"And then something went wrong. In December 2009, every single Republican voted for a point of order calling the individual mandate "unconstitutional." Among then we're Senators Bob Bennett, Lamar Alexander, Bob Corker, Mike Crapo, Lindsey Graham, Chuck Grassley, and Judd Gregg ---- all of whom were cosponsors of the Healthy Americans Act, which, again, included an individual mandate. There were no revolutions in constitutional law between January 2007 and December 2009. Nor did the individual mandate show itself to be fatally flawed in some particular way. Quite the opposite, in fact. It was being successfully implemented in Massachusetts as part of Rodney's reforms.

"But there had been a political change: Democrats had gone from opposing the mandate to supporting it. This shift---- Democrats lining up behind the Republican--crafted mandate, and Republicans declaring it not just inappropriate policy but contrary to the wishes of the Founders-- shocked Wyden. "I would characterize the Washington, D.C., relationship with the individual mandate as truly schizophrenic," he said.

"It was not an isolated case. In 2007 both Newt Gingrich and John McCain  wanted a cap-and-trade program in order to reduce carbon emissions. A few years later, the entire party -- includeding them--turned on the idea. In 2008, the Bush administration proposed, pushed, and signed the Economic Stimulus Act, a deficit-financed tax cut designed to boost the flagging economy. Under Obama, Republicans became staunch opponents of the idea that deficit--financed stimulus could help an economy, before re-embracing the idea under Trump. When Romney ran for president in 2012, he was mocked by Democrats for saying the Russia was America's foremost geopolitical threat; after Russia helped Trump win the 2016 presidential election, Democrats turned sharply against Russia, while Republicans came to view Vladimir Putin more favorably than they viewed Obama."

Why We're Polarized; Ezra Klein (2020) page 84

"Kahan calls this theory "Identity-protective cognition": "as a way of avoiding dissonance and estrangement from valued groups, individuals subconsciously resist factual information that threatens their defining values." Elsewhere, he puts it even more pithily: "What we believe about facts," he writes, "tells us who we are." And the most important psychological imperative most of us have in a given day is protecting our idea of who we are and our relationships with the people we trust and love"

Why We're Polarized; Ezra Klein (2020) page 96

"The simplest way to activate someone's identity is to threaten it, to tell them they don't deserve what they have, to make them consider that it might be taken away. The experience of losing status--- and being told your loss of status is part of society's march to justice--- is itself radicalizing."

Why We're Polarized; Ezra Klein (2020) page 118

"But it makes sense if you think about the incentives driving media outlets. Fox News dosen't get Facebook shares by reporting on some banal comments made by Bob Casey, the understated Democratic senator from Pennsylvania. It focuses on Minnesota Representative Ihlan Omar, a liberal, confrontational Muslim American who wears a hijab and speaks with a soft, Somalian accent. Similar dynamics hold on MSNBC and, honestly, everywhere in the media. Representative Steve King, the racist Republican from Iowa, holds little power in the House but receives far more coverage than Representative Greg Walden, the top Republican on the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee.

"The old line on local reporting was: "If it bleeds, it leads." For political reporting, the principle is: "If it outrages, it leads." And outrage is deeply connected to identity-- we are outraged when members of other groups threaten our group and violate our values. As such, polarized media dosen't emphasize commonalities, it weaponizes differences; it dosen't focus on the best of the other side, it threatens you with the worst."

Why We're Polarized; Ezra Klein (2020) page 149