In response to:

Partisan Divide: Eggheads Get What They Wished For

Anderson4 Wrote: Aug 02, 2012 11:02 AM
The author neglects the ebb and flow of the diversity of opinion on both sides. For example, the political left can be subdivided into "liberal", and "radical", and the political right as "liberal" and "conservative". When nationally, liberalism was ascending and conservatism declining, the radicals of the Democrat party are marginalized. They are less able to control the agenda of the left, but liberals of both parties have more power. Conversely, when conservatism is ascending and Democrat liberalism is declining, it marginalizes Republican liberals as well, and yet the radicals of the Democrat party more strongly control their parties agenda.
faultroy Wrote: Aug 02, 2012 11:36 AM
The author neglected a lot of things. His central premise is even incorrect--the idea that there was extremely divisive politics during our nation's founding. That was true, but not about core principles related to the fact that government's sole purpose was to give "free stuff" to people at the expense of others. Other than slavery, our nation agreed what had to be done. We live in different times now. We cannot even agree on fundamental concepts--and that is disturbing.

"Answered prayers," Saint Teresa of Avila is supposed to have said, "cause more tears than those that go unanswered." Especially, I fear, the answered prayers of political scientists.

These days, you hear academics and pundits bemoaning hyperpartisanship of our politics. It has never been worse, some say.

This shows a certain ignorance about history. Go back and read the things that John Adams' and Thomas Jefferson's partisans were saying about each other in 1800.

Or reflect on the fact that Aaron Burr, Jefferson's first vice president, and Andrew Jackson, the first president to call himself a Democrat, both...

Saturday, May 18 | 12:12 PM ET
Saturday, May 18 | 12:12 PM ET
Saturday, May 18 | 12:12 PM ET
Saturday, May 18 | 12:12 PM ET