Our Divided Nation

For John, BLUF:  Let us not make partisanship worse than it is.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

The PEW Trust released a new report on the "Political Polarization in the American Public".  This report, which is pretty interesting, is commented on by New York Times Opinionator Charles M Blow, here.  My Middle Brother, Lance, forwarded it to my other Brother and to me.  Of course I responded.

When he gets past the data and moves to speculation Mr Blow starts with:

The phenomenon, more recently, is epitomized by views about President Obama, which, depending on which silo one is in, either read as blind allegiance or blind hatred.  This robs him of the glory of his legitimate achievements and artificially shields his missteps.

I think this is just encouraging the bifurcation that Mr Blow is bothered by.  For one thing, the use of "hatred" just seems well over the top.  I may agree with Professor Jonathan Turley, who said "Well, I think that ... Barack Obama is really the president Richard Nixon always wanted to be."  That does not mean I "hate" President Obama.  And, Mr Blow never lists the achievements and missteps.  A bad paragraph.

But, it leads to the following assertion, which shows that Mr Blow doesn't understand that the duty of the opposition is to oppose.

…the incredible assertion by the Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, that conservatives’ top priority should be to keep Obama from being re-elected…

This would be unlike the idea that "W" should not be reelected (or for the real partisans, elected the first time)?  Just weak.

Then we have this:

For instance, people cannot be treated differently because of the way they were born, developed or identify; women must have access to the full range of reproductive options; and something must be done about the continued carnage of gun violence in this country.

Give me a break.  If you develop as a crook we are going to treat you like a crook.  As for "full range of reproductive options" does that mean we go with Prof Peter Singer's idea that the human fetus can live outside the womb for a long time before it is viable on its own and thus does not have a right to life?  Based on my grandchildren I would say 22-24 weeks gestation and they should start to get protection.  The last item in the sentence paragraph is just anti-Bill of Rights rubbish.  Let him propose a new Second Amendment.  What would it look like?  Would it include my demand, which is that if citizens give up the right to firearms that the police should do likewise?  Remember, when the threat is just seconds away, the police are only minutes away.  Just saying.

I don't totally disagree with Mr Blow.  He writes:

There are other areas, however — the continued existence of the detention center at Guantánamo Bay, the use of drones, government surveillance — that require critical, nonpartisan examination, regardless of who is in charge, in part because many of these policies overlap Republican and Democratic administrations.

Sure, I would close GITMO in a heart beat and put folks in POWS camps in the US or send home.  Drones are just airplanes, so I am not hot about them one way or the other.  On the other hand, drones in the US would be a very bad idea.  Sure, Government Surveillance needs to be curtailed.

Regards  —  Cliff