor choices. Granted, society always had performed that function to some extent, but the Left world view is a step to far and increasingly infringes on individual liberty.

        So, while I don’t believe the Left is Evil I think they need to be thwarted in their desire for ever increasing control. The Right is just as bad in it’s own way, but far less powerful to shape society. The primary threat to my liberty and prosperity is coming from the Left.

        1. The Right also wants to impose a top down hierarchical society. For example, law-and-order conservatives like Tom Cotton believe we should be filling up prisons, not looking for ways to reduce the prison population.

          Most people on both sides of the aisle are authoritarians. The only real difference is who they want to be in control.

      2. Some people who have committed great evil have done so with good intentions.
        This^ In fact, it perfectly describes the progressive’s beliefs to the core. They think they are helping people who need it and aren’t capable of realizing that they need help themselves. The conservatives once thought they were doing the same thing by going after gays, weed, etc. – but they have lost. Now, the progs feel self righteous by going after guns, tobacco/vaping, and fossil fuels, and feel fully justified because these are all evil things in their opinion, completely oblivious to the havoc they might create in the process.

      3. I mostly agree except we need to distinguish between leaders and supporters. In the case of socialism, I will grant you that supporters might be good-intentioned but just very naive. (The way a family functions?assuming it’s a loving family which is not always a given?does not involve power dynamics the way “taking care of” for strangers inevitably does.) But those who put themselves forward to take the reins of power are NOT well-intentioned. Sorry.

        I watched a 2-part series about how the revolution of 1917 in Russia began in St Petersburg. When the navy person who led the overthrow of the leaders, objecting to all their excesses taken from the peasantry, the first thing he did was install himself and his family in the palace and he gave all the jewelry he found in there to his wife. It’s not much different than Bernie owning 3 huge houses.

        But it’s not just about failing to walk the talk of equality. Look at the High Sparrow character on Game of Thrones. He does live like a destitute monk, but he revels in his power. That’s a realistic characterization. Some people get off on wealth, others on adulation, others on power.

      4. You are exactly right. Which is why I just roll my eyes whenever I see the Reverend and Tony say ignorant things about Team Red, or the usual peanut gallery say ignorant things about Team Blue, both collectivizing their group of opponents into one undifferentiated mass of Pure Evil. Neither Team Red nor Team Blue are motivated by some desire to destroy or cause pain and suffering or commit acts of evil. Within their own respective world views, they are all trying to do what they really think is what is best. When Bernie Sanders advocates for single-payer, he’s not thinking “I want you to have government-run health care because I want to control what kind of doctors you have and I want to be in charge of a death panel that decides whether you live or die”. That would be the net result of what he advocates, but that is not what is motivating his desires. Too many people, on both sides, take an extreme view of what they think are the negative repercussions of an opponent’s ideas, and then work backwards from there to conclude because that’s what they deliberately intend to do all along. That’s nonsense.

        The challenge is to find a way to satisfy the anxieties of people who are rightfully concerned about things like health care, but to do so in a way that rejects the typical collectivist methods employed for these problems.

        1. If your intentions lead to “death panels,” you are EVIL!!!!!!

          1. If you like your death panel, you can keep your death panel.

        2. I’m not so sure that’s true about Bernie; His followers, sure, but Bernie has been to places like Cuba, he knows how socialism works in practice.

          I think for the followers socialism might be a genuine cause, but for the leaders, it’s a con.

        3. Both you and sarcasmic are missing the issue that makes them evil.

          Brett clears it up–

          Bernie has been to places like Cuba, he knows how socialism works in practice.

          See, they know. They know that the system they want brings widespread misery to all but the rulers. They’ve seen it over and over again. The system they want has never, since the horrific idea first polluted the minds of humans, benefitted anyone except those holding the whip.

          The ONLY reason the ideology spreads at all is that it allows it’s adherents to think that THEY’LL be the ones with the whip, making everything ‘right’. Because they understand.

          There is a reason why the road to Hell is paved with good intentions

      5. People tend to assume that those who disagree must have bad intentions, which really isn’t the case. Most people have good intentions.

        Prob true but also irrelevant. The real problem is not how we view those who disagree – but how we view those who agree, who have the influence to voice that view widely, and to whom we grant authority to achieve our intentions. Acton’s quote gives the way out:

        I cannot accept your canon that we are to judge Pope and King unlike other men, with a favourable presumption that they did no wrong. If there is any presumption it is the other way against holders of power, increasing as the power increases…Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it.

        To those with power, stop believing in their intentions – good/bad, agree/disagree. They can’t change, they can only lose power.

        To those without power (eg your disagreeable neighbor), assume good intentions and find those areas where you both agree. Likely those intentions. To the degree you both agree on that, you will also each be able to disabuse them (and they you) of the connection to the influence/authority they/you identify with. Which is the best way to undermine the power of the powerful.

    2. If the Left cannot be taught to live and let live, then the only solution is to destroy them. What’s the alternative? To continually plead with them while they rape your liberties?

      1. I believe this is a legitimate point. I always wonder if a line should be drawn, or when, or if it should have been drawn, brightly, thirty years ago. On the other hand, I have a child, that I would rather not have live through a violent revolution that might not come out the way I want it to.

      2. Authoritarianism has a large following on both sides of the political aisle.

  7. Standing outside the fray, I find both camps aren’t just about bad policies so much as they are about supporting bad people.

    I believe power corrupts, sure. But those who seek power over others should be automatically disqualified. They are already corrupt, even before wielding power. They’ll tell you they want to serve and want to help make a better world, but who doesn’t? I’m sure the Spanish Inquisition would say they were serving God and helping to make a better world. Actions speak louder than words.

    All these poor benighted statists who dutifully vote D or R, thinking they are doing the right thing, are just perpetuating a terrible system that tramples over every individual.

  8. Sortition rather than election is looking like a very good alternative.

  9. Actually our adversarial political system is a feature–not a bug.

    The back-n-forth helps keep our country in balance and from tipping too far to the left or right.

    Sort of an auto-correction feature.

    As long as we’re only shouting at each other and not shooting at each other, then it’s a pretty efficient process.

    1. I should say an effective process, not efficient.

      1. It’s effective alright. When the left is in power they work to restrict economic liberty, and when the right is in power they work to restrict personal liberty. Neither tries very hard to undo what was done before them. The result is like “The Pit and the Pendulum” with liberty on the table.

        1. I agree sort of…. true the republicans are generally against Drugs and Abortion but besides that I am not so sure you are correct, those being the hot bed issues of the day.

          Republicans have more or less gone along with most changes in society because they did not care as long as it did not effect them.

          Republicans seem to be the protectors of free speech and the right to bare arms which I would say are pretty damn important. What are the democrats protectors of?

          What Abortion? which a large part of the population thinks is Murder? I have a simple fix for that, let States decide then we can shelve that issue and not worry about it anymore.

          Most of the problems we have today are caused by the democrats telling other people how to live and using the Federal Government as a Club to force people to do so.

        2. Democrats are the ones’ going after 1A, 2A, hell, all the A’s.

        3. When the left is in power they work to restrict economic liberty, and when the right is in power they work to restrict personal liberty.

          This framing makes it seem like the left is not out to restrict personal liberty when in fact they want stamp out freedom in every single domain other than gay sex and abortion. The media have painted a world in which those two issues are the end all be all of personal freedom.

          1. I think there is a huge overlap between economic and personal liberty. The division is somewhat arbitrary.

            If you tell the sole proprietor of a bakery that he has to make cakes over his strong moral objection, that is economic and personal.

    2. As long as we’re only shouting at each other and not shooting at each other, then it’s a pretty efficient process.

      Steve Scalise wishes this was actually the case.

      You make a great point, but the left increasingly sees any opposition to them as being illegitimate. If this worrisome trend continues, we’re going to continue to see more and more lethal violence from them.

    3. Hard to have an auto correction feature with liberal judges stating it is unconstitutional to undo a previous executive order.

    4. Except we’ve been going left (towards ever-larger, more intrusive and controlling government) since the outset.

      1. Since wickard. That’s what really escalated federal involvement.

        1. long live Filburn!

          1. and hazelnuts!

    5. “As long as we’re only shouting at each other and not shooting at each other,”

      If the shouting every turns into shooting, the left is fucked.

      And that’s why the left wants to disarm the right. The right says they have guns to protect against a tyrannical government and the left wants to impose a tyrannical government.

  10. If people would stop believing everything their favorite “news” channel was saying and actually think about things we would all be better off. But no, they treat these talking heads like the flock in a tent revival (yes I’ve been to some).

    Got no problem with faith – think we need more of it. Just need to have some thinking going on with it.

    1. To underrstand how each side views the other all you have to do is read posts here and on other sites. How many times has our own “Rev Kirkland” on this site referred to conservatives as “uneducated, rural, uncivilized bigots”? His example alone shows why there is such a divide. When one side assume they are mentally and morally suprior to the other,it is impossible to have a sane and productive conversation. There are those who are just as bad on the right but in the past few years, especially since 2016, the left has taken arrogant hatred to a whole new level.

      1. University of Virginia did a study about this for the last two decades under professor Haidt. What they found is more often than not a conservative can articulate a democrats arguments and beliefs while the vice versa of that is not true. Democrats often reverted to the most immoral argument when explaining the arguments of their opponents, not listening or rationally thinking of counter arguments. Haidt was of the belief this is due to monocultures of the left, especially in media and class rooms.

        1. I’ve heard this before. I’ll try to look it up, but do you have a cite handy?

          1. OpenBordersLiberaltarian, a parody account, is perhaps the best illustration of this.

            Even knowing it’s a parody account one is still pushed towards responding–because the leftist drivel sounds so convincing.

            Coupled with the real life versions that infest Reason, the idea that people on the pro-liberty side of the equation can easily make leftist points is more than manifest.

        2. Found it, it’s in Haidt’s book “The Righteous Mind”

          1. haidt-passages/haidt/
            conservatives-understand-liberals- better-than-liberals-understand-conservatives/

        3. Where are these Republicans who actually understand what Democrats believe? I was born and raised in the Midwest, in a family that is overwhelmingly politically conservative, and I know very, very few Republicans (family or otherwise) who actually understand what Democrats believe. I was raised to believe that Democrats wanted to murder all unborn children. That’s the level of understanding most Republicans I’ve known have of Democrats.

          Lest you jump to the conclusion that I think Democrats are “better”, I haven’t found that Democrats understand Republicans, either. The overwhelming majority of people on both sides simply aren’t interested in understanding why other people believe what they believe. Most people don’t listen, they only wait for their opportunity to talk.

  11. Don’t expect me to hate LIBTARDS any less after 30 years of me paying attention to what they have been doing and their inability to let me live my life in peace as I want to.

    White Privledeged, pretending Republicans are Nazis, Racists, Women Hating Homophobic Neanderthals, there anti-firearm, high tax loving and the crazy lies they tell as if THEY were not the party of the Rich, as if their States were not financial basket cases and murder centers.

    In my 30s I lived in the San Francisco Metro Area and worked in Silicon Valley and I learn how they hated people who dared have a different opinion and that was 25 years ago.

    When they do take control of the three branches of government, and they so take from the productive to give to people who vote for them, and when they DO outlaw Americans right to bare Arms, and when they DO start using the force of government against people who disagree with them.

    When that happens all S%$T is going to break loose because a lot of Americans will have had enough and a lot of them own firearms.

    That neighbor of yours that supports the Democrats is not much different than that German who loved Hitler when he was winning,,, they both could care less about you and would like to see you suffer.

  12. So Americans are at daggers-drawn, and it appears that their mutual dislike is increasing in intensity.

    I wonder if there is any kind of propaganda media apparatus that fuels this.

    1. The media certainly plays its part, but not in the way most people think. There is no cabal or conspiracy and media is not brainwashing people. Media companies are pretty much all for-profit corporations, which means the only thing they really care about is profit. So they carve out a market share and feed their readers/viewers what they think they want to consume. MSNBC deliberately markets to people on the left for the purpose of satisfying that consumer demand. Fox News does the same for people on the right.

      Facebook puts news stories in your feed that you’re statistically more likely to click on. People are more likely to click on things they agree with, so that’s how Facebook has inadvertently given every user their own personal echo chamber. Facebook never intended for their business model to have political ramifications. They were chasing profit (clicks/views/etc), just like MSNBC and Fox News, but continually having your opinions reinforced rather than challenged leads to more animosity for those you disagree with, not less.

  13. Conservatives are labed as racists, ignorant, uneducated and a host of other vile names by the left. Anyone who disagrees with progressives is evil and must be silenced. The left riots and makes outlandish accusations when they lose electioons and immediately try to change the rules or drum up some ridiculous excuse. They whine about the “popular vote” in Presidential elections when it has never mattered and in truth they only “win” when you look at the combined vote since the allocation of electors is done by winning the popular vote in each state. When they lose they claim it was due to cheating collusion or some other idiotic reason because they refuse to accept the majority of STATES reject what they are selling.

    1. That might mean something if only the states weren’t so gerrymandered…

  14. Antifa goons beating people with baseball bats are not evil at all. Shut your mouth.

  15. While I can agree that decentralizing government will allow people to live as they want and in doing so reduce tensions. The fact remains that the pool of fixed personality types is getting smaller. Fluid personality types are better adapted for the changing world. Gay Americans are not going back to the closets, women are not going to stay in the home, and jobs are not going to get less technical. Will fixed types get more anxious and in-turn more angry? Will fluid types, myself included, get more feed up and lash out? The author is correct in there is no solution in the near future.

    1. Gay Americans are not going back to the closets, women are not going to stay in the home, and jobs are not going to get less technical.

      One of these things, is not like the others.
      One of these things, just doesn’t belong
      Can you tell which thing, is not like the others
      And do it before,
      I finish my song.

  16. feels better to love everyone.

  17. I hate that Democrats want to take most of my money and send me to a gulag.

    The fact that more and more non-Lefties are coming to grips that the Lefties are at war with America makes Lefties have a sad.

    1. Anyone else think LC might be program who’s code is caught in a while loop? It just keeps repeating the exact same script over and over again.

      1. #orangemanbad



  18. >>>Let’s just say that the political tribes’ brains work differently

    people are not tribes.

  19. The dems hate the repubs
    The repubs hate the dems
    And everyone hates the libertarians

    Which is why I will always be one

  20. So if leftists/Democrats and rightists/Republicans cannot cooperate (or even communicate) rationally, then we need to either eliminate parties or eliminate party people. Personally, I would start with the second option, but am willing to try the first.

  21. As I write, Republicans are publicly accusing Democrats of manufacturing ballots to steal elected offices, while Democrats charge that Republicans somehow gerrymandered state borders to swipe victories in Senate races.

    One is plausible. One is mind blowingiy idiotic. They are not remotely comparable.

  22. I have often thought what it would be like to conduct several debates. Each debate would consist of two “rational” people, one Democrat and one Republican.

    The debate would not be scored on points made so much as which member became irrational first.

    Democrats stand for altruism and believe altruism comes not from individuals and charities, but from a large centralized government. Their hearts are in the right place, but their brains aren’t. Their stance is indefensible and not being able to rationally explain a stance leads one to become irrational – they will break first.

    Republicans are not far behind, but are just enough in the lead when it comes to the idea of individual freedom that they often, but not always, have a sane rationality that allows them to fall back on studies, statistics and history to support their views that freedom and free markets and not big government work best. I am not saying Republicans are perfect, they are not, but they have this edge I just described. Both parties like big gov and they like control, it’s just that Republicans at least play lip service to small government leading to more individual freedom.

    After a few dozen of these debates it would be interesting to see only the two critical numbers: debates in which the Democrat (liberal) became irrational before the Republican (conservative) and vice versa.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.