When did this country really become fractured?

[coloradodem2005]

I think it began with the Clinton impeachment. I do hold the neocons responsible for this. I do think that what Clinton did was immoral on a personal level. But that is not the point. It is not illegal and they were looking for a way to set him up and even though they failed to destroy Clinton, they set things up for 2000 really well.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

1. with Reagan's deregulation and repeal of "the fairness doctrine"

Newt's "Contract on America" then TVRWC thugs attack on Clinton...bush will finish their evil agenda ...if we don't stop it in Nov.

[Stew225]

3. I'm probably a bit biased on this subject but

Clinton's deregulation of the media in '96 certainly exacerbated any right wing movement that was afoot!

[anarchy1999]

54. Go get "America: What Went Wrong"! Donald L. Barlett & James B. Steele

Pulitzer Prize winning reporters of the Philadelphia Inquirer

from Amazon:
Editorial Reviews

Ingram
Asking the question, "what went wrong," two Pulitzer Prize-winning authors present a sweeping critique of the last two decades of American history, concluding that short-sighted greed in business and government has undermined the American dream. Original.

The back cover link:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0836270010/ref=sib_rdr_bc/002-9530653-7866401?%5Fencoding=UTF8&p=S073#reader-link

The Table of Contents:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0836270010/ref=sib_rdr_toc/002-9530653-7866401?%5Fencoding=UTF8&p=S006#reader-link

Oh and don't forget the '94 Election, our good buddy Newt G. and the Republicans "Contract with America". I believe, IMHO that is when the fractures really started to manifest themselves. These plans though, for this to happen, are far older.

[EST]

72. I second the nomination-

That fundamental mistake allowed for otherwise unemployable dipshits like Rush Limpball to crank up the continual pile-driving attacks with no room for any rebuttal, thus pandering to the non-reflective, hate to read history crowd.

[NMDemDist2]

2. agreed eom

[Pirate Smile]

4. I think it was with Clinton but even before the impeachment.

Unlike the problems we have with Shrub which are primarily based on policy, they seemed to just hate Clinton personally, not based on his policies. I never did really get that part.

[Kanary]

5. There was never any healing of the "fracture" of the Vietnam War

And, it has built from there.

However, the same thing could be said of the Civil War, but that didn't bring out as much involvment of the corporations. (Except that even Lincoln mentioned that, so, who knows.... :shrug: )

We, as a nation, are very good at burying issues, and not dealing with them through to completion. another reason for a Dept. of Peace.

Kanary

[TahitiNut]

32. I agree.

The combinations of (1) ideological fractures within both political parties over Vietnam, (2) social reactionaries v. activists from "the 60's", and (3) Nixon's "Southern Strategy" all nurtured a generation of poltical sociopaths.

In the 80's, the receding traditional leadership of the Republican Party invited the neofascist camel's nose (GHW Bush, et. al.) into their mythical "big tent" where they metastacized, and they visibly took over in 1988.


On edit: To some significant degree, the "Southern Strategy" built on the embedded fractures remaining from the Civil War, embedded due to the continued exploitation of labor. Remember, there's no 'purity' on either side of such issues. There's little doubt northern industrialists foresaw the prolonged depression of labor compensation from freed slaves. An always-present "underclass" is always helpful to the "ownership class" (what was once called the "Aristocracy").

[Kanary]

68. I've thought a lot about your response, and am frustrated with the venue,

which doesn't inspire or even allow for actual discussion.

There is so much to discuss in this topic, and your response just opens the door further. This divide has caused so much damage, not only to the Dem party, but to the nation as a whole, and badly needs to be discussed and dealt with. The divide will continue until we fully deal with it, and begin a true healing process.

Until we do that, the divide continues to allow the "aristocracy" to hold power.

I guess we'll just have to come to the point of hurting enough to be willing to finally tackle this mess.

Kanary

[TahitiNut]

71. "Divide and conquer" has been the precept of the 'Ruling Elite' ...

... since time immemorial. One of the reasons the aftermath of Great Depression and post-WW2 saw our consciousness move to the left is "same-boatism." When people of differing demographic backgrounds could no longer avoid one another (in the same foxhole, both literally and figuratively) they overcame their ignorance (fertile ground for planting animosity) of one another and discovered kindred souls. It's this core kinship on which 'socialism' is founded: people working together for their common weal. Ignorance hosts fear. Fear begets fear. Fear fractures and divides us, leading to greater ignorance.

The current fractures in the body politic are merely an instantiation of the above theme and are those reflecting the socially (not so much economically) ideological polarizations of "the 60's" which, as we all know, really happened in the early 70's. Much of the "same-boatism" of the 60's was the draft. (Part of why I'm an adamant supporter of a Universal Service obligation.)


Let's not make a mistake: The 'ruling elite' are every bit as much the victims of fear and ignorance as anyone. (Wealth buys exclusion which generates ignorance which hosts fear.) Wealth is the Weapon of Mass Destruction being wielded by neurotics. (Led by sociopaths.)

[Kanary]

74. I'm also a Universal Service adherent. Taken many a vicious beatings

for that here.

I agree with all you say. What is bugging me is that WE have a part in this...... We Have Allowed The Seperation To Happen. It's Happening Right Here At DU.

*WE* are complicit. Maybe we can't do a whole lot about the neocons right now, but we CAN do something about ourselves, and the part we are playing in this. *THAT'S* what I'm frustrated with not being able to fully discuss and explore.

Just saying that much will probably get me blistered. And I've had it with that.

There is *HOPE* in the fact that we CAN do something about our part. The power elite is NOT going to drop their divide and conquer tactics, just because we see it and demand that they do. Only we can refuse to be divided. That means a lot of growth on our part. Are we up to it?

Kanary

[TahitiNut]

78. Well, we can do what we can do.

Everywhere I go, whether it be to the supermarket, the VFW for Friday fish-fry, or video store, especially when standing in line, I open my big fat mouth. I put a smile on my face and some humor in my heart and make some flip remark like "Are we all having fun yet?" When I get a (hesitant) smiling response and see folks awaken from their dole lethargy, I make friendly eye contact (rare in these here parts) and harvest any kind of response ... and then, when I can, 'flip' it to slam the Busholinis. If I only say "well, maybe after we elect someone else" I'll always get some positive responses - far more than I'd guess when feeling pessimistic. I'll then sometimes make a comment to the effect "why is it we keep quiet, either in line or about politics?" It seems to get folks out of their shells and remove some fear about saying things in public. If I only serve as a model that it can be done without anger and without fear of being lynched, people seem to wake up and smile more. I figure if I'm going to be a contaminator, I'd rather contaminate people with a 'we're together' than some sidelong glancing 'discretion is the better part of valor' fear.

These things cascade. I remember the precept of the 60's ... about changing the whole world by starting in that space around one's self. I think it works. It's part of why I proclaim myself a "nut" with pride. (California is the land of "fruits" and "nuts" ... and I could only aspire to be the former.)

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

42. Yeah, I was thinking late '60's, Vietnam, also. There have been of

course major tremors since then, but I suspect that is when the major fault lines developed.

[BeFree]

59. It was a revolution in the 60's

A cultural revolution. It was the end of the tight societal demand of conformity.

Long hair on men, Blacks seeking their god given rights to be free, women openly divorcing husbands, the pill, Rock'n'Roll, open revolt against the military in Viet Nam, people openly questioning religious overseers, the threat of nuclear destruction hanging mightily over everyone's heads. The man on the moon.

It was a revolution that continues today. The elite power holders saw their power ebbing away with every new wave of human exploration seeking freedom and expression.

Their power is much less today than it was then and tomorrow it will be even less. Boosh represents the old power. Kerry the new, more open, more democratic, more human centered, power to the people.

Kerry On!

[Kanary]

61. There were two different parts to that "revolution"

Yes, there was the cultural aspect, and that has somewhat continued (although, IMO it's stalled).

However, there was also the political aspect. Many of those who were politically involved in that "revolution" have since gone to the right (GAK!), but those who are still politically radical (like me) are just not able to subjugate ourselves to a more politically conservative agenda (whether it's conservative Dem or conservative Rep). We were never able to adequately organize ourselves into a true community, so we never came together enough to formulate an effective way to communicate our vision and goals. We let the opportunity slip by, and now the neocons have taken that from us, and run with it.

We have so much catching up to do........ and I don't know that we are really able to do that.

Kanary

[BeFree]

62. The reason for the political shift

...was to counter the cultural revolution.

Clinton was the first person from that revolution to gain power. And look what they did to him!

I can remember the clear look of disgust on the faces of those who wanted Blacks to be kept down as Martin Luther King took to the streets. The gnarled thrashing as women began to take control of their lives via divorce court and the pill. How dare they!

Knowing that they couldn't control the newfound freedoms via the Church any longer, the CONS took to active politics to stop human rights from flourishing, and that's where we are today: Fighting for our rights.

[Kanary]

64. Well, that's your view. I was there, and it was different.

[sweetheart]

67. Yes, perpetuated through the war on drugs

At that fracture, the war on drugs was created to imprison liberals.
That war has created a fracture
speaking as the enemy,
one who prefers the company of cannabis
To assenting in any way
to the republican assault on
civility and goodwill.

Then by a war on drugs,
millions of a generation
are the enemy, more people dead
, lives wasted by stupid laws,
and how does it get ended,
finally, ?

Rather it never ends, as the war is stupid
and in denial of what works to end addiction
in drugs users. There should be no stigma,
no social issues and no legal issues.
The drugs should be just like alncohol or
whatever... All the focus should be on the
"demand" side. Instead, it is a twisted
screw to divide millions that no one is safe
from the republican
prison complex. Institutionalized judgement
from some religious whackos, DEA massively
increased by nixon at the very fracture
you point to.

The WOD embodies the ultimate failure of supply side economics.

[SharonAnn]

6. Nixon's Impeachment

Or Nixon himself.

[coloradodem2005]

8. Nixon wasn't impeached.

He resigned.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

19. if he" wasn't impeached" why in hell was it necessary for Ford to PARDON N

Nixon?

[Vickers]

20. It's kind of the opposite of "prior restraint"

:spank:

[coloradodem2005]

21. Because Nixon stood a chance of being impeached.

If he didn't resign he would have been impeached and Ford's pardon was so Nixon would not face anymore legal troubles in regards to Watergate that he otherwise would have faced.

[Yupster]

33. Nixon wasn't impeached

He just wasn't. Honest.

He would have been had he not resigned.

[T Town Jake]

38. Because even though he was no longer president...

...Nixon was still subject to criminal sanctions for the events surrounding the Watergate cover-up, including things that had nothing directly to do with the actual break-in itself. The thinking, as I understand it, behind Ford's decision to pardon Nixon was that he thought it would just continue to prolong America's long "national nightmare," and would make us look ridiculous to the world with a former president in the dock in a federal courtroom. I suspect he also hoped it would help his bid for election in '76 by taking the whole issue off the table and letting it fade from people's memories. If that was the case he badly misjudged and it backfired on him - that pardon probably single handedly cost Ford the 1976 election. It left a sour taste in too many voters mouths.

[Booster]

24. I agree that it all started with Nixon.

Republicans think the Dems did Nixon really dirty, not that he did anything wrong in their eyes, and Clinton was payback for Nixon. Remember Hillary was involved with Nixon's problems and they have fixated on the fact that Nixon's problems were of Hillary's making. Go figure, but that's when the hatred really started to build up.

[coloradodem2005]

27. Of course they could blame Kerry for Nixon's problems too.

n/t

[immoderate]

77. Dont forget to give credit to...

Spiro Agnew!

--IMM

[Leilani]

7. During Vietnam

We really split into 2 nations then

Lots of differences put aside; things fluctuated back & forth

But with the Kerry vs Bush race, Vietnam revisited, the old fissures have reappeared.

I was always an Independent, so maybe I can look at it more objectively, but the right & left just do not understand each other.
They used to talk past each other; now they are screaming past each other.

[Vickers]

9. A lot of things led up to this, but Clinton spanking George Sr. really

got things heated up.

[MUSTANG_2004]

69. Disagree

George Sr. wasn't particularly beloved by conservatives (remember the harsh response he got when he raised taxes after saying "Read my lips"). His getting beaten wouldn't have created great animosity from conservatives, who weren't wild about him anyway.

[CityDem]

10. I can't say exactly when

But the person most responsible for the fracture is Newt Gingrich. He started throwing bombs in the House while in the minority and was very divisive as House leader. Unfortunately, his divisiveness has carried over to the Senate. Throw in Clinton's impeachment and the 2000 election and one can find us where we are today.

[Leilani]

11. The Newt Gingrich crazies,

the clinton witch hunt, right wing media...

these are all results of the fissure that took place during Vietnam.

It is being played out in this election: Kerry vs Swiftboat Vets.

[realFedUp]

47. Yes, the Contract on America

Newt's certainly been at the bottom
of a lot of this stuff....
but he didn't start it.

[bobbieinok]

12. started in the 60s...social liberals vs social conservatives. pro rights v

vs anti- rights

got stronger 80-88, but 'sort of' mild becase right thought they'd 'won', so weren't so entirely rabid (except RW radio)....it really blew up with Clinton's election ....... he 'was not supposed to win'.........then all the 24/7 media anti-Clinton stuff from 93 on, totally hyper with Monica and impeachment......

[H2O Man]

13. When did it become fractured?

Well, that is an interesting question. A good question. Look to the beginning: and I'm not pointing fingers at one group, but clearly this nation started with white folks stealing red folk's land, and developing it with black folk's labor. So there's a huge fracture.

Even within that one large group, the white folks, there were divisions of rich and poor, powerful vs powerless.

And, even more, there was men vs women, andthat's a huge fracture.

The Civil War was a fracture the nation never completely healed from. The closest to "unity" the country got was WW2 .... unless you were some of the yellow folks.

In the decades that immediately followed WW2, those fractures had pressure: black folks said they wanted their share of the country; the red folks wanted their share recognized as separate; yellow folks tended to work within their communities to become part of the whole; and women began to exercise the power they had.

That left white guys. And white guys have had a problem realizing that the whole of the country isn't reflective of them alone. Not all white guys, of course. But the ones we refer to as "republicans."

This country has been fractured since day one.

[gumby]

31. Exactly

The fall of the USSR has played a big part too, imho.

The "unity" experienced after WWII was provided through the cold war. One undeniable proponent of the right-wing is their need for an enemy. After the USSR fell, the Newts, and Weyrichs, and PNACers and the rest of them felt no compunction about turning their quest for total domination against the people of this country.

They went full-force against liberals, feminists, gays, welfare recipients and anyone else they could use as an 'enemy of the State.'

Fascism has always been right under the surface in this country. Now they call it "conservatism."

[bobbieinok]

46. thorough answer

[Kahuna]

14. The civil war. The south has been fighting it ever since.. Bunch of

sore losers.

[tedoll78]

15. Somewhere between impeachment and the 2000 ruling.

Before the impeachment, we saw times where the incumbent commonly held approval ratings above 60%. Now, barring some weird event, we don't see this much.. we're closer to 50%.

The impeachment began the fracture's spread; the cracks in the foundation were already there, with the Religious Right trying to repeal Roe, etc.. And 2000 only exploded it. Before 2000, there was a fault line. After 2000, a chunk of land split-off into the ocean.

Still, perhaps that this division is related to Bush? Maybe Kerry will get elected and see higher approval ratings; it may be just Bush's policies that are especially accenting the split in this country.

[OHswingvoter]

16. I remember hating Nixon back

in the day. The country was divided then too. And there was a lot of hate. Just that it was not divided even 50-50. Our side only had aabout 30-35% of people then. I think we have brought more people over to the good side as they suffered through the years of Republican Fascisit rule since Nixon. Our side is getting bigger all the time and soon we will be able to crush the fascists forever. I mean destroy them so that we never have these guys in elected office again.

[seabeyond]

17. newt with his new america

what was his saying. contract with america. i think that was the start

[wurzel]

18. The "oil embargo" of 1973. Corporations held the people to ransom!

And were rewarded for it. The found they could lie and steal with impunity. Unlike what happened to them when Kennedy was President.

[coloradodem2005]

22. What did Kennedy do to them?

I would like to know.

[Blue Wally]

28. Kennedy "jawboned" the steel industry

The various steel companies were raising prices for steel accross the board. JFK contacted the president of US Steel and threatened him with the IRS and every bad thing the government could do to his company if he didn't reduce prices. US Steel then reduced prices and the rest of the industry had to follow suit. Hard to do it today with the steel industry all overseas and the steel companies here are basket cases.

[wurzel]

41. You say true!!!

So few people know this stuff anymore.

[H2O Man]

43. Kennedy gave them hell in a press conference:

"Kennedy described these actions as 'a wholly unjustifiable and irresponsible defiance of the public interest' by ' a tiny handful of steel executives whose pursuit of private power and profit exceeds their sense of public responsibility.' He added, 'Some time ago I asked each American to consider whate he could do for his country and I asked the steel companies. In the last twenty-four hours we had their answer.'" (A Thousand Days; Schlesinger; see pages 583-6)

Kennedy would privately tell friends, "My father always told me that steel men were sons of bitches." My father said that was President Kennedy's best domestic accomplishment, backing steel down. Of course it was part of the reason that the biggest of big businesses disliked JFK.

[wurzel]

44. It could have got him killed.

[YIMA]

23. I don't know, but one thing I'm sure of......

Even if Kerry is elected, the country will remain divided.

[coloradodem2005]

25. If Bush gets re-(s)elected, it will be far worse.

If we haven't healed the wounds from Vietnam we won't heal these wounds or the ones that result from 4 more years of Bush.

[YIMA]

85. Let me put it this way....

I have no reason to believe that Kerry will unite the country. In fact, I believe the divide will become even greater and will continue to grow.

[Sick_of_Rethuggery]

26. One person: Rush Limbaugh

The reason I think we appear to be a fractured country is that one side insists (started by Rush) on using lies as the basis of their opinions. It is impossible to have a decent conversation with people who are fed lies day in and day out -- just listen one day to the gang of four most responsible for the lie-fed right: Limbaugh, Hannity, Hume and O'Reilly and you will see why our task is so much harder.

This is why we need a couple of more Randi Rhodeses and Al Frankens. We need to call these people on their lies and get the truth out first, before we can have a civilized conversation and come to a consensus about issues.

Ironically, the Bush administration has so overplayed its hand and made things so bad that people are probably beginning to sense that there is a serious gulf between what they are hearing and the reality on the ground.

If Gore can now get his TV also going, together with the increasing numbers of left-leaning radio programs, we may soon have a fertile ground for starting a meaningful dialog about issues.

While the above developments give me some hope, the fact that the vast majority still can't get it that the Republican party leadership has been taken over by the most unscrupulous set of politicians ever makes me quite despondent...

[Cat Atomic]

29. I agree. The right-wing had been picking a fight for years though.

They'd been using hateful and divisive rhetoric as part of public policy for years. Remember Gingrich and his list of words? Then there was Limbaugh, of course, and the rest of the sub-media they built up for the purpose of demonizing their opponents.

But I do think you're right when you reference Clinton's impeachment. That seemed like the point where they finally managed to piss off half the country and start their brawl.

[coloradodem2005]

30. I think it happened in steps.

It really blew up there. But it was slowly coming to that for 30 years before that.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

34. when Cain slew Abel

[spanone]

35. Election 2000

[spooked]

65. ELECTION 2000

That's when it became a bitter feud

[greekspeak]

36. Between Nixon and Reagan

That seems to be when the unholy alliance of corporate America and extreme fundievangelicals was sealed. You see the Radical Right cutting its teeth in the late 70's and early 80's. You see the southern strategy coming to fruition, after Carter didn't do so badly down in the Southland in 76. Then along comes Reagan to stir up a racial hornets nest down there. Later on, you get the real neo-cons, the second assault so to speak, rushing in. Jobs, welfare and common decency all took a back seat to the Librul menace coming to take religion away from devout Americans and giving money to welfare queens.

[T Town Jake]

37. Nov. 22, 1963 - it began there, and has grown since, IMHO.

n/t

[gumby]

40. Definitely

a HUGE marker in our history.

[Star]

39. Just found all this stuff last night. Chilling

Actually, Roe V Wade was the clincher that started it all. Per Katherine Yurica:

It began in the late 1970’s with the help of vast so-called religious broadcasting networks. Pat Robertson’s television talk show, The 700 Club, and hundreds of other radio and television shows began preaching the gospel of political Christian activism, stirring the faithful to accept a political agenda, and reaching an estimated audience of over 20 million people in 1980. The audience for the top ten shows, however, was to increase dramatically to 60 million by 1985, with Robertson’s 700 Club topping the Nielsen ratings with a projected monthly viewing audience of 28.7 million.

Although the plan to take over the government of the United States was announced publicly on Pat Robertson’s 700 Club, it was at a time when only the faithful viewed the show, and only the faithful unquestioningly accepted the possibilities: “We have enough votes to run the country,” Robertson said, “and when the people say, ‘we’ve had enough,’ we’re going to take over the country.” But it was Tim LaHaye, (often called the founder of the religious right), who laid out a specific plan to Pat Robertson’s audience. He said it simple and straight and quick. It went like this:

“There are 110,000 Bible believing churches but there are only 97,000 major elective offices in America. If we launch one candidate per church, we can take over every elective office in this country within ten years.”

http://www.yuricareport.com/Art%20Essays/The%20New%20Messiahs%20Excerpts.htm


Also, read this:

The Despoiling of America
How George W. Bush became the head of the new American Dominionist Church/State
by Katherine Yurica

http://www.yuricareport.com/index.html

(scroll down)

[J Williams]

49. Yes. Thanks. A lot of people don't know that. And...

I didn't know it until I read a book titled What IS the World Coming To? (ISBN: 0-595-31998-X)

It thoroughly exposes the bigotry and hypocrisy of Robertson, Falwell, LaHaye, et al. And it also exposes the Muslim Right and the Jewish Right as well.

It uses the Bible to turn the tables on them all. And at the same time it shows that the core universal truths and the same in all religions.

It deals a lethal blow to religious bigotry and economic injustice.

[Star]

66. I just bought that book today.

I think this is the biggest threat our democracy has ever faced. They want to build a "super-religion", like Hitler's super-race. World domination is their goal, and they're growing.

I just keep telling myself that anything this radical will eventually implode. I just hope I'm right about that.

[Ladyhawk]

79. Yes, I watched my family's attitudes change due to televangelism.

My family was pretty bigoted before Pat Robertson and his ilk came over the airwaves, but after that, it opened a whole new "reality" for them. My mother said, "Until Reagan, Democrats didn't used to be so bad. Now they're evil." I think she was getting that impression from the televangelists she watched.

Then my father and brother started listening to Rush Limbaugh non-stop.

When the televangelists began to have scandals, my mother and father couldn't see any connection between their actions and the words coming out of their mouths, yet when Clinton had an affair with Monica Lewinsky, they wouldn't let it rest. Of course, they hated him before that.

When Limbaugh had his scandal, they forgave him, but Democratic scandals become talking points.

My mother has her own fundy, Borg-again reality. My father is deceased. My brother has dumped the religion, but kept the greed through Ayn Rand objectivism.

I somehow fell through the cracks to land here, religionless and decidedly left of center, even though I was told liberals are evil people.

Go figure.

[Star]

82. Its hard, Ladyhawk

to watch this happening to your family. I know because my younger sister has been corrupted by it, too. she used to be very artsy, very concerned about the environment, and basically a pretty aware person.

Now, she's completely taken in by this stuff, as is her husband, and they have gotten my other sister involved. Above my neice's bed is a poster of a "warrior for god" showing a young cartoon-like girl in full armor, with labels telling how each part of her armor and weapons will help her win the war for god. Her bedroom is in the attic and has one of those sloping ceilings, and the poster is placed so that she sees it whenever she is lying on her bed.

So, out of 2 parents and 5 children, we have 2 catholic dems (Mom & Dad), 2 right-wing fundie sisters, one born-again brother who's also a dem (don't know how he does it!), one moderate agnostic brother, and me, a far-left-wing liberal atheist. Strange.

[Ladyhawk]

84. Just a guess, but I think this might happen more often in dysfunctional

families. When a family is dysfunctional, the children end up all over the map. I'm not saying your family is dysfunctional, by the way. I'm saying mine is. :)

I've handled it differently lately, keeping politics and religion out of the picture (I'm an atheist and a lefty, now.) It just causes arguments.

[Star]

87. You've hit it right on the head.

My family is definitely dysfunctional. I, too, have tried to leave politics and religion out of any family gathering, just to keep the peace.

I have a feeling things might change drastically, though, after this election. Whichever way it goes.

[Ladyhawk]

89. Interesting. One would think that you and I...

...were the ones who are related. :D

[J Williams]

45. Before Clinton, before Vietnam, before Nixon ...

Even before FDR, there was bitter partisanship.

For awhile, during and following the Second World War, America was relatively united. But the country has for the most part been divided by partisan politics since the early days.

The divisions are more complex now, of course. Conflicting views around religious, economic, political and social concerns divide us as never before.

The thing is, we won't be united by perpetuating partisan politics. Partisan politics is part of the problem, not the solution. One side wins for awhile and the other side loses for awhile. But why should we be content to be either winners or losers in a perpetual winner-take-all contest for power? Why can't we share the power and have government that serves all the people?

Well, we can. There is a way.

[rustydad]

48. When?

When was it not? The USA was founded on the backs ( or dead bodies) of the indiginous peoples and has been cursed from the begining. Karma works slowly but is never ceasing. Bob

[Jackpine Radical]

50. 1964. Maybe '65. (nt)

[zeemike]

53. Actually before that

When Kennedy was elected in 1960
Most do not know or remember that JFK was just as reviled as Clinton was but ti was mostly in the south. I think most would be shocked to here some of the things I heard about Kennedy when he was president.
And his assassination embolden his enemies in the RW and disillusioned the progressives and started the split we see today.

[gumby]

51. New voices on this topic

Retro vs. Metro The Great Divide

http://www.retrovsmetro.org/book/?c=1&p=1

[agincourt]

52. When they got control of AM radio,

late 80's, early 90's

[Skittles]

55. when republicans made "liberal" a dirty word

nt

[Ladyhawk]

81. "Watch what you say,

or they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, a fanatical criminal. Now won't you sign up your name? We'd like to feel you're acceptable, respectable, responsible, a vegetable." -"The Logical Song" -Super Tramp

[DebJ]

56. When has this country NOT been fractured? Media just speeds

up the flow of info and give and take these days.
Slavery was a serious issue in 1776, and 1789 (Constitution Ratification). By the 1860's, the factions were ready to go to war. There really are people in this country who STILL aren't over the Civil War, you know.
Maybe we were not fractured for a brief period in the fifties, after WWII. But before WWII, the country was very divided, and there were protests then, too.
I think the fifties might have been a brief spell of lets just relax and live and enjoy for a while. But this is the exception, not the rule, in a democracy with free speech.
It is not the divisions of opinion that concern me. It is that these divisions are not being handled through negotiation and compromise; instead, we have a runaway train that will not compromise and doesn't give a damn about anyone not on their train.

[coloradodem2005]

63. Well, the 50's had McCarthyism too.

So, I am not quite sure about that.

[MUSTANG_2004]

70. Agreed

Certainly the vitriol that was displayed against FDR is similar to what we saw with Clinton and now see on the other side with Bush. Except for a few brief periods, the country has always had two powerful parties with different views of America, and the results have been a heated, passionate and on-going debate.

And, IMO, it's a debate the liberals have largely won over the past 100 years.

[Cheswick2.0]

57. during the debates over the constitution

We have always been divided. But I know what you mean, so I will answer, during the 1992 Presidential campaign. No matter what happened before, I don't remember the same level of hate directed at any politician as was directed at Clinton over the last 12 years. Even during the watergate investigations the parties were in some sort of agreement that the investigation had to happen.

[leesa]

58. Reagan gutting the FCC. It took our media away and put it into the hands

of the RW fruitcakes.

[0007]

60. 'Tis been going on for a long time. I remember when President Roosevelt

died in 1945, my grandparents that were repukes, didn't believe he was indeed dead. They thought the commie son-of-a-bitch was in Russia with Joseph Stalin. They were just as passionate in their hatred as the freepers are today.

The only thing that has changed is that we have the Internet and cable news to keep the people excited with more propaganda and such.

[UpsideDownFlag]

73. during the civil war.

it never really healed.

[Toucano]

75. I personally put it earlier. "Don't blame me. I voted for Bush."

The republicans seriously hated losing power in 1992.

[Yupster]

76. It really became fractured

during the Civil War.

[AG78]

80. 2000

no, 1984

1980

1972

1965

1930

1865

1776

1704

1666

1492

[ElsewheresDaughter]

83. it started in Barry Goldwater's days 1964....imho...........

Goldwater had been an opponent of Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal. He also had a strong dislike of Harry S. Truman and his progressive social policies. Goldwater joined the Republican Party and in 1952 was elected to the Senate. He immediately became a loyal supporter of Joe McCarthy and was one of only 22 senators who voted against his censure in December, 1954.

On the extreme right of the Republican Party, Goldwater often criticised the policies of Dwight Eisenhower. He described his social policies as "dime-store New Deal" and strongly opposed the President's decision to use federal troops at Little Rock. Goldwater also believed that Eisenhower was too soft on trade unions and complained that his failure to balance the budget.

Goldwater expressed his conservative views in a syndicated newspaper column. A collection of these articles were published as The Conscience of the Conservative in 1960. Considered to be too right-wing to be a presidential candidate, Goldwater loyally supported Richard Nixon against John F. Kennedy in 1960.

As an opponent of federal civil rights laws Goldwater was highly critical of the presidency of Lyndon B. Johnson. He also favoured a more aggressive approach to the Vietnam War. Nominated as the Republican Party as its presidential candidate in 1964, he upset many of his potential supporters by voting against Johnson's Anti-Poverty Act (1964).

His extreme anti-Communist views also frightened the American public. In one television interview Goldwalter explained that he would be willing to use nuclear weapons against communist forces in Vietnam. Although his views on civil rights made him popular in the Deep South, was easily defeated by Johnson by 42,328,350 votes to 26,640,178. Goldwater received 38.8 per cent of the vote and won only six states.

[The Great Escape]

86. 1992 Republican Convention In Houston...

that to me was the defining moment. That was when the takeover of the party by religious fundamentalists and reich wing wackadoos was first exposed to the public.

[69KV]

88. You know I've thought about this a lot

I have always pinned down the roots of today's divisions to Barry Goldwater's 1964 campaign, which was the birth of the New Right. As for when the divisions blew wide open, I think it goes back before the Clinton impeachment. Probably to 1994. Anyone who was active in politics in 1994 can tell you that it was when the right wing really started getting nasty and grabbing for all the power they could get. They haven't let up since.

I'm not saying that the right wing wasn't ugly and hateful and grabbing all the power they could before, they have done it at many other times in this nation's history. The 1910s-20s for example. The 1950s for another. But the divisions in society I'm seeing today are unlike anything in my lifetime and probably deeper than anything since the Civil War.

There are some earlier roots to today's divisions. There are some right wingers who cannot get over the Civil War, and some who cannot get over the New Deal or the rise of organized labor. There are probably some who cannot get over the 19th Amendment and women being able to vote. And as much as I've always thought that the modern divisions trace back to Goldwater '64, there was a thread this morning (or yesterday?) on Daily Kos that has forced me to rethink this. Goldwater's campaign may have been the starting point for the modern radical right wing movement, but the real catalyst that the right wing has organized around ever since is this:

They see the Vietnam War as the loss of their mythic, imagined "America" and they want to re-fight that war. It's almost a religious issue for the right. I mean here the Vietnam War in the broadest sense, with everything that came with it: women's liberation, the ecology movement, modern popular culture and so forth. But re-fighting Vietnam is a central rallying point for the right. They blame "liberals" in the media for turning public opinion against the war, which is the origin of their modern myth of liberal bias in the media. They hated Clinton and they hate Kerry for the same reason they have been waging so much hate against Jane Fonda all these years: They quite literally see anyone who protested that war as the enemy. Clinton did join some antiwar rallies in England, and Kerry of course testified before Congress with Vietnam Veterans Against the War. Because so many other liberal changes came around the same time as the Vietnam War, such as civil rights and abortion rights and modern environmental protection laws, they wrap them all up in the same bundle of issues with Vietnam. Abortion is such a big issue to the right because they see women's control over their reproductive rights as part of the "loss of national manhood" that came with Vietnam. The Clinton impeachment was driven by the right wing's perception of him as a 1960s antiwar protester, which made his presidency illigitimate in their eyes; the Monica scandal only provided them with a convenient reason to start impeachment proceedings but that wasn't their real reason.

The Republican fomented wars starting with Grenada and Lebanon, and then Central America, Panama, Gulf War I, the War on Drugs, and now Iraq, have all been successively more brutal and blatant attempts to undo the so called Vietnam Syndrome and restore the right wing's mythical, imagined "national manhood". The barrage of right wing movies in the 1980s (Rambo, Red Dawn, Missing In Action) all had pretty blatant "re-fight Vietnam" and "wimpy liberals caused us to lose Vietnam, and liberals are the domestic enemy" subtexts to them. And because Vietnam led inevitably to Watergate, the right wing still harbors a longstanding resentment over Nixon's resignation, and they want to undo that, too. Not by putting Nixon back into office of course, but by putting another criminal, power-tripping regime in the White House that stomps all over civil liberties and makes Nixon look tame by comparison. They got their wish with Bush.

The right wing's fixation with re-fighting Vietnam almost relegates my earlier theory about Barry Goldwater to the background. Goldwater's 1964 campaign was the starting point for the modern radical right but it was also the starting point for a different movement, the Libertarians, who were against the Vietnam War, and also for the Paleoconservatives (eg, Pat Buchanan) who have been isolationist and anti-interventionist ever since the Berlin Wall came down. Libertarians and Paleocons have not, shall we say, been seen as "team players" by the main radical right wing movement because they aren't interested in re-fighting Vietnam. I don't expect either of them to ever come over to our side, but they've been marginalized and practically "read out" by the bulk of the radical right wing opinion-makers too.

So I think it breaks down like this: 1964 and Barry Goldwater were the birth of today's radical right, the Vietnam War and the many other changes in society it brought created the divisions in society that the radical right has exploited, those divisions blew wide open in 1994 with Newt Gingrich's takeover of Congress, and in 2000 the radical right finally got their wish in getting a man into power who would in four short years reverse Watergate, re-fight Vietnam and put the lid on the Vietnam Syndrome once and for all, and undo all the other liberal changes of the 1960s.

What the radical right didn't count on was the fact that this country was founded by liberals, had a Civil War which the radical right wing lost, a struggle over women's suffrage which the radical right wing lost, struggles over labor rights and unionization which the radical right wing lost, the Progressive movement, New Deal, and Great Society social nets which the radical right wing lost, and a civil rights movement which the radical right wing lost. This is a liberal country and people by and large are not going to stand for their radical right nonsense much longer.

And John Kerry is the man who has brought the radical right wing's longtime fixation on re-fighting Vietnam to a head. The reason? He was there himself. Believe me the right wing nuts out there are fuming over Kerry and they are coming out of the woodwork (Swift Boat Liars etc) to salvage all the myths they have created for themselves over the past 30 years. They know their time is short and their myths are going to come crashing down around them. This is a most dangerous time for the U.S. because the radical right is going to act like the cornered rat that it is. We can go two directions, making America great once again by returning to our liberal roots, or down the radical right wing's path to fascism.