An interesting article from 538 about how, 40 years ago, Democrats had a grudging respect for their Republican colleagues and vice versa. Cross party friendships and so forth. Now, this collegiality has long disappeared and been replaced by antipathy and opprobrium. The article gives a few reasons - which you would probably be able to deduce. It talks about how parties used to be broad tents with some economically Conservative/ socially liberal people (as is still common in Canada) or Republicans with some liberal ideas, say being pro-conservation.
Obviously, a lot of Americans seem to tow the party line more - making every issue partisan and divisive.
My Question: Politics is cyclic. During much of the 1800s it was also very partisan. When might a return to more civility and respect occur? What external event might cause this? Or is cooperation fully finished in the US for the foreseeable far future?
The only way a return to civility can happen is if some particularly admired individual can run for office on a “Make America Civil Again” platform and show that civility wins votes. In this cutthroat, brutal era, all that matters is votes. If people think taunting and crude cruelty is what wins votes, that’s what’ll carry the day. It takes someone who can show that being respectful and respectable wins, to change that current. If people get the notion that “when they go low we go high” is a losing strategy, they’ll chuck “high”-ness right out the window - which is exactly why we’re in this predicament right now.
Good point. Maybe a Democrat and a Republican who make a public pact of “no dirty tricks; let’s make things honorable again” when running against each other in a campaign.
I think people always had respect for a friend, or colleague, or neighbor, or even stranger, of a different political party or ideology. I think such civility has not yet died out, but is weakening, under the pressure of social media, and ubiquitous news.
I’m of the opinion that the people of the US hate the government, as a concept. And would actually prefer anarchy – so long as the circumstances are in their favor. I think people may actually hate their own party, seeing them more useful as a “stick” to beat the other party with, than actually believing their own party has all the answers.
So yeah, with demagoguery and endless news/social media, we’re just not playing with velvet gloves anymore.
I just posted Biden’s Gettysburg speech which speaks to this issue. I have hopes that maybe the coronavirus is the common enemy that we can still unite against.
I’m guessing it was WAY easier for the opposing political sides to share a sense of fellowship and cooperation when the majority of them had gone through the collective rite of passage of military service during a war. Decades ago it was not uncommon for the senior political leadership, no matter the party, no matter the background, to have spent their youth dodging bullets and coming face to face with horrific brutality.
I’m convinced that having “been there and done that” does give people a perspective that is sadly lacking today.
About a million years ago, I saw a debate between Barry Goldwater and George McGovern. Must have been in the late 70s or early 80s. These two gentlemen, of staunchly diametrically opposed philosophies (and who were both soundly trounced in their presidential bids), conducted a respectful, civil, and even friendly exchange of ideas. Such were the days, it was a long time ago.
I’ll give John McCain his just dues for not trying to run all scorched-earth against Obama. He rather famously dissented / corrected one of his supporters who tried to demonize the opponent at a rally.
I can’t think of two more decent candidates than McCain and Obama. Didn’t help. Of course, there was Palin, which gummed up the works. McCain’s big mistake.
The well had been poisoned (by Gingrich among others) and no amount of decency was going to unpoison it. Obama’s biggest mistake was in thinking he could take Romneycare and make it into a bipartisan health care bill.
The pie-in-the-sky theory that the Republicans might someday fade out as a party, to be replaced by the conservative half of a splitting Democractic party, seems like the most likely avenue to cordial relationships between opposing parties happening, particularly if we’re hoping for more than one or two oddball outliers.
No way I’m going to consider anyone running on a Republican ticket honorable unless they repudiate all of the post-2000 shenanigans the Republicans have pulled, like the Supreme Court nomination games, widespread blatant voter suppression, support of blatant white supremacism, and attacks on minority rights. When Republicans are gleefully trying to deny human rights to the people close to me by attempting to dissolve their marriages, protect people who discriminate them, or force them to act as human incubators, I’m done with pretending that they are in support of anything other than the raw bigotry they espouse.
The only reason we have “polarization” is that one of our two poles ran off a cliff, and the other sat still and said “that’s stupid, we’re not doing that.”
The Democrats aren’t responsible for this. They shouldn’t do anything except help the Republicans keep committing political suicide. There can be no civility until that rotting zombified corpse gets buried with a stake in its heart.
But I think Obama tried that - at least in his first run, less so his second one (but for reasons that are easy to understand). Biden is running on decency, but it’s hard to be decent when your opponent is literally a sociopath.
As more and more editors and commentators are beginning to understand: Republicans are the problem. Period. There is no way to be civil when you’re dealing with a party that goes out of its way to be uncivil, spreading lies and conspiracy theories and allying itself with militias and violent rhetoric.
The way we’re going to return to civility is when people in this country seek that in their politics. When they care less about listening to only those views they agree with and can tolerate those they don’t, then we’ll have civility. But conservative political interests have a political purpose in mind when they foment incivility.
I think the return to civil can only begin when Republicans are thoroughly discredited, to the point where the party as we know it essentially becomes so toxic that no mainstream candidate wants anything to do with it.
I see some Republicans who seem like mostly decent people - conservatives like David Frum, Rick Wilson, Bill Kristol, Mike Murphy, and others - trying to salvage the Republican party and make it a mainstream party again, and I think it may be too late for that. I think the best thing Never Trump Republicans can do for the good of conservatism and the country is not to rehabilitate the Republican party, but to destroy it outright, and then rebuild American conservatism with a new philosophy to guide it.
Although many Never Trump GOP are mostly decent, they are still 100% responsible for the carnival of turds this party became. They supported blood sport politics, empty-headed jingoism, race baiting, and religious pandering for far too long. They are to blame for the deterioration of the Republican party, and now, the only responsible thing they can do is to kill that party off for good. As long as they believe in simply rehabbing that shit, then I’ll only unite with them and suggest working with to the extent of getting rid of Trump.
Conservatism shouldn’t stand in total opposition to a progressive cause. It has a cause even without doing that. There will always be a need for a moderate conservative opposition that puts the breaks on the excesses of liberalism. But there is no need whatsoever for the conservatism that has dominated American politics these last few decades. It’s a social science project in anti-democracy, and its a philosophy that needs to be flushed down the toilet.
That was 2008, right at the beginning of the transformation.
I’ve posted this article from 2012 several times, I think it’s a very important guide to understanding modern conservatism. It’s also an interesting read in light of the subsequent eight years. I’m sure even Perlman would have never guessed that the Republicans would give their party over to a literal conman.
I’ve always been interested in white collar crime… the schemes and the intricacies and the psychology of scammers and marks. Unfortunately most people don’t get it, and they don’t understand the extent of the damage it causes.
More businesses and livelihoods have been destroyed by rapacious executives in boardrooms than by looters and rioters, by huge orders of magnitude. I don’t condone violence, of course…but not all serious crimes are violent crimes. I think corruption and white collar crime is the most serious law enforcement problem facing our nation today.
This is why I can’t respect the Republican Party any more.
Serious question… Starting with the Nixon era, how has the Republican party ever earned anyone’s respect? Nixon, obvious crook. Reagan, upbeat stuffed suit who happily took credit for what was essentially a regression to the mean. Bush the 1st with his racist pandering, Newt Gingrich’s crew of dipshits going after Bill Clinton for a blowjob. Bush the Lesser starting endless wars, one of them clearly in the wrong fucking country. That’s before we ever get into the nutty mental bankruptcy of McCain/Palin, Romney/Ryan.
No Republican after Eisenhower ever did anything to earn respect other than “Wow, you’re less worthless than several other Republicans.”
I could be persuaded on this, but it seems like the only reason we put up with their crap is that we don’t want to seem desiring of a one-party system. And we really don’t want that. In fact I’d rather have a true multi-party system where building coalitions was the only way to survive. But as long as our system is what it is, and Republicans are what they are, we’re better off with one party until we find a worthy successor.
Ann, I think your 2012 article actually shows something different, though - it illustrates how Democrats will view a man as a con when he’s actively running as a Republican presidential candidate but then suddenly view him in a better light years later when he’s not. In February of this year, Democrats were lauding and hailing Romney as a “Profile in Courage” for being the lone Republican to vote to convict the impeached Trump. Even as early as 2017, there were Democrats who were saying “You know, now that Trump is president, Romney was actually a pretty decent honest man after all.”
So, in the 1800s there were obviously deep issues with race and voter suppression, monopolist business, the courts, media concentration, publication of defamatory comments about rivals during elections… but this did not always continue in the sense that there were later periods when there was cooperation. Compared to today, there was more harmony 40 years prior. Despite what happened around 120 years before that.
It seems to me there are several valid comparisons in time. World wars obviously provided a degree of unity and common sense of purpose. Covid really didn’t. So again, history tends to be cyclic. Social media isolates people if they use it as the main source of information and are not exposed to other viewpoints. Or encouraged to get to know people who may reasonably disagree. Is this fixable? I believe it is.
Gerry Ford was a decent guy. He and Jimmy Carter became the best of friends.
Carter’s first words as POTUS: “For myself and for our nation I’d like to thank my predecessor for all he has done to heal our land.”
Carter’s first words delivering Ford’s eulogy 30 years later: “For myself and for our nation I’d like to thank my predecessor for all he has done to heal our land.”