If you had to pick one person....

[DownWithTheLeft]

Who is most responsible for the polarization of America?

I'd have to say Al Gore because he didn't let America unite after the 2000 election he just caused chaos by trying to delay his ineviatble defeat

Interested to see what people put althogh I think every Democrat will say George W. Bush

[Gabu]

I think every Democrat will say George W. Bush

Yeah, that's because it's blatantly obvious if you've been paying attention over the last six years that Mister "you're either with us or you're against us" has done everything he can to ignore and sideline people who he doesn't agree with.  Al Gore's actions during the 2000 election are trivial in comparison.

[merseysider]

The polarisation of American politics dates back to 2000, but its roots go a lot deeper.

I think Richard Nixon's 'southern strategy', which made the South the bedrock of the Republican electorate, has a lot to do with it.

[Colin]

George Wallace

He was the first person to truely begin to break the Southern Dixiecrat coalition away from the Democratic Party. While he stayed with the Democrats many of those who supported him went over to the Republicans. It was only because of Wallace and his decision to break away from the Democratic Party that Nixon was able to break through the partisanship of the South and gain the solid support of Southern whites. These people then vallacalated between the parties until the, really, the election of George W. Bush, for while they supported Reagan they often did not support Republican Senate and Congressional candidates. Only after 1994 did Republican support among this group rise to high levels.

While in the Democratic coalition they were a minority that was considered to not be important enough to actually coax, since they were a solid group, with the exception of a few measures concerning segregation the Democratic Party mostly turned a blind eye to the needs of these Dixiecrats. When the southern strategy came into affect, after having their partisanship brought into question by Wallace AIP run, the Republicans changed themselves into a party more friendly to Southern interests.

I also believe this partisanship stems from the cultural clash that occured during the 1960's played out on an adult and nationwide scale. I think most of the polarization that we now see is from these culture divisions that seperated and "polarized" the Baby Boomer generation in a way very similar to the generation that was in charge during the last great era of polarization, the Civil War generation and the polarization of the late 19th century.

[Ebowed]

One issue that has become very polarized is Supreme Court appointments.

David Souter, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer were all easily confirmed.  (Keep in mind that at time of confirmation, Souter and Kennedy were expected to be reliable conservatives.)

John Roberts was confirmed at a figure like 78-22 if I remember correctly.  While this may seem like a comfortable margin in reality it is a lot smaller than for most previous Supreme Court appointments.  Roberts, unlike Clarence Thomas, did not have a sexual harassment accusation to deal with, and unlike Robert Bork, was not openly batshit crazy (though their judicial philosophies appear to be largely similar so far).  Samuel Alito, again, was confirmed with less than 60 votes and even was the subject of a short-lived filibuster, due really only to his conservatism.

The first gut reaction is to place blame on Senate Democrats for turning the Supreme Court nominations into a partisan battle, but in reality I think it goes deeper than that -- Bush promised he would nominate more Scalia's and Thomas's.  In other words, he made a promise to the conservative fundamentalist base that he would do all he could to ensure Roe v. Wade is overturned.  This is using the court for political purposes.  A conservative could take this back another step further and say that the Democrats brought it upon themselves for using the court for that sort of thing to begin with, though Republicans have historically been equally as guilty in such motives, the only difference that Democrats have just been more successful at it.

[Smash255]

George W Bush.  He took a united country after 9/11 and divided it.

[MaC]

whomever came up with the terminology "red" and "blue" states.  It's the oversimplification soundbyte for the news crap that really did it.

Of course, going far back you can blame Abraham Lincoln and the Republican party for the New England/Southern split

[John Dibble]

George W Bush.  He took a united country after 9/11 and divided it.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

No, I don't think so - people were still divided before 9/11. Many despised George Bush. We only became united because of the attack itself, and even then I knew lots of people who supported Bush but still didn't like him. Iraq didn't help of course, but the partisan crap started before Bush was even in the picture. It was always there with the two party system, but I think it really took off towards the current level with the Lewinsky scandal involving Bill Clinton.

Now I'm not saying I'm picking Clinton. Seeing as I feel the Lewinsky thing shouldn't have even been brought to court(it was Clinton family business, not ours, let the Clintons deal with it). So, I would probably pick one of the Republicans who really pushed that scandal into the public.

[Angel of Death]

whomever [sic] came up with the terminology "red" and "blue" states.  It's the oversimplification soundbyte for the news crap that really did it.

In that case you should ultimately blame those who instated the Electoral College, since without it you would just end up with differently shaded purple states on election maps.

Amazingly, proponents of the EC actually have the galls to argue the exact opposite, namely that it prevents states from ganging up on each other, which is obviously complete poppycock.

[JSojourner]

Who is most responsible for the polarization of America?

It's the "one person" thing that's causing me angst.  There are so many.  Like all the R and D pols who love their cushy jobs and have cut backroom deals to carve up their districts into bizarre shapes guaranteeing them re-election.

But one person?  Hmmm....

I couldn't choose between Lee Atwater, Karl Rove, Michael Moore, James Dobson or Jesse Jackson.

[MaC]

whomever [sic] came up with the terminology "red" and "blue" states.  It's the oversimplification soundbyte for the news crap that really did it.

In that case you should ultimately blame those who instated the Electoral College, since without it you would just end up with differently shaded purple states on election maps.

Amazingly, proponents of the EC actually have the galls to argue the exact opposite, namely that it prevents states from ganging up on each other, which is obviously complete poppycock.

I mean the people that say
-red states are the ones where people have stong religious values, people don't feel special-just common folk, the income is overall lower, but prices are higher.  They see themselves as just 'salt of the earth' people.  They voted for Bush because he came off as one of them.
-blue states are ones where people cherish diversity.  They are generally well-educated and feel like they're special, or imporant as people.  They will critique religion on intellectual grounds.  they have a worldly culture and love art.  (not that I believe this, but it's the sum of what I read)

It's that kinda stuff I mentioned.  Back in Polisci 101 I read 20 pages of this jargon.  It's really stereotypical.  I know there're plenty of cultured athiests in "red" states and there are plenty of devoutly religious farmers in "blue" states.  The 2000 election made a "fun"soundbyte to overgeneralize people and undermine individuality.

[dazzleman]

"I have seen the enemy, and it is us."

Most of the people named as being to blame for polarization are only the symbols of it, not the cause.

To think that polarization began with the 2000 election is absurd.  Did anybody who's suggested that live through the Clinton years?

Polarization is a normal state of affairs; it's just a matter of degree.  Franklin Roosevelt used class warfare in the 1930s which produced a certain amount of polarization.  That subsided with the attack on Pearl Harbor, but returned after the war with a vengeance, in the early days of the Cold War, with the Korean War, the McCarthy era, etc.

The tide receded during the mid and late 1950s, while Grandpa Ike was in office.  But the climax of the civil rights movement, together with Vietnam, brought it to unprecedented levels since the civil war in the 1960s.

Polarization receded somewhat in the 1970s, though the bitter residue of the 1960s remained.  The Iranian hostage crisis united the country somewhat, and Ronald Reagan was not a particularly divisive president in the 1980s.

The end of the cold war brought on a new period of divisiveness.  By the early 1990s, the tone of the public debate was turning ugly again, and that ugliness continued through the 1990s.

The Sept. 11th attacks united the country temporarily, and another attack would probably have a similar impact, but that type of unity is always temporary.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

No. See this:

Local races are less polarized.
The districts are different.

Based upon the 1972-2004, I made two analytical polarization indexes.

Index 1 : Percentage of Democrats voting Democrat for President + Percentage of Republicans voting Republicans for President

1972. 157
1976. 167
1980. 153
1984. 166
1988. 173
1992. 150
1996. 164
2000. 177
2004. 182

Index 2:  Percentage of people voting Democrat in Congress voting Democrat for President + Percentage of people voting Republican in Congress voting Republican for President

1976. 162
1980. 152
1984. 169
1988. 154
1992. 146
1996. 160
2000. 171
2004. 179

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/politics/20041107_px_ELECTORATE.xls


Both of these have 2004 the highest, followed by 2000. 1996 was much more average. Bush has polarized America. You are a fool if you think otherwise.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Al Gore???

You must have hit your head HARD.

There are many good suggestions.

- George Wallace (why not Stom Thurmond in '48)

Of late I think it started w/the Republican attack machine on Clinton -which only came up with his messing around with a yougn woman. Not nice for his family... but not whitewater. It left and incredibly bitter taste in people's mouths. Don't forget that Clinton was getting consistent mid-high 60's approvals during the impeachment.

The election was a big problem - Gore's only responsibilty was not handling the PR campaign correctly and screwing up with the selective recounts.

The Bush presidency pre-9/11 was looking pretty awful - people weren't happy.

The attacks happen the country... and the world rally.

Then the Iraq adventure.

But Dazz is right... if anyone is to blame... it's the PEOPLE.

[dazzleman]

The Bush presidency pre-9/11 was looking pretty awful - people weren't happy.

Bush was actually reasonably popular before 9/11.  IIRC, he had approval ratings in the mid 50s in the summer of 2001, so I don't think that statement is correct.  After 9/11 of course, his approval ratings went way up, as they usually do for any president in that type of situation.

[John Dibble]

The Bush presidency pre-9/11 was looking pretty awful - people weren't happy.

Bush was actually reasonably popular before 9/11.  IIRC, he had approval ratings in the mid 50s in the summer of 2001, so I don't think that statement is correct.  After 9/11 of course, his approval ratings went way up, as they usually do for any president in that type of situation.

The thing was though that a lot of the people who dissaproved of him really dissaproved of him, more so than they might have for a different president they didn't vote for. So there was a level of unhappiness among the opposition that was likely stronger than normal.

[Angel of Death]

Don't perhaps in general Presidents tend to have reasonable approval ratings at the start of their terms, because of possibly the relaxed wait-and-see attitude by the electorate and maybe also the cliché of "everybody loving a winner"?

[GOP = Terrorists]

George W Bush.  He took a united WORLD after 9/11 and divided it.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

The Bush presidency pre-9/11 was looking pretty awful - people weren't happy.

Bush was actually reasonably popular before 9/11.  IIRC, he had approval ratings in the mid 50s in the summer of 2001, so I don't think that statement is correct.  After 9/11 of course, his approval ratings went way up, as they usually do for any president in that type of situation.

Allow me to rephrase.

Bush's approval rating had slipped I believe to the high 40s... 49% I think.

Bush's honeymoon was VERY short. Let's not forget the sh*t he copped for his holiday in August.

People were not terribly happy with him - that has to be one of the lowest approvals within a year.

[Wakie]

Lee Atwater

The man was the Godfather of dirty politics.  He made an art form of them.  He spawned the scum that eventually became Karl Rove and made campaigns not of unity, but of us vs them.

[dazzleman]

Lee Atwater

The man was the Godfather of dirty politics.  He made an art form of them.  He spawned the scum that eventually became Karl Rove and made campaigns not of unity, but of us vs them.

I hate to break it to you, but "dirty politics" started long before Lee Atwater.  Politics has always been about "us versus them."  It's rarely about unity.   Unity can only come about in spite of politics, not from it.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Dubya

[The Duke]

I think every Democrat will say George W. Bush

Yeah, that's because it's blatantly obvious if you've been paying attention over the last six years that Mister "you're either with us or you're against us" has done everything he can to ignore and sideline people who he doesn't agree with.  Al Gore's actions during the 2000 election are trivial in comparison.

You don't actually dispute the idea that there is no such thing as neutrality in the war with Al Qaeda?  Or do you suggest that it is acceptable for someone to sympathize with terrorists who killed 3,000 civilians?

[Gabu]

You don't actually dispute the idea that there is no such thing as neutrality in the war with Al Qaeda?  Or do you suggest that it is acceptable for someone to sympathize with terrorists who killed 3,000 civilians?

It's not just the war with Al-Qaeda (a war that Bush has largely ignored save for a few gestures in that direction ever since invading Iraq, I might add).  Even if that's what the statement of "you're either with us or you're against us" was used in reference to, this statement nevertheless defines, in my opinion, his entire term in office, in that he does everything he can to simply completely ignore and shout down any opposing points of view that may exist.  Bush's entire term in office can practically be used as a symbol of divisiveness and of each side viciously hating and attempting to sideline the other side, even before Bush was ever even inaugurated (although the stuff before he was inaugurated was, to be fair, not particularly Bush's fault).

[The Duke]

You don't actually dispute the idea that there is no such thing as neutrality in the war with Al Qaeda?  Or do you suggest that it is acceptable for someone to sympathize with terrorists who killed 3,000 civilians?

It's not just the war with Al-Qaeda (a war that Bush has largely ignored save for a few gestures in that direction ever since invading Iraq, I might add).  Even if that's what the statement of "you're either with us or you're against us" was used in reference to, this statement nevertheless defines, in my opinion, his entire term in office, in that he does everything he can to simply completely ignore and shout down any opposing points of view that may exist.  Bush's entire term in office can practically be used as a symbol of divisiveness and of each side viciously hating and attempting to sideline the other side, even before Bush was ever even inaugurated (although the stuff before he was inaugurated was, to be fair, not particularly Bush's fault).

Not to be curt, but your statement that Bush has ignored the war against Al Qaeda is simply a joke.  There's no other way to say it.  It's a joke.

Your second assertion (That his whole term has been hyper-partisan) is more plausible, but I still think it's incorrect.  I don't think a reasonable case can be made that a guy who let's Ted Kennedy write the education bill is more partisan than average.

The central point is that when Bush stood up and said you are either for or against Al Qaeda, for or against our efforts to stop Al Qaeda, and there is no middle ground morally or politically, he was right.  You cannot be neutral about whether mass murder in the name of God is okay or not, and saying so is not wrong or divisive.  This statement was not even primarily directed at private citiziens if you look at the context (Although it certainly does apply to them as well).  It was mainly directed at foreign governments, intending to let them know that if they took steps to protect members of Al Qaeda, we would not accept their public proclaimations of neutrality.