Why is American politics so heated?

[gunnut]

The reason we have heated politics is simply because we are a two-party nation, where the two parties have hardly changed save the Democrat-Republican flip and have been going at it for over two centuries.

What an oversimplification.

Not entirely. The policies of both parties were unchanged, if you don't include new technology, which will always change.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

It's because it's a branch of the entertainment industry.

This. I think Henry Kissinger's quote on student politics is actually quite apt here.

[© tweed]

It's because it's a branch of the entertainment industry.

This. I think Henry Kissinger's quote on student politics is actually quite apt here.

I thought it was re: academics, as in, professional academics, and used it to 'burn' a bitch of a professor I had in 2011, viewed in that light.

[muon2]

It's because it's a branch of the entertainment industry.

Is it so different from the era of Pulitzer and Hearst? The history of the late 1800's reads like it might have been more so then.

[Frodo]

Try to keep things in perspective.  American politics has always been rough-and-tumble since the inception of the republic and the formation of feuding factions that became political parties -the period from the Great Depression through the beginning of the Reagan era was an exception to the rule.  From the personal attacks between Adams and Jefferson, to the beating of Massachusetts Sen. Charles Sumner by South Carolina Rep. Preston Brooks, there has always been an element of violence and character assassination in our republic.  We are merely returning to the norm.  

[muon2]

Try to keep things in perspective.  American politics has always been rough-and-tumble since the inception of the republic and the formation of feuding factions that became political parties -the period from the Great Depression through the beginning of the Reagan era was an exception to the rule.  From the personal attacks between Adams and Jefferson, to the beating of Massachusetts Sen. Charles Sumner by South Carolina Rep. Preston Brooks, there has always been an element of violence and character assassination in our republic.  We are merely returning to the norm.  

Agreed. One unique factor in the period from the 1930's to 80's was the oligarchic control of the primary news media. First it was the four radio networks then the three tv networks. The rise of cable news and the internet returned the news media to the wealth of niche outlets that were common in the press before radio.

[WhyteRain]

Try to keep things in perspective.  American politics has always been rough-and-tumble since the inception of the republic and the formation of feuding factions that became political parties -the period from the Great Depression through the beginning of the Reagan era was an exception to the rule.  From the personal attacks between Adams and Jefferson, to the beating of Massachusetts Sen. Charles Sumner by South Carolina Rep. Preston Brooks, there has always been an element of violence and character assassination in our republic.  We are merely returning to the norm.  

Agreed. One unique factor in the period from the 1930's to 80's was the oligarchic control of the primary news media. First it was the four radio networks then the three tv networks. The rise of cable news and the internet returned the news media to the wealth of niche outlets that were common in the press before radio.

I think there are a lot of thoughtful answers here, including this one.

But I want to address the people who think the GOP and Democratic parties "have not flipped" in the last 100 years or so.

You need to explain a couple of things, like why the Democrats' nominee this year is assured of winning practically none of the states that the party's nominee won in 1896:


And why the two closest elections of the 20th century, 1916 and 2000, produced mirror images:



[modify:]  To make it simple, there were only seven states of 48 that voted the same way in 2000 as they had in 1916:  Democratic:  Washington, California, New Mexico, and Maryland; Republican:  South Dakota, Indiana, and West Virginia.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The issue is more that 'flipped' misses the point. America was a different country then.

[WhyteRain]

The issue is more that 'flipped' misses the point. America was a different country then.

There are always two sides to any political system:  One supports a strong centralized state while the other supports decentralized power with more local control.

In the 19th century, it was the GOP for the centralized control and the Democrats for local government power.  Now it's the opposite.

[All Along The Watchtower]

The issue is more that 'flipped' misses the point. America was a different country then.

There are always two sides to any political system:  One supports a strong centralized state while the other supports decentralized power with more local control.

In the 19th century, it was the GOP for the centralized control and the Democrats for local government power.  Now it's the opposite.

Again, this is such a laughably simplistic way of looking at politics that it's just...oh nevermind.

[WhyteRain]

The issue is more that 'flipped' misses the point. America was a different country then.

There are always two sides to any political system:  One supports a strong centralized state while the other supports decentralized power with more local control.

In the 19th century, it was the GOP for the centralized control and the Democrats for local government power.  Now it's the opposite.

Again, this is such a laughably simplistic way of looking at politics that it's just...oh nevermind.

If it's really so "laughably simplistic" you should be able to smite it easily.  Is it tough to live up to your ad hominem attacks?

[courts]

The issue is more that 'flipped' misses the point. America was a different country then.

There are always two sides to any political system:  One supports a strong centralized state while the other supports decentralized power with more local control.

In the 19th century, it was the GOP for the centralized control and the Democrats for local government power.  Now it's the opposite.

the republicans have done nothing for states rights. where are the republicans talking about states rights on marijuana, same sex marriage, euthanasia, etc? how many other than paul are really talking about states doing things like coining their own money? the one real exception there is the abortion issue but even then thats not really how they normally frame that.

[t_host1]

 Stones (money)!! – WHO; receives’, earn or give. WHY? … game on, this produces heat. Its bottled, sold, consumed by those WHEN the WANT must be satisfied, depending on ones’ entry point and what expectation is/need(s) taught. In comparing the pass to the present; the stones are bigger, there are no machines big enough to move them, and so, Dynamite (elections) “the heat” is required. It is a good thing recognized by many when considering the political heat of the alternate life (The Masses) – Russia, china, Libya, Egypt, Syria…
  The game just has to be played out, for reasons… well… they do, and, we’re in it, the question is, what position do you want to play?

[All Along The Watchtower]

I also think it's the Republican Party that's making American politics heated, and the right-wing Christian movement that is making the Republican Party heated.

[WhyteRain]

The issue is more that 'flipped' misses the point. America was a different country then.

There are always two sides to any political system:  One supports a strong centralized state while the other supports decentralized power with more local control.

In the 19th century, it was the GOP for the centralized control and the Democrats for local government power.  Now it's the opposite.

the republicans have done nothing for states rights. where are the republicans talking about states rights on marijuana, same sex marriage, euthanasia, etc?

I'll pretend you said "Tea Partyers" instead of "republicans", and I'll agree.  I keep telling my Tea Party friends that we need to support states rights on issues like medical marijuana and same-sex marriage or we'll look like hypocrites.

As a general rule, my side is winning that debate in the TP:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Vosem]

 Stones (money)!! – WHO; receives’, earn or give. WHY? … game on, this produces heat. Its bottled, sold, consumed by those WHEN the WANT must be satisfied, depending on ones’ entry point and what expectation is/need(s) taught. In comparing the pass to the present; the stones are bigger, there are no machines big enough to move them, and so, Dynamite (elections) “the heat” is required. It is a good thing recognized by many when considering the political heat of the alternate life (The Masses) – Russia, china, Libya, Egypt, Syria…
  The game just has to be played out, for reasons… well… they do, and, we’re in it, the question is, what position do you want to play?

I agree with you, t_host. Your post only summary of everything (and problem) is so beautiful.

[Miles]

Well a lot of American politics is personality driven rather than policy driven (why Jim Matheson can win in Utah but wouldn't be able to in kensington and chelsea) and its a lot easier to get angry at a person than at an abstract policy . Also there's the two party system which makes US politics more tribal than most places.

'Very good point.