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

[Bojack Horseman]

Social media and other. It really started with the election of Barack Obama to the presidency which ignited the conservative firestorm of overt and open racism. Combine this with Fox News and all of their propaganda with the rise of right-wing blogs and internet conspiracy theories and we have the most divided, uninformed, bigoted electorate in American history.

The difference between right wing hate of Obama's and left wing hate of Trump is that the right's hatred of Obama was and still is fueled only by the color of his skin. We lefties hate Trump because he is truly despicable, a pathetic excuse for a human being.

This is why I have absolutely no sympathy for Steve Scalise. I refuse to light a candle or say a prayer for David Duke Without The Baggage.

[krazen1211]

The Democrat party is unable to man up and deal with losing an election....and has a kill list of the people who won the election.

Maybe go back to the old standard of trying to make Donald Trump a 1 term President?

Link

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The Democrat party is unable to man up and deal with losing an election....and has a kill list of the people who won the election.

Maybe go back to the old standard of trying to make Donald Trump a 1 term President?

Link

Even Krazen is losing steam. His trolling is nowhere near as good as it used to be

Quomodo sedet sola civitas plena populo.

[The Arizonan]

I think that the real problem is that people in general are more divided than ever from a general standpoint. People don't really want to associate with or listen to viewpoints from people that are different from them. Everyone wants to self-segregate and the internet has only made it much worse. Do you ever notice how everyone is cliqueist even in the adult world? Hell, people are cliqueist on internet forums.

[The_Doctor]

The Republican majority since 1980 hasn't ever been strong enough to command a broad segment of the country but hasn't been replaced by the progressive Democratic majority.  The last time the GOP won blowout victories were 1980-1992. Since then the Democrats have won 6-4 in the popular vote and stayed within 2-3% in the House vote.

Since then they've ground out 2-3% wins while the Democrats win 45%+ of the country and large popular vote majorities when they win. But in turn the Democrats can't enact their progressive agenda because we're still running on Reagan's rules. So they get stopped by Congress and the public.

In response the GOP tries to build increasing loyalty among its base and voters so you see people like Krazen demonize the opposition. They can't expand the Reagan coalition so they double down and try to grind it out.

Ergo gridlock and increased polarization. And increased division. The only way to solve is a grand realignment or a major Republican victory that reaches 55-60% of the country. Realignment is more likely.

(TechnocraticTimmy is responsible for some of this theory).

[Technocracy Timmy]

^ To be fair, two users (uti2 and darklordoftech) clued me in on the theory first

[blacknwhiterose]

I chose:

1) America is a large and diverse nation
2) Decline in religiosity
3) Modern technology reinforcing "bubbles"

I think number 1 should be obvious, the more diverse the USA becomes, racially, economically, spiritually, and ideologically, the more likely there is to be divisiveness.  Different people, with different experiences, different world views, different dreams...

Number 2 has been finally documented by some people, as many Americans of all stripes become less association with religion, the more likely they are to put their identity in other stuff: job/class status, race, ideology, etc, and become divided over these things.  The declining influence of the Religious Right in politics coinciding with the rise of the Alt Right perfectly illustrates this.  Churches used to be the number one institution of civic participation for Americans, many Americans used to have church-centered social lives, and churches used to be the number 1 place where men met their wives.  There is no other institution that has replaced the powerful centerpiece to many people's lives that faith and church participation once did.  In this vacuum, many have become less social, which leads me to my third choice:

#3 Modern technology promoting anti-social habits, internet hyperbole warping minds towards paranoia and despair, and social media/forums creating "bubbles" that further radicalize those minds.  I believe this is a very large factor in the modern phenomenon of the mass shooter.

[GoTfan]

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.

Stop fetishizing Hillary for a few moments and look at things objectively. Seriously, your love for her borders on the weird.

[Tekken_Guy]

I'd say "bubbles", the media, and white men are the main issues.

The rise of Identity politics fueled divides not just on the left and right, but between other social groups, i.e. whites/minorities, men/women, straight/LGBT, Christians/non-Christians, old/young, and so on, with Republicans being seen as representing the first half of each pair's interests, and the Democrats the second half. The two parties have clear demographic coalitions:

Democrats:
-Blacks
-Latinos/Mexicans
-Asians
-Native Americans
-Reform/Conservative Jews
-Muslims
-Other Religions
-LGBT
-Feminists
-Environmentalists
-SJWs
-Abortionists
-Millennials
-Academia
-College-educated voters
-Upper-class people
-A-List Celebrities
-Anti-Trump ex-GOPers

Republicans:
-Whites
-Evangelical Christians
-Mormons
-Orthodox Jews
-Pro-Israel people
-Anti-Islamists
-Anti-Immigration people
-Police
-Military guys
-MRAs
-Anti-PC people
-Blue-collar people
-Gun people
-Confederates
-Baby Boomers
-Pro-Lifers
-Non-college people
-Minor Celebrities

[Skunk]

The 2000 election dispute set the stage for the current polarization right now, IMO. Having a close election drag out for an extra month and having to take it to the Supreme Court to decide if recounts in one state was legal or not led to a lot of animosity among Democrats. A lot of them thought George Bush was illegitimate and Republicans grew angry at Democrats for thinking such. This resentment between both parties lasted until 2004, which was extremely divisive and set the stage for the modern divisiveness we see today.

[OSR stands with Israel]

2004 arguably was more divisive then this election if you look at the results. (Except for Iowa, New Mexico, New Hampshire) states that were Republican in 2000 went even more Republican and  states that were Democratic went even more democratic . At best most states stayed at same percentage they were in 2000 despite 2000 being a .5% Gore victory in popular vote while 2004 being a 2.5% Bush victory.

These are the things which in my opinion lead to the current polarization

Clinton Impeachment Trial
Bush v Gore case
Iraq War- This was the big one and when things really started to turn for the worse
Bush ramming his domestic agenda down the dems throat despite winning such a small victory
The Left going of the edge with their hated with Bush
GOP over the top love of Bush
The Divisive 2004 campaign(From that point on things the dominoes fell even more)


This is where I think Timmy and TD are wrong, I dont think we are in a Republican era right now I think we are in a polarizing era and divided era just like we were from 1860-1896. Remember with the exception of 1864-1865,1868-1871 that era was extremely polarization and neither side got what they wanted . Similarly since 2004 neither side has really gotten what they want.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Here's a hot take: the electoral collage and data journalism are to blame for reinforcing political divides as geographical and demographics chasms. People who follow politics lose site of individuals and can only see groups, which is especially bad when crude assumptions are drawn from data (e.g. republicans  writing off all younger votes as spoilt college kids; democrats moronically boasting about their highly educated vote and characterising the GOP base as gap toothed Hicks).

[136or142]

The Republican majority since 1980 hasn't ever been strong enough to command a broad segment of the country but hasn't been replaced by the progressive Democratic majority.  The last time the GOP won blowout victories were 1980-1992. Since then the Democrats have won 6-4 in the popular vote and stayed within 2-3% in the House vote.

Since then they've ground out 2-3% wins while the Democrats win 45%+ of the country and large popular vote majorities when they win. But in turn the Democrats can't enact their progressive agenda because we're still running on Reagan's rules. So they get stopped by Congress and the public.

In response the GOP tries to build increasing loyalty among its base and voters so you see people like Krazen demonize the opposition. They can't expand the Reagan coalition so they double down and try to grind it out.

Ergo gridlock and increased polarization. And increased division. The only way to solve is a grand realignment or a major Republican victory that reaches 55-60% of the country. Realignment is more likely.

(TechnocraticTimmy is responsible for some of this theory).

this is basically the Hegelian Dialectic.

[136or142]

The extreme divisiveness in the political class goes back to Newt Gingrich and Lee Atwater.

I get tired of hearing the lazy 'both sides are equally bad' nonsense.  There was one comment here of the excessive hatred on the left for George W Bush.  The George W Bush Administration lied to the public to lead the nation into an unnecessary war and then compounded that by handling the post war situation in Iraq about as incompetently as possible.  I'm sorry, what is 'excessive hate' (or whatever the phrase was) over this?

Then, after that and two terms of President Obama Republicans nominated Donald Trump to be their Presidential nominee.  George W Bush and Donald Trump will almost certainly go down as two of the worst Presidents in U.S history (if not world history.) 

There is simply no comparison with the Administrations of President Clinton and President Obama.

In terms of the divisiveness with the public, I think there are a couple things here:
1.A good deal of the public is certainly at least an partisan as the politicians. I don't know what it is, but the Republican Party/Trump enablers seem to have lost their minds.  It seems pretty evident that all they are capable of doing is mindlessly regurgitating the phrase 'fake news' to every story critical of President Trump.

2.That aside, I don't know if they are fully reflective of the public and even if they are fully reflective of Republicans/Trump supporters.  I think with a lot of the discussions on the internet the exact same thing as with George Akerlof's used car lemon problem is occurring: those who aren't reflexive hyper partisan see the on line discussions and a lot of them basically throw up their hands and decide there is no point in adding a more thoughtful comment. So, the only people left to make comments on most web boards are the hyper partisans and the trolls.

[pbrower2a]

Listing and analyzing each:

Lingering effects of Great Recession/Economic Inequality         -34 (11.4%)

Economic inequality began to intensify about 40 years ago. The division began well before the Great Recession.

America is an empire in a post-imperial world - our large and diverse country naturally lends itself to increased division         -20 (6.7%)

We may not need "empire"  for our safety, but we are culturally 'wired' to need it. That means identity.
 
The government has become complacent as neither party has faced a true existential threat in decades         -15 (5%)

Communism was strictly an external threat. There has been no clearly-focused enemy around which Americans could unite since 9/11. The reptilian mind of the subconscious needs an enemy and usually finds one.  
 
The media is incentivized to promote conflict and sensationalism         -50 (16.7%)

Ratings and the advertising revenue that they generate drive the content of ruthless figures in the media. News has gone from a public service ion broadcasting to just another profit center.  I see this as a big factor.
 
People feel less agency over the decisions made by government due to increased influence of pan-national organizations like the UN and WTO         -12 (4%)

Little effect on most people.

White men threatened by the rise of women and minorities         -40 (13.4%)

Big effect. Men are more aggressive than women, and they get angrier than do hurt women. Men are more prone to extremism, and Trump exploited this.
 
Lack of a common existential threat - USSR, Nazis, Al-Qaeda         -21 (7%)

See the existential threat to the Parties.
 
A general moral decay, due to increasing irreligiosity and secularism         -15 (5%)

The moral decay is real, but it is not strictly a result of secularism and rejection of religion.

Foreign powers have nurtured divisions between Americans to weaken the nation on the international stage         -11 (3.7%)

Possible result of choices by Vladimir Putin, who thought that Donald trump might be useful.

Social media has strengthened the "bubbles" we live in, by showing us hundreds of people who agree with us and little else         -53 (17.7%)

As local communities polarize by ethnicity, sect, intellectual level, and class, social media allow people to get into virtual communication (but not face-to-face) with people who share common values and tastes. Chance meetings person-to-person are less likely to satisfy people, and civic life deteriorates.

Other (explain)         -13 (4.3%)

See below in a new post.

Americans are divided, but that's a good thing and reflects a strong democracy         -6 (2%)

I see plenty of foreboding. Democracy allows us to communicate our differences, but it does not force us to solve problems related to differences.
 
America is not any more divided now than it has been in the recent past, it just feels that way

The division is real and ominous.

Contrast the Great Recession (autumn 2007-spring 2009) to the start of the Great Depression (autumn 1932). Both were similarly severe over a year and a half and had much the same cause (speculative bubbles imploding in financial panics). The meltdown leading to the Great Depression lasted fully three years and eliminated a valuation of about eight of nine units of valuation of wealth and led to about 25% unemployment. In such a scenario everyone is put into the same leaky boat and recognizes the need for competent, principled, organized struggle to get out of a dangerous reality. 'Every man for himself' failed during the Great Depression. At the end of the Great Recession America had lost about half its financial valuation. America got to recover from a more advantageous position. But more on that.

[pbrower2a]

I don't see America (by which I mean Americans, if not their leadership, a different story) becoming more immoral. Less religious, perhaps -- but also less superstitious. Much of American religion was tied to superstition, and where superstition and religion were intertwined inseparably they had to disappear together or survive together.

The success of gays and lesbians in entering the social mainstream reflects a positive change in morals. People have begun to recognize that homosexuality is not a lust by older men for boys; indeed, mainstream homosexuals have done everything possible to reject the child-abusing perverts that used to pretend that they were the face of homosexuality.  America has unified along the shared attitude that children are not legitimate objects of sexual indulgence. The convictions of clergy for abuse of boys reflects a crackdown on abusive behavior.

We were able to elect, horror of horrors to most prior times, a black man as President. He proves moral, decent, rational, and focused. He became a big so-what. Gutter racism, an immoral tendency, has weakened greatly in America.   So are we worse? Maybe not -- if one is the common man.

But what of the supermen of our economic order? They got a chance to operate at the basest levels of morality with extreme narcissism and even sociopathy. In the recovery from the Great Recession they were quickly able to exploit the slowness of the recovery with promises of an even faster recovery if they got their first. They would bring back the harshness of the Gilded Age, if necessary.

But the privileged classes of America are much more cohesive in economic objectives, much more ruthless, and much better organized than were the innovative and competitive entrepreneurs of the Gilded Age. Most of these elites want Big Government, not so much for creating something that works for all, but something that enforces the will of the elites. Big, bad government that exists largely to enrich and indulge the economic elites and impose their will on the common man has typically had the generic name of fascism, the most amoral and immoral economic system to have ever existed. Commies may have been more destructive of the human spirit, but even they give lip service to the idea of social equity and to peace.

The economic elites of contemporary America want an America that exists entirely for themselves. That means New York City costs of living and Third World pay, with the elites exempt from taxation. No human suffering, whether from direct exploitation or from wars for profit, can be in excess to these elites, so long as others endure the destructive effects.    

Add to this the difficulties of the transition from an order of industrialism with scarcity to an economic reality in which scarcity is unnecessary except as a means of controlling people. There are few obvious ways to use one's power as a worker to meet human needs beyond the replacement level of productivity. We can't become happier simply by making more stuff.

Elites can make more income by adding levels of cost for dubious services -- financing, corrupt government, and questionable insurance intended to protect the elites of ownership and management. The television sold today at a box store may be better, more reliable, and less expensive in real terms than the one that one got from a TV dealer-repairman  who had to visit regularly to fix the TV. You can get a reader device for less than the cost of two cartons of cancerettes that has more computing power than a mainframe of the 1940s. But we have less economic security if we must depend upon our labor. We are often deeply in debt to lenders whose ethical values are those of loan sharks.

The Great Depression brought out the best in America at the time -- at least among white people among themselves (racism still flourished, and the 1930s were a peak time for judicial executions, heavily in the South, and disproportionately of black people).  The economic elites typically got cut down significantly in economic power and the ability to buy elections. After the Great Recession, the economic elites who still had overwhelming power in economics were able to buy the electoral process and by 2017 transform the USA into the purest plutocracy since Pinochet's Chile. By 2016 we had government by lobbyists. In 2017 we had a President who believes that the highest objective of any life is the enrichment of those who get the easy money in our system.

We may be witnessing the death of liberal democracy in America as the ethics of American life go from a puritan ethic to one created by Ayn Rand -- celebration of economic gain at its most vulgar and unprincipled. It's 'every man for himself', an inevitable course toward social decay at its swiftest and most destructive.

[Orser67]

Major factors:
1)America is not any more divided now than it has been in the recent past, it just feels that way: I actually think that the relative bipartisanship of the 1940s-1970s is the historical exception to the rule, rather than the standard
2)Lingering effects of Great Recession/Economic Inequality: I'd point more to the relative decline of the U.S. economy since the 1970s, as other countries modernize and take advantage of low trade barriers
3)White men threatened by the rise of women and minorities: I'd break this down into three factors: Whites threatened/angered by government programs aiding minorities (especially blacks) since the 1960s, immigration, and the feminist and LGBT movement alienating cultural conservatives
4)Lack of a common existential threat - USSR, Nazis, Al-Qaeda: The lack of a common existential threat since the end of the Cold War, specifically, although al-Qaeda filled that role in a lot of peoples' minds for about a year

Another factor that comes to mind is a broad disaffection with government since the late 1960s, which I think is to some degree a phenomenon independent of the other factors. This led to a separation between those who see the government as a force for good and those who see it as basically a parasite (and of course there are other groups with more nuanced views)

Moderate factors:
5)America is an empire in a post-imperial world - our large and diverse country naturally lends itself to increased division: I don't know about the post-imperial world part, but the diversity is a challenge (as well as an asset)
6)The media is incentivized to promote conflict and sensationalism
7)Social media has strengthened the "bubbles" we live in, by showing us hundreds of people who agree with us and little else
8)A general moral decay, due to increasing irreligiosity and secularism: I don't agree with this statement. But I agree that the decline of Christianity has made many feel threatened, which goes into point number three above

Negligible factors:
People feel less agency over the decisions made by government due to increased influence of pan-national organizations like the UN and WTO: I would think that the rise of the bureaucratic state has affected "agency" far more than the rise of intergovernmental organizations. I think only the ideological fringe really cares about these groups.

Foreign powers have nurtured divisions between Americans to weaken the nation on the international stage: The only country that has done this successfully to some degree is Israel (specifically Netanyahu), but it hasn't had that big of an effect. Russia meddled in the election but I don't think that that has appreciably added to divisiveness (at least not yet)

[OSR stands with Israel]

this all why the far left called bush

-illegitimate
-war criminal
- a dictator
- somebody who is a threat to American democracy
- called him racist


All of these were so outrageous that DU , TYT , all the far left commentators should apologize for using such malicious lies against Dubya

[Confused Democrat]

I believe the two biggest roots of our current divisiveness are:

1) The media is incentivized to promote conflict and sensationalism

2) Social media has strengthened the "bubbles" we live in, by showing us hundreds of people who agree with us and little else

I also believe these next two factors are at play, but to a lesser extent than the first two listed:

1) Lingering effects of Great Recession/Economic Inequality

2) White men threatened by the rise of women and minorities

With all of that said I still believe:

America is not any more divided now than it has been in the recent past, it just feels that way. I say this with the Civil Rights Movement in mind.

[MarkD]

People feel less agency over the decisions made by government due to increased influence of the SCOTUS.

One of my books about judicial review -- how do the federal courts interpret the Constitution -- is called "Federal Courts, Politics, and the Rule of Law," by John C. Hughes, published in 1995. In the epilogue in the back of the book, it says:
"In the contemporary political context, those who fear conformity have tended to describe themselves as liberal and have tended to applaud judicial 'protection' of human rights. Those who fear diversity have tended to call themselves conservative and have been appalled by judicial 'usurpation' of the majority's discretion to form the kind of community it finds most conducive to its own happiness. The former tends to approve of the expansive theories of constitutional interpretation, ... while the latter tends to prefer the restrained theories of judicial review. These alignments are neither perfect nor inevitable, but the debate has surely been shrill."

The left and the right in the USA do not even have the same theories about how to interpret the Constitution, and when the Supreme Court hands down decisions on issues like public school prayer, abortion, and gay marriage -- decisions in favor of "individual rights" and against "majority rule" -- it emphasizes the differences we have, with one side "applauding" the judges while the other side grumbles about their loss of control by majority rule, and we have shrill debates even about how to interpret the Constitution.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Near autistic Partisan hacks who cant handle accepting any blame for anything.  Id say the responses in this thread are a pretty good indicator of how prevalent that cancer is.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Literally AOTA to varying extents. The ones I have the biggest axes to grind about are 1., 4., 6. (I don't talk about it much because I think more than enough people already are, even if they're doing it in a way that's often insufferable), 8., and 10., so those are the ones I voted for, although with 1. I'll note that the inequalities involved predated the recession and have survived beyond its alleged end.

Near autistic Partisan hacks who cant handle accepting any blame for anything.  Id say the responses in this thread are a pretty good indicator of how prevalent that cancer is.

That's a horrible accusation to make about autistic people.

[Badger]

The Democrat party is unable to man up and deal with losing an election....and has a kill list of the people who won the election.

Maybe go back to the old standard of trying to make Donald Trump a 1 term President?

Link

Prove it. Come up with evidence for your awful and just claim you cowardly poltroon.

You absolutely tuck tail the last time I challenged you about this, will you do so again and prove yourself to be a cowardly poultry tamang cowards?

People like you who scream about a war on whites - that's what you have shamefully and literally done - - tend to be nothing more than keyboard combat Warriors. What a shameful excuse of a man you are. I have little doubt you are in fact 12 or simply live in your mother's basement.

[OSR stands with Israel]

this all why the far left called bush

-illegitimate
-war criminal
- a dictator
- somebody who is a threat to American democracy
- called him racist


All of these were so outrageous that DU , TYT , all the far left commentators should apologize for using such malicious lies against Dubya

so anybody from the far left willing to apologize for this

[136or142]

this all why the far left called bush

-illegitimate
-war criminal
- a dictator
- somebody who is a threat to American democracy
- called him racist


All of these were so outrageous that DU , TYT , all the far left commentators should apologize for using such malicious lies against Dubya

so anybody from the far left willing to apologize for this

For what?  Those are pretty standard lines used against any President.