# Why is American politics so much more polarized than it used to be? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 2, 2013, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-american-politics-so-much-more-polarized-than-it-used-to-be/665164 "2013-08-02T16:08:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2013, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-american-politics-so-much-more-polarized-than-it-used-to-be/665164/141 "2013-10-16T17:53:23Z")
> [@PastTense](#): > > I simply don’t see this polarization that the rest of you are talking about. See [this July 2013 study](http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/07/17/partisan-polarization-in-congress-and-among-public-is-greater-than-ever/) from the Pew Research Center. > [@](#): > > . . . Not only are Republicans and Democrats elected from very different districts with distinct voter bases, but Congress reflects an America that has been growing further and further apart ideologically for decades. > > Start with the voters. For years the Pew Research Center has asked people which party, if any, they identify with and whether they describe their political views as conservative, moderate or liberal. Put those results together and you get a portrait of polarization; it clearly shows that self-described conservatives make up a greater share of Republicans in 2012 (68%) than they did in 2000 (59%), while self-described liberals account for a greater share of Democrats (27% in 2000, 39% in 2012). (There are considerably more independents — 37% of respondents picked that label in 2012 versus 28% in 2000 — but the proportions of liberals, moderates and conservatives within the independent group have stayed roughly the same.) > > Those self-identifications reflect real and deepening divisions on a host of issues, the Pew Research report concluded: “Across 48 different questions covering values about government, foreign policy, social and economic issues and other realms, the average difference between the opinions of Republicans and Democrats now stands at 18 percentage points…nearly twice the size of the gap in surveys conducted from 1987-2002.” ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2013, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-american-politics-so-much-more-polarized-than-it-used-to-be/665164/142 "2013-10-16T19:01:06Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > I’m the last person to defend Fox News or national-level Republicans, but you guys are aware of the irony of posting in this thread to say “It’s the Republicans’ fault,” right? Ironic or not, what if it’s _true_? What if the partisan shift does largely have to do with the right wing collectively going off the deep end? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2013, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-american-politics-so-much-more-polarized-than-it-used-to-be/665164/143 "2013-10-16T19:13:48Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Ironic or not, what if it’s _true_? What if the partisan shift does largely have to do with the right wing collectively going off the deep end? Well, it has nothing to do with the LW going off the deep end, anyway. The most high-profile expression of the American LW these past 10 years has been OWS, which is not at all connected to the Dems the way the TP is connected to the GOP. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2013, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-american-politics-so-much-more-polarized-than-it-used-to-be/665164/144 "2013-10-16T19:16:11Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Ironic or not, what if it’s _true_? What if the partisan shift does largely have to do with the right wing collectively going off the deep end? If you put stock in the Pew study cited by **BrainGlutton** , the shift has affected both Republicans and Democrats alike. Pubs are getting more conservative, and Dems more liberal, both the voters and the Congressmen they elect, per that same study. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2013, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-american-politics-so-much-more-polarized-than-it-used-to-be/665164/145 "2013-10-16T19:27:04Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > If you put stock in the Pew study cited by **BrainGlutton** , the shift has affected both Republicans and Democrats alike. Pubs are getting more conservative, and Dems more liberal, both the voters and the Congressmen they elect, per that same study. Except that what we define as “liberal” has changed, and self-defining as liberal doesn’t mean going further to the left. I mean, the defining “liberal” idea of the USA today is an idea that is completely ubiquitous in most of the rest of the first world, and was actually a republican idea a few decades ago. There’s been a _massive_ shift over the past few decades to the right, and far too many paint this as if there’s been some movement from the middle, when in reality, the democrats have shifted right, the republicans have shifted _way_ right, and now are complaining about the hyperliberals who are further to the right than they ever should have been. ---
**Author:** ![davida03801](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b5e925/32.png) [@davida03801](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davida03801)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2013, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-american-politics-so-much-more-polarized-than-it-used-to-be/665164/146 "2013-10-16T19:33:32Z")
The rise of the internet and information age, and the decline of the big 3 networks controlling the news. The rise of the internet allows more people with extreme views on both sides of the political equation to be in contact with one another; therefore they have a bigger ability to form groups that that will influence certain elections to candidates with their views. Then the candidates become elected and are beholden to these groups. This is true on both the left and right. The opposite side of the argument is the decline of the big 3 networks. In previous years they had the monopoly to disseminate information and forced candidates to the center in order to be heard. In effect they pushed the marginal groups to the margins. That enforcement to the center is now gone forever. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2013, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-american-politics-so-much-more-polarized-than-it-used-to-be/665164/147 "2013-10-16T19:37:34Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Except that what we define as “liberal” has changed, and self-defining as liberal doesn’t mean going further to the left. I mean, the defining “liberal” idea of the USA today is an idea that is completely ubiquitous in most of the rest of the first world, and was actually a republican idea a few decades ago. There’s been a _massive_ shift over the past few decades to the right, and far too many paint this as if there’s been some movement from the middle, when in reality, the democrats have shifted right, the republicans have shifted _way_ right, and now are complaining about the hyperliberals who are further to the right than they ever should have been. Ok, set aside the self-identification of voters part if you must, and focus on the analysis of Congress: > [@](#): > > Ornstein and Mann list the average ideological positions of House and Senate Republicans and Democrats in each Congress since the end of World War II, adopting a scoring procedure developed some three decades ago by Keith Poole of the University of Georgia and Howard Rosenthal of NYU. The Poole-Rosenthal scale, based on members’ voting records, runs from -1 (most liberal) to +1 (most conservative). If the whole nation has been tacking right, then, using a constant scoring system, then Congress could be getting more conservative, or at least holding steady. That’s not what was found, though. Rather, they found that moderates were disappearing from Congress: > [@](#): > > Poole himself, in an article in UGA Research magazine (pages 34-35) discusses their methodology (including breakouts of Southern and non-Southern Democrats, not shown here) and draws some rather grim conclusions: “With almost no true moderates left in the House of Representatives, and just a handful remaining in the Senate, bipartisan agreements to fix the budgetary problems of the country are now almost impossible to reach. [And] given that trends in polarization have continued unabated for decades and appear to be related to underlying structural economic and social factors…it is unlikely that this deadlock will be broken anytime soon.” …that is, moderates were replaced by increasingly radical right-wingers _and_ increasingly radical left-wingers. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2013, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-american-politics-so-much-more-polarized-than-it-used-to-be/665164/148 "2013-10-16T19:44:36Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Ok, set aside the self-identification of voters part if you must, and focus on the analysis of Congress: > > If the whole nation has been tacking right, then, using a constant scoring system, then Congress could be getting more conservative, or at least holding steady. That’s not what was found, though. Rather, they found that moderates were disappearing from Congress: > > …that is, moderates were replaced by increasingly radical right-wingers _and_ increasingly radical left-wingers. Which runs quite contrary to [this](http://voteview.com/blog/?p=494). Huh. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2013, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-american-politics-so-much-more-polarized-than-it-used-to-be/665164/149 "2013-10-16T19:57:53Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Which runs quite contrary to [this](http://voteview.com/blog/?p=494). Huh. It doesn’t, actually, unless you can point me to where. That article is referring to the same research. From the [UGA magazine piece](http://issuu.com/ugaresearch/docs/ugaresearch_sp12?e=1854225/2617568) linked to in **BrainGlutton** ’s cite: > [@](#): > > First, while both parties have become more ideologically polarized in the last 40 years, Congressional Republicans have moved farther to the right than Democrats to the left during this period; moderate-to-liberal “gypsy moth” or “Rockefeller” Republicans have virtually disappeared from Congress. From yours: > [@](#): > > Indeed, we find that contemporary polarization is not only real — the ideological distance between the parties has grown dramatically since the 1970s — but also that it is asymmetric — congressional Republicans have moved farther away from the center than Democrats during this period. They even use the same graphs. So, both parties have moved away from the center, but the Republicans have moved further. I don’t contest that. The UGA piece has a sensible explanation, as well: the parties became more homogenous when the South switched from conservative Democrat to conservative Republican, and the North’s moderate-to-liberal Rockefeller Repubicans were replaced by liberal Democrats. With this done, coalitions and compromise became less important to the process, and polarization increased. ---
**Author:** ![madmonk28](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/madmonk28/32/20811_2.png) [@madmonk28](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/madmonk28)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2013, 12:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-american-politics-so-much-more-polarized-than-it-used-to-be/665164/150 "2013-10-17T12:05:20Z")
I think part of the reason you don’t seem more actual physical clashes is because in the past 20 years we’ve sorted ourselves out geographically into politically homogeneous enclaves. In earlier times it would be more common for people to interact with people from the other side of the aisle, that’s not as true anymore. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_stamos_left_ear/32/3198_2.png) [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Stamos_Left_Ear)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2013, 1:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-american-politics-so-much-more-polarized-than-it-used-to-be/665164/151 "2013-10-17T13:34:08Z")
It’s not just politics, but a symptom of our society as a whole. We live in a society where it is not uncommon for parents to come to blows at their kids’ little league games. Competition has crossed over to where it is unhealthy in many arenas, so it’s no surprise that it would happen in the political arena as well. I could be one of those guys who erroneously pine for olden days that never really existed, but it seems to me that sportsmanship, losing with grace and competing honorably and civilly were important virtues at some point. Whereas now, everyone has to win at all costs and even compromise is considered a loss to many. ---
**Author:** ![jsutter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/8e8cbc/32.png) [@jsutter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jsutter)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2013, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-american-politics-so-much-more-polarized-than-it-used-to-be/665164/152 "2013-10-17T14:20:29Z")
> [@madmonk28](#): > > I think part of the reason you don’t seem more actual physical clashes is because in the past 20 years we’ve sorted ourselves out geographically into politically homogeneous enclaves. In earlier times it would be more common for people to interact with people from the other side of the aisle, that’s not as true anymore. As we did just before the Civil War? 🙂 The Constitution is, in fact, an anti-democratic document. The elite (we the people were all white, propertied males) wrote it and signed it in large part to protect what they owned from the predations of the 99%. The original electoral system of indirect elections of the Senate assured that the state oligarchies remained firmly in control and scattered indirect House elections in voting districts drawn by the elite scattered dissent into manageable homogenous factions, much more so today given that 435 of the well-healed bought-and-paid-for represent 300 million people in gerrymandered districts. Divide and conquer, the motto of the 1%. Election reform? Don’t hold your breath. Aloha ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2013, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-american-politics-so-much-more-polarized-than-it-used-to-be/665164/153 "2013-10-17T14:52:44Z")
> [@jsutter](#): > > As we did just before the Civil War? 🙂 > > The Constitution is, in fact, an anti-democratic document. The elite (we the people were all white, propertied males) wrote it and signed it in large part to protect what they owned from the predations of the 99%. The original electoral system of indirect elections of the Senate assured that the state oligarchies remained firmly in control and scattered indirect House elections in voting districts drawn by the elite scattered dissent into manageable homogenous factions, much more so today given that 435 of the well-healed bought-and-paid-for represent 300 million people in gerrymandered districts. > > Divide and conquer, the motto of the 1%. Election reform? Don’t hold your breath. > > Aloha The Constitution doesn’t contain any voting requirements, it says: > [@](#): > > The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators. Further, if the motive of the framers was to “protect what they owned from the predations of the 99%”, all they’d have to do is create a system of hereditary peerage. Instead, they specifically prohibited this: > [@](#): > > No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State. And instead created a system of elected leaders. Calling the Constitution an anti-democratic document is senseless. ---
**Author:** ![jsutter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/8e8cbc/32.png) [@jsutter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jsutter)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2013, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-american-politics-so-much-more-polarized-than-it-used-to-be/665164/154 "2013-10-17T15:12:07Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > The Constitution doesn’t contain any voting requirements, it says: Well, that makes my point, thanks. > [@](#): > > Further, if the motive of the framers was to “protect what they owned from the predations of the 99%”, all they’d have to do is create a system of hereditary peerage. Instead, they specifically prohibited this: That’s right, it was a Republican oligarchy without a king. The Hereditary Peerage were the rich. Look around, my friend. > [@](#): > > And instead created a system of elected leaders. Calling the Constitution an anti-democratic document is senseless. Any document that denies full representation to 99% of its people is in no way democratic. Aloha ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2013, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-american-politics-so-much-more-polarized-than-it-used-to-be/665164/155 "2013-10-17T15:15:51Z")
> [@jsutter](#): > > Any document that denies full representation to 99% of its people is in no way democratic. What part of the Constitution says that? Mahalo. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2013, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-american-politics-so-much-more-polarized-than-it-used-to-be/665164/156 "2013-10-17T15:27:25Z")
> [@jsutter](#): > > Well, that makes my point, thanks. So, if every state legislature in 1789 had implemented universal suffrage, would the Constitution still be an anti-democratic document? [QUOTE=jsutter] That’s right, it was a Republican oligarchy without a king. The Hereditary Peerage were the rich. Look around, my friend. [/quote] The rich aren’t a stable group. Hereditary peers are. Thomas Jefferson, who died in poverty and deep debt, could have told you all about that. Seems awfully foolish of the framers to risk their power on the basis of their finances, if their goal is what you say it was. [QUOTE=jsutter] Any document that denies full representation to 99% of its people is in no way democratic. Aloha [/QUOTE] It doesn’t deny representation to anyone, it simply doesn’t define whom exactly may vote. Further, ‘not democratic’ isn’t the same as “anti-democratic”. An anti-democratic document is something like [this:](http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1840_Constitution_of_the_Kingdom_of_Hawaii) > [@1840 Constitution of Hawaii](#): > > The kingdom is permanently confirmed to Kamehameha III, and his heirs… > > … > > The prerogatives of the King are as follows: He is the sovereign of all the people and all the chiefs. The kingdom is his. ---
**Author:** ![jsutter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/8e8cbc/32.png) [@jsutter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jsutter)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2013, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-american-politics-so-much-more-polarized-than-it-used-to-be/665164/157 "2013-10-17T15:59:59Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > What part of the Constitution says that? Mahalo. They couldn’t have sold it to the populace and expect them to pay taxes and to use them as cannon fodder in their wars among themselves if they did, but that’s the way it’s always been practiced. Call me a cynic if you will, but it seems to me that most nation state governments are simply the legal face of organized crime. Even the best intentioned republic is by it’s nature going to prove corrupt. Too few reps for too many people insures that nobody personally knows who is representing them in the back room. Anyone who doesn’t understand that needs to develop a little critical thinking, imho. Aloha ---
**Author:** ![jsutter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/8e8cbc/32.png) [@jsutter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jsutter)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2013, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-american-politics-so-much-more-polarized-than-it-used-to-be/665164/158 "2013-10-17T16:44:30Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > So, if every state legislature in 1789 had implemented universal suffrage, would the Constitution still be an anti-democratic document? How would I know? Would politicians be more honest? > [@](#): > > The rich aren’t a stable group. Hereditary peers are. Thomas Jefferson, who died in poverty and deep debt, could have told you all about that. Seems awfully foolish of the framers to risk their power on the basis of their finances, if their goal is what you say it was. I think the Founding Fathers are turning over in their graves at what’s going on today. While they enjoyed their wealth, they were also men of mind and appreciated education for its own sake. We’ve become a meritocracy of money in the world’s most powerful kleptocracy. > [@](#): > > It doesn’t deny representation to anyone, it simply doesn’t define whom exactly may vote. But it does say who chooses who you can vote for. > [@](#): > > Further, ‘not democratic’ isn’t the same as “anti-democratic”. I disagee. > [@](#): > > An anti-democratic document is something like [this:](http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1840_Constitution_of_the_Kingdom_of_Hawaii) Alohahaha. Things have changed since 1840. That said, Hawaii is a special case, the only state not on the continent consisting of eight island counties. In Kauai, the CEO is known as the The Mayor of Kauai and everyone knows him or someone who does. He is responsible to his constituents. If wasn’t, he’d be out on his ear. We can talk about it elsewhere if you like. 🙂 Aloha ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/82dd89/32.png) [@Kearsen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2013, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-american-politics-so-much-more-polarized-than-it-used-to-be/665164/159 "2013-10-17T16:52:05Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > The Republicans had total control for a number of years in the mid-2000s and wrecked the country. So they can’t appeal to people based on what they stand for. They can’t say “remember how great it was when everyone voted Republican?” > > So what can they do? They can try to get people to hate/fear the democrats even more. Focus all the energy into driving hatred to. > > I don’t know what the cause/effect relationship is in regards to that, the internet, and fox news. The internet and fox news allow a whole lot of people to completely surround themselves in an echo chamber where they’re happily scared and told what to hate over and over again. Everyone they know thinks their very country is being destroyed by a communist takeover, they hear it from every news story and every internet message board post they read, and they all get themselves worked up into a frothing ball of retard. All i saw was “they”, “Republicans”, and “Fox” and a whole lot of wah wah As Marley already stated, pretty ironic. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2013, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-american-politics-so-much-more-polarized-than-it-used-to-be/665164/160 "2013-10-17T17:02:06Z")
> [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](#): > > It’s not just politics, but a symptom of our society as a whole. We live in a society where it is not uncommon for parents to come to blows at their kids’ little league games. > > Competition has crossed over to where it is unhealthy in many arenas, so it’s no surprise that it would happen in the political arena as well. > > I could be one of those guys who erroneously pine for olden days that never really existed, but it seems to me that sportsmanship, losing with grace and competing honorably and civilly were important virtues at some point. Whereas now, everyone has to win at all costs and even compromise is considered a loss to many. “Men, all this stuff you hear about America not wanting to fight, wanting to stay out of the war, is a lot of bullshit. Americans love to fight. All real Americans love the sting and clash of battle. When you were kids, you all admired the champion marble shooter, the fastest runner, the big-league ball players and the toughest boxers. Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser. Americans play to win all the time. That’s why Americans have never lost and will never lose a war. The very thought of losing is hateful to Americans. Battle is the most significant competitions in which a man can indulge. It brings out all that is best and it removes all that is base.” – [Gen. George S. Patton](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_S._Patton's_speech_to_the_Third_Army) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-american-politics-so-much-more-polarized-than-it-used-to-be/665164.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-american-politics-so-much-more-polarized-than-it-used-to-be/665164.md?page=9)