Well, I think it has been going on for a LONG time, I think technology has just made it far more obvious. It SEEMS like it started in the 90s but honestly I think it has roots going back til at least the 60s, when “liberalism” was “classic liberalism” and conservatism was a bit more focused on economics. Religion played a bigger part in American life. Everyone’s.
For print, before the mid 90’s, you got your news from the newspaper or magazines, and any “letters to the editor” section was highly moderated.
A lot of people didn’t have cable, so they were stuck with a few channels, with far fewer “opinion news” shows. Call in radio “opinion shows” were far rarer. Now everyone has a damn podcast. You just weren’t exposed to other POVs as much.
Now you know what everybody knows. Everybody has an opinion. So it makes things LOOK far more hateful. Yeah, Trump says outrageous stuff, and so do some other politicians, however, I’ve seen much MUCH worse on the internet. Prior to the late 90’s I don’t recall ever being told to die in a fire. Back in the day, you had to watch what you say, because you were saying it to someone’s face.
There was definitely more of a sense of community. Now everybody’s on their phone. Their community is online, and a LOT more diverse, which, strangely, I think has contributed to tribalism and generally a lot more toxic discussion.
I think socially, there was a lot more things that people had a fairly unified opinion on. Now, it’s less. You can simply simply look at polls on social issues over time. It’s obvious.
I think you nailed the problem right there: the Democratic leadership went looking for dependable Republican voters and decided to have more Republican friendly policies.
How often do you vote across party lines? I’ll make this multiple choice in an effort to make it simple for you:
[ol]
[li]Very Frequently[/li][li]Frequently[/li][li]Sometimes[/li][li]Infrequently[/li][li]Never[/li][/ol]
See, this is another area where both parties are alike. The guy from the other party is an asshole always voting the party line. The guy from your side who does it is a savvy, intelligent fellow.
When the leader of one party is saying that some of those marching with white supremacists are good people (along with many, many other similarly questionable at best statements about race, ethnicity, nationality, and identity), and most elected officials in his party are going along with his agenda, it’s awfully hard not to see that party as supportive, or at least tolerant, of a white supremacist and/or otherwise bigoted agenda.
Get involved in the intrrnal politics of your party, then get back to me. Ideally, run for something on the county or state level. After you see how the sausage is made, we’ll talk about how awesome our party is.
The problem is that the Democratic ‘leadership’ were already abandoning the New Deal programs that created the strong middle class everyone is so nostalgic for in favor of deregulation and ‘tough on crime’ mantras of the rightwingers.
I was heavily involved in union matters for much of my career, including being the president of my local. As such, I was put in considerable contact with Democratic candidates for various state offices. The teachers union is one of the few left standing in PA that is still politically important, you see. Going back at least to when that POS Tom Ridge was governor, the R’s made no secret that their goal was to break us as Reagan broke the air traffic controllers. At least they were honest. The D’s made us lots of promises, including that weasel in Harrisburg right now, and followed through on precious few of them. They had exactly the same “where else you gonna go?” attitude that the GOP has towards gun rights activists.
Yeah, the Democratic Party is just fucking swell.
I think everybody pays too much attention to the buffoon-in-chief in DC. Your state and local weasels have more day-to-day effect on you. Do you ever take time out from worrying what Trump tweeted today to see how they’ve decided to fuck you?
I usually vote in the republican primaries, as there is generally not a democrat running, and if there is, he has no chance of winning.
There have been many times when I have chosen the more conservative candidate over the more liberal, as that candidate had more experience or better articulated ideas.
In local politics, I vote for the republican more often than the democrat.
In state politics, it’s a mixed bag, but I’ll admit that I usually vote for the democrat. I had a hard choice with portman vs strickland for senate last year. I thought portman actually made a better senator, but I prefered strickland’s politics. If he had actually had a chance, I may have thought about it a bit more, but I went ahead and went with strickland to be part of the <20 protest vote.
National politics, I’ve only voted D since 2000.
I’d say that people who concentrate on national politics, and ignore local politics are all alike, but there are many of us who actually understand that the reason you go vote is to go vote for the people who make sure your street is plowed in the winter, and while you are there, you may as well toss your voice into the race of national politics.
Yes. Quite so. Both parties are far more than the clowns in DC who get national media attention. Those clowns rose up through the ranks of local/county/state politics for the most part. Both parties have an image they polish for the rubes. Behind closed doors, there is a lot of grubbing for money, insincere promising, and general mendacious assholery. Anybody who thinks I am wrong need only get involved in their party’s internal politics. Fuck me, maybe you’ll be the broom that sweeps it all clean.
A public option could be passed with budget reconciliation. The dems just didn’t do it. They didn’t want to alienate the health insurance industry which couldn’t compete with a public option.
When Brown won a senate seat in MA, the democrats all said ‘we have to seat Brown before we vote on health care’. But when Jones won in AL the GOP pushed ahead on their tax bill ASAP to make sure it would get a vote when they still had 52 GOP senators.
The dems fight with one hand tied behind their backs. Then they act surprised when their voters stay home or support insurgent candidates who act like they are actually going to fight against the plutocrats, white nationalists and their lackeys.
This was a big failure - the leadership was too dependent sucking on lobbyists’ teats to stand up for anything better than RomneyCare.
…and while everyone is screaming their heads off about how dangerous Trump is Dems not only vote to support granting Trump more power to spy on Americans and giving Trump more money for war than he even asked for.
We all saw how the Dems managed to throw DACA Dreamers under the bus twice now.
But I’m not saying the Democrats are awesome, or anything close to awesome. I’m saying that the Republicans, at least at this moment, are really, really awful, and considerably worse than the Democrats, especially on race and ethnicity, which is the sin that’s done, by far, the most damage to America and Americans in our history (and the Democrats were involved in the lions share of that damage until recent decades).
It was mostly Max Baucus, who was a big swinging dick in that affair. Big insurance had him by the short hairs, and he was chairman of an important Senate committee that the Public Option had to traverse.
And I am saying that I am sick of choosing between evils. Even more, I am sick of being lied to by partisans. Not about the other guy’s party. About their own.
Yeah, yeah. It is always the “liberals” that started it. Nothing about the way in which anyone who might have been to the left of the John Birch Society was targeted as a commie sympathizer, (Nixon’s “Pink Lady” slur dates to 1950), nothing about the way in which any questioning of the war in Southeast Asia immediately earned the epithet “traitor.” And, of course, the nasty college kids of 1968 could not possibly have learned anything from the fire hoses in the South or the rioting police of 1968 Chicago who, unprovoked, attacked protesters in Lincoln Park. :rolleyes:
== = =
I would guess that the current breakdown of civility is actually from different sources: cable TV and the internet. Reading any papers or magazines from the founding of the nation to the Great Depression, one sees all sorts of villainous attacks on both people and groups. (The KKK, against blacks, Catholics, Jews, and any foreigners, held major marches in many cities throughout the 1920s.) This was also the period in which every city had multiple newspapers, each promoting a particular viewpoint and willing to runup to the very edge of libel laws to excoriate anyone they opposed.
During WWII, there was an explicit effort by the government to promote the view of “one America.” Hollywood helped as can be seen in the many movies in which the squad or the ship or the plane had the requisite number of guys from different regions, religions, and (typically white) ethnic backgrounds. At about the same time, national radio networks had arisen that toned down divisive language to appeal to the largest audiences. Those networks morphed into the big three TV networks that kept the policies of minimizing differences of opinion. Later UHF channels tended to follow along, for the same audience appeal. At the same time, the many contentious newspapers slowly began to fold. The ones that survived the longest were those who followed the TV networks in taking “moderate” positions on all issues and refraining from outright character assassination even when they were extremely partisan. When cable TV arose, there were many joyous cries that there would be something for everyone available on so many different channels. What cable actually accomplished was to drive the opening wedge into the (probably artificial) “oneness” of the country. Lots of ideas could be broadcast to many homes without the restraint of the Big Three.
About the time that cable was coming into its own across the country, it was superseded by the internet. With the internet, anyone with a small investment could attract lots of viewers across the country, (not hindered by any local restrictions placed on many cable companies), to push their messages. The Balkanization of news was well under way and there was no longer any restraint to prevent truly malicious attacks. (The repeal of the Fairness Doctrine in which broadcast stations had been required to present something vaguely resembling both sides of an argument did not help and Murdoch’s willingness to promote Fox News editorial programs as the foremost issuers of calumny did not help, but there was plenty of room for scoundrels such as Alex Jones and those of his ilk to push the country in the direction of the multiple divisive newspapers of old.) Individual outbreaks of violence occurred on both sides throughout our history, (riots against legislation, ethnic groups, integration, busing, war, etc.), and the demonization of opponents has also always been part of our history, (attacks on political leaders, proponents and opponents of slavery or unions, supporters and opponents of Roe v. Wade, etc.) However, after a period of manufactured civility from the 1940s through the 1980s, (punctuated by many exceptions), general civility began to fall apart in the 1990s.
Re: The cross-party voting thing. I voted for our states Republican Governor multiple times (a moderate when there was such a thing), a State Rep candidate whom I knew personally, the county clerk candidate whom I went to college with (she went on to become the state’s Sec’y of State, a position I also voted for her the first time but not the second as she had, by then, fallen prey to party orthodoxy). At the national level, I voted for Anderson in 1980, and he had been a Republican. I also crossed over and voted in Republican presidential primaries twice, once in 2000 for John McCain, and again in 2016 for John Kasich. Neither of those votes were “malicious crossovers”, but represented an honest belief that the candidate in question was the best in the field, on that side at least.