50 Comments
User's avatar
Deplorable Dave's avatar

As far back as the Reagan era the mainstream media became 90% Democrat. Their "news" was 100% Republicans are bad/stupid/mean and Democrats are normal. So when a Democrat broke a law the "news" was how Republicans are "attacking" the poor Democrat.

This created a vacuum for one company (Fox News) to fill with their "news" of conservative opinion talking heads. So 90% Democrat "news" and 10% Republican "news". That's the world Americans have been living since the 1980s.

Michael Feldman's avatar

Definitely some truth to that

Diana van Eyk's avatar

No wonder the Green Party got so few votes. Well, the hyperpartisanship, the AIPAC lobby and all that money.

Michael Feldman's avatar

I think the power of the two parties together have destroyed any chance for a third party to gain traction. AIPAC also holds incredible power over our system, but that trend is changing. How AIPAC will respond is yet to be seen

Diana van Eyk's avatar

I'm curious to see what they'll do, and admit I have some dread around that.

Rxan Smith's avatar

ask a democrat what it'd take to vote republican. ask a republican what it'd take to vote democrat. both say nothing, like it's a badge of honor. that's not loyalty, that's just being inventory. I think I found a writer who sees things like me... And it's not really an ideological window that we are looking through... This country doesn't have a ideological problem.This country has a representational problem.

https://uncomfortable.rxansmithmedia.com/p/you-dont-have-a-party-you-have-a

deda's avatar

“The barbarian scum recorded their savagery on victims phones and sent it to their families and posted on social media.”

Also, “Leftist use inflammatory words incessantly to create narratives.”

Who is using inflammatory words?

20,000 children. I believe that to be a very conservative number. They were not “barbarians”. Journalists and health workers were and are deliberately targeted.

Stop with this Zionist nonsense. Nobody believes it anymore. Whatever standing 🇮🇱 had is gone. It’s a genocide. By legal definition.

Jay's avatar

This reads like it was written by a kid in 8th grade. Plus it’s all left-brain thinking

Gladerunner's avatar

The glaring omission of this essay is Regulatory Capture, an embedded component of capitalism that is so well known that Plato, Aristotle, and Adam Smith all warned about it.

Plato said market based economies were so divisive, so corrupt, and so unstable that they cause revolutions when the income inequality reaches the tipping point so they’re too risky to allow. Aristotle said all of that is true, but we have some now so we just need to heavily regulate them to avoid the worst outcomes. Adam Smith said that Regulatory Capture inevitably leads to corruption but we can avoid some of the worst consequences by preventing monopolies strictly enough.

None of those warnings have been heeded. Today, as more and more capital is inevitably siphoned up to fewer and fewer, politicians, the media, and institutions become constantly cheaper to buy. We can see the full flowering of this in the USA, after the rich have spent 75 years coordinating their efforts to destroy FDR’s legacy.

The hyper partisanship we see is simply the result of one class owning both parties for the purpose of ensuring division so that they can continue to write public policy for their own profit.

Michael Feldman's avatar

That sounds like a full topic for another article. Thanks for reading and posting

Gladerunner's avatar

Well written, Mr Feldman. May I suggest you would enjoy the book “The Secret Doctrine,” by the brilliant George Monbiot, who has studied the origins and strategies used by the capitalists to control the population.

Davi7's avatar

Hyperpartisanship also applies to advocacy of AIPAC, ICC, IJC and the UN Security Council.

Empire Citizen's avatar

I wish I could print this article.

Michael Feldman's avatar

It is sort of odd that we don’t have that basic functionality

Citizen Deux's avatar

I agree in principle, but there needs to be an objective agreement as to facts. From the article, I am not sure we’re at that point.

Michael Feldman's avatar

The problem is humans are filed with bias. It’s hard to look at anything objectively

Citizen Deux's avatar

This is true, absolutely. However, there is clear evidence we can agree on basic facts.

Michael Feldman's avatar

I think at it’s rawest, we have the same basic needs. But in our society, needs is secondary to wants. Wants create greed which distorts us.

We have a lot of unwinding to do in order to look at facts

Michael Feldman's avatar

We could try but there are facts and counter facts. Political issues are complex. At some point it would become a judgement call. It’s a nice idea though.. maybe it could help part of the way

Citizen Deux's avatar

There are objective facts. I agree some of the causations are up for debate, but facts aren’t

Michael Feldman's avatar

We can both agree that we need some serious change. That’s why we are here discussing this. We have to keep debating and staying active.

Let’s continue to keep the lines open

gracieprabbit's avatar

Facts are about what has happened. Most disagreements arise in the context of what might happen, a subject humans are notoriously bad at. Until we recognize this, develop agreed upon ways of sensing what does happen, we will disagree.

Michael Feldman's avatar

That’s a brilliant way to say that! Thanks

Citizen Deux's avatar

Nice. We also disagree about what has happened and what is happening. In short, I think we simply are a disagreeable species

Guillermo Calvo Mahé's avatar

Great article, as accurate as it is troubling.

Michael Feldman's avatar

Thank you for your comments and for reading it.

Christopher Wingate's avatar

I think you've identified the disease, but not yet the cure.

Hyperpartisanship destroys accountability because people become more loyal to their political tribe than to the truth. Elections then become contests between competing narratives rather than independent examinations of evidence.

The constitutional answer is to stop asking politics to police itself.

Democracy needs an independent accountability mechanism that sits above party politics. A legislated constitutional Leadership Accountability Court, with evidence-based complaints, an independent ex parte review, and public hearings before a jury of ordinary citizens, would shift the focus from "Which side are you on?" to "What do the facts show?"

Truth should never depend on which party holds power.

Until we separate accountability from politics, every scandal, every war, every abuse of power, and every major public controversy will continue to be judged first through party loyalty instead of evidence. That's the constitutional gap democracy still needs to fill.

Michael Feldman's avatar

Yes I think that would help. That was originally the job of the media, but they have drastically failed at that job

Manuel Lopez's avatar

If you blame cable news you yourself are biased. The legacy media has been lying since at least Vietnam. No check. Cable like the internet broke their monopoly. Take a poll of their party affiliation. Says it all

Michael Feldman's avatar

I’m pretty explicit that I don’t blame just cable media, just that they are the mongers of hyperpartisanship

Manuel Lopez's avatar

Agreed. But imagine what even more bull they would be spreading without a counter.

Michael Feldman's avatar

Well as we look back at the censorship complex, we see that the “counters” censored lots of inconvenient truths

Manuel Lopez's avatar

Agreed again. Unfortunately, they both engage in this. That is why I try to read as many sides as possible.

TG312's avatar

You state with certainty that there is genocide in Gaza. You’re just repeating nonsense. It’s a war zone with barbarians on one side who committed documented unspeakable atrocities on Oct 7. You have no evidence of genocide. None of

Michael Feldman's avatar

A report written by whom?

Michael Feldman's avatar

Hmmm I’m repeating what the ICC and ICJ said and numerous human watch groups

Israel are the barbarians. They have killed at least 20,000 children. Read my article that details the latest report from the UN about the intentionality of killing children

TG312's avatar

The ICJ (South Africa v. Israel) found in provisional measures orders (2024) that some rights under the Genocide Convention were plausible and ordered Israel to prevent genocidal acts and enable aid. It has not ruled that genocide is occurring. The merits phase remains ongoing (as of 2026). Plausibility is a low threshold for interim relief; the evidentiary bar for a finding of genocide is far higher

Michael Feldman's avatar

What about ICC and ICJ? Numerous human rights groups ?

Be serious

TG312's avatar

Read Silent No More. You wont. You cant handle the truth. Keep defending barbarians if that makes you happy.

TG312's avatar

The barbarian scum recorded their savagery on victims phones and sent it to their families and posted on social media.

Michael Feldman's avatar

Yes and Israeli soldiers posted their atrocities on TikTok. They also made plenty of videos.

You’re doing the classic action that people who defend Israel do: trying to drown out their atrocities by screaming about October 7th. Israel’s response to October 7th was not self defense. It was an excuse to wipe out a people.

TG312's avatar

No I’m referring to the Oct 7 massacre

• International law expert and Israel Prize laureate 

• Recognized as a prominent legal scholar and human rights expert 

• The Commission grew organically out of the independent Dvora Research Institute, which she established in 2021 

• Served as principal author of the “Silenced No More” investigation 

Other contributors named in Commission reports:

• Dr. Michal Gilad and Dr. Ilya Rudyak  co-authored at least one related Commission report (on family targeting)

• Merav Israeli-Amarant serves as CEO 

• Irwin Cotler is associated with the Commission’s work  (a former Canadian Justice Minister and human rights lawyer, though the search results don’t specify his exact current role)

TG312's avatar

Leftist use inflammatory words incessantly to create narratives. They don’t use hard facts. A 300 page commission reported hard facts on the horrific sexual based barbarity of Oct 7. Was totally ignored by the media. It didn’t fit their narrative. Try reading it.

Michael Feldman's avatar

Who wrote this report you speak of?

I notice you keep dodging the ICC, ICJ, UN and human rights reports

Marc LeBlanc's avatar

What if the first interviewee said, I reject your genocide characterization? Does framing contribute to the divide?

Michael Feldman's avatar

Then the interview would have gone differently. I would have asked if they were aware of the ICC and ICJ’s rulings, the UN security council’s statements and every human rights watch group. Undoubtedly he would have said “it was Hamas propaganda

Nakayama's avatar

The issue is not who is right, but which side you stand on. Being tribal is human nature, but being civilized is what makes us different from animals.

Michael Feldman's avatar

Undoubtedly, it’s a form of tribalism run riot