Think America’s divided now? Try the 1970s

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Gloria: Do you know that 60 percent of all deaths in America are caused by guns?

Archie Bunker: Would it make you feel any better if dey was pushed out of windows?

~

Archie Bunker: Well, I'll tell you one thing about President Nixon. He keeps Pat home. Which was where Roosevelt should have kept Eleanor. Instead he let her run around loose until one day she discovered the colored. We never knew they were there. She told them they were gettin' the short end of the stick and we been having trouble ever since.

Mike: Let me tell you something Mr. Bunker...

Archie Bunker: No, let me tell you something, Mr. Stivic. You are a meathead! A meathead, dead from head up! A meathead!

~

Archie Bunker: When your mother-in-law and me was goin' around together, it was two years — we never — I never — I mean absolutely nothin', not 'til the wedding night.

Edith Bunker: Yeah, and even then...

Gloria: I'm sorry, Mr. Davis, sometimes my father says the wrong things.

Sammy Davis Jr.: Yeah, I've noticed that.

Lionel Jefferson: But he's not a bad guy, Mr. Davis. I mean, like, he'd never burn a cross on your lawn.

Sammy Davis Jr.: No, but if he saw one burning, he's liable to toast a marshmallow on it.

~

Archie Bunker: Now, no prejudice intended, but I always check with the Bible on these here things. I think that, I mean if God had meant for us to be together he'd a put us together. But look what he done. He put you over in Africa, and put the rest of us in all the white countries.

Sammy Davis Jr.: Well, he must've told 'em where we were because somebody came and got us.

Violent, fringe, left-wing movements are of little importance because they have no corollary representation in electoral politics and are largely defunct. They’re likewise so far outside the neoliberal consensus of the Democratic Party that they have little hope of finding their way in.

The same, unfortunately, cannot be said for the right, which has a great deal of transit between milita groups, white supremacists, and the Republican political establishment. This is clear in Trump’s pardon of Amon Bundy, the dismantling of counterintelligence monitoring these groups’ activities, and in the rhetoric of politicians like Iowa representative Steve King.

In the past, division has been over real issues. Today its over nothing.

I maybe wrong in thinking about this way, but in the 1970s people were debating over topics that were debatable. Vietnam for example, an argument can be made it was the right move to get involved. And, an argument can be made it was a mistake. Same with socialism vs. capitalism and a myriad of other large, complex topics.

Now the divide is around the basics of the scientific method. People think that vaccines have killed more people than they help. They think that hydrochloroquine is a wunderdrug and Bill Gates is suppressing its use so he can make more money. I see disagreements that are not arguable on any merit.

I pointed out to someone on social media the other day that the post they were sharing was objectively fake news (with links to proof). They responded that they didn't care because they believed it anyway. Is that a divide that can even be crossed?

It is some interesting irony that all the top level comments on this page are being downvoted.

Ironically, the people in power today were the “youths” of the 70s.

This is an extremely dumb article.

a) Today intense partisan divisiveness and animosity is felt by the overwhelming majority of the US electorate, not just among extremist groups with no formal political representation. Even taking the author's premise that the 70s had more bloodshed for granted, left-right animosity was comparatively low in conventional politics. A crucial factor of this was that the "realignment of the parties" had just begun with the Nixon administration, so there were still a great deal of centrist liberal Republicans and deeply conservative Democrats.

b) Unlike the 70s, extremist politics are represented at the highest levels of government. This is only true of the right, which is highly relevant!

c) Unlike the 70s, political extremism in the US is almost exclusively a right-wing phenomenon, both in government and in the general population. The few radical communists that actually exist in the US have little impact even on socialist discourse. The fact that Democrats have been moving left since 2005 is not at all symmetrical with the Republican plunge into proto-fascism starting in 2009. The lone gunman who attempted to kill Steve Scalise is not at all symmetrical with the masses who swarmed Charlottesville with anti-Semitic chants.

Of course given the source none of this is a surprise. The author rather gives the game away by focusing exclusively on socialist/marxist terrorism. Arsonists don't generally like taking credit for their work.

This article really misses the point. Sure, there may be times in the long past where there was a lot of divide. America once had legal slavery too. But it would still be absolutely appalling if slavery were to come back today.

The article almost gives off the impression that "oh it happened before so it's ok and normal". No, it's not ok and normal. It wasn't ok back then and it's not ok now.

I have seen several articles over the last decade comment that the modern American political landscape is the most polarized it has been since the U.S. Civil War in the 19th century.

.