[C19fan]

I disagree with Mr. Rauch's argument that so called reforms have led to polarization for several reasons:

1: One of the reasons for let us say there was an ideological muddle was the South was a Democratic stronghold due to history. It would take 100 years and several generations until the Civil War was a distant memory enabling voters to pull the ballot for the party of Lincoln. One can same thing to a lesser extent of the GOP in New England and the Midwest. 2: Another element of the ideological muddle was how the Progressive Party penetrated both parties. Key figures in the GOP like Theodore Roosevelt, Earl Warren, and Rockefeller, and La Follette were just as progressive as Woodrow Wilson. 3: Until say 1968 there was a strong consensus on social issues that would in the future fracture the electorate. I believe Democratic stalwarts like Humphrey and Muskie had views that would easily place them in the Pro-Life camp. The idea of homosexual marriage would be laughed at. Once this social consensus has fractured it is natural for each side to drift to one party providing another ideological split. Also, in GB just like in the US there was a Post-WWII consensus until events in the 1970s caused a major split with a clear differentiation between Thatcher's Tories and Labour.

[Zuben Elgenubi]

One of the long-term goals of the Communist Party was to completely control one of the major U.S. political parties. In 1968, this was certainly becoming a reality.

[hosepipe]

DEMOCRATS ARE NOT THE GOOD GUYS.......

[Desron13]

"Hate Congress? Blame the well-intentioned reformers..."

Hate Congress? No, I actually despise career politicians that use their role as our supposed representatives to SCREW US! Yeah, that actually pisses me off.

[TBP]

Congress, bad as it is, is the best of the three branches.

[TBP]

The first thing we need to do, argues Rauch is to acknowledge that not all reform is good reform. The primary process, for example, was supposed to bring the candidate selection process out of shadows and into light. Smoke-filled rooms of power brokers would be replaced by engaged citizens who picked the candidate best representative of their views. It hasn’t really worked out that way, has it?

The first thing we need to do is repeal teh 17th Amendment.

[TBP]

The first thing we need to do, argues Rauch is to acknowledge that not all reform is good reform. The primary process, for example, was supposed to bring the candidate selection process out of shadows and into light. Smoke-filled rooms of power brokers would be replaced by engaged citizens who picked the candidate best representative of their views. It hasn’t really worked out that way, has it?

The first thing we need to do is repeal the 17th Amendment.