For those who've been around longer than I, has political discourse in America always been this way?

[newtothegame]

That the other side isn't just wrong, they're:

1. stupid
   
2. evil
   
3. insane
   
4. murderers
   
5. thieves
   

I'm a young'n, but I was a history major in college. Though I've read about political discourse in the past, and there were some extremes, it didn't seem that the ENTIRE dialog was laced with this stuff. Bush/Palin/Rush/Hannity etc. aren't just wrong, they're the STUPIDEST PEOPLE ON THE PLANET. President Obama isn't just pro-choice, he's a MURDERER.

What caused this? When did it start? Is there a single issue (like abortion?) that creates such passionate polarity that the debate can never be the same? Or is it the new mediums (internet & blogs, 24 hour news channels?) that allow stuff like this to thrive, where it would have died in the past?

I'm interested in people's opinions on this, especially those who've been around longer than I have :)

[sharp_stick]

1. I was thinking the same thing

not that long ago. The venom that gets spit out is kind of astounding. Personally I would never run for Congress, it would be far too easy for me to form some long lasting hate.

Then again the list you have Bush/Palin/Rush/Hannity are quite possibly the stupidest people on the planet. ;-)

[OHdem10]

14. At some points in history, they had duals using guns. I cannot

remember the Senators' names but one whacked another with
walking cane on the Senate Floor.

Throughout Hx there have times they reach the boiling point.

One thought: The times we are in. People are on edge, there
is an underlying fear which no one wants to discuss. Is America
in decline??? For the middle class and poor this is absolutely
enough to shatter their moorings. This creates pressure on congress.

Another contributing factor. No one wants to admit this either
but our party is so divided--Liberals/Progressives Vs Conservadems.
As long as they were not in power the divisions could go under
the radar unnoticed for the most part. Now they actually have
to make law and differences are magnified. The fight within the
party. plus then having to fight the GOP and its the equivalent
of a world war. Add to that the technology and the ease with
people can access everything and whewweeeee. For whatever reason,
the Senate seems to be the worst.

[newtothegame]

17. Well put. That was Senators Brooks & Sumner on the Senate floor btw.

And it wasn't just a whack; it was a BEATING!

[Lilyeye]

39. Same here. I am 23 and wondered this myself.

[roguevalley]

44. During the time of Nixon. When Joe McCarthy was around, he was

about as bad as it gets. He destroyed everyone in his way. The repugs were awful during FDR's time but I have to agree with a talking head, this repug leadership is the worst ever. We had bad mouthy dudes on the radio but not so many and not so completely open in everyday society. Father Conglin was a fringe player and no decent person would tell anyone they listened to him.

[wryter2000]

2. I'm an old fart

I don't ever remember it being like this. The only equivalent I can think of was the Southern states' resistance to integration in the 60's. Ironically, most of them were Democrats.

[HereSince1628]

7. Do you remember the fight against the ERA? That brought out the wackos

The evil pronouncing moral majority was born out of that fight.

[newtothegame]

13. I'm in my 30's, but I missed Roe v Wade by a few yrs. I've always suspected THAT changed EVERYTHING.

Candidates were no longer judged by how they viewed money, or civil rights, or defense. They were either pro-murder or anti-murder (conservative's framing, not mine), and that blended moral & political passions in a way that had rarely existed before (abolitionism being an exception).

Any old-timers have thoughts on this? :)

[SharonAnn]

40. You don't remember the Gingrich revolution? When he provided a list of names

that Democrats were to be called? This was in the mid-late 1990's.

All of the terms were ones that were used by the R-W radio and also be Republicans. They were words like "deceitful", "evil", "greedy", etc. That was the first time I heard consistent, repetitive, name calling. And, noticed that they were all singing out of the same hymnbook.

Not so long ago.

[Jennicut]

3. Well, as a teen in the 90's I would say that Clinton was treated really terribly and there was a lot

of hatred from Rethugs. But I am guessing it was better before that. In Congress, you could actually be friends with the other side. It went downhill when Clinton was almost impeached.

[mr715]

4. I'm 26 and it was not this bad...

This is the afterbirth of facebook and twitter and insta-news.

Everyone with every crazy opinion can make it known - infoglut and all.

Even Bill Clinton who was ABUSED by the media had more latitude than Obama.

Its infoglut. Thats all.

Jon Stewart talked about it with headlines reading "RIPS!" "EVISCERATES!" "DESTROYS!" etc. for the mildest criticism.

Its sensationalism masquerading as news...



and its sad. Put down the iPhones and close the twitter accounts.

[newtothegame]

9. I think you may be right. You see those headlines on DU too...

Pretty much any interview/interaction between a liberal and conservative gets posted here as "RIPS!" "EVISCERATES!" "DESTROYS!" "ANNIHILATES!"

I mean, I know our side is right, but the arguments aren't THAT one sided...:)

[HereSince1628]

5. Long time, US politics is just like the Old Testament.

which suggests it's been like this longer than there was a US.

[asjr]

22. The parties have always been dueling but

not until television, internet and cable have we known just how bad. I think the last decent Republican was Howard Baker who asked Richard Nixon to resign for the good of the country. Back in the 1950s we didn't have people like Beck, Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, etc to kick us around. All we had at the time was Walter Winchell and he ruined quite a lot of people. I like to think it was not as bad, but we didn't have cable then or Rupert Murdoch.

[sunnybrook]

47. What about J Edgar Hoover

or McCarthy?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

6. There was a biography on Harry Truman kicking around a few days ago on TV.

If you watch it, well, you'll hear things sounding damn near identical to what we have today. (You'll also see that Truman wasn't the bastion of liberal bulldogism that DU currently paints him as, but I digress...)

[saracat]

8. It was always around in pockets with 'yellow print journalism'

such as that which dogged Andrew Jackson and the bigamy story and Thomas Jefferson and his slave mistress.Radio went after FDR with Father Coughlin.Many, Many folks "hated" FDR and his party. Somehow, with mass communications improving the political divide has extended and deepened.

But for a brief while in our history, political civility was maintained. There was a certain civility among opponents themselves that kept viciousness a bit at bay.That no longer exists and TV talk show rapidity on BOTH sides encourages the vendettas.I refuse to watch or listen ANY talking heads anymore.Not the ass hat Rushbo and his ilk OR Olberman and his rants or those like him. Neither side will ever give us an intellectual fact based presentation of their views. it is too bad we no longer have someone like Wm.F Buckley and Gore Vidal if we wanted to hear reasoned opinion.

[newtothegame]

10. Yours is a great post! I wish I could recc... n/t

[saracat]

12. Thank you.

[Jennicut]

15. Perhaps all the technology just made it worse.

[jody]

11. It's been like this only since 1787 and the birth of the party system beginning with the Federalist

Party of Hamilton versus the Democratic/Republican party of Jefferson and Madison around 1792.

[Alexander]

52. FTW

:thumbsup:

[blueworld]

16. Well, I think a lot of it is media

Although the absurd insults etc. have been around for hundreds of years, folks were required to rely on newspapers, magazines & later radio for a large "pulpit". Otherwise they had to travel around making speeches. Since major journalists had limited room for major news, the loonies didn't get as much printed space as legitimate issues. We were insulated by the system.

Then came the boob tube. Still, journalistic ethics were ENFORCED and prime TV time was not given over to extremists.
Then came freakin' cable news and "infotainment". 24-hour per day repetitive yellow journalism actively SEEKING crazy stories & creating conflict where there was none or fear-mongering. REAL journalists were booted out so as to make room for the young, sparkly pundits concerned with hair, makeup, advertising revenue & ratings. They give airtime to gasbags & vicious idiots.

I was shocked last night to hear Anderson Cooper take control of his show & stop the loud interrupting & cross-talk that marks every other CNN debate. He didn't see me but I gave him a standing ovation - I didn't give a shit about the topic, but it was such a joy to see a journalist enforce decorum! :wow:

Thank God for the internet, so we can still see or read award-winning journalists deliver intelligent news/commentary.

[HowHasItComeToThis]

29. MEDIA IS BEING EXPOSED DAY BY DAY

AND FOX SHOULD HAVE ITS LICENSE PULLED

[MiniMe]

18. I blame Faux Noise for a lot of it

They turned the news into a political viewpoint.

[HowHasItComeToThis]

30. CAN MURDOCH BE DEPORTED????

[Birthmark]

19. I think it's gotten worse since C-SPAN came on the scence

[housewolf]

20. I think the difference is that it used to be much more private than this

People would perhaps talk this kind of trash to their family and close friends but there was a line of decorum that wasn't crossed in public. Plus, there were only 3 tv networks and they tended to see their role in society differently than the way broadcast media does today. with the spread of the internet over the past 10 - 15 years, the trash-talk that used to go on in private is now going on in public and spreads like wildfire. The media, of course, is always looking for an edge so they pick up on it, spread it around and encorage it, the more outrageous the better.

I'm an early baby boomer, and as I see it, things got way worse in the 1990's when Bill Clinton was elected. The kiind hate that he constellated in the right wingers had never been in evidence towards GHW Bush, Reagan, Ford, or any other president in my memory. Americans hated certain policies implemented by presidents, such as desegration, the Viet Nam War and Nixon's tricks, but we were able to see our presidents in multi-dimensional ways. By Clinton's time, all most Americans could see was either all-white or all-black and came to hate the man instead of just the policies. That carried forward to GWB but transferred from the right to the left. Now it's become even more generalized to "the other side", regardless of who or what the other side is.

And the media exploits it and contributes to it because there's nothing the media loves more than a fight. Anything that attracts the attention and that the public will watch, listen to or read means dollars to the media and that is their top priority. There's an element in almost all of us that (secretly or openly) loves scandal and gossip.

Just my perspective...

[Prism]

21. Actually, we used to be much worse.

Any politics where political speech is protected has resulted in a terribly passionate, vigorous, and oftentimes virulent dialogue. People complain about the media today (and I'm generally with them), but we forget that the newspapers of the first 125 years or so of our history were blatantly partisan periodicals. Fox News isn't exactly something new. Newspapers used to openly identify as Republican or Democrat. They freely lied and threw down slanderous insinuations about politicians that make today's media seem like absolute child's play.

There was no genteel press or politics in any age. We can see it right at the beginning of the Republic, where Jefferson's mistress was often brought up and partisans called John Adams a monarchist - a hefty charge in a country that just spent so much blood and treasure freeing itself from a tyrannical king.

Today, to our sensibilities, it's all just terrible. And, hey, right now, with the problems we face, I think the sensationalist media is every bit a part of the problem as the establishment in Washington.

However, if our media and politics ever returned to the "good old days" we'd be pining for the standards that Fox News and others are currently running with.

We could certainly do with a lot of improvement in our discourse, but we are better than we used to be.

I'd also put forth that "the other side" doesn't have a monopoly on what you're complaining about. Hell, calling Republicans insane, murderous thieves is pretty much standard dialogue on DU and other liberal message boards. It just doesn't bother us so much, because we degree with the direction that particular vitriol is traveling.

[newtothegame]

26. Great post and I agree with your last paragraph. It's been especially bad in the last couple years..

against Palin, Hilary, etc.

[change_notfinetuning]

23. Great post. Good question, that requires some thought. But, for now, let me

just say that I agree that this is not the way it always was, and it wasn't that long ago that things were much better. Political discourse was on a higher, more respectful level. It was, in general, more civil. Maybe the start of the decline was the invention and proliferation of talk wrestling, as someone whose name I can't recall named it. But it's now much more than that. It's definitely something that needs to be addressed, and sooner than later, if we are ever going to solve the ever increasing number and size of our problems. The longer solutions are deferred, the faster we will spin out of control.

I know this is a longer term solution, but we must greatly increase the study of history and civics in our schools.

[T Wolf]

24. Waaayyyy back, there was something called political discourse. People actually debated

on the merits of different approaches to any problem or issue. That changed when we began to make some progress on issues, e.g. racism.

My interpretation is that when the cons had all the power and we were trying to move things an inch to the left, we relied on that debate and discourse to advance our argument. When that was not successful, more overt actions (marches, sit-ins, etc.) became necessary. Even that did not really sour the process.

What did harden and debase it was the success achieved. When the conservatives were still in charge, still free to discriminate and exploit, they did not always descend to their baser selves. But, when racism was deemed unacceptable and non-white, non-male types of people began to achieve anything, the conservatives felt very threatened. Seeing that they were starting to lose the battles if the debate was based on logic or lofty concepts such as fairness and justice, they reverted to their natural tendencies.

This is where things "got nasty" - and continued to deteriorate to the point we find ourselves today.

Couple this shift with the Fuck Nuze false concept of fair and balanced (every option is legitimate, just different) that enables "people" to actually have the nerve to go public and argue that poor people do not have the "right" to health care because they do not deserve it and you have modern Amerikan politics.

They are the ones that have turned this into a war. If our side does not recognize that and react accordingly, we will suffer the same fate that all losing sides meet.

[Jane Austin]

25. No.

There have always been annoying individuals, but nothing like the crazy demonization in evidence now.

[mike_c]

27. no, this is partisanship almost at its worst, just short of physical violence....

Actual communication, i.e. political DISCOURSE, cannot occur when the parties are genuinely angry and distrustful toward one another. It's the same as when two angry people try to talk-- they talk AT one another, not TO one another because neither can actually listen and process what the other is saying. When the fight or flight mechanism begins to operate, the parts of the brain where real communication take place are shunted out of the loop. The lizard brain takes over.

THAT is the current state of political discourse in this country, I think. It's under control of the lizard brain, where no communication is possible.

[Dappleganger]

28. It began with the Moral Majority, Rush Limbaugh when

Clinton was in office. Those two entities have done more to polarize and drag down the level of civility and reason in politics than anything else.

[HowHasItComeToThis]

31. BINGO

[IndianaGreen]

32. 'Ma, Ma, where's my pa?'

When Grover Cleveland was the Democratic nominee for President in 1884, reports surfaced that the then unmarried politician had fathered an illegitimate child with a widow named Maria Crofts Halpin. The New York governor publicly ignored the scandal but told his close supporters to "tell the truth" — that he may have been the father of 10-year-old Oscar Folsom Cleveland. Even Halpin didn't know for certain who Oscar's father was; the boy had been named after Cleveland because he was the only unmarried possibility. Without admitting paternity, Cleveland paid child support for many years.

Republicans accused Cleveland of immorality. He countered by maintaining that despite his indiscretion, he had kept his professional integrity — while painting his opponent, James G. Blaine, as a corrupt official at the mercy of Wall Street.

Cleveland won by a wide electoral margin, although the popular vote was considerably closer. And while he got the last laugh, his supporters may have had the best. When Republicans jeered at Cleveland's rallies, chanting, "Ma, Ma, where's my pa?" Democrats would respond, "Off to the White House, ha, ha, ha!"

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1955750_1955749,00.html#ixzz0fjtzsDwm

Politics is a dirty business.

[TuxedoKat]

33. For me I noticed the tide starting to change

when I first heard Rush Limbaugh on the radio in about 1987-88. I was totally alarmed because although I'd heard politicians rail against Democrats, I'd never heard such blatant vitriole -- outright lies and hatred spewing forth from such an obvious, pompous ass. I couldn't believe what I was hearing but I knew it did not bode well for democtrats. It seemed like democrats lost control back then and have never really regained it and have been trying to placate Republicans pretty much ever since then.

Obama has helped us regain some ground as Rush Limbaugh's schtick and other like him have grown old and the public inured to it somewhat. The politicians on both sides haven't realized this though, well most of them that is. If they did, democrats wouldn't be so afraid to stand up to republican bullies and the republicans would realize that their bullying act wasn't working anymore either and would try something new. They are so used to bashing and lying about democrats though, some of them will probably never stop until they retire or get voted out of office.

[cry baby]

34. I'm 52 and it has had peaks of incivility, but it's much worse now.

Emotional buzzwords have been thrown around like a baseball in recent years. Shock jock political talk radio had a lot to do with the change in my opinion.

[timeforpeace]

35. It got very bad with Clinton and his denials. The coverup is always worse.That polarized the country

and then the 2000 election blew it wide open. Then 9/11. Then the wars. Both sides want to duke it out now instead of seeing the other side's point of view. We will get through this. Obama will bring the country together.

[Armstead]

36. With a few exceptions, every year I can remember has been called "The worst one ever."

When Kennedy was President, a lot of people thought of him as an elist creep. Then he was killed and we hit all; of the turmoil over Civil Rights, Vietnam, Violence and the Generation Gap. In the 70's everyone was frustrated and angry by the Econpomic Stagnation and decline, and culturally the "Silent Majority" were as bad as today's Right Wing Crazies.

Politically this was reflected in perennial gridlock as the Nasty GOP became ascendant and the Democrats were Ineffectual Wusses.

So, in hindsight, this is no worser than usual. Only difference is the Hot House Media and new technology.

[newtothegame]

37. Interesting. Thanks! n/t

[AlinPA]

38. In my reading of history, there were times when it was just as bad; in the late 40's, 50's it was

much more amicable. The 60's were rough-more anti-establishment than party-vs-party, 70'-80's not as hot as now but unsettled, but from '94 on (starting with Gingrich) it has become vicious. In my lifetime, (I'm 73), this is the worst I've ever seen it. We may be close to real violence with these tea baggers getting hooked up with the militia, skinheads and white power groups. I don't want to be alarmist, but these teabaggers act like they are out to draw blood. They are talking about getting out the guns if things don't go their way. I was talking with a woman (a crazed teabagger) whom I have known since high school and she was crazed, drooling and spitting about how the teabaggers were going to get revenge.

[CK_John]

41. Not much has changed from the time of the Tories(GOP) and Green Mountain Boys(Dem) of 1770's or

1850-1870 when over 600,000 Americans killed each other or 1920-1940 when
workers and WWI vets were shots down by the Army or 1960-1975 when major sections of LA and Detroit were burned and children in the south blown up by the police.

We got it easy they haven't started shooting at us yet, they're just yelling at us.

[santamargarita]

42. This is as bad as I've seen it. I've gone from disdain to...

outright rage and hate for this bunch!

[Zomby Woof]

43. Yes

And if you think the media is biased now, back in the 19th and 18th centuries they were openly partisan, front page and all. The concept of an "objective" media is relatively recent, and in some ways, naive.

Plus, there is nothing uniquely American about any of this. The Roman Republic, the Greek city-states, and on and on, all had factional strife which would make today's Congress look like a Tupperware party.

Machiavelli and Sun-Tzu are often quoted in political matters for a reason. There is nothing new under the sun.

[quaker bill]

45. I would agree

though I thought I might not when I clicked on this. You are correct, the discourse was bolder and uglier in the past by an easy order of magnitude. Occasionally the backroom deals and plots had real teeth.

However, there once was a time here that this sort of stuff was more confined to the campaign, and at some level the general public interest would occasionally win the day through legislative manuver or compromise. Now we seem to have two parties fully intent of disrupting the other parties agenda regardless of cost to the public, in fact inflicting cost on the public seems part of the goal, the path to percieved victory, because you can blame the opponent for it.

This was also probably always true at some level, but right now it seems there is little limit to how low they will go. Generally the politicians of history seemed to have better survival instincts than this.

[Zomby Woof]

57. Ever read transcripts of the Lincoln-Douglas debates?

People actively cheered or jeered, exactly like it was a boxing match ("Hit him again!"). Nowadays, if the audience so much as cuts a silent fart during a debate, Jim Lehrer or one of those asshats would shut down the debate and throw the audience out.

[tledford]

46. It began in the early 1980s.

During Ronald Reagan's two terms as President, two things began:

1. The characterization of the federal government as incompetent and wasteful and liberals as anti-American.
2. Toward the end of his second term, the birth of the right-wing media, which began trumpeting the "news" that liberals were not only anti-American, but demonic as well.

It is human nature that after twenty years of being labeled the quintessence, the distillation of pure evil, and of having this "news" shouted at you every minute of every day of every week of every month of every year, one tends to react by accusing the labeler of the same.

[asdjrocky]

48. I would really be interested to know, as a history major-

Have you read a lot of Howard Zinn?

[newtothegame]

49. No, I haven't.

"People's History" was never assigned in classes. He was actually scheduled to speak at the University of Iowa (my alma mater) my senior year, but canceled at the last minute because of scheduling conflicts.

[asdjrocky]

51. Do yourself a favor and read it.

I'm always amazed at the number of people who are history majors that have never learned the real history of the United States.

When you're done with that book read Year 501 - Noam Chomsky then Being Red - Howard Fast and just for shits and giggles open The Iron Heal - Jack London

Mostly the world today and the machinations of government have not changed, we only talk about it more.

Happy reading! (And keep asking questions.) :hi:

[JBoy]

50. No, the media used to hold politicians accountable for outright lies.

I remember when they went on "This Week with David Brinkley", or whatever, they would actually be asked hard questions.

I blame the media's lack of real journalism as the root cause.

[harun]

56. Agree. Corporate Media has actors now, not journalists.

[Alexander]

53. "God - and a religious president ... (or) Jefferson and no god" - 1800

"The 1800 election was a rematch of the 1796 election. The campaign was bitter and characterized by slander and personal attacks on both sides. Federalists spread rumors that the Democratic-Republicans were radicals who would murder their opponents, burn churches, and destroy the country (based on the Democratic-Republican preference for France over Britain at a time when the violent French Revolution was in full swing). In 1798, George Washington had complained "that you could as soon scrub the blackamoor white, as to change the principles of a profest Democrat; and that he will leave nothing unattempted to overturn the Government of this Country.”

Meanwhile, the Democratic-Republicans accused Federalists of destroying republican values, not to mention political support from immigrants, with the Alien and Sedition Acts, some of which were later called unconstitutional after their expiration by the Supreme Court; they also accused Federalists of favoring Britain in order to promote aristocratic, anti-republican values."

Yes, it's always been this way.

[proudohioan]

54. What exactly is "longer than you have been around"?

I'd hate to feel like an ancient person here if I didn't have to....

:)

[Hansel]

55. No. I see it as having gotten increasingly worse since Watergate.

I think the White House lost its shiney gloss with Nixon had to resign and the hearings on Watergates were going on. Prior to that I think that there was still a vast majority of the country who trusted authority and believed in politicians.

Then came Reagan's Lee Atwater who mainstreamed the art of making your opponents into caricatures and turning politics into a kill sport.

CSpan and cable news' need to pretend like they have to be fair and balanced, and making absolutely everything Republican versus Democrat hasn't helped. Karl Rove has also had a great part in taking the Lee Atwater strategy and perfecting it to Olympic levels.

The Republicans also have schools that train pundits to go on cable shows who are much better at framing the issues, attacking and shutting out any reasonable discussion. All backed by corporations. And we have so-called "journalists" that have no problem slanting news stories to the right and out and out lying for the right.

It used to be that the media pointed out lies and fact checked, and saw no need to drudge up some minor dirt on the Democrats whenever they cover a major scandal on a Republican just to be perceived as balanced. They just reported the relevant facts without dragging the opposing party into it. The media did a little better job of holding the criminals accountable and keeping the tabloid crap out of politics.

There was also more competition in the media and there were no power house radio talk propagandists being paid by large corporations to spew garbage that hurts the people they pretend to be advocating for. At least not until Paul Harvey who harped on "welfare queens" all of the time.

I think it's gotten worse in just the past year simply because politicians and many in the media just don't respect a Black man being in the WH. They can barely have a conversation without mentioning he's Black which belies their supposed post racial mentality.

[Paladin]

58. Limbaugh Took Public Discourse Into The Sewer.

No other one individual bears so much responsibility for how bad things have become. He's right down there with Joseph Goebbels, as far as I'm concerned......

[jberryhill]

59. Remember Morton Downey Jr ?

[mitchum]

61. Yes, That is why I have always Called Bill O'Reilly "Morton Downey Jr Jr"

[lynne]

60. In a word - YES -

- and I've been around since the Eisenhower administration. I guess I began paying attention somewhere around the Nixon administration. The only difference is that the internet now allows people of like mind to discuss politics 24/7. Before all the talk was done on party lines and around water coolers.

[Kaleva]

62. President Jackson threatened to hang his former vice president.

In 1813, Jackson was shot by Thomas Hart Benton who would later become a Senator.