Has bipartisanism created a greater rift in America?

Question

Have tensions between the parties remained steady, decreased, or increased over, say, the past 30 years? Your thoughts and examples for why you think so would be appreciated.

Answer 1

I think they have increased, Nancy Pelosi (I don't know how to spell her name) says she will not work with the Republicans and she can't wait to have a lame duck President. If she is the future of the Democratic party they are headed even further downhill then I thought. I did notice that the Democrat running for US Senate in Tn. is more of a Republican then a Democrat his only issue I saw that matches the Dem's is Universal health care plan.

Answer 2

The terms liberal and conservative are meaningless. Most of us are somewhere in the middle. It is the use of these terms to paint large groups of us with the same brush that is to blame for much of the animosity and name calling. Using these terms is a short cut to thinking. My views could be construed as liberal on some issues and conservative on others. I think this is where most of us are. The rift is largely an artificial one created by the media and radio talk show hosts, There is no monolithic we. Everyone should have their own views irrespective of party affiliation or philosophy. The truth cannot be found on a bumper sticker. We need to listen carefully before we respond with programmed knee jerk rejoinders. Bipartisanism is beneficial. It creates diversity of opinion and provides checks and balances. The alternative would be one party rule, and you know where that leads.

Answer 3

I've not been alive enough or active in politics long enough to really answer this question as accurately as I'd like.

My opinion from what I've seen, however, is that the rift has increased thanks to both parties slowly marching away from eachother and bringing up things that normally weren't party issues. One side takes a step farther from the middle, so does the other to compensate. We need to get back to helping the centrists, therefore the majority is happier. The only ones who wouldn't be happy are the extremists, but it's people like them who cause problems anyway.

Answer 4

the bitterness started in the 1990s fueled by the hatred of Bill Clinton by Rupert Murdoch and Rush Limbaugh, soon the brainwashed masses who were pretty mad that a tornado would take the roof off there trailer.....again or that after rebuilding their house on the same spot that it was in the middle of a flood plain it was flooded...again, began to channel that anger toward Clinton with the help of talk radio and Fox news they now had a place to focus their hate. Enter Karl Rove who during Bush Sr.'s run for president against Clinton saw that the Christian Right was ripe to exploit convinced W. that God wanted him to be president. Now Karl knew W. was limited in intelligence and this worked perfectly since being a drunk W. was "saved" and so was his marriage he showed to Rove the ability to be manipulated just the guy that was needed karl got a hold of cheney and the other members of Project for the New American Century cheney was appointed to find the best canidate for VP but he seemed only to find himself,now in order to loot the treasury and get a war in Iraq to control that oil they needed a distraction,easy enough fan the flames of division in the country that was now evident after the "hate clinton" period well now instead of Clinton alone it became the marching orders to stir that hate to anyone not of "our way of thinking" and while we fought petty skirmishes of intellect between each other the treasury and good name of the USA was stolen away. Where will they go steal next? you wanna keep fighting betwen ourselves and let them? could there be a reason the word Blind is used in the term "Blind Faith"?

Answer 5

I would have to say yes. Coming from a couple college towns, a major city and the rural Southwest, I have seen more support for 3rd parties that were formerly considered just mere nuisances.

One of these cities was won over by an Independent candidate and another won over by a Green party candidate. The fact that neither of them were either Republican or Democrat shows that there are people who are just plain tired of the same old arguments made by the same old people.

Answer 6

It's the lack of bipartisanship that has created the rift. The world views of the parties are diverging. If 1 party say "a", the other will immediately respond "b, a is evil".

Answer 7

The parties are more polarized. The Republican Party has gotten more conservative and the Democrat party has gotten more liberal. Formerly liberal Republicans have joined the Democrats and formerly conservative Democrats have joined the Republicans. As of 1976, the Republicans in the Senate still had a liberal Republican as their party leader -- Hugh Scott of Penn. Then Scott was followed by Howard Baker, who was a little bit more conservative. Then Baker was followed by Dole, who was still more conservative. And so on. As of 1988, the Democrat leader in the Senate was Robert Byrd, who was hardly among the party's left-wing. But Byrd was followed by George Mitchell, who was decidedly liberal.

Answer 8

They were pretty bad in the Nixon years. You can go back to Lincoln too. Not just the civil war, but the north was torn apart by anti-war protesters. I think it tends to go up and down over the years.

Answer 9

I don't think the rift is greater. My first memories were of the Watergate trials and the hippy protests.

No, if anything, this time its mostly a war of words. Thank God.