People claim that US politics is becoming more hostile now than ever, but is that really true?
1980-1990 is the selected decade for comparison with 2004-2014.
I think politics are, but I think that has more to do with how closely divided the nation is, plus the money tree is drying up. The federal government actually has to prioritize now, which means many special interests and their supporters are getting very, very angry. Used to be that both sides could just compromise by agreeing to spend money on both sides’ priorities. Now we’re talking about how to spread the pain of cuts fairly.
A third factor I believe is the ease of finding media sources that confirm your own worldview. Used to be that there wasn’t much media diversity and most of it at least tried to be objective. I may be conservative and you might be liberal, but if we’re both getting our news from Cronkite and the NY Times, then we’re at least discussing the issues from the same initial source. Nowadays I can hear something on Fox News and a liberal will not have even heard of it and will automatically reject the story as fraudulent, and a liberal can read things on Think Progress or Mother Jones that I’ll never have heard of and which I will assume is also BS. Search engines now even tailor their results to your ideology if they can ascertain it, at least that’s what some media report said.
Not a good choice; American politics were much more hostile in the '60s and '70s than in the ‘80s. But they have grown much more hostile since Clinton took office in ‘92 – and, yes, that is almost entirely the Republicans’/conservatives’ fault. See It’s Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided With the New Politics of Extremism, by think-tankers Thomas E. Mann and Norman J. Ornstein. Mann is with the nonpartisan Brookings Institution, Ornstein is with the conservative Heritage Foundation, and both agree that stubborn ideological Pubs are almost entirely to blame for the present political gridlock in America, and for the debt-ceiling crisis and government shutdown in particular.
I really attribute a lot of the mean-spiritedness in modern politics to Newt Gingrich. He’s the one who paved the road to the idea that your political enemy is not just “wrong” but “evil”.
For clarification, I think there’s a lot of recency bias.
I agree with this but I would also put a lot of it on assholes like Jerry Falwell and his imMoral Majority. People have had political disagreements since the beginning of time but that dick was the one who really pushed the idea that if you disagreed with his positions about government you were doing the work of the devil. Portraying your opponent as less than human or not being a good, God-fearing American was popularized by Falwell and his ilk.
Have you forgotten Kenneth Starr office of inquisition, and the Clinton blowjob impeachment?
He hit me back first.
Regards,
Shodan
And that explains the existence, or the perception, of the present level of hostility?
I still think that no matter who is elected President in 2016, things will be a lot better.
Why do you think that?
It’s worse today because we no longer live in the same reality. In the turbulent 1960s, we all read the same papers and watched the same news. We at least agreed on what was happening, we just disagreed on what to do about it. Nowadays, the right wingers insulate themselves in the world of Fox “News”, hate radio, and internet glurge and their perception of reality is so distorted that there is no longer any way to communicate with them.
Because Hillary Clinton has a history of working well with Republicans, as did her husband. And Democrats, even when they want to, are unable to successfully obstruct Republican Presidents. So either way, things will be a little more amiable.
And the left-wingers don’t do the same here, and on MSNBC, Daily Kos, the Village Voice and the like?
I think that the polarization of information sources and the ensuing echo-chamber effect is the biggest problem with politics today, whichever side you may be on.
Your wasting your time. The liberals on here have already decided to place all the blame on right wing Republicans. At they same time these liberal posters decry the fact past Republicans demonised their opponents. These posters just happen to be demonising Republicans as they type this stuff.
Let me tell you folks, political movements invariably play a mixture of nasty and nice. This goes for liberals, conservatives, reactionaries, socialists, fascists, nationalists, libertarians, liberal Democrats, moderate Democrats, Republicans, moderate Republicans, The Tea Party, The Occupy Movement and every movement in between. Some of these movements are better placed than others to play dirty, but they all do it.
You’re forgetting that MSNBC’s current format was IN RESPONSE to Fox News and Daily Kos was in response to Drudge Report. But thats beside the point.
I singled out Newt Gingrich because he consistently and methodically demonized democrats for years and he was ultimately SUCCESSFUL in taking over the House after 40 years of democrat rule. That success is what republicans up to today have followed and enhanced upon. So today, republican demonization of democrats is standard.
There is no left equivalent to Fox “News”. MSNBC has some hosts that lean left, but the news itself is held to journalistic standards. Rachel Maddow is a liberal, but on the few times she makes factual errors, she owns up to it and offers corrections and apologies. The network has Joe Scarborough as a host- what liberals does Fox feature? Where are the liberal equivalents to Limbaugh, Savage, and Levine?
The thing is, conservatives tune in the television and radio to have their preconceived notions of reality reinforced. The Limbaugh dittoheads are simply incapable of having a thought of their own, they need to be told how to think. Air America failed because liberals don’t need the constant reassurance of the echo chamber or to isolate themselves from conflicting views.
Check all your Facebook friends- how many liberal equivalents to you see to “OMG! Obama painted Air Force One with his symbol!” or “Liberals want to take God out of the Pledge! Share to agree, delete to disagree!”
So, Democrats only got nasty as a reaction to Republican nastiness? Yes, that’s right, just you place original sin on your political opponents. Coincidence that your having a go at your opponents? I think not. I can just as easily claim Fox was in response to CNN and Network News, or, that the Gingrich level of discourse came about only as control of the House of Reps became competitive. Competition does often lead to desperation on both sides, its rarely only a single side dumps shit on the other. If I were losing the House for the first time in 40 years I would play as dirty as required.
We can all play the blame game. I think you’ll find by and large individuals and political groups have similar levels of corruption, dirty tricks and nastiness. They all demonise opponents, play cheap tricks and all take the low road as much as the high road. They all take roughly the same level of backhanders, commit the same number of affairs, and subject their competitors to the same levels of vitriol. Any party that ruled the House of Representatives with numbers from the old South cannot with a straight face claim superior political decency over Newt f*ckin Gingrich.
In the 1980’s, American political opinion occupied a bell-shaped curve, with many Americans having intelligent centrist positions. Today, partly for the reason BobLibDem identifies, America is polarized. Those self-identifying as “centrist” today are mostly the apathetic and uninformed.