It is amazing what a difference a few years can make. Because in only a few years, the political landscape in the United State has become as polarized as AAA battery. In fact, it is so bad that people even argue about why it so polarized.

Some people think it started during President Clinton’s terms and has gradually grown since then. They claim that since Fox News was also created in the middle of his term, we began seeing political bias from TV programming at that time. I suppose there is some truth to that view.

When the Current Political Polarization Began

But I think that the political landscape became ”ultrapolarized” from the events of Ferguson, Missouri. The Michael Brown incident clearly divided viewpoints and more importantly, ushered in the protest era. All the protesting did one thing at least – it pretty much forced many people to take a side – but I am not convinced so sure that the protesters have benefited at all.

There is no doubt that the protesters probably feel it does some good, simply because they are taking action and action always feels productive. And I think most people will agree that the majority of protesting is coming from the left. However, since the protesting began in Ferguson, the left has suffered huge losses politically. This started with the 2014 mid-terms which were bloody for the left – it wasn’t even close.

Getting back to why political discussions are difficult to have. For starters, I am pretty sure that some of you vigorously disagree with my last paragraph even though the last three sentences in that paragraph are pretty much factual. In fact, I think the first sentence is factual too; otherwise, there would no protesters – right?

3 Reasons Why Political Discussions are Impossible to Have

Wouldn’t it be great if people could discuss political issues? After all, this is what our nation really needs right now. Besides, neither side is going to get their way fully – some sort of compromise is where things will stand in the end. So why not discuss ahead of time and get to the compromise sooner?

It never seems to happen that way and let us examine 3 reasons why.

1) One of the two parties is always more informed or more misinformed

When political debates begin, there will inevitably be one party who are more informed than the other party. There are very few times when this is not the case. And it doesn’t take very long for this fact to become apparent. The problem then becomes how the mismatch is handled.

The more knowledgeable party can either be a jerk or back off allowing the other party to save face. But the other less knowledgeable party has choices too, they can overwhelm the conversation and not let the other party make any comments. Or they also back off (not back down) and not allow themselves to get destroyed.

In any event, a constructive political debate is hard to conduct in this scenario.

2) One Party Does Not Take Politics as Serious as the Other Party

This scenario could actually be the explanation for the first scenario. When one person simply does not care much about the political climate and the other party does, then you have a serious passion mismatch.

This matchup has the potential to get ugly because one person feels very deeply and the other one does not. There could be some teasing and joking that might wind up in a fierce argument – or worse.

3) One Party’s Life has Been Directly Affected by Politics

This scenario is perhaps the most volatile of all. When someone has personally suffered from a political decision, their level of passion is about as high as it gets. This person does not take politics lightly at all. A serious discussion is the only kind of political discussion this person is capable of having – because to them, politics has gotten personal. And there is a saying that “an angry voter is the most reliable voter”.