The US - more divided now than the 60s?

In My Humble Opinion
1

I’m putting this here becasue I’d rather this not turn into a political flame war.

I was born in 1967 so don’t really have much memory of the political climate of the 60s and the 70s. So this question is for the Dopers that were teenagers or adults during those periods. Do y’all believe the country is more divided (politically) now or during the late 60s/70s?

There doesn’t seem to be much real political debate going on in the country right now. Most people I meet seem to be very solidly on one side or the other and arent’ interested in alternative viewpoints. Is it worse now than it was in the past? Or does it just seem that way beause I’ve never experienced this level of political polarization before? Thank you for any opinions.

2

I was born is 1950, so I guess I’m qualified to comment.

The 60s were a lot different from what we’re seeing today. There were several significant factors at play then.

First, my parents’ generation still felt both righteous and invincible; WWII hadn’t worn off. This also rubbed off on the children. We watched lots of war movies as kids, and they all glorified the war.

Second, there was the Soviet threat, which was considerably more menacing than anything that faces us now (not to say that what we face now isn’t dangerous). And along with that was the paranoia about the communist threat within, which was still very much alive even a decade after McCarthy.

Third, there was internal instability and uncertainty, which started with the civil rights movement, and continued through the Vietnam War.

Fourth, beginning in the mid-sixties, there was the generation gap. This was a big deal, and very complex. My own opinion is that it was mainly caused by the difference between our parents and the war they fought in (BTW, nobody ever talked about Korea), and our generation and the war we were in. But there were other factors as well. [Disclaimer: I did not go to Vietnam].

What you ended up with was a population that had considerable uncertainty about what was going on both domestically and abroad, and so there was room for a lot of movement politically. The political assassinations, the war, the Kent State killings, and other events stirred the pot up quite a bit.

Today, I don’t see the same thing. What I’m seeing, and I agree with you, is quite entrenched positions, with both sides absolutely convinced they’re right. I fall into that. I think everything Dubya has done since he took office is wrong, and that he has to go. No debate. No compromise. He’s taking us in a direction I don’t want to see this country going. His backers feel the same about their opponents. So there isn’t that much political play in the country right now.

Also, the big bad now is terrorism, which is considerably more nebulous than a conventional enemy (we thought the Vietnam war was fuzzy, but it looks positively concrete by comparison). To the extent that this is being addressed, it’s mostly being done in secret, with diversions like Iraq to keep everyone from trying to peer into dark corners. I’m personally waiting for the next Daniel Ellsberg.

This rambling-assed post is not really answering the question, I guess. My own feeling is that we’re in a phase somewhat like the earlier part of the Vietnam War, before Tet. Positions have been taken, everyone’s in their trenches, and we’re waiting for something to shake things up.

3

There was considerably less polarization back in the 60s. In addition, the political parties were much more inclusive: there were liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats (though “conservative” in that time was more like what would be deemed “moderate” today).

The far right wing today is much more polarized than the mild liberalism of the 60s. In addition, liberalism was fighting for things like racial equality, which even many conservatives of the time would admit was probably a good thing.

So you sort of had this continuum in the 60s:

Conservative |----------------------------------------------| Liberal

As opposed to this today:

Conservative |---------------------------------------------------| Liberal

What is also happening today is the rise of binary politics. Politicians are either great or terrible; issues are either black or white. The concept of a complex response to a political issue is pretty much lost, and a politician who tries it is deemed “wishy-washy.” The issues of TV news exacerbates this, since they can’t cover all the nuances of any issue in their time constraints.

4

Disagree with both previous posters in the degree of separation. As one born in the late '40s, I recall the '60s as a lot more polarized. Between the previous generation and the post-WWII generation, there were not only the factors Kelly mentioned, but a lot more societal change. The Pill. Civil Rights. Women’s Lib. The Bomb. Free sex. Mini-skirts. Bra-less women. Long hair and beards on guys.

All of these things were seen by the conservative part of society (mostly the older part) as genuine threats to the basic nature of society. The very idea that young men would go to jail or leave the country so as not to be drafted was a horror to most of their parents’ generation. I think today you are as likely to have a young conservative as an older one, and as likely to have an older liberal as a younger one. This may not always be obvious to us, because we tend naturally to assume that those we associate with are typical of everyone, but it ain’t necessarily so.

In addition, the fear of the Russians hitting us with an A-bomb or H-bomb was very real and very, very scary, I think scarier than fears of terrorism today. During the Cuban missile crisis, we went to school honestly thinking that a nuclear holocaust was going to rain down on use that very afternoon, if not sooner. Parents felt sorry for children growing up under the horrible shadow of The Bomb.

5

Speaking as a child of the year 1951, I think that MLS hit it on the head.
People who did not live through the sixties really have no clue just how dvided the country was.
Off the top of my head a few issues:
Civil Rights
Freedom rides
Black Power
Chicano movement
Anti-war movement
Women’s lib
Ban the bomb
Hippies
LSD
Pot

So far this year no one has been hosed and /or beaten by the cops for trying to register to vote, sit at a lunch counter, or demonstrate against the war.
Go read some good history books.

6

There were some good and thoughtful posts above. Unlike those, I’ll simply say that the current time period seems peaceful, even downright soothing compared to any year between 1963 and 1977. (I was born in 1942)

7

The other posters are all making excellent points.

I don’t want to turn this into a GD thread, but I have to counter Rick, with a partial list of the things polarizing America today:

Abortion (started in the 60s, of course)
Christian fundamentalism as a political force
Terrorism, and the appropriate response to it
War in Iraq
War in Afghanistan (okay, should be getting attention, but is sidelined)
Medical marijuana
War on drugs
Gay rights, especially gay marriage
The environment
Tax cuts with increased spending
The health care debacle
Sending jobs overseas
Immigration, especially from Latin America

So I’d say that in 2004, we’ve got quite a few things dividing us, and most of these engender just as much emotion as the issues of the 60s.

8

Born in 1952. I think that the late 60s-early 70s era had more extreme polarization than today, but that the U.S. is more divided than today.

In the late 1960s most people agreed that the civil rights movement, more rights for women, banning the bomb, etc. were good ideas. In fact, public opinion polls showed that most people supported the war in Vietnam, at least up to a point. There were legitimate difference of opinion about timing and degree, but overall, there was a broad middle that could come to agreement in principle. That’s how constitutional amendments banning “poll taxes” and allowing 18-year olds to vote got passed, for example.

In 1968, third party presidential candidate George Wallace said “there isn’t a dime’s worth of difference” between Democrats and Republicans, and he was probably correct about it. The U.S. could have elected Hubert Humphrey and gotten a negotiated settlement for Vietnam in about 5 years. Instead they elected Richard Nixon. . . and got a negotiated settlement in about 5 years. The country also got an Environmental Protection Agency, increased aid to cities and some other initiatives that Democrats felt perfectly comfortable with.

The extremes on both sides, however, were more likely to take their arguments to the streets, and that’s what made headlines.

Today, however, there’s less agreement about broad issues, but also less overt fighting about it. People aren’t interested in arguments from the other side, but they aren’t demonstrating over it, either.

9

With all due respect. Today’s issues are not even in the ballpark…

The issues in the 60s were causing riots in the streets of America. Major protest marches and demonstrations were regular (some stopping the entire nation almost all the rest bringing entire cities to a halt), campus buildings and city blocks went up in flames, students took over campus buildings. This is not to mention thousands of people heading to Canada and people being shot in places like Kent State University and clubbed in the streets of Chicago at the Democratic Convention.

I don’t think it is hyperbole to say that virtually every family in the country had major clashes among family members over the issues of the time. When I say major, I mean to the extent of being kicked out of the house or not speaking to one another. That amount of clash simply does not exist today.

Todays division is a pale shade of that in the 1960s.

10

No, that’s hyperbole. I knew a lot of people, and their families, and none had the kind of clashes you describe. There were disgreements, to be sure, and what you’re describing did happen to some. But “virtually every family?” No.

I earlier tried to make the point that we are now in a time somewhat akin to the 60s prior to most of the extreme events that have been described. Except for a few (admittedly highly significant) events in the civil rights movement, the early-to-mid sixties were relatively quiet; then all hell broke loose. I seriously believe that it could easily happen again, as the degree of bottled up rage in this country right now is as great as it was in the mid-sixties.

11

The Kenedys were assassinated,
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated,
there was an assassination attempt on George Wallace.

Campus ROTC offices were firebombed. There were student strikes, some nationwide. As TV Time pointed out, four unarmed students died when National Guard troops opened fire at Kent State. Army helicopters fired tear gas on student protesters at UC Berkeley.

Civil rights protesters were met with billy clubs, police dogs and fire hoses. The Black Panthers advocated armed resistance.

The political climate of today is nowhere near the political climate of the mid 60’s to early 70’s.

12

Qburn: I think we’re agreeing, but not sounding like it. Perhaps it’s my fault because I’m likening today to the early-to-mid 60s, which doesn’t really address the OP. Certainly, starting with the initial riots in 1967 (66?) through to the pullout from Vietnam, this country went through the most severe disruption since the civil war. And no, so far, at least, what we have is nothing like that.

Nitpick: JFK was assassinated in '63, and it was the only truly unifying event I can think of in the 60s*.

*Except for the Beatles, who were immensely unifying to young people, but really (along with drugs and the Pill) got the generation gap going. God but we loved the Beatles.

13

Oh, yeah, and the space program, especially moon flights and the earlier deaths of the Apollo astronauts. Every once in a while we felt like one country, but not often.

14

[QUOTE=kelly5078]
Qburn: I think we’re agreeing, …QUOTE]

kelly5078 no problem here, I was trying to point out to the OP that political & social debate turned violent.

I also failed to mention the riots that broke out in many places after the King assassination. Watts, CA burned for days.

15

I was born in 1964, so I can’t make any comment about the polarization of society then compared to now, but what I think is different is the level of vitriol of the polar right against dem candidates (I guess based on that Milquetoast Clinton) and the polar left against Bush. I don’t really recall this at any time except Watergate. I mean there were people who dislike Carter, but I don’t recal people hating him.

16

I blame talk radio.

17

I’m around the same age as the OP but, from my perspective, we still have a ways to go before things get as bad as they did during the 60’s and early 70’s. However, that doesn’t mean the divisiveness that we have now isn’t cause for concern.

I think, in many respects, we’ve never gotten over the acrimonious polarizing debates of the 60’s. For example, look how quickly the right dusted off the old pro-war rhetoric from Vietnam to castigate those who had doubts about our intervention in Iraq. In their eyes, critics of the war are–at best–naive, weak-kneed, milksop peace-at-any-price appeasers or–at worst–America-hating traitors who are stabbing us in the back just like they did with Vietnam. Also, the “cultural wars” that flare up over matters like the current FCC crackdown on shock jocks and gay marriage really began during the 60’s and haven’t really ended.

18

I think the lines for equally damaging polarization are just beginning to take shape. The definitions and labels have shifted, but yeah–it’s started again. It hasn’t taken full corrosive shape yet but it’s just a question of time, barring a significant realignment.
Offhand I’d say the domestic us vs. them issue has just donned new outward forms. Blacks were the scary underclass then; now it’s back to immigrants as readily identifiable threats. Extrapolated just a little, the limits are narrowing “real” contributors to society by outward social signals: religion, class, sexuality, differentness, questioning.
The pendulum just keeps swinging.
I don’t remember the 60’s–many of the stereotypes which actually happened in the 70’s-- as fun. It was a vital time, but also wrenchingly painful. Watergate and governmental responsiblity. Soldiers coming back home in body bags, in increasing numbers, for a war nobody seemed to really understand. Propoganda from all sides: fervent, noisy and much of it misguided.
We’re in for more of the same.

19

The war in Afghanistan is polarizing? I’m constitutionally anti-war, but I have a hard time seeing that it’s controversial in any significant way. Sheeit, even my peacenik ass could be observed in the vicinity of the CAF recruitment center in late 2001, before it was made abundantly clear that it was too skinny to be of service.

20

Larry Mudd: Re: Afghanistan - I was trying to say that it should be a cause for concern, but has been put on the back burner. I wasn’t speaking of the invasion, itself; I think it would have been absurd for America not to have retaliated after 9/11. But what’s occured afterwards is another story. The country is essentially in anarchy, ruled by “war lords.” aka gangsters. The populace continues to suffer horribly. The economy is back to poppies. In other words, it’s a perfect breeding ground for more terrorists, just as Iraq seems to be becoming. I think Americans should take note when we fail so badly to win the peace.