Did JFK's Presidency represent the low point of Political Polarization?

[Don Vito Corleone]

JFK's first year as president wasn't the best first year a president could have ever had (to put it lightly), but despite this, JFK still had very high approval ratings, and even throughout his president as a whole, despite not getting that much done, he was still very popular. So, does this mean that JFK's Presidency represented the low point of Political Polarization?

[smoltchanov]

IMHO, the approximately 20 years, from mid-50th to mid-70th (first Reagan campaign for President),were period of low political polarization with substantial number of conservative Democrats (almost as conservative as most Republicans, and in some rare cases - mose so) and some liberal Republicans (vice versa) still present. That made an elections much less predictable (no one would make a prediction on Congressional results, based on PVI, then) and less boring, then now.

[twenty42]

Ironic, since his election was one of the closest in American history.

[Skill and Chance]

Not really.  It looks nothing like 1956 or 1964 because it was decided almost entirely on Catholic vs. Protestant identity politics.  For this reason, it looks more like 1928 with a big swing to the Dems than it looks like anything else between WWII and 2000.

[Orser67]

I'd probably go with the Eisenhower years, especially after Democrats took control of Congress (and McCarthy was disgraced). LBJ (then-Senate Majority Leader) and Speaker Rayburn got along pretty well with Eisenhower, and the major domestic initiatives (interstate highway and space race) were bipartisan.

[MillennialModerate]

I'd probably go with the Eisenhower years, especially after Democrats took control of Congress (and McCarthy was disgraced). LBJ (then-Senate Majority Leader) and Speaker Rayburn got along pretty well with Eisenhower, and the major domestic initiatives (interstate highway and space race) were bipartisan.

Saying Not really but then saying the Eisenhower years is kind of contradicting in a way.

Id definitely say that the period from 1953 to 1964 was the period in time where the political discourse in this country was at its best. Hell, even a guy like Nixon insisted in the days after losing the election that any efforts to look into accused Dem “voter fraud” be stopped “for the good of the country”. There was definitely partisan divide at times but bipartisanship was far more common than it is today. That time period more than any other was a great time to be a moderate.

The mix of Conversative Dems and Liberal Republicans didn’t make party line votes a frequent thing.

That’s why Eisenhower was able to pass some big things with a Democratic Congress and that’s why JFK had to work hard to pass things despite having an overwhelming Democratic majority in both houses.

As smoltchanov correctly said, it made elections far less predictable and ballot splitting far more common. Massachusetts in on Election Day 1960 was a prime example of this:

Saltonstall won the MA Senate race 56-43,
Volpe won the MA Governor race 52-46
& John F Kennedy won MA 60-39 in the Presidential race

[UncleVolodya]

No doubt.

[OSR stands with Israel]

I would argue Reagan presidency was less polarizing

- Despite winning two massive landslides, Democrats had a pretty clear majority in the house and controlled overwhelmingly the amount of state legislatures

- Reagan got most of his agenda passed with a Democratic Controlled House

- Reagan support was pretty uniform across the nation(except in the North East)

In 1980:

Reagan won 52%-42% in the Midwest , 52%-45% in the South , 54%-36% in the West , and 48%-44% in the East(https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/how-groups-voted-1980/)


In 1984:

Reagan won 62%-38% in the Midwest , 64%-36% in the South , 62%-38% in the West, and 53%-47% in the North East.





On the other hand with JFK:


- He barely won in the first place

- He didnt get much of his agenda passed despite the facts Democrats Controlled both Houses of Congress during his presidency

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Eisenhower probably wins.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Not really.  It looks nothing like 1956 or 1964 because it was decided almost entirely on Catholic vs. Protestant identity politics.  For this reason, it looks more like 1928 with a big swing to the Dems than it looks like anything else between WWII and 2000.

Uh...

Basically nothing in this post is correct.

[David T]

One thing that is striking about 1960 was how few states were true landslides for one party or the other the way we are used to today.  In only two states--Kansas and Nebraska-did Nixon get over 60% of the vote.  In only three--Massachusetts, Georgia and Rhode Island--did JFK get over 60%.  So in any event, the nation was less geographically polarized.

[Yank2133]

Maybe.

If you listen to the 1960 debate, Nixon and Kennedy pretty agreed on everything, it was just a matter how to achieve this said goals.