when would the time have been

[freepcrusher]

to fix some of the structural problems in the country (i.e. USSC, gerrymandering, senate, EC) before it got too out of hand? I feel that the 60s and 70s were probably the right time. You had historically low levels of polarization and an appetite for reform (Warren Court, Civil Rights, Church Committee).

On the other hand, the fact that the country wasn't polarized meant that there might not have been a need for such things to even be addressed. I also wonder that if those problems were "fixed" that other problems would have arisen in its place. Let's not forget that the Warren Court did us all a favor with Reynolds but what that case didn't foresee was that of gerrymandering, which is almost as bad of a problem as mal-apportionment.

[darklordoftech]

The 1910s. The Palmer Raids, Prohibition, and the fear of WWI refugees changed America’s character for the worse.

[Sir Mohamed]

Not sure there was ever such a point. BUT, some events in the 2nd half of the 20th century took us on a bad path. For example on 1960s, if Johnson didn't go into 'Nam. We may have ended up with healthcare coverage for everyone if Dems weren't consumed with this useless war. The conflict teared our social fabric apart and helped to bring down the New Deal coalition, which was already collapsing for other reasons, especially cultural issues. If Johnson pulled out in 1965 with all the political capital he had from his landslide election, we may never have seen Richard Nixon in the WH. Johnson may have ended up dying in office after winning 1968 and be replaced by Humphrey to continue Great Society programs. As a result, there is would have been no Watergate, which permanently sunk public confidence in Washington DC.