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

[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.

[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]

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

Calling someone a war criminal you think is not outrageously bad .

1.Illegal invasion of Iraq
2.Waterboarding and possibly other forms of torture.

Yes, the war crimes of W. Bush and his Administration were outrageously bad.

[136or142]

George W Bush is a war criminal bro

then so are Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama by that same definition .


In reality none of them are war criminals, and actually I would support heavily sanctioning, undermining their political stability , and in many cases go to war with countries who would arrest Clinton, Bush , or Obama just cause they disagree with their foreign policies.

I must have missed when Barack Obama and Bill Clinton illegally invaded another nation or engaged in torture.

I think this is one of the things Republicans have learned: be as extreme as possible and then when called out on it, criticize the other side for using 'over the top rhetoric' and expect the lazy 'both sides do it/both sides are equally bad' crowd to jump in in defense and attack the 'over the top rhetoric.

What the Bush Administration did in foreign policy was materially significantly different from even the worst excesses of President Clinton or President Obama.

[136or142]

George W Bush is a war criminal bro

then so are Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama by that same definition .


In reality none of them are war criminals, and actually I would support heavily sanctioning, undermining their political stability , and in many cases go to war with countries who would arrest Clinton, Bush , or Obama just cause they disagree with their foreign policies.

I must have missed when Barack Obama and Bill Clinton illegally invaded another nation or engaged in torture.

I think this is one of the things Republicans have learned: be as extreme as possible and then when called out on it, criticize the other side for using 'over the top rhetoric' and expect the lazy 'both sides do it/both sides are equally bad' crowd to jump in in defense and attack the 'over the top rhetoric.

What the Bush Administration did in foreign policy was materially significantly different from even the worst excesses of President Clinton or President Obama.

First of all the Iraq war wasn't illegal (by the US law it was legal ) . Obama did exactly what Bush did in Iraq , to Libya(regime change without being attacked by that country or being allied with a country who is our enemy ) .

Bill Clinton imposed harsh sanctions on Iraq ,which resulted in countless of Iraqis to die under the guise suddam still had WMD's.

1.It was illegal under international law, which is one of the reasons why Dick Cheney, I believe Donald Rumsfailed (and possibly George W Bush) rarely ever leave the United States.  Hard to know with George W Bush since he apparently never left the United States (except maybe to go to Mexico) before becoming President.

It is true that there are no outstanding warrants for the arrest of any of these people, but this is likely because they hardly ever travel outside the U.S except for Bush on the occasional charity mission and to go to state funerals: I.E where he has been invited by the state beforehand.

Dick Cheney came to Canada on one occasion and there were protests calling for his arrest.  Obviously he was not arrested, but he canceled a subsequent scheduled visit to Canada without giving a reason.

2.The bombing of Libya was to prevent Qaddafi from slaughtering his own people and was called for by the United Nations.

3.It may be true that the sanctions were killing innocent Iraqis, but they were enacted by the United Nations, not by the United States.

None of your claims are correct.

Edit to add on the sanctions part, it's hard to know what to believe was true from W. Bush Administration, but one of the stated reasons they gave for the placing of U.S troops in either Kuwait or Qatar (I forget where the U.S had their base of operations) was that these troops placed pressure on Iraq and other nations (I believe France was specifically mentioned) that were looking to end the Iraq sanctions.

So, again, hard to know what to believe, but one of the initial justifications in the lead up to the war was 'the United States has to ensure that, at the very least, the sanctions remain in place.'

It was only after the war, and the subsequent collapse of Iraq as a nation, that Republicans and other Iraq war dissemblers claimed a justification due to the sanctions killing thousands of Iraqis.