Is the GOP's extremist wing now too big to fail?

Page 1 of 3 [ 48 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 68
Gender: Male
Posts: 39,637
Location: Long Island, New York

16 Feb 2021, 3:18 pm

CNN

Quote:
Congressional Republicans have crystallized an ominous question by rejecting consequences for Donald Trump over the January 6 riot in his impeachment trial and welcoming conspiracy theorist Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia into their conference: Has the extremist wing of the GOP coalition grown too big for the party to confront?

Sanctioning Trump or Greene offered the party an opportunity to draw a bright line against extremist groups and violence as a means of advancing political goals. But the vast majority of congressional Republicans conspicuously rejected the opportunity to construct such a barrier through their decisions to oppose impeachment or conviction for Trump over his role in the US Capitol attack and to support Greene during the recent Democratic effort to strip her of her committee assignments.

Those choices unfolded against a backdrop of recent polls that found a stunningly high percentage of rank-and-file Republican voters endorsed anti- small-d democratic sentiments, including the belief that "the traditional American way of life is disappearing so fast that we may have to use force to save it."

In a survey released last week by the conservative American Enterprise Institute, not only did a majority of GOP voters endorse that statement, but nearly one-third of them also embraced the convoluted QAnon conspiracy theory Greene has espoused alleging that Trump is defending the nation against a global ring of influential child sex traffickers.

While Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell has called conspiracy theorists like Greene a "cancer" on the party and denounced Trump's role in the riot, the recent decision by House Republicans to accept the Georgia Republican into the conference, and the overwhelming refusal by House or Senate Republicans -- including McConnell -- to sanction Trump, suggests the party has very limited appetite at this point for any serious effort to excise that disease. And that could provide more oxygen to the White nationalist extremist groups that have viewed Trump as a galvanizing figure and already gained strength during his presidency.

The fact that threats from Senate Republicans to tie up legislative business helped persuade Democrats to withdraw their demands for witnesses at Trump's trial only underscores how difficult it will be to resist the infiltration of extremist ideas and tactics into the political system so long as the GOP is determined to avoid confronting it.
That deference inside the GOP "is a sign, a recognition, that this ideology, this belief, this tribalism is the ascendant part of the Republican coalition," says longtime Republican consultant Michael Madrid, who became a staunch Trump critic over the past four years. Elected Republicans bowing to Trump and Greene, he says, "are feeding the beast" of the growing party faction drawn to extremist beliefs and tactics.

"I don't think most of them believe it; but they know that's where the party is at," Madrid adds. "They have fed the monster for so long that even when it turns on them, when the barbarians are literally at the gate ... when they were the targets and they were prey, they still will not turn on it. That's how dangerous is the societal threat that we are facing."

The inner circle are the extremists actively participating in potentially violent White nationalist extremism. Neumann recently told me that number might total about 75,000 to 100,000 people.
But polling has found a larger group of Republicans expressing sympathy for the attack on the Capitol -- and a much larger group than that expressing sympathy more generally for the belief that the threats to American society as they define it have grown so great that force or violence is justified to respond to them.

One-sixth to nearly one-fifth of Republicans have praised the January 6 attack in polling from PBS NewsHour/Marist and Quinnipiac.

The share of Republican voters who express support for the use of force to advance their political goals in general is considerably larger. In the American Enterprise Institute survey, 55% of Republicans agreed that "we may have to use force to save" the "American way of life." Roughly 4-in-10 agreed with an even more harshly worded proposition: "If elected leaders will not protect America, the people must do it themselves even if it requires taking violent actions."

Neumann, the counterterrorism expert, notes that by accepting Greene into their conference, Republicans have sent a clear signal to extremist groups that they do not consider it disqualifying to engage in extreme behavior such as her belligerent harassment of David Hogg, the teenage survivor of a school shooting and gun control activist.
"They just legitimized a person that used tactics I would say 10 years ago, even five years ago, would have been abhorrent to the Republican Party," Neumann told me.

The new American Enterprise Institute study underlines his conclusion, according to previously unpublished data provided to CNN. In that survey, a striking three-fourths of Republicans agreed with the statement that discrimination against Whites is now as great a problem in the US as discrimination against Blacks and other minorities.

Nearly three-fifths of White evangelical Christian Republicans said Antifa was mostly responsible for the attack on the Capitol, Cox found.

In all their actions of the past few weeks -- or more precisely the inaction against Trump and Greene -- GOP leaders have signaled their unwillingness or inability to confront those sentiments too forcefully. Blum says that what appears to be happening inside the GOP is "an internal renegotiation that has dramatically changed which coalition members matter." The pre-Trump traditional Republicans are losing influence, she says, while the party is responding to the hard-core Trump voters motivated by a "sense of [cultural] threat, White grievance." It is, she adds, "like George Wallace rose from the grave" and imposed his priorities on the GOP.

These attitudes don't suggest large numbers of Republican voters will pursue violent actions themselves; but, as the past few weeks show, they make it less likely that Republican leaders will clearly excommunicate such extremism.
"Without drawing that bright line, you are ceding your party to this: a party of not living in facts, that bullying is acceptable behavior and that violence is acceptable behavior if you are trying to preserve your 'way of life,' whatever that means," says Neumann. "

Madrid, one of the founders of the anti-Trump Lincoln Project, agrees. The biggest challenge for the country, he argues, is not "the extremists" themselves but "the enablers" inside the GOP who are creating more oxygen for extremism to gain strength.

This tacit acceptance of extremists and violence carries a clear political risk for the GOP: a continued loss of support among racially moderate voters in the white-collar suburbs who already moved steadily away from the party under Trump.

But if conspiracy theorists and other extremists solidify, or even expand, their beachhead in the GOP, the risk for the country could be much greater. The growing racial and religious diversity that triggers the retreat from democratic values among a growing number of GOP voters will only accelerate in the next decade. If the Republican Party does not find more will to explicitly renounce the dark forces circling around Trump, persistent outbursts of White nationalist political violence could be the deadly drumbeat for the years ahead.


_________________
“Self Acceptance is a process not a performance”
“You are autistic enough. And you always have been”

Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity.


The_Walrus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,878
Location: London

16 Feb 2021, 4:13 pm

“Now”?

The first election cycle I really followed was 2012. Mitt Romney was the nominee. A moderate former New England governor - exactly the sort of candidate I keep saying they should run. Except they also ran a bunch of nutcakes- particularly Rick Santorum (best known for opposition to homosexuality and support for intelligent design) and Ron Paul (best known for thinking that gold is money). A succession of these lunatics each tried to differentiate themselves from the others by proving that they were the craziest. Rick Perry forgot all the departments that he wanted to shut down (I believe he later went on to run one of the ones he wanted to close). Romney was painted as “not a real Republican”, and to counter those claims, he had to emphasise his conservative credentials at every turn (this could be described as a form of “virtual signalling”). He should have been trying to appeal to people who voted for Obama in 2008. Instead, he had to spend loads of time alienating them.

To counter that, the party switched to a system that would make it much easier to become the nominee with a plurality of the vote. Big mistake. Donald Trump probably wasn’t as crazy as Rick Santorum, but he was even less fit to be President.

The Democrats have their own fruitcakes - Bernie Sanders isn’t actually in the party, but people with similar views are - but credit to them, their voters seem to reliably choose relatively moderate, electable candidates. But they do have the same issues with virtue signalling. Hillary Clinton adopted some of Bernie Sanders’ protectionist policies to woo his supporters, while I think every single candidate indicated that they supported some far-left policy or other at some point in the 2020 cycle. For some reason, people seem much more willing to believe that Barack Obama was a socialist than they were for Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden, despite both of them (particularly Biden) running significantly to Obama’s left.

Ultimately I don’t think there’s much chance of a Phil Scott type winning the 2024 nomination. The best we can hope for is someone who has a lot of the trappings of Trumpism without the scepticism of democracy and with basic competency. I think that’s probably someone like Tom Cotton. That would at least mean avoiding another Trump, or Josh Hawley, or someone equally dangerous, but it’s not exactly an appealing prospect for the centre-right.



NightMuse
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2020
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,070
Location: Floating around in space

16 Feb 2021, 4:19 pm

"Extremist" these days used to mean "patriot". It's pretty sad when patriotic Americans are hated just for loving their country and hating what the government is doing to it.


_________________
"How do you tell a Communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin." -- Ronald Reagan


NaturalEntity
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Jan 2021
Age: 22
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 1,234
Location: UK

16 Feb 2021, 4:27 pm

I sure hope that isn't the case.


_________________
Opinion polls have officially begun!
Posting will be on and off due to school studies for a while. I am still around though and will occasionally pop in!


The_Walrus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,878
Location: London

16 Feb 2021, 4:56 pm

NightMuse wrote:
"Extremist" these days used to mean "patriot". It's pretty sad when patriotic Americans are hated just for loving their country and hating what the government is doing to it.

It’s pretty sickening that extremists act like the people who support American values like democracy are not patriots.

Nationalism is a cancer upon our society. Nationalists are opposed to everything that is good about America. You lost. Get over it.



VegetableMan
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,208
Location: Illinois

16 Feb 2021, 5:11 pm

We all lost in the last election. Well, except for the oligarchs. They are sitting pretty!


_________________
What do you call a hot dog in a gangster suit?

Oscar Meyer Lansky


Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

16 Feb 2021, 5:29 pm

ASPartOfMe wrote:
CNN
Quote:
Congressional Republicans have crystallized an ominous question by rejecting consequences for Donald Trump over the January 6 riot in his impeachment trial and welcoming conspiracy theorist Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia into their conference: Has the extremist wing of the GOP coalition grown too big for the party to confront?

Sanctioning Trump or Greene offered the party an opportunity to draw a bright line against extremist groups and violence as a means of advancing political goals. But the vast majority of congressional Republicans conspicuously rejected the opportunity to construct such a barrier through their decisions to oppose impeachment or conviction for Trump over his role in the US Capitol attack and to support Greene during the recent Democratic effort to strip her of her committee assignments.

Those choices unfolded against a backdrop of recent polls that found a stunningly high percentage of rank-and-file Republican voters endorsed anti- small-d democratic sentiments, including the belief that "the traditional American way of life is disappearing so fast that we may have to use force to save it."

In a survey released last week by the conservative American Enterprise Institute, not only did a majority of GOP voters endorse that statement, but nearly one-third of them also embraced the convoluted QAnon conspiracy theory Greene has espoused alleging that Trump is defending the nation against a global ring of influential child sex traffickers.

While Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell has called conspiracy theorists like Greene a "cancer" on the party and denounced Trump's role in the riot, the recent decision by House Republicans to accept the Georgia Republican into the conference, and the overwhelming refusal by House or Senate Republicans -- including McConnell -- to sanction Trump, suggests the party has very limited appetite at this point for any serious effort to excise that disease. And that could provide more oxygen to the White nationalist extremist groups that have viewed Trump as a galvanizing figure and already gained strength during his presidency.

The fact that threats from Senate Republicans to tie up legislative business helped persuade Democrats to withdraw their demands for witnesses at Trump's trial only underscores how difficult it will be to resist the infiltration of extremist ideas and tactics into the political system so long as the GOP is determined to avoid confronting it.
That deference inside the GOP "is a sign, a recognition, that this ideology, this belief, this tribalism is the ascendant part of the Republican coalition," says longtime Republican consultant Michael Madrid, who became a staunch Trump critic over the past four years. Elected Republicans bowing to Trump and Greene, he says, "are feeding the beast" of the growing party faction drawn to extremist beliefs and tactics.

"I don't think most of them believe it; but they know that's where the party is at," Madrid adds. "They have fed the monster for so long that even when it turns on them, when the barbarians are literally at the gate ... when they were the targets and they were prey, they still will not turn on it. That's how dangerous is the societal threat that we are facing."

The inner circle are the extremists actively participating in potentially violent White nationalist extremism. Neumann recently told me that number might total about 75,000 to 100,000 people.
But polling has found a larger group of Republicans expressing sympathy for the attack on the Capitol -- and a much larger group than that expressing sympathy more generally for the belief that the threats to American society as they define it have grown so great that force or violence is justified to respond to them.

One-sixth to nearly one-fifth of Republicans have praised the January 6 attack in polling from PBS NewsHour/Marist and Quinnipiac.

The share of Republican voters who express support for the use of force to advance their political goals in general is considerably larger. In the American Enterprise Institute survey, 55% of Republicans agreed that "we may have to use force to save" the "American way of life." Roughly 4-in-10 agreed with an even more harshly worded proposition: "If elected leaders will not protect America, the people must do it themselves even if it requires taking violent actions."

Neumann, the counterterrorism expert, notes that by accepting Greene into their conference, Republicans have sent a clear signal to extremist groups that they do not consider it disqualifying to engage in extreme behavior such as her belligerent harassment of David Hogg, the teenage survivor of a school shooting and gun control activist.
"They just legitimized a person that used tactics I would say 10 years ago, even five years ago, would have been abhorrent to the Republican Party," Neumann told me.

The new American Enterprise Institute study underlines his conclusion, according to previously unpublished data provided to CNN. In that survey, a striking three-fourths of Republicans agreed with the statement that discrimination against Whites is now as great a problem in the US as discrimination against Blacks and other minorities.

Nearly three-fifths of White evangelical Christian Republicans said Antifa was mostly responsible for the attack on the Capitol, Cox found.

In all their actions of the past few weeks -- or more precisely the inaction against Trump and Greene -- GOP leaders have signaled their unwillingness or inability to confront those sentiments too forcefully. Blum says that what appears to be happening inside the GOP is "an internal renegotiation that has dramatically changed which coalition members matter." The pre-Trump traditional Republicans are losing influence, she says, while the party is responding to the hard-core Trump voters motivated by a "sense of [cultural] threat, White grievance." It is, she adds, "like George Wallace rose from the grave" and imposed his priorities on the GOP.

These attitudes don't suggest large numbers of Republican voters will pursue violent actions themselves; but, as the past few weeks show, they make it less likely that Republican leaders will clearly excommunicate such extremism.
"Without drawing that bright line, you are ceding your party to this: a party of not living in facts, that bullying is acceptable behavior and that violence is acceptable behavior if you are trying to preserve your 'way of life,' whatever that means," says Neumann. "

Madrid, one of the founders of the anti-Trump Lincoln Project, agrees. The biggest challenge for the country, he argues, is not "the extremists" themselves but "the enablers" inside the GOP who are creating more oxygen for extremism to gain strength.

This tacit acceptance of extremists and violence carries a clear political risk for the GOP: a continued loss of support among racially moderate voters in the white-collar suburbs who already moved steadily away from the party under Trump.

But if conspiracy theorists and other extremists solidify, or even expand, their beachhead in the GOP, the risk for the country could be much greater. The growing racial and religious diversity that triggers the retreat from democratic values among a growing number of GOP voters will only accelerate in the next decade. If the Republican Party does not find more will to explicitly renounce the dark forces circling around Trump, persistent outbursts of White nationalist political violence could be the deadly drumbeat for the years ahead.


Keep in mind:
Quote:
Ronald Brownstein is a CNN senior political analyst, regularly appearing across the network's programming and special political coverage.



ezbzbfcg2
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2013
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,991
Location: New Jersey, USA

16 Feb 2021, 5:47 pm

The_Walrus wrote:
NightMuse wrote:
"Extremist" these days used to mean "patriot". It's pretty sad when patriotic Americans are hated just for loving their country and hating what the government is doing to it.

It’s pretty sickening that extremists act like the people who support American values like democracy are not patriots.

Nationalism is a cancer upon our society. Nationalists are opposed to everything that is good about America. You lost. Get over it.


See, this is part of the problem. With a broad brush, you've painted everyone as an "extremist" if they're critical of any facet of the current Biden administration.

So, everyone who voted for Trump is an "extremist." Even those of us who didn't vote for Trump and were critical of him (yours truly) are likewise extremists for being critical of Biden now.

In theory, a democratic system allows for competing political beliefs, but now we're seeing a scenario where anyone and everyone who doesn't tow the party line is automatically deemed an "extremist" regardless of their varying political beliefs.

And you're 25 years old and from the UK. Your earliest memory of a US presidential election is only 2012, and that was filtered through British media. What makes you the expert on American ideals and values and how Americans collectively feel about the current state of affairs?



Cornflake
Administrator
Administrator

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 73,350
Location: Over there

16 Feb 2021, 6:14 pm

ezbzbfcg2 wrote:
Your earliest memory of a US presidential election is only 2012, and that was filtered through British media.
The Internet existed before 2012, you know...


_________________
Giraffe: a ruminant with a view.


Bravo5150
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Aug 2019
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,669

16 Feb 2021, 6:16 pm

ezbzbfcg2 wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
NightMuse wrote:
"Extremist" these days used to mean "patriot". It's pretty sad when patriotic Americans are hated just for loving their country and hating what the government is doing to it.

It’s pretty sickening that extremists act like the people who support American values like democracy are not patriots.

Nationalism is a cancer upon our society. Nationalists are opposed to everything that is good about America. You lost. Get over it.


See, this is part of the problem. With a broad brush, you've painted everyone as an "extremist" if they're critical of any facet of the current Biden administration.

So, everyone who voted for Trump is an "extremist." Even those of us who didn't vote for Trump and were critical of him (yours truly) are likewise extremists for being critical of Biden now.

In theory, a democratic system allows for competing political beliefs, but now we're seeing a scenario where anyone and everyone who doesn't tow the party line is automatically deemed an "extremist" regardless of their varying political beliefs.

And you're 25 years old and from the UK. Your earliest memory of a US presidential election is only 2012, and that was filtered through British media. What makes you the expert on American ideals and values and how Americans collectively feel about the current state of affairs?


I think Walrus was simply questioning how "extremists" and "Patriots" are the same thing.



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

16 Feb 2021, 6:27 pm

ezbzbfcg2 wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
NightMuse wrote:
"Extremist" these days used to mean "patriot". It's pretty sad when patriotic Americans are hated just for loving their country and hating what the government is doing to it.

It’s pretty sickening that extremists act like the people who support American values like democracy are not patriots.

Nationalism is a cancer upon our society. Nationalists are opposed to everything that is good about America. You lost. Get over it.


See, this is part of the problem. With a broad brush, you've painted everyone as an "extremist" if they're critical of any facet of the current Biden administration.

So, everyone who voted for Trump is an "extremist." Even those of us who didn't vote for Trump and were critical of him (yours truly) are likewise extremists for being critical of Biden now.

In theory, a democratic system allows for competing political beliefs, but now we're seeing a scenario where anyone and everyone who doesn't tow the party line is automatically deemed an "extremist" regardless of their varying political beliefs.

And you're 25 years old and from the UK. Your earliest memory of a US presidential election is only 2012, and that was filtered through British media. What makes you the expert on American ideals and values and how Americans collectively feel about the current state of affairs?


I think we are making progress.
At least the word 'extremist' is used instead of 'fascist'. :mrgreen:

This binary attitude, predominantly from the left, is astounding.

Left is good.
Non-left is bad.
Unbelievable.



Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

16 Feb 2021, 7:56 pm

Pepe wrote:
Left is good.
Non-left is bad.

Left is "right"?
Right is "wrong"?
"War" is "Peace"
"Freedom" is "Slavery"
"Ignorance" is "Strength"



uncommondenominator
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2019
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,706

16 Feb 2021, 9:21 pm

Brictoria wrote:
Pepe wrote:
Left is good.
Non-left is bad.

Left is "right"?
Right is "wrong"?
"War" is "Peace"
"Freedom" is "Slavery"
"Ignorance" is "Strength"


Pepe wrote:
This binary attitude, predominantly from the left, is astounding.

Left is good.
Non-left is bad.
Unbelievable.


This message brought to you by the Department of Acceptable Terminology and Double Standards, where both sides are just as bad, but actually only The Left is Bad and that's an unbiased fact, because saying the right is bad is being biased, but saying the left is bad is objective, and both sides are just as bad, but really only one...

and round and round they go...

"Unbelievable" is a good choice of word, though.



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 115,264
Location: the island of defective toy santas

16 Feb 2021, 9:22 pm

if rotten cotton runs, he likely is the most persuasive to magas now, he is the frightful version of trumpy who is competently evil rather than haphazardly evil like trumpy.



Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

17 Feb 2021, 12:21 am

uncommondenominator wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
Pepe wrote:
Left is good.
Non-left is bad.

Left is "right"?
Right is "wrong"?
"War" is "Peace"
"Freedom" is "Slavery"
"Ignorance" is "Strength"


Pepe wrote:
This binary attitude, predominantly from the left, is astounding.

Left is good.
Non-left is bad.
Unbelievable.


This message brought to you by the Department of Acceptable Terminology and Double Standards, where both sides are just as bad, but actually only The Left is Bad and that's an unbiased fact, because saying the right is bad is being biased, but saying the left is bad is objective, and both sides are just as bad, but really only one...

and round and round they go...

"Unbelievable" is a good choice of word, though.

As someone posted elsewhere on this site:
Quote:
While the communicator does have some obligation to create a clear and understandable message, it is fairly difficult nigh impossible to create a statement that cannot be subverted by an act of misdirection. It's all well and good when it's a debate in good faith, but anything can be taken out of context or distorted no matter how carefully or mindfully phrased.

(Minor redaction made (removal of one word) to remove implication of intent from quote)

As I recall, the quotes supplied, besides being removed from\taken out of context, have also had their order of posting distorted.

Going back to the original discussion, it was in regards to the redefintion of words, such that a "Patriot" (or, in fact anyone who disagrees in any way with the ruling party) is now termed an "extremist".

The second quote was excerpted from a post which noted how it is a (minor) step back from the former use of "fascist" to describe those people, then indicating that this form of redefinition occurs on both sides, but predominently from one side.

The first quote (in responce to the second, contrary to the order presented above) was merely paraphrasing the 2 examples in the earlier post and suggesting where that sort of redefinition could lead, without passing judgement on either side.



Feyokien
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Dec 2014
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,303
Location: Somewhere

17 Feb 2021, 1:01 am

I wonder if there's a place in the modern world for the return of something like the fairness doctrine or if it would be viewed by a sizeable chunk of people as just another unpatriotic plot to impose political correctness and censor free speech.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine#:~:text=The%20fairness%20doctrine%20of%20the,honest%2C%20equitable%2C%20and%20balanced.

Quote:
The fairness doctrine of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, was a policy that required the holders of broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was honest, equitable, and balanced. The FCC eliminated the policy in 1987 and removed the rule that implemented the policy from the Federal Register in August 2011.

The fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented. The demise of this FCC rule has been considered by some to be a contributing factor for the rising level of party polarization in the United States.