General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe NY Times' Adam Liptak: False Equivalence Monger
On edit: I originally stated that my comment had not yet been published. It now has been published, so the text below is edited accordingly.
There is a column by Adam Liptak in today's Times, titled, "The Polarized Court" (excerpt appears at the end of my comments below). Liptak blathers on about the 'polarization' of the Supreme Court and points out that it reflects a similar polarization in the electorate. Yet, to read the article, one would think that the two parties had moved in opposite directions, when in fact both moved in the same direction: one party by a radically large degree, the other by s smaller degree. But there is NO discussion of the fact that to the extent polarization has occurred, it has occurred as a result of the GOP shifting radically rightward. To the extent Democrats have moved, it has also been (sadly enough), to the right also. Here is the text of a comment I just posted to the piece.
I wonder if perhaps Mr. Liptak has been spending a bit too much time inside the Beltway of late, for he seems to have succumbed to a certain malady that affects many pundits and journalists who spend too much time there: False Equivalence Syndrome. To speak of our politics as merely being "polarized," without mention of the very significant rightward shift of our entire political spectrum over the last 33 years is to miss what has really been going on, and suggests, incorrectly, that the two parties have moved in opposite directions.
What has happened, though, is that the Republican Party, beginning with the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980 and continuing to the present day, has moved radically to the right, abandoning a middle ground on many issues on which there had previously been, if not full agreement on how to address issues, at least a broad consensus on what the issues were and the importance of addressing them -- things such as public education, a robust social safety net, and at least nominal support for organized labor. The broad center, comprised of Democrats and Republicans alike, did not demonize government. But Reagan, with his "Government is the problem" mantra, changed that. That was the point of departure.
Sadly, Democrats moved to the right as well. So it is hardly adequate to speak of 'polarization' when one party has moved radically to the right, and the other closer to the center.
Here is an excerpt from the article:
[font size=2]MAY 10, 2014[/font]
WASHINGTON WHEN the Supreme Court issued its latest campaign finance decision last month, the justices lined up in a familiar way. The five appointed by Republican presidents voted for the Republican National Committee, which was a plaintiff. The four appointed by Democrats dissented.
That 5-to-4 split along partisan lines was by contemporary standards unremarkable. But by historical standards it was extraordinary. For the first time, the Supreme Court is closely divided along party lines.
The partisan polarization on the court reflects similarly deep divisions in Congress, the electorate and the elite circles in which the justices move.
The deep and often angry divisions among the justices are but a distilled version of the way American intellectuals at think tanks and universities, in opinion journals and among the theorists and practitioners of law and politics have separated into two groups with vanishingly little overlap or interaction. It is a recipe for dysfunction.
< . . . .>
scarletwoman
(31,893 posts)in the NYT.
The unstoppable flood of false narratives in the the media is absolutely maddening. Thank you so much for doing what you do to counter it where you can.
Bravo!
markpkessinger
(8,395 posts)That means a lot to me, especially because I sometimes find myself wondering why I bother!
Thanks again!
scarletwoman
(31,893 posts)I'm so glad you DO bother!
You're one of my (very few) DU heros!
markpkessinger
(8,395 posts)Another reader responded to my comment as follows:
Maybe I'm dense, but I have no idea what the guy is trying to say, or what it has to do with my comment. Can anybody enlighten me?