What are the roots of the current divisiveness of American politics/discourse?

[Crumpets]

In the wake of the attack on the GOP baseball team yesterday, as with the Giffords shooting 6 years ago, it feels like we have really reached a new low in terms of our ability to relate or even communicate with people we disagree with politically. Sure there's lots of immediate aggravating factors - the 2016 election pitted two polarizing candidates against one another, there was a difference between the electoral and popular vote, the incredibly fast pace of Trump's first few months, the apparent rise in profile of many figures formerly considered "fringe" groups, such as the Alt-Right, and whatever ideology you want to ascribe to the shooter yesterday.

At the same time, these appear to be symptoms of a much larger disease that really feels like it started 10-20 years ago, and maybe earlier. Whatever caused it is certainly many years in the making, and almost definitely beyond the ability of one or even a few people to instigate. What do you see as the root cause of our current divisiveness?

[Technocracy Timmy]

Economic stagnation, institutional distrust, and generational aging are the three big ones that come to mind.

[Hindsight was 2020]

Fox and talk radio spewing since the 90's that red rural states are "real America" while the East and West coasts are "others" and then under Bush saying liberals "wanted the terrorist" to win.

[Hindsight was 2020]

Also I think a combination of Obama an minorities making up a bigger part of the population resulting in issues such as racial profiling now can't be ignored like it was under the Reagan years

[Person Man]

General unwillingness to adapt to a changing world? Steady decline in morale because of and due to the Watergate burglary?

[SingingAnalyst]

America has always been divided on certain issues, but seldom if ever has the division been as existential for the Republic as it is today.

The years leading up to the Civil War and the Vietnam War era were certainly close.

The division today appears to be between those who believe America is-- and/or ought to be-- exceptional; and those who believe America is not-- and/or ought not be-- exceptional.

(So deep is the division that it transcends the is-ought gap).

On one side are those who believe America is and ought to be a beacon of hope, a shining city on a hill, for those who sacrifice, work hard, and play by the rules.

On the other side are those who believe America is and ought to be a member of the world community-- no more or less powerful than other nations-- and perhaps no different except in demography and geography.

Religion fuels much of the divide, with many (though, importantly, not all) in the first group claiming that America is and ought to be a Christian nation, that abortion and SSM should be forbidden, etc.; while those in the second group argue America ought to be open and inclusive to all nations, religions, lifestyles, etc.

What is different today is that the two major parties almost perfectly represent these two strains of thought.

Sadly, there appears to be little hope of healing the divide. Two generations after the passage of the Civil Rights Act, Blacks are as monolithically Democratic in their voting and as conscious of racism (police brutality, etc.) in their daily lives as ever-- and many whites, having (in the minds of many) made numerous concessions to Black demands, feel slighted and unappreciated. The first election after Obergefell v. Hodges saw gays and lesbians give record high levels of support to the Democrats. After nearly half a century of Jewish-Christian dialogue, the electoral rift between Jews on the one hand and Evangelicals/Catholics on the other, is as wide as or wider than ever.

As so much of the American exceptionalist view is based on negative religious teachings (mankind is essentially evil; our true hope is not in this world but in the world to come; the world is fundamentally unjust), I see little hope that this view can prevail or capture the attention of too many young Americans-- which is why the non-exceptionalist view seems to be prevailing in the larger culture (and has all but taken over Hollywood, secular universities, etc.)

The battle ought to be between competing methods of how to best provide for the American people; the last election that I think remotely resembled this model was 1976. Instead, it is dominated by competing visions-- with the most ignorant and unreasonable on both sides framing the debate (and the second group having the advantage of greater education and a more positive, life-affirming worldview, at least in theory).

[Santander]

America has always been divided on certain issues, but seldom if ever has the division been as existential for the Republic as it is today.

The years leading up to the Civil War and the Vietnam War era were certainly close.

Considering we literally had a civil war, I'm pretty sure we were more divided then than now.

[136or142]

There is nothing wrong with division. People have differing ideas and differing interests.  Why shouldn't people be divided?

The issue is 'when did politics get so course?'  

Of course, there has always been dishonesty and half truth in American politics, but this division based on trying to destroy people based on dishonesty and half truths goes back in modern times to two people: Lee Atwater at the Presidential level and Newt Gingrich at the Congressional level.  Frank Luntz can also be thrown in, I know he was an adviser to Gingrich, but I believe he'd advised both.

[The Mikado]

Honestly? A growing dread and sinking conclusion that the country's best days are behind it and that the country is going to the dogs, which is shared by people on both sides of the aisle and has been for decades (at the very least since 9/11).

[KingSweden]

Because we're seeing a massive demographic change in this country as the white share of the population declines, which is exacerbated by coming in tandem with the political twilight of the largest and most polarized generation in a century occurring simultaneously as the next largest, and most diverse, generation begins to demand power. Further exacerbating is the aftershocks of a recession larger than anyone understood or cared to acknowledge, with rapid technological change making bubbles fiercer and more impenetrable than ever before.

[Green Line]

Because we're seeing a massive demographic change in this country as the white share of the population declines, which is exacerbated by coming in tandem with the political twilight of the largest and most polarized generation in a century occurring simultaneously as the next largest, and most diverse, generation begins to demand power. Further exacerbating is the aftershocks of a recession larger than anyone understood or cared to acknowledge, with rapid technological change making bubbles fiercer and more impenetrable than ever before.

That has completely nothing to do with it...  it's just the internet.  That's it.  And Bernie.

[KingSweden]

Because we're seeing a massive demographic change in this country as the white share of the population declines, which is exacerbated by coming in tandem with the political twilight of the largest and most polarized generation in a century occurring simultaneously as the next largest, and most diverse, generation begins to demand power. Further exacerbating is the aftershocks of a recession larger than anyone understood or cared to acknowledge, with rapid technological change making bubbles fiercer and more impenetrable than ever before.

That has completely nothing to do with it...  it's just the internet.  That's it.  And Bernie.

The Internet amplifies and main streams what was already there

[darklordoftech]

It began with the National Review. The National Review influenced Barry Goldwater, who captured the Republican nomination in 1964, ending the rule that only a moderate could be nominated for President by a major party. The culture wars of the 1960s and early 1970s divided America, as did the Reagan Revolution. It really went off the deep end when Newt Gingrich established a doctrine for congressional Republicans when a Democrat is in the White House: make wild accusations, never compromise, always obstruct, have hearings on everything, etc.

[Yank2133]

It began with the National Review. The National Review influenced Barry Goldwater, who captured the Republican nomination in 1964, ending the rule that only a moderate could be nominated for President by a major party. It really went off the deep end when Newt Gingrich established a doctrine for congressional Republicans when a Democrat is in the White House: make wild accusations, never compromise, always obstruct, have hearings on everything, etc.

This.

[AZDem]

It began with the National Review. The National Review influenced Barry Goldwater, who captured the Republican nomination in 1964, ending the rule that only a moderate could be nominated for President by a major party. It really went off the deep end when Newt Gingrich established a doctrine for congressional Republicans when a Democrat is in the White House: make wild accusations, never compromise, always obstruct, have hearings on everything, etc.

This.
Oh yes. His antics from '95-'98 contributed to the downward spiral in politics. That fact that anyone still gives this s**tstain money says more about them (Fox News) than him. Well I guess he needs to whore himself out to keep the Tiffany's and Nieman credit lines open for Calista's upkeep.

His latest tweet about Mueller is the absolute height hypocrisy this side of Mitch McConnell's current "I'm queen of the manor" routine in the Senate.

[OSR stands with Israel]

The 2004 election

[Badger]

Among the four top choices, I chose 3. The one I didn't choose was the media promoting divisiveness, etc. It does to a degree, but certainly no worse than say 100 years ago. Unlike the "bubblization" of "information sources" which has devastated dialogue.

[BlueSwan]

Good question.

First we should ask ourselves whether this is an American phenomenon or an international phenomenon, as we should seek national explanations for international phenomena.

However, while the rise of the populist right (or alt-right if you will) based on working class whites abandoning the left for politics based on fear of immigrants and globalization is DEFINITELY an international phenomenon, this is only part of the explanation of the polarization we see in american politics. As such, I do think we need to at least partly look at national explanations for this.

As late as the 80's, even while much of the left hated Reagan, bipartisan collaboration was still normal in the house and especially the senate. Equally so, both conservative democrats and liberal republicans were still a normal phenomenon - a phenomenon that is almost nonexistent today, at least at the national level.

As much as I find it problematic to blame one side of the aisle for this, I feel that the burden of the blame should indeed be put on republicans in congress (kickstarted by Newt Gingrich under Clinton) and the rise of right wing talk radio and Foxnews. The divisiveness started by this has been exacerbated immensely by social media bubbles during the last decade.

Looking at the poll, I do not believe that economic inequality has much of anything to do with the increased polarization. Nor do I believe that it had anything to do with the election of Trump.

[136or142]

Good question.

First we should ask ourselves whether this is an American phenomenon or an international phenomenon, as we should seek national explanations for international phenomena.

However, while the rise of the populist right (or alt-right if you will) based on working class whites abandoning the left for politics based on fear of immigrants and globalization is DEFINITELY an international phenomenon, this is only part of the explanation of the polarization we see in american politics. As such, I do think we need to at least partly look at national explanations for this.

As late as the 80's, even while much of the left hated Reagan, bipartisan collaboration was still normal in the house and especially the senate. Equally so, both conservative democrats and liberal republicans were still a normal phenomenon - a phenomenon that is almost nonexistent today, at least at the national level.

As much as I find it problematic to blame one side of the aisle for this, I feel that the burden of the blame should indeed be put on republicans in congress (kickstarted by Newt Gingrich under Clinton) and the rise of right wing talk radio and Foxnews. The divisiveness started by this has been exacerbated immensely by social media bubbles during the last decade.

Looking at the poll, I do not believe that economic inequality has much of anything to do with the increased polarization. Nor do I believe that it had anything to do with the election of Trump.

You can write 'the left hated Reagan' but the issue isn't 'hate' but was the 'hate' intellectually honest.  Not trying to compare Reagan to Hitler, but from an intellectually honest perspective would it be wrong to 'hate' Hitler?  If not, then if a person had sound/intellectually honest reasons for 'hating' Reagan, there is nothing inherently wrong or divisive about that 'hate' just as there is obviously nothing inherently wrong in 'hating' Hitler.

In regards to Newt Gingrich, I also mentioned Lee Atwater who seems to have been forgotten.  He was a terrible person who deserves to be forgotten, even with his deathbed conversion and apologies, but from wiki:

Atwater's aggressive tactics were first demonstrated during the 1980 Congressional campaigns. He was a campaign consultant to Republican incumbent Floyd Spence in his campaign for Congress against Democratic nominee Tom Turnipseed. Atwater's tactics in that campaign included push polling in the form of fake surveys by so-called independent pollsters to inform white suburbanites that Turnipseed was a member of the NAACP.[citation needed] He also sent out last-minute letters from Senator Thurmond telling voters that Turnipseed would disarm America, and turn it over to liberals and Communists.[citation needed] At a press briefing, Atwater planted a fake reporter who rose and said, "We understand Turnipseed has had psychotic treatment." Atwater later told reporters off the record that Turnipseed "got hooked up to jumper cables", referring to electroconvulsive therapy that Turnipseed underwent as a teenager.[6]

"Lee seemed to delight in making fun of a suicidal 16-year-old who was treated for depression with electroshock treatments", Turnipseed recalled. "In fact, my struggle with depression as a student was no secret. I had talked about it in a widely covered news conference as early as 1977, when I was in the South Carolina State Senate. Since then I have often shared with appropriate groups the full story of my recovery to responsible adulthood as a professional, political and civic leader, husband and father. Teenage depression and suicide are major problems in America, and I believe my life offers hope to young people who are suffering with a constant fear of the future."[6]

[Koharu]

Our education system has moved increasingly towards encouraging recitation of facts for countless tests instead of fostering critical thinking skills. This, combined with the media sensationalizing things and social media making echo chambers even more echo-y, is much of what is to blame. Many people simply lack the skills to appropriately judge what they're shown and fall back on red vs blue gang support instead of focusing on the greater good.

Edit: Sorry for the typos making this almost nonsensical. I couldn't sleep and was typing on my phone without my glasses when I should have been sleeping...

[Alabama_Indy10]

It began with the National Review. The National Review influenced Barry Goldwater, who captured the Republican nomination in 1964, ending the rule that only a moderate could be nominated for President by a major party. The culture wars of the 1960s and early 1970s divided America, as did the Reagan Revolution. It really went off the deep end when Newt Gingrich established a doctrine for congressional Republicans when a Democrat is in the White House: make wild accusations, never compromise, always obstruct, have hearings on everything, etc.

So it is just the Republicans fault? Democrats don't have any part in it whatsoever? Ok.

[Koharu]

Oh, also, I forgot to mention this. A lot of it is human nature via having this whole Red vs Blue party mindset.

As prophesied quite accurately by Gen. Geo Washington in his farewell address, emphasis mine:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     The alienation of modern society, giving way to balkanization. Even on a forum like this where people across the spectrum post, genuine interaction is not as common as it should be. Rather, it is far more common to see like-minded people commiserate over how their opposition is evil and the cause of everything bad in the world. Case in point, many of the responses in this thread.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Honestly? A growing dread and sinking conclusion that the country's best days are behind it and that the country is going to the dogs, which is shared by people on both sides of the aisle and has been for decades (at the very least since 9/11).

Have you talked to many liberal Boomers lately? A lot of them seem to think that "the decline" started on November 22, 1963 and has only gotten worse since.

[136or142]

It began with the National Review. The National Review influenced Barry Goldwater, who captured the Republican nomination in 1964, ending the rule that only a moderate could be nominated for President by a major party. The culture wars of the 1960s and early 1970s divided America, as did the Reagan Revolution. It really went off the deep end when Newt Gingrich established a doctrine for congressional Republicans when a Democrat is in the White House: make wild accusations, never compromise, always obstruct, have hearings on everything, etc.

So it is just the Republicans fault? Democrats don't have any part in it whatsoever? Ok.

What specifically did the Democrats do that has played a role in this?  Just because there are two parties (literally) to this doesn't mean they are equally to blame or even that they both share blame.  

Thomas Mann is a liberal Democrat, but, while Norm Ornstein used to be a conservative Democrat he also used to work (or maybe he still does) for the conservative leaning American Enterprise Institute.


Let's Just Say It: The Republicans Are the Problem
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/lets-just-say-it-the-republicans-are-the-problem/2012/04/27/gIQAxCVUlT_story.html?utm_term=.197346bfc6b4