Very little of that is really unique, even in American history, much less world history.
Social media echo chambers were essentially the norm for newspapers up to the turn of the 20th century (when, for a brief period in history, it was more profitable than not to engage in something resembling journalistic integrity). You read only your newspapers, which all had a preferred political slant. Likewise slates of acceptable views and subservience to vested financial interests.
That all sounds like the runup to the Civil War, to be honest.
Much of the 20th century and especially the post-war decades were the anomaly, if anything.
It is unfortunate we are going back to the historic norm, but it really is the norm we’re going back to. I had hoped we had actually learned better after WWII, but it seems like the lessons of the deaths of tens of millions and wanton destruction were learned only by the generation that experienced it and perhaps the generation that followed.
I’m not sure of that. I think part of the reason things are as polarized as they are right now is that the usual feedback system is broken. If a party loses an election, the rational response is to moderate their platform to capture more of the centrists. That hasn’t been happening lately. With each election loss, it seems that the Republicans have moved to the right. Rather than try to capture more of the center, they wind up becoming more extreme to energize the extremists.
After Romney lost in 2012, the RNC conducted an analysis of why they lost and what changes they should make in the future.
In terms of actual claimed ideology, I’ve met exactly one and I’m in my 50’s. An ex-Marxist who had retained their socialist economic values, but had (somewhat, not entirely) adopted conservative Christian social values. A political anomaly to be sure.
I honestly don’t think that the OP is possible. Not right now anyway. Personally, I would never vote for a Republican no matter how, “moderate.” For me most Democrats are too moderate. The Republican platform (when they actually had one) has always been too focused on keeping the wealthy happy and making sure working people stayed in their place. I don’t see this changing.
For what it’s worth, I’ve started referring to that as “fiscally responsible”. I used to say “conservative”, using the old meaning of the word, but in the last few decades, the “Conservative” movement has so co-opted the term, and also been so fiscally irresponsible, that the old formulation is hopelessly poisoned now.
I characterize it as a willingness to ask, “How will we pay for that?”, but as an actual request for details, not just a sarcastic gotcha line that assumes that we can’t pay for something. And you should ask the question for everything - including tax cuts.
Let me simplify my previous post. Any Republican President who reaches across the aisle and appeals to the center -even on a symbolic level- will clear 50% approval.
Trump was an historically unpopular President. He started his term invoking, “American carnage”, during his inauguration address, a time where other Presidents would claim they were the President of all America. Mitch McConnell recognized in 2009 that bipartisanship disproportionately benefits the party holding the Presidency. So under Obama McConnell was all obstruction all the time.
There’s a sufficient portion of the Democratic base that likes bipartisanship. So a Republican President appealing to the center, even symbolically, would peal off a portion of the Democratic caucus on certain issues.
tl;dr To gain bipartisan support a politician would need to be a) Republican and b) ask for bipartisan support.
OTOH, in the current environment, such a move would very likely cost that Republican president a great deal of support within his own party and base (as there aren’t many “centrist” Republicans anymore). I have a hard time seeing how that president would be able to cling to anything close to 50% support, either in Congress, or in the nation.
If by bipartisan support, we mean that, say, eight Democratic senators vote for the GOP administration’s Supreme Court nominee, I think you are close to correct. But there is a bit more to it. There would have to be some signal that the nominee is moderate, such as not being a member of the Federalist Society and/or having, on a lower or state appeals court, joined with Democrats on a few hot button cases.
If President DeSantis (not a prediction, just an example) nominates a movement conservative, it will be a party line vote no matter how politely he invites Democratic senators to visit him at the White House.
I can imagine one way, GOP takes over complete control, sets up a dictatorship and has all Democratic members arrested as traitors. An alternative “Democratic” party is selected from loyalists as token opposition with the understanding should they voice any opposition they will meet a similar fate to their predecessors. Polls show 99.7% support for the undisputed leader of the “free” world.
To answer the OP directly, it would begin with the opening of the heavens, and the dead rising from their graves…
It ain’t happening, not without major changes I don’t expect in my lifetime.
“Bipartisan support” presumes that the two parties don’t rely on hatred of the other as their primary self-definitions.
Even as Biden calls for (and sometimes achieves) bipartisan support, the thing is dead. His great achievement is conjuring up some vague resemblance of it but it’s mostly an illusion for rhetorical effect. You can get the real thing, because the GOP rejects it for the sake of rejection. They thrive on hatred at this point, they revel in it, they define themselves as haters, proudly (in private) if guardedly (in public). They are a white supremacist party built on racism, and dedicated to the proposition that the Electoral College can deliver the presidency to them in the years the economy is bad, and the gerrymander can deliver the House to them in those years and others. The senate can be gained more easily with only 40% of the national voters supporting the GOP, and that is their electoral strategy–no policy, no real ideology other than hatred, and no attempt to persuade folks in the political middle to support them. Just “white supremacy” relentlessly, 24/7, forever.
There are at least three kinds of bipartisanship, and only one is almost impossible to see coming back.
One kind is examplified by Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA) and Maggie Hassan (D-NH). These members almost always vote the same way other members of their party caucus vote on hot button partisan issues. But they spend a lot of time in friendly chit-chat with members of the other party, and get many less controversial bills introduced jointly with their opposite party friends. This is already happenning and, with low confidence, I predict it will happen more due to so many general election voters liking it. So long as Fitzpatrick doesn’t do something like vote to impeach a GOP president, he can be Mr. Bipartisan without getting strongly primaried.
Another kind of bipartisanship is where a few true maverick Republicans and Democrats join with the great majority of members from the other party to pass a bill that is close. If the debt ceiling raise requires five GOP House votes to pass, and gets them, then Biden may say it was passed in a bipartisan manner and would not be lying. This kind of bipartisanship is in decline but there still is some hope for it. And this is the most important type in terms of getting Congress to work.
The kind of bipartisanship that is dead is where a controversial bill passes with roughly equal support from both parties, or a Supreme Court nominee gets dozens of confirmation votes from both parties.