I am finding, amid the extreem polarization, a certain group of people who are looking for a way to bring things back into the normal sphere.

Not so much centrist but, more in the normal ranges of both sides. the more traditional or progressive left vs the more traditional Eisnehower style republican.

Both sides have embraced the polarizing propaganda. so, the right uses old 1960s charges to stereotype the left. They choose the incompetent but, evangelical Bush to taunt the left to get back for Daddy Bush's loss. We choose the DLC, war hawk Hillary to taunt the right for the impeachment of Bill. Both choices are a poor way to seek revenge (and why always revenge). And both are a destructive choice for the country, which we should think about first rather than our own hurts and grievances.

We cannot fix the problems that are facing us, serious ones, until we repair ourselves. the first step in doing so is to end this nonsense of never ending divisiveness.

I am hoping Obama is the nominee and our president because he is the one person who can end this whole mindset and start this country looking forward and begin to address the monumental problems we face.

I found this article thoughtful. While I agree that the author's enthusiasm for Bush in 2000 gave me pause, his essay forced me to consider my own partisanship. That's a good thing. (I do sort of get his "soft spot" for O'Reilly, though, but I mean that in kind of a superior way. He's an earnest, blustering fool.)

I'm often the one questioning conventional wisdom, whether I'm in a liberal or conservative crowd. For example, I think the very notion of hate crimes is unconstitutional (amounting to making thoughts criminal), but this doesn't play well among liberals. In my wealthy conservative suburb, on the other hand, questioning whether DARE (the drug abuse prevention program) actually works to keep kids off drugs is tantamount to advocating for pot for Kindergartners. In other words, depending on the context (the "conventional wisdom" of the particular crowd), questioning the common view can be seen as radical even if it's merely thoughtful.

One of the very best benefits of being in a book club, I've discovered, is being told to read a book I might not otherwise have selected--and getting something out of it. We meet once a month, and the host selects the book. Sometimes it's nonfiction, sometimes it's fiction; sometimes it's the trendy new thing; sometimes it's a classic. We've read the Hilary biography and Why Terrorism Works and some kind of cooking memoir (which I wouldn't have DREAMED of picking up on my own but found delightful)and a couple of crappy Christmas schmaltzy novels that frankly revealed more to me about those who picked them than anything else. Valuable information, nonetheless.

And I love Obama's nuance.

I'm not automatically set against Sunstein's thesis, and was looking forward to hearing more about the social science data he was referring to. After reading the interview, I have to say I'm mostly (but not wholly) disappointed in what he had to say.

The analysis of judges was interesting, but is Sunstein really making a link between the changes in political leanings of men and women who are expected to uphold the rule of law -- and dittoheads?

While it's refreshing to hear Sunstein unequivocally call the nascent slime campaign against Hillary for what it is, he can't point to a similar figure on the right who is slimed by the left.

Now, I agree that there are some political issues on which people reasonably can take right and left views, and argue their positions on the merits. And his point about the left being in an echo chamber merits examination. (I wonder though ... Sunstein repeatedly pushes the "they both do it" narrative without quantifying the degree either side 'does it'. Are left and right equally insular? It should be possible to put numbers to this sort of thing.)

But my real gripe is that, in case after case, the mainstream right acts in bad faith, something you simply don't see in the mainstream left. This is seen most starkly in science policy, since science resists the kind of postmodern slippage of meaning that the right revels in. Evolution/creationism, global warming, abortion, sex education, homosexuality -- you name it, the right argues by creating alternative facts (junkscience.com, Steve Milloy, Africa Fighting Malaria, and so on and so forth), while the left argues by defending what scientists say (yes, it's called a consensus). If Sunstein has his way and the needle is threaded in the middle of these two sides, then science is ultimately debased by such false centrism.

And that is a crying shame.

I still think the social science research may have something interesting to tell us about the divide between liberals and conservatives (e.g. Altemeyer's research extended into liberals would be fascinating I think). But I'm doubtful this book is such a text.

Let's see...we have an argument based on a premise that has not been established (that political discourse has become markedly more polarized and uncivil). Certainly there is a great deal of incivility currently, but a "gut feeling" that this is much worse than it has been many times in the past is truthiness, rather than established truth. As for polarization, it is simply a matter of logic that if one party moves sharply in one direction, people not in that party, even if holding the same views they have always held, will be closer to having an "opposite" view than they have previously.

Sunstein then seems to say that we hold our sharply polarized beliefs because we have not been exposed to complex, competing arguments. I love a good argument-fest, but I do think it works better if one has solid information from which to make those arguments. And where, pray tell, are we supposed to GET that information? Sunstein blandly notes news organizations that are up front about their political orientation as an issue of polarization rather than abdication of the responsibilities of a free press. He then suggests that the INTERNET is to blame because the media simply aren't doing what they're supposed to do. So if you're a Fox news devotee, it's the Net's fault that when you go online you look for views that confirm your bias? Completely missing from his thinking is the recognition that people who WANT the facts, and who want to read complex arguments BASED on the facts, HAVE to use the Internet (and those uncivil, polarizing blogs)to get that information. (Also missing from his thinking is the recognition that we do NOT have competing right-leaning and left-leaning news organizations. We have extremely right-leaning, right-leaning, and centrist news organizations. NPR is NOT "liberal," for Pete's sake.) Nor does Sunstein give credit to the many blogs that link regularly to other sources of information, with opposing points of view, and that give readers space to question both the facts and the opinions of posts and to develop those wonderful "complex, completing arguments" right under their noses. Oh, those terrible blogs -- all that uncivil discourse leading to (perhaps) well-formed opinions -- what will become of democracy?

I notice that most of the commentators who wring their hands over the "incivility" of our political discourse never want to examine WHO is being uncivil to WHICH degree: if you say a political figure is lying, and s/he IS lying, that is not incivility, it's a fact. If you are being deprived of your civil rights, it is the essence of civility to say so -- often, loudly, and in every possible forum -- until civility is restored. Protesting abrogation of constitutional protections is patriotic, if not "polite." Although I hope it is not his intention, Mr. Sunstein seems to suggest that it is rude of victims to call out their victimizers.Does he hear no echoes from history -- has he no knowledge of how this argument has been used against blacks, gays, Jews, women.....? Quick, someone -- send him a link to the lyrics of "It Isn't Nice."

Of course, it is hard to give much credence to the thinking skills of someone who can recognize Hannity's shortcomings but is fond of O'Reilly because he has always been fair and balanced to HIM. If Mr. Sunstein can maintain this ridiculous position, it is clear that he, at least, has learned how to insulate himself from any points of view other than those that confirm his own experience.