Some on the right regard those on the left as a bunch of simpering idiots. On the other hand, some on the left regard those of the right as a collection of uneducated bumpkins. Both sides are partly correct in that there are a few on each side that fit the description. But mostly they are wrong because the vast majority on both sides are actually intelligent, patriotic citizens who just happen to have different but perfectly valid political philosophies. Politics is in danger, real danger, of becoming the new racism.
The increasing polarisation is definitely cause for concern but I often wonder whether either side is inherently better or worse than the other as far as that is concerned.
To some on the left, if you see any merit at all in Donald Trump as a president then you're obviously lacking in intelligence and there's a good chance you're looking at your sister and thinking she's kinda cute. And there probably are a few folks out there just like that who do vote Republican, and a few of them would vote for a turnip if it had the red rosette on it. Likewise to some on the right if you see any merit at all in Hillary Clinton as a presidential candidate then you're probably just waiting for good old fashioned communism to take over the country, and already have your own hammer and sickle flag to raise in celebration. And there probably are a few folks out there just like that who do vote Democrat, and a few of them would vote for a turnip if it had a blue rosette on it.
One major problem is simply the use of the letters R and D after just about everything in politics. I forget which pieces of legislation were used, but I remember reading a study a while back about people who were asked whether they agreed with the provisions of pieces of legislation - some with a description of what the law was aiming to do and others with the name of the act or the affiliation of the politicians pushing it. I remember being surprised at just how much difference there was in support for an act when people didn't know which side was pushing it, but apparently people were far more likely to support an act if their side supported it and far more likely to reject an act if the other side supported it, than if they were just told the general basis for the law and what it was trying to achieve. It's hard to find common ground in a two-party system, particularly when that system becomes tribal, and it's pretty much assumed that anything the other side does is bad while anything our side does is good.
The most obvious example of this seems to be the whole issue of the so-called Affordable Care Act. The loudest voices on the right called for repeal and replacement even though there seems to be precious little idea of just what would replace it, or how to provide meaningful health care to those that such repeal and replace would leave behind. The loudest voices on the left insist it should not only stay exactly as is but potentially be enhanced, even though it leaves swathes of people without affordable health care and produces truly punitive effective marginal tax rates on people (particularly unhealthy people) at the lower end of the income scale.
I'd just love to see what might happen if the two sides were to actually work together for the good of the country rather than their own political advantage. I'd also really like to see what might happen if Congress were required to obey every law that they imposed on everyone else. Imagine how good the provisions of the ACA might be if Congress had to buy their own healthcare plans on an exchange.
