How Hatred Came To Dominate American Politics

To anyone following American politics, it’s not exactly news that Democrats and Republicans don’t like each other. Take what happened in the presidential debate last week. President Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden did little to conceal their disdain of one another. And although the debate marked a low point in our national discourse, it was a crystallization of a long-developing trend: loathing the opposing party.

This is hardly a new trend; in fact, it’s increasingly common among American voters. However, this level of hatred — which political scientists call “negative partisanship” — has reached levels that are not just bad for democracy, but are potentially destructive. And extreme partisan animosity is a prelude to democratic collapse.

It wasn’t always this bad, though. Forty years ago, when asked to rate how “favorable and warm” their opinion of each party was, the average Democrat and Republican said they felt OK-ish about the opposite party. But for four decades now, partisans have increasingly turned against each other in an escalating cycle of dislike and distrust — views of the other party are currently at an all-time low.


So how did we get to this point?

Broadly speaking, there are three trends that we can point to. The first is the steady nationalization of American politics. The second is the sorting of Democrats and Republicans along urban/rural and culturally liberal/culturally conservative lines, and the third is the increasingly narrow margins in national elections.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-hatred-negative-partisanship-came-to-dominate-american-politics/?ex_cid=538fb


There is more at the link. Fivethirtyeight is pretty unbiased (leftish if anything). I think this defines the situation in America pretty well and why I'm fairly certain a downward spiral will continue at this point. It's a pretty informative read.

Maddog wrote:To anyone following American politics, it’s not exactly news that Democrats and Republicans don’t like each other. Take what happened in the presidential debate last week. President Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden did little to conceal their disdain of one another. And although the debate marked a low point in our national discourse, it was a crystallization of a long-developing trend: loathing the opposing party.

This is hardly a new trend; in fact, it’s increasingly common among American voters. However, this level of hatred — which political scientists call “negative partisanship” — has reached levels that are not just bad for democracy, but are potentially destructive. And extreme partisan animosity is a prelude to democratic collapse.

It wasn’t always this bad, though. Forty years ago, when asked to rate how “favorable and warm” their opinion of each party was, the average Democrat and Republican said they felt OK-ish about the opposite party. But for four decades now, partisans have increasingly turned against each other in an escalating cycle of dislike and distrust — views of the other party are currently at an all-time low.


So how did we get to this point?

Broadly speaking, there are three trends that we can point to. The first is the steady nationalization of American politics. The second is the sorting of Democrats and Republicans along urban/rural and culturally liberal/culturally conservative lines, and the third is the increasingly narrow margins in national elections.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-hatred-negative-partisanship-came-to-dominate-american-politics/?ex_cid=538fb


There is more at the link. Fivethirtyeight is pretty unbiased (leftish if anything). I think this defines the situation in America pretty well and why I'm fairly certain a downward spiral will continue at this point. It's a pretty informative read.  

My interest in politics began around the 2000 election, but even with the Clinton scandal I never got the impression of serious hate from the other side like today, and he was able to get things done with a divided Congress. And Reagan clearly had the support of the entire country. Even Bush jr, as unpopular and gaffe prone as he was, seemed to have broad support - likely the war on terror helped.

It seemed with Obama it exploded though, with the Tea Party movement and accusations of being a foreigner/Muslim/socialist all the time. To be fair to him, he never stooped to their level and maybe that's why things aren't as bad as today.

Trump has embraced as exasperated the partisan hate imo.

Eilzel wrote:

Maddog wrote:To anyone following American politics, it’s not exactly news that Democrats and Republicans don’t like each other. Take what happened in the presidential debate last week. President Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden did little to conceal their disdain of one another. And although the debate marked a low point in our national discourse, it was a crystallization of a long-developing trend: loathing the opposing party.

This is hardly a new trend; in fact, it’s increasingly common among American voters. However, this level of hatred — which political scientists call “negative partisanship” — has reached levels that are not just bad for democracy, but are potentially destructive. And extreme partisan animosity is a prelude to democratic collapse.

It wasn’t always this bad, though. Forty years ago, when asked to rate how “favorable and warm” their opinion of each party was, the average Democrat and Republican said they felt OK-ish about the opposite party. But for four decades now, partisans have increasingly turned against each other in an escalating cycle of dislike and distrust — views of the other party are currently at an all-time low.


So how did we get to this point?

Broadly speaking, there are three trends that we can point to. The first is the steady nationalization of American politics. The second is the sorting of Democrats and Republicans along urban/rural and culturally liberal/culturally conservative lines, and the third is the increasingly narrow margins in national elections.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-hatred-negative-partisanship-came-to-dominate-american-politics/?ex_cid=538fb


There is more at the link. Fivethirtyeight is pretty unbiased (leftish if anything). I think this defines the situation in America pretty well and why I'm fairly certain a downward spiral will continue at this point. It's a pretty informative read.  

My interest in politics began around the 2000 election, but even with the Clinton scandal I never got the impression of serious hate from the other side like today, and he was able to get things done with a divided Congress. And Reagan clearly had the support of the entire country. Even Bush jr, as unpopular and gaffe prone as he was, seemed to have broad support - likely the war on terror helped.

It seemed with Obama it exploded though, with the Tea Party movement and accusations of being a foreigner/Muslim/socialist all the time. To be fair to him, he never stooped to their level and maybe that's why things aren't as bad as today.

Trump has embraced as exasperated the partisan hate imo.

Trump has no doubt impacted the rhetoric. His followers mimic him to a degree, and his detractors rise to the bait.

But the article, beyond what I pasted, really shows how we are headed in a bad direction, and Biden isn't going to be able to turn that around. And if he tries to shove something down the throats of 40% of the people, they will do everything in their power to derail his presidency.

If you look back at votes 30-40 years ago, it wasn't uncommon for their to be bipartisan support and opposition. Those days are gone. The party in control tries to stay on course while the minority party tries to derail everything.

Maddog wrote:It wasn’t always this bad, though.

Bullshit.  In the Congress there have been ample acts of violence, worse than today.  

In 1856, when Representative Preston Brooks entered its chamber carrying a cane, the pro-slavery southerner walked over to Senator Charles Sumner, whacked him in the head with the cane and then proceeded to beat the anti-slavery northerner unconscious. Afterward, Brooks walked out of the chamber without anyone stopping him.

In the three decades leading up to the Civil War, there were more than 70 violent incidents between congressmen.

Congressmen during this period commonly carried pistols or bowie knives when they stepped onto the congressional floor. In fact, by the late 1850s, some constituents actually sent their congressmen guns.

The fights that broke out among congressmen didn’t usually make it into newspapers (which themselves faced mob attacks for abolitionist sentiments); but there were some exceptions, especially in the decade before the Civil War.

There have even been murders between Congressmen.  It happened in 1838. Representatives Jonathan Cilley and William Graves, who didn’t have any particular personal disagreement with each other, entered a duel.  It all started when Cilley, a Democrat from Maine, said something on the House floor that ticked off a prominent Whig newspaper editor. The editor asked Graves, a Whig from Kentucky, to hand-deliver a letter to Cilley asking if he wanted to take back what he’d said.

But Cilley refused to accept the letter from the editor, who had a reputation for physically attacking congressmen, and Graves’ colleagues in the Whig party perceived this refusal as a slight. They advised Graves to challenge Cilley to a duel in order to maintain his political standing within his party. When Graves sent Cilley a letter challenging him to this duel, Cilley’s fellow Democrats told him he had to accept it for political reasons, too.

On February 24, 1838, the two representatives and several other men met for a duel with rifles in Prince George’s County, Maryland. Neither congressman was very good with a rifle, and both missed each other or misfired on the first two rounds. On the third round, Graves shot and killed his colleague, Cilley.

Acts of violence like this showed how intensely southern congressmen wanted to preserve the economic, political and social power that they and their constituents held through owning slaves. They also presaged the larger fight between North and South that broke out three years later, when southern states seceded and declared war on the Union. After all, civil wars don’t just come out of nowhere.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:It wasn’t always this bad, though.

Bullshit.  In the Congress there have been ample acts of violence, worse than today.  

In 1856, when Representative Preston Brooks entered its chamber carrying a cane, the pro-slavery southerner walked over to Senator Charles Sumner, whacked him in the head with the cane and then proceeded to beat the anti-slavery northerner unconscious. Afterward, Brooks walked out of the chamber without anyone stopping him.

In the three decades leading up to the Civil War, there were more than 70 violent incidents between congressmen.

Congressmen during this period commonly carried pistols or bowie knives when they stepped onto the congressional floor. In fact, by the late 1850s, some constituents actually sent their congressmen guns.

The fights that broke out among congressmen didn’t usually make it into newspapers (which themselves faced mob attacks for abolitionist sentiments); but there were some exceptions, especially in the decade before the Civil War.

There have even been murders between Congressmen.  It happened in 1838. Representatives Jonathan Cilley and William Graves, who didn’t have any particular personal disagreement with each other, entered a duel.  It all started when Cilley, a Democrat from Maine, said something on the House floor that ticked off a prominent Whig newspaper editor. The editor asked Graves, a Whig from Kentucky, to hand-deliver a letter to Cilley asking if he wanted to take back what he’d said.

But Cilley refused to accept the letter from the editor, who had a reputation for physically attacking congressmen, and Graves’ colleagues in the Whig party perceived this refusal as a slight. They advised Graves to challenge Cilley to a duel in order to maintain his political standing within his party. When Graves sent Cilley a letter challenging him to this duel, Cilley’s fellow Democrats told him he had to accept it for political reasons, too.

On February 24, 1838, the two representatives and several other men met for a duel with rifles in Prince George’s County, Maryland. Neither congressman was very good with a rifle, and both missed each other or misfired on the first two rounds. On the third round, Graves shot and killed his colleague, Cilley.

Acts of violence like this showed how intensely southern congressmen wanted to preserve the economic, political and social power that they and their constituents held through owning slaves. They also presaged the larger fight between North and South that broke out three years later, when southern states seceded and declared war on the Union. After all, civil wars don’t just come out of nowhere.

This is about the public's opinion of each other, not congressmen.

This isn't about how Pelosi handles people in the Republican party but how you do.

The modern divide was started by the right.

Ben Reilly wrote:The modern divide was started by the right.

Well...it was started by the south. Concepts like left and right had not been established. But the divide that defines the country eventually developed into left/right, and the racism and economic woes fit right in with the right.

The Civil War only sent the hostile feelings underground, to emerge as the KKK, anti-government types, and white supremacists...we saw them at Charlottesville and recently in Michigan.

Same people, same beliefs...different clothes.

Ben Reilly wrote:The modern divide was started by the right.

Or myopia.

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:The modern divide was started by the right.

Or myopia.

I can document how starting around 1994, the language Republicans used to describe Democrats changed. They declared us godless anti-Americans.

The main culprits were Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Jerry Falwell and Pat Buchanan. You never heard their kind of bile from Reagan.

https://www.newsweek.com/borat-2-movie-qanon-bill-clinton-hillary-clinton-blood-1541366

The difference between left and right used to be a light, whimsical matter, which participants took casually. Things in America became polarized with Goldwater, who put ideology front and center. I think Lee Atwater worked a bit on the mechanics, teaching the right to speak in RW coded dog whistles…getting rid of the overt ugliness. That facilitated the unsophisticated becoming ideological.

I first saw the difference with Rush Limbaugh, in the late-80’s. Rush was no longer politely chatting away about public policy matters, but talking real venom. He began drawing in the blue-collar guys, and the movement took off.

The right has always been a two-tiered affair, with the wealthy at the top, first tier, and the second tier bringing in the populous, blue-collar types. This was detected as long ago as John Stuart Mill, who once said: “I never said all conservatives are stupid people; I said all stupid people are conservatives.” Implicit in this was the notion that the right is twofold, the union of the first-tier wealthy, beneath which are dupes that can be easily managed. Nowhere was this more evident than Trump’s tax-cut, which gave $-billions to the top tier, and fed mealy worms to the lower tier.

Trump’s success is because he lives on the first tier, via his inheritance and family connections, but talks and thinks like the second tier…which he calls his base.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Or myopia.

I can document how starting around 1994, the language Republicans used to describe Democrats changed. They declared us godless anti-Americans.

The main culprits were Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Jerry Falwell and Pat Buchanan. You never heard their kind of bile from Reagan.

And Democrats were singing the praises of their counterparts across the aisle.

This thread basically proves this piece correct.

There are too many people in this country that think one party is the problem, and they will support their party, no matter what.

In the words of the orange one.

"Sad"

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

I can document how starting around 1994, the language Republicans used to describe Democrats changed. They declared us godless anti-Americans.

The main culprits were Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Jerry Falwell and Pat Buchanan. You never heard their kind of bile from Reagan.

And Democrats were singing the praises of their counterparts across the aisle.  

Whataboutism again. The issue is the right: you don't recognize the changes from Eisenhower to Trump?

Maddog wrote:This thread basically proves this piece correct.  

There are too many people in this country that think one party is the problem, and they will support their party, no matter what.  

Yet, you fail to point out even one example of radical change in the Democratic Party.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:This thread basically proves this piece correct.  

There are too many people in this country that think one party is the problem, and they will support their party, no matter what.  

Yet, you fail to point out even one example of radical change in the Democratic Party.

You couldn't see it.  

Thanks for proving my point again.

And try reading the article.

I didn't write it.

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Or myopia.

I can document how starting around 1994, the language Republicans used to describe Democrats changed. They declared us godless anti-Americans.

The main culprits were Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Jerry Falwell and Pat Buchanan. You never heard their kind of bile from Reagan.

And Democrats were singing the praises of their counterparts across the aisle.  

Tip O'Neil and Reagan got along great and even socialized together. Nowadays you would never see Trump hanging out with the Clintons, like he used to do.

The worst criticism levied by the Democrats in 1992 was that George Bush was out of touch. They didn't say he drank the blood of infants, or that he ran a pedophile ring, or that he was planning a health care program to euthanize the elderly, or that he was going to put America under Sharia law, or any of the many other demonizing accusations Republicans have made about Democrats.

Democrats have been busy problem solving since FDR, and have no time for thematic changes. Their mission has been singularly focused on improving the lot of the common public.

Meanwhile, the right has gone crazy with Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, tax-cuts and trickle-down economics, as well as starting wars for selfish, economic reasons.

Where is the similarity?

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

And Democrats were singing the praises of their counterparts across the aisle.  

Tip O'Neil and Reagan got along great and even socialized together. Nowadays you would never see Trump hanging out with the Clintons, like he used to do.

The worst criticism levied by the Democrats in 1992 was that George Bush was out of touch. They didn't say he drank the blood of infants, or that he ran a pedophile ring, or that he was planning a health care program to euthanize the elderly, or that he was going to put America under Sharia law, or any of the many other demonizing accusations Republicans have made about Democrats.

I know. And when the wheels started falling off, both sides were responsible.

And still are.

That's part of what this article says, but you can't get past Democrats good. Republicans bad.

This brings us to the second trend that has contributed to the rise of negative partisanship: sorting. The ideologies of the party were less hard and fast 40 years ago. The Republican Party had a significant share of moderates and liberals, the inheritors of a tradition of moderate good-government Yankee republicanism that dated back to President Lincoln, and the Democratic Party once had a significant share of conservative populists from the South and the Great Plains.

Another good point from this article.

One that will be no doubt overlooked.

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Tip O'Neil and Reagan got along great and even socialized together. Nowadays you would never see Trump hanging out with the Clintons, like he used to do.

The worst criticism levied by the Democrats in 1992 was that George Bush was out of touch. They didn't say he drank the blood of infants, or that he ran a pedophile ring, or that he was planning a health care program to euthanize the elderly, or that he was going to put America under Sharia law, or any of the many other demonizing accusations Republicans have made about Democrats.

I know. And when the wheels started falling off, both sides were responsible.

And still are.

That's part of what this article says, but you can't get past Democrats good. Republicans bad.    

What the article says is tripe.  It's one of the many opinion articles that try to neutralize RW extremism, and elevate or allege LW extremism.

Sorry...the LW didn't murder 250,000 of our own countrymen.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I know. And when the wheels started falling off, both sides were responsible.

And still are.

That's part of what this article says, but you can't get past Democrats good. Republicans bad.    

What the article says is tripe.  It's one of the many opinion articles that try to neutralize RW extremism, and elevate or allege LW extremism.

Sorry...the LW didn't murder 250,000 of our own countrymen.

The article doesn't feed your bias.

You are the very people it describes.

You're the fucking problem in this country.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

What the article says is tripe.  It's one of the many opinion articles that try to neutralize RW extremism, and elevate or allege LW extremism.

Sorry...the LW didn't murder 250,000 of our own countrymen.

The article doesn't feed your bias.

You are the very people it describes.

You're the fucking problem in this country.  

The article is pablum, meant to soft-peddle RW extremism, so it looks like LW politics. There is no equivalency. As usual, RW'ers must lie to make their case.

I am the very people RW'ers fear. I am proud to be a "problem" exposing RW lies. Come gets s'more...cracker bitch.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

The article doesn't feed your bias.

You are the very people it describes.

You're the fucking problem in this country.  

The article is pablum, meant to soft-peddle RW extremism, so it looks like LW politics.  There is no equivalency.  As usual, RW'ers must lie to make their case.

I am the very people RW'ers fear.  I am proud to be a "problem" exposing RW lies.  Come gets s'more...cracker bitch.  

Now re read the title of the article and look in the mirror.

Cracker bitch?

The term cracker comes from the abundance of corn in the south. When cooked, the corn becomes cracked. It was a staple for the poor southerners, who used to keep it in a pouch hanging from one side, and snack on it.

Thus, "cracker" was adopted as as a proud or jocular self-description. With the huge influx from the North, "cracker" is used informally by some white residents of the south to indicate that their family has lived there for many generations.

Original Quill wrote:The term cracker comes from the abundance of corn in the south.  When cooked, the corn becomes cracked.  It was a staple for the poor southerners, who used to keep it in a pouch hanging from one side, and snack on it.

Thus, "cracker" was adopted as as a proud or jocular self-description.  With the huge influx from the North, "cracker" is used informally by some white residents of the south to indicate that their family has lived there for many generations.

I know the term.

You're the problem with my country.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:The term cracker comes from the abundance of corn in the south.  When cooked, the corn becomes cracked.  It was a staple for the poor southerners, who used to keep it in a pouch hanging from one side, and snack on it.

Thus, "cracker" was adopted as as a proud or jocular self-description.  With the huge influx from the North, "cracker" is used informally by some white residents of the south to indicate that their family has lived there for many generations.

I know the term.

You're the problem with my country.  

You don't have a country.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I know the term.

You're the problem with my country.  

You don't have a country.

Well, its ot exactly mine, but they let me stay here.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You don't have a country.

Well, its  ot exactly mine, but they let me stay here.

Where? On Sunny Acres Farm for the insane and senile?

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Well, its  ot exactly mine, but they let me stay here.

Where?  On Sunny Acres Farm for the insane and senile?  

They let me run loose, for now anyway.

I'm sure I'm on a watch list, so that's subject to change.

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

And Democrats were singing the praises of their counterparts across the aisle.  

Tip O'Neil and Reagan got along great and even socialized together. Nowadays you would never see Trump hanging out with the Clintons, like he used to do.

The worst criticism levied by the Democrats in 1992 was that George Bush was out of touch. They didn't say he drank the blood of infants, or that he ran a pedophile ring, or that he was planning a health care program to euthanize the elderly, or that he was going to put America under Sharia law, or any of the many other demonizing accusations Republicans have made about Democrats.

I know. And when the wheels started falling off, both sides were responsible.

And still are.

That's part of what this article says, but you can't get past Democrats good. Republicans bad.    

Actually, you can't get past me levelling substantiated, legitimate criticism against the Republicans without seeing it as me saying "Democrats good, Republicans bad."

Republicans fixed acid rain, started the EPA, outed David Duke, created the interstate highway system and freed the slaves, to name a few things they've done to help America. I like the Republicans when they help America.

I don't like the Republicans when, for example, they come up with an idea to help Americans like Romneycare, and then act like it's doomsday when Democrats agree it's a good idea and decide to give it to all Americans.

I really, really liked George W. Bush when he said the people responsible for 9/11 would be hearing from us soon. I didn't like it when he tried to make it out like Iraq had anything to do with it.

I don't make reality, I just try to maintain a close relationship with it. I'll call an anti-vaxxer an idiot whether they're a Democrat or a Republican.

The Interstate highway system was created during the Commie scare, for the military to get around. Republicans are war mongers.

Republicans freed slaves when they had Progressives in their ranks. (Progressives also gave women the vote.) The Republican Party today tries to deny blacks and women their voting rights.

Romneycare was simply a way to rig a gaming board by bringing in more gamblers. Insurance, a betting game, is a reckless way to provide life-and-death services.

Let's face it: Republicans are in it for themselves. Only Democrats look out for the common people. You measure virtue by motives, not chance outcomes.