
Think America’s divided now? Try the 1970s - mstats
https://spectator.us/bloody-decade-1970s-susan-rosenberg/
======
astine
There may have been more violence among various radical and extremist factions
in American politics in the 70s but that doesn't mean that America was more
divided politically over all. There wasn't nearly as much partisanship in the
upper-echelons of power in 70s and I suspect that there was more consensus
among people in more moderate circles. There also wasn't this huge
epistemological divide running right through the middle of the country; people
were generally working from a common understanding of reality. Not so, today.

~~~
slg
>There also wasn't this huge epistemological divide running right through the
middle of the country; people were generally working from a common
understanding of reality. Not so, today.

Everyone was watching the same network news and reading the same newspaper.
Once niche news sources started to become widely available, everyone went to
the news source that gave them the news how they wanted to hear it. Over time
these news sources grew more and more polarized as they continued to cater to
their specific niche audience (some sources are certainly more brazen and
intentional with this approach, but it happens naturally if you aren't
actively working to stop it). There is only so much polarization that can
happen when we all agree on the same basic set of facts. But now we are all
stuck in our own bubbles, only listen to news that reinforces our world view,
and we continue to spiral further and further into polarization.

~~~
erichurkman
With online news and the rapid news cycles, we're living in how The Onion
presented 'Live poll lets pundits pander in real time':
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFpK_r-
jEXg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFpK_r-jEXg)

------
parsimo2010
Think America was divided in the 1970s? Try the 1860s.

And if you somehow think that the US Civil War doesn't count because it was
soldiers fighting, remember that one of the precursors to the war occurred in
Kansas. In the 1850s, civilians from both sides invaded and fought to kick the
other side out so they could rig Kansas' vote on slavery. It was violence
between civilians and obvious _attempts to manipulate a democratic vote by
both sides_.

I'm not saying that the division now or in the 1970s is acceptable, but
America's history (and that of many other "civilized" countries) is bathed in
blood. Politicians win elections by having a "better" stance on the issues
compared to their opponent. If they can make an issue divisive and considered
a deal-breaker then they can keep supporters on their side, even if they are
screwing their constituents on many smaller issues. This is why abortion is
equated with premeditated murder on one side and complete forfeiture of a
woman's autonomy on the other. This is why gun control is equated with
supporting mass shootings on one side and the complete abandonment of freedom
and the US Constitution on the other.

We should strive to be better, but realize that this isn't the worst it's ever
been. It does seem like in the past couple decades, the increasing flood of
information has made many aware of the divisions. Previously you could have
lived you life in your community where most of the people think like you.

~~~
neonate
The article includes most of that.

~~~
parsimo2010
The article mentions the US Civil War in it's third and second to last
sentences in the last paragraph, and that's the only place. I expanded on that
by a considerable amount.

Right now I feel like the Civil War is an apt comparison since we have state
governors making pacts between themselves to act a certain way regardless of
what the federal government says to do.

~~~
neonate
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you hadn't added anything interesting. I
enjoyed those parts of your comment. It just sounded like you hadn't read the
article, since you repeated its points as if they were new. I was trying to
follow the site rule against saying "did you even read the article"
([https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)).

------
sigwinch28
I don't get this article: it feels to me like a member of the older generation
saying "I had to walk fifteen miles to school in the snow! Barefoot! Uphill!
Both ways!".

To me it's a bit like whataboutmanship: "you think it's bad now? what about
the 1970s, eh?".

Just because things were bad back then doesn't mean they're not _also bad_
now. Just because things are better it doesn't mean we shouldn't try to
improve.

~~~
thisiszilff
My reading of the article was that it sought to point out that how "bad" it is
today isn't unusual or an anomaly. Today's divisions are more par for course
in America than a new development. That perspective is relevant when we try to
improve the current situation.

------
kiawe_fire
I can't claim to know how today compares to our past, but what strikes me
about today is how close I feel we are in terms of values and ideas, yet how
divided we are politically.

Without saying my political beliefs, I've had conversations about immigration,
taxes, race, and religion with people both on and against my side of the
aisle, with people of diverse backgrounds.

It's crazy to me how much we agree on and how minor our differences are, and
how even those differences are seen through the lens of different means to a
similar, just end.

Right up until the point that you start discussing political party or even
specific politicians.

Then, it gets personal. Then, the very moral fiber of your being is up for
questioning, commonality in goals or values be damned.

~~~
drwiggly
Yeah we can all probably agree on goals and outcomes.

My guess here is each person has an audience in mind and an applicability.

The dog whistle of saying the "American family" is being destroyed. To a
conservative it means something about a god fearing hetero family. To a
liberal it means anyone wanting to be in a consensual monogamous relationship.

Healthcare should be good and affordable. "For people like me." or "To
everyone, even an illegal."

~~~
theonething
I think changing "For people like me" to "For legal residents of the country"
would be a more accurate representation.

------
downerending
I was young enough in the 70s not to get all of the subtlety, but I think we
really _are_ more divided now than back then. Current politics is vicious in a
way now that I don't recall back then.

In any case, to get a taste of what things were like then, watch Ken Burns'
excellent documentary on the Vietnam War (currently on Netflix?).

------
jscheel
The whole article came across as "so what if the right has violent extremists
who are ideologically supported by some of the highest levels of Republican
leadership today... what about the ultra-left radical terrorists of the
1970s?!" This came as a surprise, until I realized that this article is
featured in The Spectator.

~~~
tinalumfoil
> the right has violent extremists who are ideologically supported by some of
> the highest levels of Republican leadership today

No they don't?

~~~
pixelrevision
The media (including social) has been nudging people towards these kinds of
conclusions a lot. I remember seeing people associating black bloc protesters
with Hillary Clinton which is a completely preposterous association. That is
until you realize lumping them together might make someone scared AND mad
giving them a lot more reason to not listen to many nuanced points.

------
harimau777
Sometimes I feel like even if America had more upheaval in the past, it was at
least the type of upheaval that could change things. Now I feel like people
are angry and the system is setup such that there's nothing that they can do
to change things.

------
Ididntdothis
I feel back then people were divided about topics. Now I feel the whole
division is propagated by parties and people adjust their view on topics
accordingly.

~~~
JacksonGariety
Absolutely this. The news + internet is driving a new form of polarization
that's distinctly different from its historical antecedents.

------
jdkee
Gloria: Do you know that 60 percent of all deaths in America are caused by
guns?

Archie Bunker: Would it make you feel any better if dey was pushed out of
windows?

~

Archie Bunker: Well, I'll tell you one thing about President Nixon. He keeps
Pat home. Which was where Roosevelt should have kept Eleanor. Instead he let
her run around loose until one day she discovered the colored. We never knew
they were there. She told them they were gettin' the short end of the stick
and we been having trouble ever since.

Mike: Let me tell you something Mr. Bunker...

Archie Bunker: No, let me tell you something, Mr. Stivic. You are a meathead!
A meathead, dead from head up! A meathead!

~

Archie Bunker: When your mother-in-law and me was goin' around together, it
was two years — we never — I never — I mean absolutely nothin', not 'til the
wedding night.

Edith Bunker: Yeah, and even then...

Gloria: I'm sorry, Mr. Davis, sometimes my father says the wrong things.

Sammy Davis Jr.: Yeah, I've noticed that.

Lionel Jefferson: But he's not a bad guy, Mr. Davis. I mean, like, he'd never
burn a cross on your lawn.

Sammy Davis Jr.: No, but if he saw one burning, he's liable to toast a
marshmallow on it.

~

Archie Bunker: Now, no prejudice intended, but I always check with the Bible
on these here things. I think that, I mean if God had meant for us to be
together he'd a put us together. But look what he done. He put you over in
Africa, and put the rest of us in all the white countries.

Sammy Davis Jr.: Well, he must've told 'em where we were because somebody came
and got us.

------
neonate
[https://archive.md/SkzfN](https://archive.md/SkzfN)

------
claudeganon
Violent, fringe, left-wing movements are of little importance because they
have no corollary representation in electoral politics and are largely
defunct. They’re likewise so far outside the neoliberal consensus of the
Democratic Party that they have little hope of finding their way in.

The same, unfortunately, cannot be said for the right, which has a great deal
of transit between milita groups, white supremacists, and the Republican
political establishment. This is clear in Trump’s pardon of Amon Bundy, the
dismantling of counterintelligence monitoring these groups’ activities, and in
the rhetoric of politicians like Iowa representative Steve King.

------
LatteLazy
In the past, division has been over real issues. Today its over nothing.

------
matwood
I maybe wrong in thinking about this way, but in the 1970s people were
debating over topics that were debatable. Vietnam for example, an argument can
be made it was the right move to get involved. And, an argument can be made it
was a mistake. Same with socialism vs. capitalism and a myriad of other large,
complex topics.

Now the divide is around the basics of the scientific method. People think
that vaccines have killed more people than they help. They think that
hydrochloroquine is a wunderdrug and Bill Gates is suppressing its use so he
can make more money. I see disagreements that are not arguable on any merit.

I pointed out to someone on social media the other day that the post they were
sharing was objectively fake news (with links to proof). They responded that
they didn't care because they believed it anyway. Is that a divide that can
even be crossed?

~~~
beervirus
> Now the divide is around the basics of the scientific method. People think
> that vaccines have killed more people than they help. They think that
> hydrochloroquine is a wunderdrug and Bill Gates is suppressing its use so he
> can make more money. I see disagreements that are not arguable on any merit.

The number of people who believe stuff like this is vanishingly small. They're
just vocal in their ignorance.

~~~
Animats
_The number of people who believe stuff like this is vanishingly small._

Unfortunately, it's not.[1]

[1] [https://www.usnews.com/news/national-
news/articles/2020-05-0...](https://www.usnews.com/news/national-
news/articles/2020-05-08/poll-1-in-4-americans-say-they-will-not-get-a-
coronavirus-vaccine)

~~~
forgotmylogin2
24% of people choosing not to get a vaccine that doesn't even exist yet is
significantly different from what was alleged in the parent comment, which
was:

> People think that vaccines have killed more people than they help

A lot of people would choose not get a vaccine simply because they don't like
needles, not because they think the vaccine is likely to kill them.

------
alexilliamson
It is some interesting irony that all the top level comments on this page are
being downvoted.

------
pcmaffey
Ironically, the people in power today were the “youths” of the 70s.

------
ojnabieoot
This is an extremely dumb article.

a) Today intense partisan divisiveness and animosity is felt by the
overwhelming majority of the US electorate, not just among extremist groups
with no formal political representation. Even taking the author's premise that
the 70s had more bloodshed for granted, left-right animosity was comparatively
low in conventional politics. A crucial factor of this was that the
"realignment of the parties" had just begun with the Nixon administration, so
there were still a great deal of centrist liberal Republicans and deeply
conservative Democrats.

b) Unlike the 70s, extremist politics are represented at the highest levels of
government. This is only true of the right, which is highly relevant!

c) Unlike the 70s, political extremism in the US is almost exclusively a
right-wing phenomenon, both in government and in the general population. The
few radical communists that actually exist in the US have little impact even
on socialist discourse. The fact that Democrats have been moving left since
2005 is not at all symmetrical with the Republican plunge into proto-fascism
starting in 2009. The lone gunman who attempted to kill Steve Scalise is not
at all symmetrical with the masses who swarmed Charlottesville with anti-
Semitic chants.

Of course given the source none of this is a surprise. The author rather gives
the game away by focusing exclusively on socialist/marxist terrorism.
Arsonists don't generally like taking credit for their work.

~~~
bluGill
Extremism is on both wings. My Facebook feed is evidence, frinds who have
nothing in common except they both know me are separetly posting their
exaggerated anti trump left wing Memes. Same for the right wing except they
are exaggerated of the pro trump memes

~~~
non-entity
I don't see how people posting memes of a in support of or in attempt to make
fun of largely controversial president equals extremism.

~~~
bluGill
There are memes, and there are extreme memes.

------
tensor
This article really misses the point. Sure, there may be times in the long
past where there was a lot of divide. America once had legal slavery too. But
it would still be absolutely appalling if slavery were to come back today.

The article almost gives off the impression that "oh it happened before so
it's ok and normal". No, it's not ok and normal. It wasn't ok back then and
it's not ok now.

~~~
hedora
Slavery is still legal in the US (it was never completely banned).

> _The Thirteenth Amendment forbade slavery and involuntary servitude, “except
> as punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.“_

There are about 2.1 million people in the prison system. They’re forced to
work, disproportionately african american, or other minorities. Many were
wrongfully convicted. Their work props up a multi-billion dollar industry.

This doesn’t count refugees, who are also forced to work in US immigration
camps.

But, yeah, to agree with your point, many people apparently think this is
totally OK.

[https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/09/prison-...](https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/09/prison-
labor-in-america/406177/)

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States)

[https://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/making-
profits-o...](https://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/making-profits-on-
the-captive-prison-market)

[https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/17/us/immigrant-detention-
forced...](https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/17/us/immigrant-detention-forced-labor-
lawsuit/index.html)

~~~
A4ET8a8uTh0
I pointed it out to my wife once, but the general look was that of disbelief.
It was clearly internalized that this is how things should be. The prisoners
are not slaves. They are prisoners. They have a debt to society and they
better work it off. If anything, things are too easy on the prison population.
It was an interesting revelation. I doubt this is an uncommon view.

------
hellofunk
I have seen several articles over the last decade comment that the modern
American political landscape is the most polarized it has been since the U.S.
Civil War in the 19th century.

~~~
hellofunk
I am genuinely curious why this is getting downvoted.

~~~
iso947
Because it doesn’t add anything to the conversation - what articles, where,
can the poster add their own anecdotes, or data?

~~~
hellofunk
Ironically, I made the same comment elsewhere in this same thread, and it was
uploaded quite a lot.

~~~
iso947
Ok Alanis

~~~
dang
Please don't do this here.

------
jhwang5
.

~~~
forgotmylogin2
Haves and have notes is a divide that has existed for nearly the entirety of
human history. It's not usually what people are referring to when they talk
about the extent of the American divide currently. It's really more in
reference to the fact that republicans and democrats rarely cross the aisle to
support something that the other side is supporting. In this sense, the
American divide has gotten wider because it's much rarer to find a republican
and democrat willing to agree on something than it was in the past.

Here's a pretty interesting visualization that better explains the idea:
[https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/...](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0123507.g002)

