is the US more divided now than before?

[Vizardlorde]

were us posters this politically polarized after presidentil elections before? Maybe I am too young to remember or havent lived here long enough, but I dont remember this much name calling when bush was in office except for calling him an idiot for bushisms.

[Zigzagzoom]

This is the most divided I've ever seen the US and I'm 48.

[Deleted]

The Clinton era people were pretty much united, it got a little worse during Bush but it has nothing on the current administration, I have never heard of such backstabbing and infighting as in the last few years.

[Reeve]

Political conflict has always been a thing. It ebbs and flows. Right now it's more acrimonious than usual, and the political tactics are dirtier and more dangerous than usual, but this is not the most divided we've been as a country. We got downright nasty during the federalist/antifederalist years, the years leading up to and including the civil war, the reformation years, the early 1900s, etc. It seems worse than usual right now because we had such a long period of near political unity following WW2.

But yeah, we didn't start the fire.

[Kalis]

The US right wing is backed into a corner due to the Democrats control of policies from centre left to centre right - meaning that all of the sensible ideas are within the Democrats current sphere - this has led to a growing extremist element having a say within the Republican ranks.

Instead of doing something about it the Republicans have just decided to argue the toss over everything, and kowtow to the lunatic fringe to cling onto any vestiges of power.

If the Democrats play their cards right, and put up an inoffensive white middle class heterosexual male to stand for the next presidential campaign, then you will probably see the death of the Republican party as it is today.

If the Democrats put up Hilary Clinton, or any other candidate that could be perceived as being contentious, then it will merely stay the execution of the Republicans, unless they can find a way to retake some of the middle political ground.

tl;dr What you are seeing is a dying man shouting abuse at passers by for enacting a Dangerous Dogs Act, whilst his pet Rottweiler mauls him.

[Deleted]

Seems like the US is in a bit of an iffy right now. On one hand, the crazies in the Republican party has pretty much taken over the party. If the Republican party dies out, then the US will be rid of those crazy religious zealots. And then suddenly only one party is in control, the Democrats. And a one-party country doesn't sound good, especially not with the US being the only real superpower these days.

[Mayhem]

well a one party democracy is something new *ggg*

[Reeve]

well a one party democracy is something new *ggg*

That won't happen. If the Republican party can't get their shit together people will flood into other parties until one of them ascends to prominence in the place of the Republicans. The entire political system of the US is designed to gravitate towards two parties, and will always find that equilibrium.

[Csnyder]

well as promised during his campaign we are more divided
this is what some voted for....twice now
so those who voted for him can not complain when this is what he promised

[Deleted]

That won't happen. If the Republican party can't get their shit together people will flood into other parties until one of them ascends to prominence in the place of the Republicans. The entire political system of the US is designed to gravitate towards two parties, and will always find that equilibrium.

inb4 Libertarian Party and their minimum wage laws...

Don't post "inb4" posts, please

[Masark]

And then suddenly only one party is in control, the Democrats. And a one-party country doesn't sound good, especially not with the US being the only real superpower these days.

If the Republicans go down in flames, something else will rise from the ashes, same as the Republicans rose from the ashes of the Whigs.

[Tastyfish]

well as promised during his campaign we are more divided
this is what some voted for....twice now
so those who voted for him can not complain when this is what he promised

ONE person is the cause of it all. Yea...

[Deleted]

If the Republicans go down in flames, something else will rise from the ashes, same as the Republicans rose from the ashes of the Whigs.

The we-want-it-all party and we-will-cut-everything-except-the-military-and-rich-friends party is finished.

Except for the rich and they bought the democrats as well so it doesn't really matter that much.

[Lazy Gecko]

The conservative side is just screaming louder than usual. They're on the way out, due to simple demographics. Urban and coastal populations (ie, the liberal leaning ones) are growing at a much faster rate than the rural ones, which are conservative. So as their relevance withers, they're going to grow ever more desperate, and tend to be more active during elections compared to the more politically apathetic liberal populations.

[mvaliz]

The Clinton era people were pretty much united, it got a little worse during Bush but it has nothing on the current administration, I have never heard of such backstabbing and infighting as in the last few years.

Really? Speak for yourself!

Did you not see the constant badgering of his policies, nevermind the whole "He lied to the American people! IMPEACH HIM!!!" about the Monica Lewinsky scandal and the whole claim of "Wag the dog" when he started investigations into Iraq...

But, having said that, it's hard for me to say if today is "more divided" than before. I want to say "yes", but I'm not sure if "Divided" is the right term...

The term I'd use is "2/3rds are starting to unite together, and the insane angry other 1/3rd is both voluntarily backing out AND being pushed away by the aformentioned 2/3rds."

To me, a "Divided country" means "Split in two". I don't believe we're split into two. I believe it was 2 prior (Dems/GoP) with maybe a 1% slice going independent. But today, the Dems are 1/2, the GOP is 1/3rd, and the other 1/3rd are the Tea Party/Libertarian anger crew, with the previous 1/3rd GoP starting to say "Woah... wait a minute, perhaps we should actually compromise/meet in the middle on issues instead of burning the house down." and thus uniting with the Dems to a significant degree.

In short, the Clinton era was a "Divided cold war" whereas the Bush/Obama era is a "Divided cold war with an extremist faction added in as icing"

Or, as I like to put it in a Transformer's analogy:

Democrats = Autobots
Republicans = Decepticons
Tea Party = Starscream :P

[Darsithis]

Did you not see the constant badgering of his policies, nevermind the whole "He lied to the American people! IMPEACH HIM!!!" about the Monica Lewinsky scandal and the whole claim of "Wag the dog" when he started investigations into Iraq...

That was pretty far into his second term. Up until that point it was a lot more unified.

[mvaliz]

If the Republicans go down in flames, something else will rise from the ashes, same as the Republicans rose from the ashes of the Whigs.

Exactly... and I don't believe the Republicans will go down in flames. They'll just replace the Tea party nutters over time...

...of course, the only problem is when they replace them - the nutters are STILL going to say their stupidity in public and call themselves "True Republicans" until the day they die... which won't help at all...

[Raeph]

Realistically the ideological divides in the country have been there for the last couple of centuries: On the Left you have those who think that they have all the answers if we follow their way exclusively, on the right you have those who think that they have all the answers if we follow their way exclusively and in the center you have those who say that everyone on the right and the left are fools and have stopped listening, and in the US has stopped voting to a degree.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_(voter)

Under the United States:

Using the self-identification method of measuring political independence, surveys found an increasing number of independent voters beginning in 1966.[32][36] In 1952, when modern polling on the issue began, the number of independent voters nationwide was 22 percent. By 1976, the number had risen more than half, to 36 percent of the electorate. Regionally, the rise of the independent voter was even more apparent. In the non-Deep South, the number of independent voters had risen from 22 percent to 37 percent. But in the Deep South, the number of independents rose steeply from 14 percent in 1952 to 32 percent in 1976 (and would rise even further, to 35 percent, by 1984).[2][44][45]

Although the number of self-identified independents has fallen slightly in the 1990s and 2000s, about 30 percent of American voters still say they are independents (as measured by self-identification).[46]

But by other measures, the number of independents has not increased at all.
A very different interpretation of the last quarter century results if one distinguishes between respondents who are adamant about their independence and those who concede closeness to a party. ... In short, the vast majority of self-defined Independents are not neutral but partisan—a bit bashful about admitting it, but partisan nevertheless. Once this is recognized, the proportion of the electorate that is truly neutral between the two parties is scarcely different now than from what it was in the Eisenhower era. Moreover, because these "pure Independents" now are less inclined to vote, their share of the voting population is, if anything, a bit smaller now than in the 1950s and 1960s.[47]
Several analyses conclude that (whether through survey error or misconceptualization of the nature of political independence) the number of independent voters has remained relatively unchanged in the United States since the 1950s.
*****
If you believe the analysis then it stands to reason why the right and the left have gotten more vehement in their statements. The goal of a politician used to be to speak well and garner support through better reasoning. Now the goal is to either malign the other's character or make the populace disgusted with the entire process so they stay at home. The goal now isn't to convert but to fire up your choir enough so more of them turn out than your opponents choir. The middle is largely ignored.

Regardless of how you vote, or your ideological stance on issues, how many honest discussions did you hear over the last presidential election that covered the specifics of Immigration Reform, Tax Reform, Campaign Finance, The Role of Government in General or Military Actions that did not devolve into "You should trust me and not the other guy because he hides things from you and you can't trust him. He's evil!!!" Both candidates did that, and both had organizations that acted the same but with more...gusto and flair than the main campaigns did.

****
Reply to Tomatketchup: I agree with you that we're in an iffy spot, as you put it, but one thing we have to look to as a good think is divided government. As long as there is no one party in power then as crazy as it is in DC it could be worse. Like them or hate them but the Democrats keep the Republicans honest, because they have no loyalty to the Republican "brand" and likewise, like them or hate them, but the Republicans keep the Democrats honest, because they have no loyalty to the Democrat "brand".

Granted our elected officials should be about the people's work and making sure the government functions, but sometimes the worst thing for the county is "bipartisanship" that just means "I'll hide your secrets if you hide mine."

[twiddler]

I'd have to say yes since the mainstreaming of computer networking has allowed anyone and everyone to unite and spread word of whatever biases they have. This has aggravated some rather extreme and apparently irreconcilable views. It's very easy to lose objectivity by going simply to a site that heavily biases your party.

[mvaliz]

That was pretty far into his second term. Up until that point it was a lot more unified.

Not by much. I remember my boss hearing I was possibly voting for Clinton - and he walked up to me and threatened me right to my face that if I voted for him, he'd fire me and scared me into not voting (was about 19 at the time in my first career-job... I was stupid)

Before you say it: Yes, it was sure as hell Illegal of him to do that... but again, I was 19 in what I perceived to be my dream job... I wasn't thinking along lines of morality and ethics back then. :P