Democrats are More Extreme than Republicans

[futureboy]

Okay, I can understand why you might have that opinion.

It's not an opinion, it's an observation of the language used in the article. There is a definite slant in the language (many more examples than the one I've provided) intended to support narrative they're trying to forward. And that's fine, but when they're basing it on a completely flawed interpretation of the data, it makes the article nothing but a failed attempt at blaming Dems for the divide, seasoned with some pretty lame victimhood.

If we apply your criteria of abrupt change to what's happening in politics today, this year, or even the past few years, isn't it the Democrats who are changing the most rapidly?

What data are you basing that on - specifically, "what's happening today, this year, or even the past few years" - what are you referring to? Because the Pew data simply doesn't support this.

[evensaul]

Are you still talking about the editorial piece? That’s not what I was referring to.

And for the second, I’m asking about what has been happening in recent politics as available in more recent news reports.

[MindTrap028]

@ Dio.. it is fair to say that we need to define extreme, but we are not historically a central nation on the spectrum. The extremes are tryanny and anarchy. To which the nation is well off center towards the anarchy side (Ie limited gov). On that spectrum the arrival of an out right sociallist is the definition of extreme on the left, certainly that is the most success such a position has ever experienced in our nation's history. So while we need to eatablish what extreme is to discuss it, I have a hard time concieving that socialism as an official party line doesn't represent what we should commonly and easily recognize as an extreme shift of politics in America... I really don't see anything on the right comparable.

[Dionysus]

@ Dio.. it is fair to say that we need to define extreme, but we are not historically a central nation on the spectrum. The extremes are tryanny and anarchy. To which the nation is well off center towards the anarchy side (Ie limited gov). On that spectrum the arrival of an out right sociallist is the definition of extreme on the left, certainly that is the most success such a position has ever experienced in our nation's history. So while we need to eatablish what extreme is to discuss it, I have a hard time concieving that socialism as an official party line doesn't represent what we should commonly and easily recognize as an extreme shift of politics in America... I really don't see anything on the right comparable.

I understand.

I'm afraid I don't know what else to do with that except acknowledge that you think it.

[evensaul]

MT, Dio isn’t really here to debate the op. I was a little slow to catch on, because he did a decent job mixing in some argumentation. Despite a few good initial posts, though, his efforts soon became a bit heavy handed, and criticizing my honesty was just a dead giveaway.

Continue if you must, Dio, but the jig is up.

[futureboy]

Are you still talking about the editorial piece?

For now, I'm referring only to the misrepresentation of the Pew data by you and the article you pulled the graphic from. The way it looks, when the changes in the ideologies over a longer period of time (1994-now) are observed, is that both sides - the Dems and the GOP - were making a gradual shift to the left. Broadly speaking, and taking into account the similarity in the rate of both sides' leftward shift in the data for 1994-2004, this would indicate that society as a whole was making a gradual shift to the left or, in other words, the center was moving left.

It appears to be very much like both sides were on a leftward path together, but at one point, the GOP ceased its gradual shift left, moved away from the new center, accelerating its shift rightward, and ended up in a now far-right position in a process that took half the time that it took Dems to make their gradual path leftward during 1994-2014. Talk about extreme.

And now some republicans (you, the "political editorial") are trying to spin this data into "the Dems are the extreme ones", "Democrats have moved sharply to the extreme left", ignoring the gradual and by all appearances natural shift left of both sides as well as the GOP's extreme change in direction, abandoning the new center and ending up further right than before.

The way you look at a static graphic comparison of then and now and say the biggest difference is with the Dems wholly ignores the fluid nature of the ideologies behind the surveys which spawned those static graphs. Before the 1994 graph data, the parties were more than likely in different positions, already in a process of gradual shift. It's not as if that 1994 image is some control or norm that the Dems have ventured dangerously far from in 2017, as apparently the comparison in the editorial is trying to make it look, again ignoring - or intentionally obscuring - the fact that the GOP was on the same leftward path before it did a wild 180 and rushed to the far-right.

The editorial finishes up with this gem: "Democrats and their water carriers in the press are like people on a boat that is drifting off to sea, but are convinced that it's the land that's moving, not them."
Well, unfortunately, the data shows that the land was indeed moving - Dems and GOP reasoning together - and that it was the GOP who changed in the extreme.

We can discuss recent political craziness in the news, for sure, but first you need to acknowledge that the Pew data does not show what you're trying to say it does.

[MindTrap028]

I understand.

I'm afraid I don't know what else to do with that except acknowledge that you think it.

Well, I forwarded a definition of extreme, as you asked for. I understand if you don't want to discuss it.

If you are at a loss as to how to respond, a few suggestions would be.
1) Express your opinion on the definition of what constitutes extreme. Maybe draw a contrast to the scale that I have applied, or express where you agree with it.
2) Discuss the implications of accepting or rejecting socialism as an extreme departure to Americas historical main stream politics, and express where you fall on that issue and why.
3) Forward a move for the conservative similar to the move towards open socialism by the left, if you think one exists.

An idea that is in play here is the overton window. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window
Where an idea is extreme based not on the total political spectrum, but of the smaller spectrum that is generally accepted by society.

However if your not interested, thanks for hearing my thoughts on it. Good day sir

MT, Dio isn’t really here to debate the op. I was a little slow to catch on, because he did a decent job mixing in some argumentation. Despite a few good initial posts, though, his efforts soon became a bit heavy handed, and criticizing my honesty was just a dead giveaway.

Continue if you must, Dio, but the jig is up.

Naw I just have to give him a bit more substance then what I started out with. Considering he has posted a lot in this thread.. and I'm still catching up its probably a more me then him issue.
Given the discussion of studies so far, my brush was far broader.

Personally I wouldn't put much stock in any of the studies, because the likely don't have a proper baseline for the extremes of the political spectrum. (The Already mentioned Anarchy and Tyranny).

[evensaul]

And now some republicans (you, the "political editorial") are trying to spin this data into "the Dems are the extreme ones", "Democrats have moved sharply to the extreme left", ignoring the gradual and by all appearances natural shift left of both sides as well as the GOP's extreme change in direction, abandoning the new center and ending up further right than before.

Can you explain what you mean by the "natural shift left"? What makes moving left natural, and moving right (presumably) unnatural?

the fact that the GOP was on the same leftward path before it did a wild 180 and rushed to the far-right.

What makes that new position "far-right"? What point are you comparing it to, and why use that specific point of comparison?

[futureboy]

Can you explain what you mean by the "natural shift left"? What makes moving left natural, and moving right (presumably) unnatural?

That the leftward shift's direction, rate, and amount was consistent on both sides for at least 10 years. This indicates a change in the society as a whole, and not individual movement isolated to either side - ie. a shift in the political center.

What makes that new position "far-right"? What point are you comparing it to, and why use that specific point of comparison?

It's far-right for two reasons: it's further right than where they started in 1994, and it's far right from the new center point reached after society's over-all shift left during the first few years.

[evensaul]

That the leftward shift's direction, rate, and amount was consistent on both sides for at least 10 years. This indicates a change in the society as a whole, and not individual movement isolated to either side - ie. a shift in the political center.

This seems rather arbitrary. I could just as easily say it was unnatural because it didn't continue for thirty years. And why is a change in society as a whole to be considered natural? Was it natural for Germany to embrace Nazism? I honestly don't understand how "natural" figures in to this argument. At all.

It's far-right for two reasons: it's further right than where they started in 1994, and it's far right from the new center point reached after society's over-all shift left during the first few years.

If it is okay to compare just two R positions at specific points in time, then it should be okay to compare where Democrats were in 1962 (JFK, in favor of capitalism, a strong defense and low taxes) with where they are in 2018, light years to the Left (embracing socialism, a weak defense and high taxes). Democrats were the party of Bull Connor racism and the KKK. So which party has moved further in the past 60 years? I'd say Republicans are pretty much where they've been the whole time, while Dems have zipped from one extreme to the other.

[futureboy]

This seems rather arbitrary. I could just as easily say it was unnatural because it didn't continue for thirty years.

No, you couldn't, because you don't have data for 30 years.

And why is a change in society as a whole to be considered natural? Was it natural for Germany to embrace Nazism?

Invalid comparison - German society as a whole did not change to embrace Nazism. You need to brush up on your history. Nazis seized power in 1933 after failing to win the majority in the 1932 elections. The rise of Nazism was hardly a gradual shift right by both sides.

I honestly don't understand how "natural" figures in to this argument. At all.

It's quite simple: a gradual, steady change in both sides of the political spectrum in the same direction at the same rate is indicative of an overall change in the society itself. It's natural because it's slow and consistent - kind of like evolution. It strains credibility to think that the gradual, steady leftward shift of both the Dems and the GOP was caused by unique influences exclusive to each side, which just happened to affect each side in the same way at the same rate. If you want to make a case for that, feel free to do so.

So which party has moved further in the past 60 years? I'd say Republicans are pretty much where they've been the whole time

Again, you're making misleading statements like "Republicans are where they've been the whole time", ignoring the changes GOP has gone through in the mean time, as well as the changes in the center. You really need to stop doing that. Also, if you want to talk about the past 60 years in the same context as we're discussing with the Pew Research data, then please provide similar data for that time period.

[evensaul]

No, you couldn't, because you don't have data for 30 years.

Okay FB, the data in the survey is for 24 years, 1994-2017. So it is unnatural because it didn't continue for 24 years. You're using an arbitrary 10 years, instead of 12 or 9 or any other. And I think changes over time are more significant when looking at longer periods, rather than shorter. Do you disagree? If so, why?

Invalid comparison - German society as a whole did not change to embrace Nazism. You need to brush up on your history. Nazis seized power in 1933 after failing to win the majority in the 1932 elections. The rise of Nazism was hardly a gradual shift right by both sides.

Why isn't seizing power natural?

It's quite simple: a gradual, steady change in both sides of the political spectrum in the same direction at the same rate is indicative of an overall change in the society itself. It's natural because it's slow and consistent - kind of like evolution. It strains credibility to think that the gradual, steady leftward shift of both the Dems and the GOP was caused by unique influences exclusive to each side, which just happened to affect each side in the same way at the same rate.

Do you have any support for this claim? Seems to me like you're just making stuff up.

Again, you're making misleading statements like "Republicans are where they've been the whole time", ignoring the changes GOP has gone through in the mean time, as well as the changes in the center. You really need to stop doing that. Also, if you want to talk about the past 60 years in the same context as we're discussing with the Pew Research data, then please provide similar data for that time period.

Who says it has to be exactly the same type of data at Pew? There are no rules about data types and sources. Again, you're just making stuff up. I provided significant information about he time period, showing Dems have gone from one extreme to the other. Can you provide anything similar about Republicans? No, you can't. The party became more conservative, but it didn't go from one extreme to the other.

[futureboy]

You're using an arbitrary 10 years, instead of 12 or 9 or any other.

No, I'm referring to the specific 10 year time period from 1994-2004 during which both sides exhibited a consistent leftward shift.

And I think changes over time are more significant when looking at longer periods, rather than shorter. Do you disagree? If so, why?

Longer periods of time will see greater change - what's so significant about that, especially considering the fact that longer periods include multiple generations? Changes and reversals - especially changes in rate & direction of change - in a shorter period of time are more significant because they indicate a change in society which is not as dependant on generational differences, but more on changes in the actual ideologies of the people.

Why isn't seizing power natural?

Again, you need to brush up on your history. Do you think that when German civilian organizations had their leadership replaced with Nazi sympathizers and party members, that this was a natural change in their leadership?

Do you have any support for this claim? Seems to me like you're just making stuff up.

Again, the consistent leftward shift in both sides is explained by either the fact that society as a whole was changing, or that it was caused by unique influences exclusive to each side which just happened to affect each side in the same way at the same rate.

Who says it has to be exactly the same type of data at Pew? There are no rules about data types and sources.

You were the one who said "the Pew data is at the top of the list in terms of significance". If you place such significance on the PEW data, then let's discuss the PEW data. If you want to talk about what happened 60 years ago in the same context as what's at the top of your list in terms of significance, then please provide something similar to that for the time period you now wish to discuss.

I provided significant information about he time period, showing Dems have gone from one extreme to the other.

The information you provided for 1994-now shows the following:
1994-2004
Dems showed a gradual shift to the left.
GOP matched this gradual shift to the left.

2004-2014
Dems continued their gradual shift to the left at a similar rate.
GOP veered sharply back to the right, landing even further to the right than when they started in 1994.

[evensaul]

No, I'm referring to the specific 10 year time period from 1994-2004 during which both sides exhibited a consistent leftward shift.

And your are excluding the other years, effectively labeling them as unnatural, without any convincing argument as to why they do not also reflect natural change.[/QUOTE]

Your entire argument is nonsense, Futureboy, and is rejected as such.

[futureboy]

And your are excluding the other years, effectively labeling them as unnatural, without any convincing argument as to why they do not also reflect natural change.

I'm not excluding the other years, I'm comparing the changes in 1994-2004 with the changes in 2004-2014. In 1994-2004, the change was a gradual shift left on both sides. In 2004-2014, the change was a continued gradual shift left for the Dems, and a rapid cessation of the gradual shift left and a rush to the far right for GOP.

Your entire argument is nonsense, Futureboy, and is rejected as such.

Again, I'm simply pointing out that you are misrepresenting the data when you make misleading statements like "Republicans are where they've been the whole time", "Republicans moved slightly right since 1994, while Dems moved waaay left". If you're going to maintain that the Pew data is the best you've got as support for your OP, then you need to address the issues with your misrepresentation of it.

[evensaul]

I don't believe I've misrepresented anything, and your arguments are unconvincing, especially your claim that one kind of change is natural while others are not.

[futureboy]

I don't believe I've misrepresented anything, and your arguments are unconvincing, especially your claim that one kind of change is natural while others are not.

Misrepresenting again - I never claimed one was natural while another was not. You've picked up on a single irrelevant word in a statement, and run with it in order to make more misleading statements. It would really help if you stopped doing that.

I've explained how your statements are misrepresentations of the Pew data, and I don't care that you think my arguments are unconvincing. It's your OP and your support, so my pointing out that your data doesn't support your claims means that your arguments are unconvincing, not the other way around. Please provide support for your claim that "Republicans are where they've been the whole time".

[evensaul]

Misrepresenting again - I never claimed one was natural while another was not.

You've said that a period of slow change was natural, and excluded the period after that because you thought it didn't apply, right? And you reject seizing of power as natural, right? So you're defining natural change in the way you want, to further your argument. It's bogus. And you're using that in attempt to say my claims are invalid. Your bogus claim doesn't refute my position, and certainly doesn't prove I've misrepresented anything. I'm done chasing you down that rabbit hole.

[futureboy]

You've said that a period of slow change was natural, and excluded the period after that because you thought it didn't apply, right? And you reject seizing of power as natural, right? So you're defining natural change in the way you want, to further your argument. It's bogus. And you're using that in attempt to say my claims are invalid. Your bogus claim doesn't refute my position, and certainly doesn't prove I've misrepresented anything. I'm done chasing you down that rabbit hole.

The rabbit hole is of your own invention. You took a single adjective among a fairly lengthy statement and ran with it, bringing up invalid comparisons with Nazism in Germany along the way.

Here's my original statement, with the adjective removed:

And now some republicans (you, the "political editorial") are trying to spin this data into "the Dems are the extreme ones", "Democrats have moved sharply to the extreme left", ignoring the gradual shift left on both sides as well as the GOP's extreme change in direction, abandoning the new center and ending up further right than before.

Feel free to respond to the actual point instead of inventing rabbit holes in order to deflect from having to address the flaws in your support.

[evensaul]

Your rebuttal hinged on your ludicrous claim of natural change. Because the rebuttal fails, my claim stands. It's that simple.