How did things get this bad? Polarization, dysfunction and the collapse of

RenegadeCJ wrote: I think 2 things would fix a lot in DC.

1) Term limits
2) Get rid of congressional offices in DC. Make them stay at home, and only visit there for a couple weeks a year. Everything else could be done over the internet. Lobbyists would have a lot harder time influencing when they have to travel to 50 states to do it.

Interesting. I agree with the first myself, but your second option is exactly what this article said is the current problem - our representatives spend much less time living and working in DC than they used to and it's the loss of the personal relationships with each other (also reflected in our communities) that has contributed to the breakdown in communication and effectiveness of our government.

Given the prevalence of email/video conferencing/social media connections, do you really think that it would reduce lobbyists' influence, or just filter out those who are less rich? Also, please note that this article addressed lobbyists' influence compared to the past. What did you make of their observations?

Soulshiner, that is certainly one problem indirectly mentioned in the article. Not only is the media a beast which must feed itself, but it's become polarized itself and politicians can say the most outlandish things on those networks that favor them and get away with it. It does nothing to foster meaningful dialog, and there is a whole lot of misinformation that gets virally spread. Not to mention the news organizations have been cutting back on investigative journalism funding and support. You don't see those in-depth, well-researched analyses of situations, rather mainly a diet of melodrama and emotional fluff.

Is it possible to regulate the news at this point to only be available for a certain time of the day based on each time zone? How else does that system get fixed?

Here's the next bit of brain candy I'd like to toss out there from the article, and it has to do with how we interact with each other:

In a townshipped community, there were disagreements among those who lived near one another, ate in adjoining booths, drank on adjacent stools, and played in the same softball tournaments. Everyone on Spring Street might have voted for Adlai Stevenson in 1952, but they could not avoid Eisenhower voters in the course of a typical day-to-day routine.

Today, if you don’t know your neighbors—if you’ve transferred social capital away from the middle rings—your political frame of reference is limited both to the people you love most and the legions who, through outer-ring networks, share your point of view.

Partisans were once more inclined to disagree in an agreeable way. And in turn, they were less inclined to vilify representatives in Washington in instances where they disagreed, even if they supported the opposition.

The change, then, isn’t that Americans today are necessarily more polarized, or are less inclined in the routines of their everyday lives to believe in compromise. It’s that those on the other side of any given issue now are not only wrong, they’re almost alien. You can’t say, “that’s a crazy position to take, but I understand why Jack thinks that” if you don’t know Jack, or don’t know what Jack’s take is. Without the firsthand exposure gained from passing conversations, it’s much easier to castigate the other side—whether your position has hardened or not.

Senators haven’t become more inclined to filibuster today because they’re less concerned about the public interest. Their intransigence reflects the public’s new appetite.

Eli Pariser put it well: “Ultimately, democracy works only if we citizens are capable of thinking beyond our narrow self-interest. But to do so, we need a shared view of the world we cohabit. We need to come into contact with other people’s lives and needs and desires.”

That's why I bought this business, because I think it's of utmost importance that we not lose that dialog across differing viewpoints and ideologies; I believe it's fundamental to a healthy, working democracy. We cannot isolate ourselves among those with whom we mostly agree. And while it's more uncomfortable, and at times contentious, it's better for us all than just hitting "Like" on our friends Facebook posts all the time.