At least with the two (or maybe three) last presidents of the Unite States,
it seems that approximately half of the US citizens adore him and the other
half hates his guts, while the rest of the world practically unanimously does
either one.

  Has this always been so in the US, or is it a modern phenomenon? Just
curious (as I don't know too much about US's history).

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message 
news:4b323553@news.povray.org...
>  At least with the two (or maybe three) last presidents of the Unite 
> States,
> it seems that approximately half of the US citizens adore him and the 
> other
> half hates his guts, while the rest of the world practically unanimously 
> does
> either one.
>
>  Has this always been so in the US, or is it a modern phenomenon? Just
> curious (as I don't know too much about US's history).
>
> -- 
>                                                          - Warp

Or, is this (like so many things in life) a vast oversimplification of a 
really complex issue?

I've seen studies that seemed reliable to me that say that about ten percent 
of the population of the U.S. tends to be really vocal about a political 
candidate or office holder "for", and another ten percent "against". These 
are the people you hear about. The other 80% of the population are too 
concerned with their own particular issues and problems to care about one 
politicians. They often believe what they're told to believe, sadly.

Some of the idea that it's split down the middle comes from the adverserial 
nature of the U.S. political system, and the vociferously defended "free 
speech" concept. For every fanboy, a naysayer will pop up, because almost no 
one is afraid to speak out. The natural tendency of the human animal to pop 
off with a "Oh yeah?" or a "Sez you!" comes into play here, I think.

I really think most people don't care. They want to have an income, they 
want to be healthy, and they want to feel safe. Some people blame, and some 
credit, politicians, 'tis true, but that's kinda what they're there for. :-D

--
Jack

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> At least with the two (or maybe three) last presidents of the Unite States,
> it seems that approximately half of the US citizens adore him and the other
> half hates his guts, while the rest of the world practically unanimously does
> either one.
>
>   Has this always been so in the US, or is it a modern phenomenon? Just
> curious (as I don't know too much about US's history).
>
> --
>                                                           - Warp

I can't speak for the rest of the world, but...

For much of the 20th century, each of the two major parties had about 40% of the
vote (NOT the citizenry, just the ones who actively voted) who always voted
along party lines.  The remaining 20% are the ones who decided elections.

Looking at that data, any president who has more than 60% approval (Obama) or
less than 40% (Bush) is rather exceptional.

Although, I think a great deal of Obama's popularity is due to the fact that
He's Not Bush(tm).  We've been able to see, even just in the past year, how his
popularity and image have changed as people have begun to view what kind of
president he is himself.

Of course, the nature of politics and public political debate is quite
polarizing anyway, so you should expect sharp divisions wrt any political
figure.  The fact that Americans have a deep seated antiestablishmentarianism,
and our love of the underdog, means that any figure who gets too popular will
automatically attract a following (which is the same reason bunk theories, like
moon landing denialism, are still so popular).

Post a reply to this message

"Captain Jack" <Cap### [at] comcastnet> wrote:
> Some of the idea that it's split down the middle comes from the adverserial
> nature of the U.S. political system, and the vociferously defended "free
> speech" concept. For every fanboy, a naysayer will pop up, because almost no
> one is afraid to speak out. The natural tendency of the human animal to pop
> off with a "Oh yeah?" or a "Sez you!" comes into play here, I think.

sounds like the USA is one big usenet.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   At least with the two (or maybe three) last presidents of the Unite States,
> it seems that approximately half of the US citizens adore him and the other
> half hates his guts, while the rest of the world practically unanimously does
> either one.
> 
>   Has this always been so in the US, or is it a modern phenomenon? Just
> curious (as I don't know too much about US's history).
> 
Can't answer the question, but one observation I have in relation to it. 
(Remember I am a Canadian living in the States for 25 years or so.) 
What is particularly noticeable to me is how Americans treat presidents 
in a very immediate and personal way.  They react to the man not the 
office and react to the personality.  This is probably been intensified 
with mass media culture, but I expect that it has always been a 
component of their politics.

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:

>   Has this always been so in the US, or is it a modern phenomenon? Just
> curious (as I don't know too much about US's history).
>

I think it has been with us for quite awhile--at least as long as I've been on
the planet. The strange thing about U.S. politics is that we always seem to have
a rather polarized two-party system--'right' and 'left' only--whereas many other
countries have 'multiple voices' in their governments. (U.S. political parties
with other agendas usually have no chance of being elected here, so out of
necessity they align themselves with the right or left--which further reinforces
the two-party system.) And here at least, politics seems to go in repeating
cycles. (Perhaps it does everywhere, though I don't know.) That is, we have a
right-leaning president for one or two terms, everybody ends up hating him, then
we shift to a left-leaning president for awhile, the same thing happens--and so
on.

But the recent Bush/Obama polarization seems to be more extreme than I
remember--at least since the Nixon years.  I think part of that is due to the
explosion of information sources now available--talk radio, cable TV, internet
blogging--where practically *everyone* has a voice (you might say an 'equal
voice') to rant about this or that.  Which tends to inflame passions, and
further polarize people. When I was growing up, we had three TV channels(!)--and
that was basically it, aside from newspapers. And the news commentators were
careful not to choose sides, so to speak. The effect of which was to be a
calming influence, with a rational tone. How different it all is now!

Ken

Post a reply to this message

Kenneth wrote:
> Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> 
>>   Has this always been so in the US, or is it a modern phenomenon? Just
>> curious (as I don't know too much about US's history).
>>
> 
> I think it has been with us for quite awhile--at least as long as I've been on
> the planet. The strange thing about U.S. politics is that we always seem to have
> a rather polarized two-party system--'right' and 'left' only--whereas many other
> countries have 'multiple voices' in their governments. (U.S. political parties
> with other agendas usually have no chance of being elected here, so out of
> necessity they align themselves with the right or left--which further reinforces
> the two-party system.) And here at least, politics seems to go in repeating
> cycles. (Perhaps it does everywhere, though I don't know.) That is, we have a
> right-leaning president for one or two terms, everybody ends up hating him, then
> we shift to a left-leaning president for awhile, the same thing happens--and so
> on.
> 
> But the recent Bush/Obama polarization seems to be more extreme than I
> remember--at least since the Nixon years.  I think part of that is due to the
> explosion of information sources now available--talk radio, cable TV, internet
> blogging--where practically *everyone* has a voice (you might say an 'equal
> voice') to rant about this or that.  Which tends to inflame passions, and
> further polarize people. When I was growing up, we had three TV channels(!)--and
> that was basically it, aside from newspapers. And the news commentators were
> careful not to choose sides, so to speak. The effect of which was to be a
> calming influence, with a rational tone. How different it all is now!
> 
> Ken
> 
Its not just availability of media. What we have seen is a group of very 
rich people, who **hate** libertarian ideals, when applied to social 
systems, but **love** the ideals, when applied to economies, marrying 
itself to people that actually want to purge their party of any idea or 
concept which doesn't originate out of the days of the inquisition, 
complete with ideas like, "torture works, so lets use it", "the church 
is more important than public opinion", and, "we are always right, 
because we have the might, and if we have to lie, distort other people's 
perspectives, or flat out make up things that don't exist, then claim 
the other side believes in them, that is what we must do, to promote our 
faith". As for your so called polarization... The left, at least the 
party that claims to represent it, if it was in ***any other country***, 
would be considered too conservative to be liberal, and barely liberal 
enough to be "moderates". Every time the right has gone more batshit 
insane, the Democrats have gone, "Ah, well, now we have a problem 
getting things done, lets go more to the right to find 'common ground'." 
If they go any farther, will will have to ship Democrats in from Europe, 
  just to salvage the name.

Truth is, what ever *is* on the true left, they have no party. They vote 
for the least objectionable one, because its the closest to their views, 
more or less, but only in the sense that... Space Balls is *closer* to 
Star Trek, than it is to Alice in Wonderland.

-- 
void main () {

     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Jim Charter wrote:
> Americans treat presidents in a very immediate and personal way.  

Yes. And it distresses me to see how often the President gets blamed for 
stuff that's entirely the legislature's fault. Like we can't manage to 
believe there's not just one person in charge of the country.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
   much longer being almost empty than almost full.

Post a reply to this message