Righty vs. Lefty - has it always been this bad?

[Chadman]

This is a serious question, as I do appreciate the experience and opinions of 95% of the posters here when it comes to politics and world affairs.

Righty vs. Lefty - has it always been this bad?

Background: I am between 40 and 50 years old. I have lived through a few Presidents. My first recollection (and I'm not sure that it's real, honestly) of something important with a President is when I was riding my tricycle around my living room (don't ask me why) and watching my parents look really sad and worried watching TV during the Kennedy assassination. I have always been interested in politics and taken my role as a voter pretty seriously - studied the candidates to an extent and voted from 18 on - and very closely now (as you can probably guess). I have voted primarily for democrats, but have voted for some republicans that I thought were better candidates, and some that I personally knew on a local level that I trusted as much as I could think I could to do a good job. Essay finished.

I do not ever remember our country being so mean-spirited as far as political party leanings as it is right now. I think it was bad during the Clinton years, maybe just as bad as it is now, but I don't remember it. I definitely don't remember it being as bad during Bush the first, and before. But I was not as plugged in as I am now.

Was it Clinton's Monica situation that started this extreme negativity? Was it something before that? Was it Dubbya's administration that polarized the country. Was it a combo of Clinton and Dubbya (which I personally believe)? Or has it always been this bad?

Thanks for your thoughts. Looking for more of a historical/opinion perspective from those who have been around a while.

 

[JCDunkDogs]

Good topic, Chadman. Just off the top, the last time I can remember when it was this bad was when Pierce was President in '56 and he recognized the pro-slavery legislature in Kansas Territory. (Just joking, I'm not that old).

Seriously, though, just to give some perspective on how hot tempers can get, folks were actually killing each other by the bushel in Kansas. Everyone thought the Supreme Court would make the tough call in '57 with the Dred Scott decision, but they didn't and things continued to fester.

Americans lost hold of their strong suit in those days, and that is "the ability to compromise." (A Shelby Foote quote).

Then there was the Civil War. (enough said)

Then there was Reconstruction, and Carpetbaggers, and the rise of the Klan. Massive hatred and backlash. (say no more)

Then there were those conflicts which were low level feuds, as these things go. The farmers versus the railroads; the populists versus the monopolies; the workers versus the bosses; the unionists versus the Pinkertons. Groups like this hated each other, but there wasn't death on an epic scale like the Civil War.

And these hatreds dwarf those of the "culture war" today. Until we start shooting each other over our political squabbles, I don't think we are close to the edge yet. Yet.

Modernly, there have been a few milestones on the hatred highway.

In the 1940s, the right complained about the Iron Curtain descending over eastern Europe, Henry Wallace, and American intellectuals who they thought were communists, while the left bemoaned the treatment of Alger Hiss, and the limitations of the Taft-Hartley Labor Act, and the movement of Nazi war criminals to other countries.

In 1950s, the leftists complained about Joseph McCarthy, and Nixon calling Helen Douglas a Red. The Right pointed to the Rosenbergs, Joseph Stalin, Fidel Castro, Sputnik, and flouride in the drinking water.

In the 1960s, the rightists complained about Kennedy stealing the 1960 Presidential Election from Nixon, Bobby Kennedy usurping too much power from his brother Jack, and the communist incursion into Indo-China. The leftists complained about Jim Crow laws, equality of the sexes, the loss of Camelot, and later, the Life Magazine publication of frames of the Zapruder film.

Hatred, then and now.

 

[smurphy]

This is the bitterest I have been against an administration. I have a feeling I would have felt the same towards LB Johnson too.

Actually - I have a question for people here who remember the Vietnam war era well. What was the left-right sentiment? You had a Democrat president who basically was responsible for all of the Vietnam war misery - so were his fellow dems considered hawks? What was the right wing counter argument to a pro-war democrat administration? Were all major politicians pro-war, with basically no difference between right and left in that regard?

I've heard good things about Barry Goldwater in that time. He supposedly was up front about Vietnam and didn't want to hide the ugly truth from Americans the way Johnson did. Goldwater was the conservative, and from what I know (not much) I would definitely have liked him. It sounds like LBJ crushed Goldwater in a similar way that both Bushes have defeated political opponents.

Would really like to hear opinions about the bitter politics of that time, as compared to now...

 

[TonyTT]

Guys,
As I recall the 60's was more of a "hawk" vs "dove" battle, more so than a party line battle. It was also a lot more generational in the division. Many members of the "younger" generation began questioning why we were involved in Nam. Of course the campus unrests and antiwar rallys were extremely violent at times.
Myself, I attribute much of this divisive left vs right garbage to a lot of these extremist talking heads that sprang up over the years. ....guys like RUSH....SAVAGE....O'RILEY...they seem to feed on this left vs right stuff. Of course with computer posting boards and chat rooms, the frenzy just continues to feed itself.
I love this nation and our way of life here, but I must say that in recent decades, at the higher levels of govt, I really see both demos and repubs working for the same folks (and it ain't most of us, the average working folks). They use this left vs right to perfection...keeping folks divided while they get away with their globalization agenda. Carter, ol man Bush, Clinton, Powell , are all CFR boys and trilats (amoung many others)....keeping the public at each others throats. It never ceases to amaze me how folks continue to fall for that ol "good cop bad cop" game.
I don't know maybe our system works much better this way, the big boys seem to certainly have a pretty good handle on things to me and the system does continue to roll along.
TT

 

[THE KOD]

I forget the years but I remember the slogan that brought Goldwater down.

It was Goldwater in 19..

Hot water in 19..

Bread and water in 19..

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

A little on Viet Nam Era-- Smurph

As far as Johnson getting us in it--not sure about reasons being justified--off hand would say no--but would give consideration to things public not privvy to and give him benefit of doubt.
Once in it--the bulk of blame for how war was mismanaged would lay squarely on shoulders of McNamera--who made blunder after blunder.Actually Johnson was very caring person and weight of casualties and misinformation took heavy toll on him.
The biggest miscalculation was thinking China (70 miles of coast of Viet Nam) would roll over and let us aggressively assault the north. The war would have been over in months if we could have put pressure on North--as was it was fought in way on their terms providing lengthy conflict with maximum casualties.
My opinion both LBJ and Nixon were better than ave presidents.

IMHO--the worst presidents in my time that I really disliked for one reasonon or another were Bush Sr-Clinton and Carter.

 

[smurphy]

Thanks Wayne. What do you remember about Goldwater and the campaign between him and Johnson?

....and I'm surprised to hear you didn't like Bush Sr? Why not and how is Junior any better?

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Goldwater was fanatic in my view Smurph. Did not vote that election but would have voted for almost anyone that ran against Goldwater.My view of Goldwater would closely resemble your view of GW.

In my opinion Bush senior did more to hurt U.S. in war on terror than any other pres. I can live with mistakes if efforts are made to correct them--but there is no excuse for going back on your word. He gave Shites his words in 1st war we would support them in fight against Saddam after gulf war only to back out of it on Gen Swartzkoff's recommendation which caused the slaughter of 1,000's of Shites. How could any country trust us after that--how is Jr diff ?--he has done just the opposite to keep his word despite public opinion and opinion of many in his own party.I believe he has gained back almost 1/2 the trust that was lost by his father.
I was on the fence on GW when he 1st ran and was more so I didn't trust Gore at all--the more I see of him the more I am convinced he is man of principles-- I believe his fathers principles more closely resembled Kerry's in that they were dictated by opinion of the day.

 

[SixFive]

I think the conflict used to be between Democrats/Republicans instead of liberals/conservatives. I'm not sure what the driving issues were, but I'll tell you a little story that I've mentioned here before.

My Great-Grandfather was a Democrat as were most people in his small community. However, he became great friends with an area politician who represented his county named (Marion) Gene Snyder. My grandfather campaigned for him, had a sign out in the yard for him him, passed out his buttons, etc. He owned a restaraunt, and he was very known, out-spoken, well-liked, and influential in his community, and played a large part in Mr. Snyder carrying their county. Mr. Snyder was a Republican though, so that meant my G. Grandfather could never vote him. He said his ancestors would roll over in their graves if he ever voted for a republican, and he would tell Mr. Snyder that same thing. Seems silly, and doesn't make much sense does it?? Well, that's how it was back then, and although I don't think there was the vehemence between the 2 parties like there is now between libs/cons, there certainly was deep seated mistrust and hard feelings.

 

[smurphy]

Thanks - I can understand that perspective, even though I think Junior's judgement is so bad that it's really doing damage to both us and Iraq.. That said, I liked the idea of simply supporting a revolt - certainly as opposed to what we've done now. Would you equate Bush Sr's failed promise with Kennedy and 'Bay of Pigs"?

If the political fighting in the late 60's and early 70's wasn't so much left v right, then what we have had over the last few years has to be the worst divide in my lifetime. ...All the while, we really are kind of duped because the main characters on each side are more like each other than the people who vote for them.

 

[dawgball]

I think also we have to consider just how much information we have instantly at our hands. 50-60 years ago, there wasn't as big of a dispute because I would more than likely not be confronted on a daily basis by people who are far from my ideas.

If I was a blue collar, union guy then that is who I was with every single day, and I didn't have communications with many other people.

If I was a white collar conservative, old boys club guy then I would not really ever encounter the blue collar community except for giving them orders at work.

Now the internet brings every person from around the globe into my living room. Would I have ever really known what djv thinks about the way this administration has handled any task? No way in hell. And I can't imagine living without djv's opinions throwing me over the edge on a daily basis. j/k, djv.

With that being said, I think we are peacefully more divided than in any point in recent history.

But, damn, I can't believe noone has given props to JC for his post. That was an excellent read!

 

[ImFeklhr]

I think it has always been as vicious as it is now. There might have been more general respect for government officials before Watergate etc, but the two party system of fighting has always been pretty brutal.


I just think this is the first era where every fight/disagreement/scandal commands worldwide 24-hour television/internet coverage in such a sensational glorified way that didn't exist with previous technology.

 

[djv]

To answer your question. No. You only have to go back to Clinton and Dole getting things done working together. Or O'Neil and Reagan.

 

[StevieD]

Good point DJV. This is as bad as I ever remember. We were split on Viet Nam that is true but this attack on the working class by the Bushies has split the country on almost every issue.