Oh, and we’ve had mass shootings, too. Most of them were certainly just apolitical craziness. But if a Sikh congregation or a Unitarian congregation or a member of Congress gets shot at, that’s a symptom of something political.
You’re pointing to events that were nearly two decades old and pale in comparison to what happened in the 60s.
You’re not helping your case. In fact, you’re hurting it.
During the 1960s anti-War protestors openly called for a victory by the NLF(AKA the VC). One of the more popular chants was “Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh. The NLF is gonna win” and people literally cheered and celebrated the assassinations of Martin Luther King and JFK.
Can anyone imagine modern day anti-War protester leading chants of “Osama, Osama!” Or “We support the Taliban!”
Nor is this to dump all over the left of the 60s. The right-wingers of the 60s were even worse and made modern day right-wingers look like pikers.
I want to throw up every time I hear some idiot white progressive praise Barry Goldwater and squeal about there being no Republicans like him.
For those unfamiliar with him, he was a huge opponent of the Civil Rights movement who attacked not only the Civil Rights Act of the 1960s but raged against the Brown decision arguing that “negro children” had “no right to go to school with white children.”
And that’s not even counting all the other segregationists of the 60s.
My prior posts are focused specifically on social conservatism, which, IMO, is the principal from which good leadership and governance derives.
As the chasm of political discourse widens, the distance on each side become more ‘extreme.’
Answering Ibn Warraq et al, a big difference between the present polarization and that of the 1960’s is that the latter was largely not party-aligned.
Much of the anti-war movement was by progressives against the Democrat Party. Similarly, chief opponents of Civil Rights were Democrats in the South.
So, a key part of the answer to OP’s question, assuming (as I did) that he meant polarization along party lines, is that the parties are now less heterogeneous, with Republicans much more likely to support 2nd Amendment, Democrats much more likely to support Roe v Wade, 1st Amendment, Republicans more likely to support foreign military adventures, and so on. (But this isn’t the full explanation of partisan sniping, as the parties still each do have much diversity.)
I blame the Internet, especially Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, message boards and blogs that enable every idiot to argue incessantly about every possible topic and turn it into a tirade.
If you don’t want to hear polarizing dialogue, I suggest step away from the computer and turn on a non-news channel. I hear almost zero political discussion from people IRL.
I do not consider “RW” politicos to be “conservatives” just because they happen to have an ‘R’ after their name. This really became evident to me while Bill Clinton was POTUS.
Had he been talking about “partisanship” instead of “polarization” you might have a point, but he wasn’t so you don’t.
Sorry, but to try and claim that America is more polarized now than it was in decades past shows a huge ignorance of American history.
Things are probably no worse than they’ve been in other eras as posters have pointed out, but the 24 hour news cycle and the Internet have made people more aware of what’s going on and allowed people to give their opinions quickly and easily. These things probably make it seem like things are the worst they’ve ever been because we hear about it more quickly.
Economic conservatives sometimes have ideas or arguments worth listening to. But American social/religious conservatives, while often more good-hearted than the economic conservatives, are always absolutely and entirely wrong about every single thing that distinguishes them from others. How could they be a foundation for good anything? Abortion, school prayer, gay rights, SSM, creationism . . . these should not even be debates at this stage of American history. All they do is divert attention from things that really matter.
They take place daily on internet message boards and comment sections, where people can spew their hatred and receive reinforcement or engage in bitter, angry debate and virtual fist-pumping from the comfort of their homes.
The vast majority of people don’t really want to march and bomb for change, they just want to be heard - or at least to think they’re being heard.
Again I state - the Internet is the greatest pacification tool ever devised.
Even the porn is . . . pacifying.
" But American social/religious conservatives, while often more good-hearted than the economic conservatives, are always absolutely and entirely wrong about every single thing that distinguishes them from others"
Well, there we have it - the arbitrary dismissal of leadership whose moral principles may be steeped in their religious convictions.
The fact that you seem to compartmentalize “social conservatism” to the point where it cannot offer positive influences in the practice of sound economics or business leadership suggest to me a limited understanding of the value of integrity, and that discipline which keeps it in tact, not only in economics/business, but all endeavors.
To what advantage is “brilliance” if it can’t be trusted?
The Republican Party adopting the Religious Right many years ago.
This assembled a group of voters, Baby Boom generation and beyond, that mingled their political compass with their religious one.
We all know what happens when you mix politics and religion. Irrationality. Even the rationally religious started jumping ship now that the nut jobs are really beginnings surface. The Fear, Hate, and Uncertainty machine is in high gear, and now we have a “brown” president in office…
And both sides are retreating from each other to the point of spite.
My mother for instance: Fundamental Christian, hard core republican.
It doesn’t matter if Romney would do anything at all about Roe vs. Wade, it’s that Romney is pro-life, which, of course, God is too.
Obama is now villainized because he’s satan’s puppet. And a terrorist. A terrorist Muslim. Enemy of Israel. Etc. A perfect gift to these conspiratorial nut jobs. And the lather gets thicker and thicker.
So… They know damn well to who pander to and how to do it.
Not at all. Christian Socialists meet that description and I’m not dismissing them; they have something of value to contribute. The Constitution Party does not.
No, there is no way in which “social conservatism” offers positive influences in the practice of sound economics or business leadership. If you think it does you should re-examine your faith; Jesus was no businessman and did not think much of them.
To what advantage is ignorance if it can’t be educated?
And GWB was a fascist who hated poor people, wanted to install American hegemony, and stole the 2000 election. The lather is thick on both sides. It has always been that way.
This sort of misrepresentation is one of the major causes of America’s obscene political polarization.
Both sides lie. Both sides exaggerate. But in today’s America to believe (or pretend to believe) that the magnitude of Democrat hypocrisy and prevarication approaches the magnitude of GOP hypocrisy and prevarication is grossly ignorant. (Unfortunately, to typical poorly informed voters, it does “seem” like the sort of thing likely to be true.)
I consider myself a centrist and fairly well informed on politics and my belief is that if someone thinks one party is grossly worse than the other party then they are hopelessly biased.
You must acknowledge there have been periods of American history when one party was grossly worse than the other. Why not now?
This kind of completely serious self-parody is one of the things that keeps bringing me back to the SDMB.
Regards,
Shodan