There may have been more violence among various radical and extremist factions in American politics in the 70s but that doesn't mean that America was more divided politically over all. There wasn't nearly as much partisanship in the upper-echelons of power in 70s and I suspect that there was more consensus among people in more moderate circles. There also wasn't this huge epistemological divide running right through the middle of the country; people were generally working from a common understanding of reality. Not so, today.
The political class may have been unified, but perhaps because so many people didn't participate in politics. Many religious people stayed away or at least did not vote along religious lines, and other large segments were disenfranchised altogether. So the separations may have existed but simply did not play out in the political arena because politics was in the hands of a homogeneous group.
Most people simply weren't exposed to a very wide spectrum of beliefs. Mass media focused on hard news, and it was either local and/or controlled by a few groups.
The wider diversity of media that came later allowed more opportunity for people to 1) find a viewpoint they more closely identify with, and 2) become outraged about viewpoints vastly different than their own.
>There also wasn't this huge epistemological divide running right through the middle of the country; people were generally working from a common understanding of reality. Not so, today.
Everyone was watching the same network news and reading the same newspaper. Once niche news sources started to become widely available, everyone went to the news source that gave them the news how they wanted to hear it. Over time these news sources grew more and more polarized as they continued to cater to their specific niche audience (some sources are certainly more brazen and intentional with this approach, but it happens naturally if you aren't actively working to stop it). There is only so much polarization that can happen when we all agree on the same basic set of facts. But now we are all stuck in our own bubbles, only listen to news that reinforces our world view, and we continue to spiral further and further into polarization.
With online news and the rapid news cycles, we're living in how The Onion presented 'Live poll lets pundits pander in real time': https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFpK_r-jEXg
So true! In addition to your points, so many were even watching the same news program for one person - Walter Cronkite at CBS. Additionally, the newspapers were of high quality. Of course, there were editorials with opinion pieces, but the news articles generally were reported neutrally (or at least with overt bias).
>There also wasn't this huge epistemological divide running right through the middle of the country; people were generally working from a common understanding of reality.
This is mostly a myth. Conspiracy theories for example, often taken as an example today of how flimsy reality is, always had an immense impact on American politics. Many American presidents were committed believers of conspiracy theories, Nixon was openly paranoid, of course with an extremely political bent.
The absurdity of the cold war and its influence on division in politics and what is actually real or not is well documented in just about every film made in the era.
Insofar as American politics actually is more divided today I wouldn't even frame it as a bad thing. It's just the result of vastly different people wanting vastly different things and having significantly more opportunity to express it. This desire for consensus among moderates is just an expression of another age-old American tradition, fear of the upper-middle class of everything that is political.
Yes, 538 did a couple of articles about how polarization is no worse than ever, but what is unusual today is how strongly the polarization lines up with political parties.
It is now notable to find some ideological question for which e.g. 80+% of Republicans do not agree on. The Democrats were lagging a bit on this, but are catching up rapidly.
They do note that at least some of this is due to people leaving the parties, but a lot of it is also due to people aligning their beliefs more with the parties.
Look at the bottom graph here[1]. Note that up through 2004 both parties had roughly the same response to the question of immigrants. Then steadily those opposed to immigration within the Democratic party either switched to the Republican party or, aligned their beliefs with the pro-immigration stance.
Similarly for basically my entire life (born in 1980) the country has been split 60/40 on abortion. However, the democratic party used to be just slightly above average for pro-life with the Republican party below average. Now over 80% of Democrats are pro-life, and Republicans have polled in the mid 30s for over a decade now.
I think two other factors to consider are the rise of partisan media after the repeal of the Fairness doctrine and suburbanization, both making it easier for people to spend time mostly hearing voices they agree with.
One thing I find interesting about older novels is that it seems to be more common than now to know people that you disagreed with, perhaps strongly, but still respected. One factor in this is probably religion: church attendance has been dropping for a long time so there’s less social attendance and some of the most popular denominations became very politically active in the late 1970s so they rapidly became less diverse.
I don't think they're that bold. The notion that congress is divided more strictly along sectarian lines today than the past is from this paper: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal... which measures a decrease in cross-party voting over the last few generations.
The "common truth" is a bit more subjective, but I've definitely noticed people in my extended social groups having fewer and fewer information sources in common, as well as a smaller and smaller set of common beliefs. I'm not the only person I've come across who's had this impression.
Think America was divided in the 1970s? Try the 1860s.
And if you somehow think that the US Civil War doesn't count because it was soldiers fighting, remember that one of the precursors to the war occurred in Kansas. In the 1850s, civilians from both sides invaded and fought to kick the other side out so they could rig Kansas' vote on slavery. It was violence between civilians and obvious attempts to manipulate a democratic vote by both sides.
I'm not saying that the division now or in the 1970s is acceptable, but America's history (and that of many other "civilized" countries) is bathed in blood. Politicians win elections by having a "better" stance on the issues compared to their opponent. If they can make an issue divisive and considered a deal-breaker then they can keep supporters on their side, even if they are screwing their constituents on many smaller issues. This is why abortion is equated with premeditated murder on one side and complete forfeiture of a woman's autonomy on the other. This is why gun control is equated with supporting mass shootings on one side and the complete abandonment of freedom and the US Constitution on the other.
We should strive to be better, but realize that this isn't the worst it's ever been. It does seem like in the past couple decades, the increasing flood of information has made many aware of the divisions. Previously you could have lived you life in your community where most of the people think like you.
Exactly. I got downvoted for mentioning this elsewhere, but it has been noted over the last decade that modern political polarization is as bad in the 21st century as it was during the 1860's, which is opposite the thesis of this article.
The article mentions the US Civil War in it's third and second to last sentences in the last paragraph, and that's the only place. I expanded on that by a considerable amount.
Right now I feel like the Civil War is an apt comparison since we have state governors making pacts between themselves to act a certain way regardless of what the federal government says to do.
I don't get this article: it feels to me like a member of the older generation saying "I had to walk fifteen miles to school in the snow! Barefoot! Uphill! Both ways!".
To me it's a bit like whataboutmanship: "you think it's bad now? what about the 1970s, eh?".
Just because things were bad back then doesn't mean they're not _also bad_ now. Just because things are better it doesn't mean we shouldn't try to improve.
My reading of the article was that it sought to point out that how "bad" it is today isn't unusual or an anomaly. Today's divisions are more par for course in America than a new development. That perspective is relevant when we try to improve the current situation.
I can't claim to know how today compares to our past, but what strikes me about today is how close I feel we are in terms of values and ideas, yet how divided we are politically.
Without saying my political beliefs, I've had conversations about immigration, taxes, race, and religion with people both on and against my side of the aisle, with people of diverse backgrounds.
It's crazy to me how much we agree on and how minor our differences are, and how even those differences are seen through the lens of different means to a similar, just end.
Right up until the point that you start discussing political party or even specific politicians.
Then, it gets personal. Then, the very moral fiber of your being is up for questioning, commonality in goals or values be damned.
Yeah we can all probably agree on goals and outcomes.
My guess here is each person has an audience in mind and an applicability.
The dog whistle of saying the "American family" is being destroyed. To a conservative it means something about a god fearing hetero family. To a liberal it means anyone wanting to be in a consensual monogamous relationship.
Healthcare should be good and affordable. "For people like me." or "To everyone, even an illegal."
Could some of that be the difference between the principles that people advocate and how they act when the rubber meets the road? That is, it seems to me that most Republicans do not advocate anti-immigrant, racist, etc. opinions. However, when it comes to election day they are willing to vote in people who put those policies in place.
Indeed. I will judge you based on your effect on me. If the people you vote for are openly racist, homophobic, sexist, and paranoid, then as far as I am concerned you are racist, homophobic, sexist, and paranoid, and I will treat you accordingly.
I was young enough in the 70s not to get all of the subtlety, but I think we really are more divided now than back then. Current politics is vicious in a way now that I don't recall back then.
In any case, to get a taste of what things were like then, watch Ken Burns' excellent documentary on the Vietnam War (currently on Netflix?).
The whole article came across as "so what if the right has violent extremists who are ideologically supported by some of the highest levels of Republican leadership today... what about the ultra-left radical terrorists of the 1970s?!" This came as a surprise, until I realized that this article is featured in The Spectator.
The media (including social) has been nudging people towards these kinds of conclusions a lot. I remember seeing people associating black bloc protesters with Hillary Clinton which is a completely preposterous association. That is until you realize lumping them together might make someone scared AND mad giving them a lot more reason to not listen to many nuanced points.
Sometimes I feel like even if America had more upheaval in the past, it was at least the type of upheaval that could change things. Now I feel like people are angry and the system is setup such that there's nothing that they can do to change things.
I feel back then people were divided about topics. Now I feel the whole division is propagated by parties and people adjust their view on topics accordingly.
Readit News
The wider diversity of media that came later allowed more opportunity for people to 1) find a viewpoint they more closely identify with, and 2) become outraged about viewpoints vastly different than their own.
Everyone was watching the same network news and reading the same newspaper. Once niche news sources started to become widely available, everyone went to the news source that gave them the news how they wanted to hear it. Over time these news sources grew more and more polarized as they continued to cater to their specific niche audience (some sources are certainly more brazen and intentional with this approach, but it happens naturally if you aren't actively working to stop it). There is only so much polarization that can happen when we all agree on the same basic set of facts. But now we are all stuck in our own bubbles, only listen to news that reinforces our world view, and we continue to spiral further and further into polarization.
This is mostly a myth. Conspiracy theories for example, often taken as an example today of how flimsy reality is, always had an immense impact on American politics. Many American presidents were committed believers of conspiracy theories, Nixon was openly paranoid, of course with an extremely political bent.
The absurdity of the cold war and its influence on division in politics and what is actually real or not is well documented in just about every film made in the era.
Insofar as American politics actually is more divided today I wouldn't even frame it as a bad thing. It's just the result of vastly different people wanting vastly different things and having significantly more opportunity to express it. This desire for consensus among moderates is just an expression of another age-old American tradition, fear of the upper-middle class of everything that is political.
Terrorism in the United States.[2] Other than 9/11 and Oklahoma City, few non mass shooting incidents have killed many people.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shootings_in_the_United_S...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States...
I think your data simply illustrates that terrorists mostly changed their methods after Columbine.
Your source illustrates that the total number of incidents was way higher in the 70s.
I think the big differentiator is the media coverage devoted to shooters now. Psychologists agree on this.
It is now notable to find some ideological question for which e.g. 80+% of Republicans do not agree on. The Democrats were lagging a bit on this, but are catching up rapidly.
They do note that at least some of this is due to people leaving the parties, but a lot of it is also due to people aligning their beliefs more with the parties.
Look at the bottom graph here[1]. Note that up through 2004 both parties had roughly the same response to the question of immigrants. Then steadily those opposed to immigration within the Democratic party either switched to the Republican party or, aligned their beliefs with the pro-immigration stance.
Similarly for basically my entire life (born in 1980) the country has been split 60/40 on abortion. However, the democratic party used to be just slightly above average for pro-life with the Republican party below average. Now over 80% of Democrats are pro-life, and Republicans have polled in the mid 30s for over a decade now.
1: https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/FT_19...
One thing I find interesting about older novels is that it seems to be more common than now to know people that you disagreed with, perhaps strongly, but still respected. One factor in this is probably religion: church attendance has been dropping for a long time so there’s less social attendance and some of the most popular denominations became very politically active in the late 1970s so they rapidly became less diverse.
Also, "more violence" is an understatement. Race riots in many major cities creating white flight, and thousands of domestic bombings a year.
The "common truth" is a bit more subjective, but I've definitely noticed people in my extended social groups having fewer and fewer information sources in common, as well as a smaller and smaller set of common beliefs. I'm not the only person I've come across who's had this impression.
And if you somehow think that the US Civil War doesn't count because it was soldiers fighting, remember that one of the precursors to the war occurred in Kansas. In the 1850s, civilians from both sides invaded and fought to kick the other side out so they could rig Kansas' vote on slavery. It was violence between civilians and obvious attempts to manipulate a democratic vote by both sides.
I'm not saying that the division now or in the 1970s is acceptable, but America's history (and that of many other "civilized" countries) is bathed in blood. Politicians win elections by having a "better" stance on the issues compared to their opponent. If they can make an issue divisive and considered a deal-breaker then they can keep supporters on their side, even if they are screwing their constituents on many smaller issues. This is why abortion is equated with premeditated murder on one side and complete forfeiture of a woman's autonomy on the other. This is why gun control is equated with supporting mass shootings on one side and the complete abandonment of freedom and the US Constitution on the other.
We should strive to be better, but realize that this isn't the worst it's ever been. It does seem like in the past couple decades, the increasing flood of information has made many aware of the divisions. Previously you could have lived you life in your community where most of the people think like you.
Right now I feel like the Civil War is an apt comparison since we have state governors making pacts between themselves to act a certain way regardless of what the federal government says to do.
That was right before that big war that killed over 600,000 people, right?
To me it's a bit like whataboutmanship: "you think it's bad now? what about the 1970s, eh?".
Just because things were bad back then doesn't mean they're not _also bad_ now. Just because things are better it doesn't mean we shouldn't try to improve.
Without saying my political beliefs, I've had conversations about immigration, taxes, race, and religion with people both on and against my side of the aisle, with people of diverse backgrounds.
It's crazy to me how much we agree on and how minor our differences are, and how even those differences are seen through the lens of different means to a similar, just end.
Right up until the point that you start discussing political party or even specific politicians.
Then, it gets personal. Then, the very moral fiber of your being is up for questioning, commonality in goals or values be damned.
My guess here is each person has an audience in mind and an applicability.
The dog whistle of saying the "American family" is being destroyed. To a conservative it means something about a god fearing hetero family. To a liberal it means anyone wanting to be in a consensual monogamous relationship.
Healthcare should be good and affordable. "For people like me." or "To everyone, even an illegal."
In any case, to get a taste of what things were like then, watch Ken Burns' excellent documentary on the Vietnam War (currently on Netflix?).
No they don't?