Bill Clinton: Nation growing polarized

[Dornroeschen]

Bill Clinton: Nation growing polarized
He cautions Americans against 'hunkering' down in like-minded groups
The Associated Press
updated 7:50 p.m. CT, Sat., July. 12, 2008

PHILADELPHIA - Former President Bill Clinton warned Saturday that the country is becoming increasingly polarized despite the historic nature of the Democratic primary.

Speaking at the National Governors Association's semiannual meeting, Clinton noted that on the one hand, following the early stages of the Democratic primary, "the surviving candidates were an African-American man and a woman."

Clinton's wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton, battled for the Democratic nomination into June with fellow Democrat Barack Obama, son of a white mother and black father.

But this achievement was overshadowed by a growing distance between Americans, said Clinton.

"Underneath this apparent accommodation to our diversity, we are in fact hunkering down in communities of like-mindedness, and it affects our ability to manage difference," Clinton said.

Clinton developed his 44-minute speech from themes he said he drew from a new book, "The Big Sort," by Bill Bishop.

He cited statistics compiled by Bishop that found that in the 1976 presidential election, only 20 percent of the nation's counties voted for Jimmy Carter or President Ford by more than a 20 percent margin.

By contrast, 48 percent of the nation's counties in 2004 voted for John Kerry or President Bush by more than 20 points, Clinton said.

"We were sorting ourselves out by choosing to live with people that we agree with," Clinton said.

Let's bowl together?
Clinton has often meshed big picture admonitions with new books whose ideas he admires. He drew similar conclusions in 2000 following the publication of Robert Putnam's "Bowling Alone," on the decline of civic engagement in the United States.

Among the approximately two dozen active governors in attendance Saturday were 11 who backed Obama over Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Gov. Timothy Kaine of Virginia said he wasn't worried about how Bill Clinton might view his support for Obama.

"We're human beings too, so there are feelings, but we understand this is a team sport and we come back together as a team," Kaine said.

'I'm betting on light'
After weeks of not speaking to one another, Obama last month reached out to Bill Clinton and asked him for help winning the White House. Clinton had portrayed Obama as too inexperienced to be president.

Clinton concluded his speech by reminding governors, who are marking the association's centennial, that the issues they face today are similar to problems President Teddy Roosevelt grappled with a century ago.

Those include inequality among rich and poor, immigration and energy policy.

If those issues are dealt with, "We're about to go into the most exciting period of human history," Clinton said.

"If we don't, in the words of President Roosevelt, dark will be the future," he said. "I'm betting on light — I hope you are too."

Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25654576/

 

[American Rage]

He ought to know, Bill did as much, if not more, than anybody else to polarize the nation.

Rage

 

[Infoscout]

Democrats want compromise and understanding when they want their way. They never compromise on their platform. That is why during a Democratic administration, the next civil war/revolution will start at somepoint. If you look at legislation in the past twenty years, you will see that Republicans have worked alot harder to compromise and pass legislation than the Democrats have. I have zero respect for the Clinton's who used all the media in this country to demonize both conservatives as well as gun owners in this country. I am done with libtards. AS much as I have to complain about when it comes to the Republican party and there is plenty, the change all these Democrats talk about is national socialism, which will lead to disarmament, and concentration camps.

polarized and bitter in nc!

 

[Micro]

"Underneath this apparent accommodation to our diversity, we are in fact hunkering down in communities of like-mindedness, and it affects our ability to manage difference," Clinton said.

"We were sorting ourselves out by choosing to live with people that we agree with," Clinton said.

He is right, lets ban groups like La Raza, NAACP, and the Congressional Black Caucus. While we are at it ban the Boy Scouts, churches of any one denomination, and forums like TB2K.

We just need one party, the communist party to represent and unify us.

 

[Snipe Hunter]

He ought to know, Bill did as much, if not more, than anybody else to polarize the nation.

Rage

Spot on

 

[Alan2012]

http://www.philosophyblog.com.au/polarization-cass-r-sunstein/

Polarization (Cass R Sunstein) (LINK)

December 20th 2007 06:24

Had to link to this article: Cass R Sunstein, "The polarization of extremes", The Chronicle Review, Friday 14 December 2007.

The article is essentially about how, if you create a group of people with similar ideas, they'll all grow more extreme or firmer in their views.

What could explain the phenomenon?

"The first explanation emphasizes the role of information. Suppose that people who tend to oppose nuclear power are exposed to the views of those who agree with them. It stands to reason that such people will find a disproportionately large number of arguments against nuclear power -- and a disproportionately small number of arguments in favor of nuclear power. ...

The second explanation, involving social comparison, begins with the reasonable suggestion that people want to be perceived favorably by other group members. Once they hear what others believe, they often adjust their positions in the direction of the dominant position. ...

The final explanation is the most subtle, and probably the most important. The starting point here is that on many issues, most of us are really not sure what we think. Our lack of certainty inclines us toward the middle. Outside of enclaves, moderation is the usual path. Now imagine that people find themselves in enclaves in which they exclusively hear from others who think as they do. As a result, their confidence typically grows, and they become more extreme in their beliefs. Corroboration, in short, reduces tentativeness, and an increase in confidence produces extremism."

Sunstein uses these observations in the context of a general discussion of the Internet. His opinion seems to be that "enclave extremism" is on balance a bad thing, but he presents arguments both for and against it.

On the upside:

-- they can "fuel movements of great value", like "the civil-rights movement, the antislavery movement, the antigenocide movement, the attack on communism in Eastern Europe, and the movement for gender equality";

-- the fact that they "promote the development of positions that would otherwise be invisible, silenced, or squelched in general debate" contributes to the strength and diversity of the public marketplace of ideas;

-- such enclaves are often good for the people involved: "[t]hey can make life a lot more fun; they can reduce loneliness and spur creativity".

On the downside:

-- there's no guarantee that the ideas are good ideas. "It is easy to think of examples... the rise of Nazism, terrorism, and cults of various sorts. There is a general risk that those who flock together, on the Internet or elsewhere, will end up both confident and wrong, simply because they have not been sufficiently exposed to counterarguments. They may even think of their fellow citizens as opponents or adversaries in some kind of 'war.'"


***

Notes

-- In the context of compulsory voting, it's sometimes claimed that since both parties are trying to pander to the majority, there will likely be convergent evolution. This centrism contributes to stability of government. But "stability" is also a sort of dead weight, an ossification.

-- A longer version of this article was published in the Boston Review (Summer 2001). This longer version was in turn based on a book by Sunstein: Republic.com (Princeton University Press, 2001).

Sunstein's negative conclusion in the Boston Review is worth quoting:

"[F]or citizens of a heterogeneous democracy, a fragmented communications market creates considerable dangers. There are dangers for each of us as individuals; constant exposure to one set of views is likely to lead to errors and confusions, or to unthinking conformity (emphasized by John Stuart Mill). And to the extent that the process makes people less able to work cooperatively on shared problems, by turning collections of people into non-communicating confessional groups, there are dangers for society as a whole."