Yup. The polarization is nearly complete:
Welcome to today’s Congress, which in 2013 was more polarized than any Congress since National Journal began calculating its ratings in 1982.
For the fourth straight year, no Senate Democrat was more conservative than a Senate Republican—and no Senate Republican was more liberal than a Senate Democrat. In the House, only two Democrats were more conservative than a Republican—and only two Republicans were more liberal than a Democrat. The ideological overlap between the parties in the House was less than in any previous index.
The ideological sorting of the House and Senate by party, which has been going on for more than three decades, is virtually complete. Contrast the lack of ideological overlap with 1982, when 58 senators and 344 House members had voting records that put them between the most liberal Republican and the most conservative Democrat; or 1994, when 34 senators and 252 House members occupied the same territory.
“The last couple of Congresses have been among the most polarized in history. This is just a continuation of that. There’s nothing that will break this [trend],” said Gary Jacobson, a University of California (San Diego) political scientist, who specializes in congressional politics. “Voters have been voting along party lines at the highest rate in 50 years; they expressed that vote at the congressional and presidential levels. It’s hard for members to win in districts where their party is not favored.”
The only thing that seems to have any power to overcome this situation is incumbency. If you’ve been around for awhile getting elected in a district or state that no longer fits your ideology, you still have a fair chance of being reelected. So, for example, Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana or Sen. Mark Pryor of Arkansas both have a decent shot of winning another six-year term. The same is true of Sen. Susan Collins of Maine. But, for the most part, the country has divided along partisan lines, and there isn’t a whole lot we can do to change that fact.
Fine. At least it’s more honest. There’s no more camouflage, and that works in our favor: if we get the facts out, there will be more of us than them.
You underestimate the power of willful stupidity.
See, for example, here: http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/messages-from-creationists-to-people-who-believe-in-evolutio
And what were the litmus-test issues that allowed the National Journal to pigeon-hole members of Congress?
Isn’t it interesting how one publication can drive debate just by the way it picks and chooses its categories for making ideological judgements.
Ah, yes. Here they are. The key votes.
The Key Votes Used to Calculate Ratings
These votes created a disjoint set arranged by party.
Is it true that these votes separate conservatives from liberals?
And then the National Journal projects this voting record onto the electoral landscape. And the political consultants lap it up and believe it. And program the campaigns as if it is true. But is it?
“Is it true that these votes separate conservatives from liberals?”
True for most of those votes, but not others, for example there are routine executive confirmations in that list. And Sandy Relief, which may be a partisan issue but certainly not a liberal and conservative divide.
It is astounding to think that there was more than 50% overlap in ’82. That things have gone so far so fast is difficult to deal with for both sides, but I think it is more difficult for the Republicans. And now, due to their gerrymandered focus on primary challenges, I assume it will only get worse until the next freakin’ census. If that turns out to be true, it’s gonna be a very rocky ride.
Yip O’Neill empowered many of Reagan’s assaults on the working class.
Tip O’Neill. We really need an edit function.
I think with the laser beam focusing of Koch brother money on races like Landrieu’s and Pryor’s, that is likely to pretty much neutralize any incumbency advantage they might enjoy as Democrats in mostly red states. With today’s numbers I see concerning the relatively meager money that Dem’s have, and the HUGE amounts the Koch’s are already spending nine months out from the election, I think there should be alarm bells ringing right now in every state Democratic headquarters in the country. The Kochs are planning on rolling Democrats from shore to shore, and border to border. And they have the wherewithal to do it.
Are the Koch’s out for Landrieu? She’s supported oil and gas her whole career.
there are non moribund state den head quarters?
Commenting on the same NR article, Jon Walker at Firedoglake opines
Is Walker’s truly an accurate analysis/portrayal of government partisan dynamics? I guess what I’m asking is, is the current degree of ideological polarization evident in the US Congress truly the norm in other democracies?? Seems to me a bizarre conclusion; perhaps I’m missing something.
Most other democracies don’t have just two parties and so you have more coalitions. In the US it is all or nothing so we (meaning either side ) cant afford to lose.
OT: NATO 3 trial just went to jury.