Is this as polarized as the American electorate has ever been?

Question

Or is it simply a matter of Fox News-lovin' hard-right necons & Daily Kos-lovin' moonbat liberals are the most involved in the political process and vocal in stating their analyses?

Has it always been this crazy or did it originate at some point in time? (Say, like, when the Vietnam protesting counterculture got a foothold in the Democratic party.)

Is the red-state/blue-state phenomenon a temporary structure or is this the way things will be ad infinitum?

Answer 1

This is as divided as I have seen it in my 61 years, it is like we have become enemy's of each other, I think it started in 1979 when Ronald Reagan was giving a speech to the Repuglican national convention and he said liberal was a four letter word. With Bush's policy's and talk radio's Rush Limbaugh and others spewing hate for the liberal side every day, liberals are finally had enough and are striking back. It don't help that we are under the most criminal and corrupt presidency ever. It seems like every day there is a new scandal and every day AM radio spins it to try to make it right.

Answer 2

The Civil War is the most obvious example, with the rift between the parties (then, it was north & south) starting around 1820. Dissatisfaction with the current 2 party system is what gave birth to the Republicans (Abe Lincoln was the first Republican president).

However, even as early as 1780 we were having issues. The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution because not all the colonies endorsed it and Thomas Jefferson was elected the first Democrat President because of dissatisfaction with George Washington's Federalist Party.

It's probably the most divided we've been in 100-years because we've been too busy saving the World (read: World Wars 1 & 2) and too focused on the Cold War or September 11. But, when we don't have a unified cause to go after (or a leader capable of unifying us), we have a tendency to fight amongst ourselves. I imagine, to those 150-200 years ago, their divisions also probably felt like the end was near for the United States.

Answer 3

The vast majority of the general public are neither far left nor far right. Just because the news outlets present a polarized point of opposing views on a "show" doesn't mean they speak for people. Fox news is no different than the 1950's radio show "War of the Worlds" that convinced people Martians had invaded the Earth. It is fiction for the most part designed to manipulate the uneducated and ignorant. The same with Rush Limbaugh's radio show. The Liberal left were about 15 years too late in the game, but recently have counter attacked for the "ignorant block" with progressive talk radio and a "news" show of their own to counter the "Fox" perspective. News papers are the worst offenders of them all, with reporting news a thing of the past and propaganda the norm. Almost never is any real fact even reported. News paper "stories" are almost always slanted to a particular view point.

As unfortunate as it is for the general public, fair and balanced "news" is a thing of the past, it was done away with under Reagan as well and it doesn't look like politicians are in a hurry to legislate the truth back into our media anytime soon,

Everyone's not Ann Coulter or Howard Stern, most people are a little more balanced than that.

Answer 4

S1 ... A fair question. I've often wondered the same and I think it's going to stay this way for some time to come.

There are so many news sources out there, to help get the edge, news is no longer purely news. Commentary used to play a very, very small part of the traditional network newscasts. But it's now almost customary to introduce analysis, some of which is less than completely unbiased. Furthermore, analysis and commentary programs such as Olbermann (sorry, but I think he's a clown), O'Reilly, etc., have "increased the contrast," so to speak, and this is what leads to the polarization you speak of. If all such news analysts/commentators simply delivered news, it would be comparatively bland. To get the ratings edge they all strive for, each, to some extent or another, has introduced some drama to make things more interesting. The dramatics also contribute to the political vitriol.

So, getting back to your question, I think it's going to get worse ... maybe MUCH worse ... before things begin to get better. I think they, the "polarizers," are pulling us down along with them and it almost makes me think we're headed for civil war, sometimes. I don't think it will go that far, though, and a respected rating/evaluation system will emerge from all this to help the public distinguish news from some of the idiotic dramatics we see ... which some people actually mistake for news, unfortunately.

Thanks for a great, great question.

Answer 5

I can think of a time when we were much more divided than this. It was in the 1860's and it was called the American Civil War. Politics has always been nasty in this country. Indeed we are divided at this point, but something will happen which will pull us together again. This is part of the beauty of the United States, when circumstances require it we always come together as a people. The red state/blue state garbage is just another attempt to keep us divided and not focused on the real issues facing us a people. You can upset the apple cart by refusing to get caught up in it.

Answer 6

Do a little research on the Civil War and the presidency of Abraham Lincoln. Things got pretty hot then. Thank goodness we did not have the internet or 24/7 news TV and radio or things might have been much different.
The country has always had a bit of a split over something. I strongly recommend you find and read a good American History book. It is better than fiction, because fiction has to be believable.

Answer 7

Absolutely not...
Dissent is a vital part of the democratic process. And that is exactly what is taking place at the moment.
The divergence is extreme, but it is not unprecedented.
We tend to forget that this was the last country to enter both WWs 1 and 2. Both, after long and contentious deliberation.
Our moment of extreme polarization came in the second half of the 19th century and nothing will ever parallel that situation.
What you are seeing now is a healthy debate that is being
played out in the modern 24 hour news cycle.
They need this story in order to sell their product.

Answer 8

I'd say yes it's as polarized between two parties as its ever been, but that polarization is not a severe or calamitous as in the past.

If the Baha'i faith expands much it must change, since Baha'is are censured not to participate in partisan politics, or anything disruptive of going toward the goal of unity; unity as the cure for the ills of this nation and the world.

God bless.

Answer 9

I look for good things in this sort of situation....no doubt there are passionate folks in all kinds of 'camps' in our political environments, and fortunately they seem to all have some access to media exposure of one form or another.

The political atmosphere is rich, diverse, lively, exciting, relivent, logical, intelictually stimulateing, and assertive. What more could you ask...other than that all partys be intelegent enough to investigate rationally the variations and diversitys of concepts?

This coming election will be a deffinition of the american ideology of 'democratic' / 'republic' two party system...we will seal the fate of our country with this next national decision for president.

If he is elected by popular vote, the nation may survive.
If he is elected by the electoral college, the government may survive.
If he is elected by the press, all bets are off....the world will demand restitution.
If the world dosent demand restitution, nature will...
In times of great challange, great men rize to meet the times...and this looks like it might be just that kind of situation.

Just read some of the answers already here...

Answer 10

The election of 1824 was about the most split. You had four real candidates and none got over 40% of the electoral vote. This is also the election I believe when Jackson's wife's adultery was brought up.