Polarization in Congress

(Welcome, any visiting Colby students. Feel free to comment wherever you like, but please keep your comments civil and rational. Thank you for visiting! ^_^ )

It's time we faced it, folks. Congress is vastly more polarized than it was ten to twenty years ago.
We have the proof with recent votes.

Quick question: In the entire history of these United States, in which year were votes most strictly along party lines?

That year was 2005.(1)

Look at Alito's confirmation. His committee approval was exactly party divided, his actual approval in the Senate was almost exactly divided. (2)

First, before we judge it good or bad, let's look at why.

My boss David says that the reason is the statistically maximized gerrymandering of districts, and the other professional lobbyists at my group agreed. He described it to me.

"20 yrs ago they didn't have the technology to [gerrymander districts perfectly]."
He said that becasue now, they do, all districts are perfectly tailored to suit one basic party or the other, based on data such as age, race, culture, and economic situation, all calculated using specifically designed computer database programs.

Gogol said, "10 years ago, What Tom Delay does[sic] would have been unthinkable. It would have been unthinkable that in organizing a House/Senate bill reconcilliation committe, the Republicans would invite 0 dems to share in the discussion and close off all debate with them. It would have been unthinkable."

Some thinking on my part and discussion with David and others at my firm confirmed to me that the reason for this is because if MCs can be sure of their constituents' views, then they can spend less and less money/energy on elections and more on governing/representing.

Ok, now let's judge.

I would call this a bad thing. So much partisanship, so much domination of "truthiness" (3) over reason, really hurts the core of democracy:

Reasonable Debate, with Compromise as its conclusion.

When the Republicans scream about Pro Life and Defending Marriage and other difficult issues, because they have the majority, they have no need to compromise at all. They, with the polarization in Congress, can continue bitterly expressing harshly intolerant views with no fear of immediate repercussions because no matter how extreme they get, they're still serving their narrowly defined constituents.

The same goes for Democrats and Leftists, except instead of winning all the time, they just get frustrated and resentful.

Both sides quickly began to develop cliched insults for each other that they continue to use to this day (and which Stephen Colbert satirizes quite effectively ; ). These broad insults are stereotypes and prejudices. They assume bad faith and insult individuality, two very bad results.

It's a negative thing, because the focus on really emotional issues and no compromise puts mroe stress on ordinary Americans. Take Abortion as an example.

-Roe v Wade legazlied abortion.
Since then Americans have been polled repeatedly, and by many different agencies. Between 60 and 75% of them have, since Roe, CONTINUOUSLY supported the at least limited availability of abortion.
-Republicnans compalin louder and louder about "baby murderers" and such, using polarized, emotional rhetoric and avoiding addressing the arguments of the other side in a rational manner, as they should.

-Ordinary Americans grow more and more angry and fearful, the 70% that wants abortion and the 30% that hates it, because they have both been angered and pumped up by the big rhetoric and harsh words on both sides. This is a negative effect.


Now, let's talk solutions.

I propose the following bill as an amendment to the US Constitution:

-->For each of the 50 states:
1. Get a ruler.
2. Draw a bunch of really straight, horizontal lines, all evenly spaced from each other.
3. Over top of those, draw a bunch of really straight, vertical lines, all evenly spaced from each other (the same distance as the horiz. lines).
4. Call the equal squares and square-pieces you created "Congressional Districts".

What does everyone think? Post comments, post a response!
--Chad

===========SOURCES=============
(1)Gogol, David. He's my boss at the lobbying firm I worked for here in DC, and has been working in Congress and the lobbying industry for 30+ years.
(2) http://thomas.loc.gov This website is a government publication. It records all bill and vote data.
(3) STEPHEN COLBERT coined this term. It refers to contemporary politicians emphasizing rhetoric and the "seem" or "emotion" or "feel" of an issue as more important than scientific facts, data, and statistics. In other words, Truthiness is Romanticism over Utilitarianism, passion over reason.