Please take me down memory lane...............

[OneGrassRoot]

regarding politics in this country. I know someone here did a poll showing that this administration is the most hated, even moreso than Nixon's.

Here's what I am wondering: what has led to the citizenry ALLOWING these people to divide us in such an extreme manner? Obviously that's been their goal all along. But why has it worked so well?

I don't remember anything before Reagan, but it seems this has been a trend since the Reagan years (and for those who follow politics closely and are true historians, I'm sure you just went "duh"....lol). I know many of the same criminals in this administration began back in Reagan's administration.

I wonder how large of a role the Moral Majority and subsequently the Christian Coalition have played in planting seeds of division, even reaching beyond the evangelical base?

We were sick of hearing the word "morals" after the last election. Yet it still seems to come down to that, especially post-Katrina. We are on two separate planets as to how we view humanity and our role in this world. Personally, I'm more vocal about being anti-Bush largely because of what I view as the hypocrisy of the right wing espousing their moral superiority. That's a really personal thing and it's hitting home, on both sides of the aisle, engaging emotion in a way I've never witnessed before. Separation of church and state is huge. Or at least it should be.

Does anyone know if there were other administrations which resulted in a divided populace based on moral/religious perceptions?

Were the emotions high like this during the Vietnam Era, during Kent State and the public demonstrations?

[Blue_In_AK]

1. Yes, sadly, emotions were very high during the Vietnam Era

I have vivid memories of the smell of teargas.

[blm]

2. When the GOP got rid of the Fairness Doctrine and bought up the broadcast

media. THAT was the beginning of Republican control. Except the only way the GOP can KEEP up their fascist agenda is to fuel the inner bias and hates of the working class...enter Rush Limbaugh and his ilk.

It is also why they depended so much on religion and its subsequent dividing lines to aid them in duping the working class into voting AGAINST any fairness for themselves.

[tulsakatz]

3. history

I remember Watergate and I also remember the 60s. And I think during the 60s, emotions ran as high or more so than now. Also there were more public demonstrations back then so it's something that everyone saw a lot of. We're starting to move in that direction now though.

And it's not surprising to learn that Rove is a student of Nixon........that's probably why this administration reminds us so much of watergate.

About the moral values crowd.......I think we all know by now that these guys would use anything if it has a political value to them. Anyone who is not shocked or ashamed of a country that would stand idly by while their people starve to death, is not someone who has any kind of moral superiority! And I think people are starting to realize that.

[Hamlette]

4. emotons were this high during Vietnam

you need to put it in context: Vietnam dovetailed into the civil rights movements. Starting during the late 50s or early 60s we were watching fire hoses being used against black people whose only crime was they wanted to sit at "white" lunch counters and go to good schools.

So, my generation watched the police using fire hoses on innocent black people. Then we saw politicans making arguments against obeying the USSC (school integration which did not happen until YEARS after the Brown decision) so they could treat black people like dirt. Then we saw the government send our friends to a war from which many did not return and some of those who did were a mess, emotionally and/or physically. The lessons the troops learned in Vietnam were different from the lessons troops learned in other wars. (This war seemed to be without end, to have no point, we might not be on the right side.)

We protested, we were gassed. I remember a whole list of dos and don'ts for protests (never carry more than you can eat, don't wear your hair in a pony tail, don't wear earrings if you have pierced ears, be on the constant lookout for a way to escape if you have to) and all of this was because we feared the police, the government and most politicians. We took over mass meetings in huge numbers to get McGovern on the ballot.

And the whole time, the other half of the country thought we were out to destroy America.

I have heard it advanced that the same division started in the 60s is what is fueling the divide now. They see us as a bunch of subversives who want to destroy America and have no morals (because we like sex).

Sometimes I wonder if we don't know who we are in this country. We don't have a history which might provide us with guidance so we are constantly trying to figure out what is the "American" thing to do. I definately think it is to care for the poor and treat everyone equally but the other side seems to think that it has more to do with capitalism or imperialism or christ or something.

[longship]

5. Nixon's USA was very divided.

There was fierce partisanship during the Nixon Presidency. But it crumbled under two years of Watergate. But I don't remember this kind of monolithic Repugs voting as a block in Congress, although that may have been the case for some issues. The voting in the House Judiciary Committee for articles of impeachment included Repugs, although some voted nay on all of them. In the Senate Watergate Hearings (a year earlier) it was Howard Baker (R-TN) who rephrased the debate by asking, "What did the President know and when did he know it?" One thing is for sure, there was much greater comity in both houses of congress then.

I really think that CC had a profound effect in turning the Repugs into an ideological cabal. When Pat Robertson started dabbling in national politics he saw the Repugs as ripe for take-over. He started in a couple of states and turned the party over to fundementalists at the local levels by running fundie precinct delegates who would be easily elected by minimal activism through local fundie churches. From there it was easy to move up to complete control of district and state party apparatus. One of the first states to go that way was (remarkably) my home state of Michigan, a mostly liberal state, thanks to Detroit (my home town) which is the most liberal city in the country (John Conyers territory).

These new Repugs vote as an ideological block, like a congress in a dictatorship. It's the most remarkable thing I've ever seen in my 40 years of political activism.

The protests were very big in defining the late 60's and 70's. The same kind of rhetoric was common then, "America! Love it or leave it" where love it meant support for Nixon policies. Once there were thousands of people in the streets nearly all the time, there was no longer any doubt that things were going to turn away from Nixon. But remember, it was Johnson, a great Democrat, who put the US heavily into Viet Nam. In 1968, the Dems were very divided with many mainstreamers taking a position that "we can't cut and run in Viet Nam." That lead to the big Chicago protest at the Dem Convention (NOT the Repug Convention).

I don't see any of these things happening today in spite of the fact that the situation is very similar. We haven't really learned from history. I'm shocked that the very people who supported the protests in the 60's and 70's are the ones who are now saying, "we can't cut and run in Iraq". It's a complete shame.

[Blue_In_AK]

6. Yes, under Nixon it was the "silent majority"

but it morphed later into MORAL majority and Christian Coalition which is when we really started this march toward theocracy. Theocracy and corporatism are a really toxic mix.

[OneGrassRoot]

7. This is probably extremely judgmental and rude, but

after reading your thoughtful, intelligent replies, the answer to the question of how did/does America ALLOW people such as Bush, Pat Robertson, etc., to have influence seems to be attributed to the dumbing down of America.

Over the past 20 years we've had access to more and more information, from around the world. Yet, instead of the masses (in the States) becoming educated, many seem to have chosen the path of "ignorance is bliss." If there's too much information, many can't make an intelligent choice on their own, so they're ripe for manipulation. And once they've made that choice, admitting they were wrong (or that their worldview may be flawed) is too much for them, hence the polarization.

Geesh........how very sad.

Thank you all for sharing here. I genuinely appreciate your thoughts, opinions, and experiences.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

8. You are making me think

back to the sixties. I was in college and then having babies. I was not political, but more an observer. There was plenty of passion then. But it was different. A person's politics were considered just that: their politics. This past election moved out of the political realm and into the moral realm, and it wasn't just the fundies. This election found editorials telling people they were morally repugnant, stupid, etc., for voting in a particular way. It got personal. On both sides.

So many things have come on the scene since then that (IMO) brought about these changes. I personally don't buy that the right has/had any sort of cohesive plan to divide their opponents. They just aren't that clever OR in synch, tho I think they'd like to think they are. Since the 60's we've gone to the 24 hour news cycle, and that keeps things polarized. (I personally think the media is the 3rd political party) And then there is this arena, the internet. It's interesting to posit whether a right wing blog offensive could have saved Nixon.

I don't think Nixon was all that hated. During the war, there was the whole baby killer thing, "masters of war" and all that. But I think Watergate was viewed as just a dumb display of arrogance and sad for the country and eventually tiresome.

But there sure is something about Bush that brings out strong negativity personally, and not just his politics. When he was first elected, I couldn't even bear to look at him. I got past it and began to focus more on his policies than his beady eyes. But the frat boy swagger pushes buttons in many of us who didn't like that kind of guy in college, either. I never remember hearing anyone really hit on Nixon for his big nose or whatever. It was all politics. But Bush gets the whole "chimp" thing all the time. So it seems like the feelings are just more instinctive, more visceral and if it sounds sophomoric to refer to him as the chimp, it is also a real indicator that many folks hate him so much they regress a bit when talking about him!

There have been so many social changes since I was a kid: Women leaving the home for work, the celebration of diversity (sexual and cultural).. Communities are more rootless as we become more nomadic, following the corporations and jobs the way our ancestors followed the herds of elk. These things that are positive to many of us are scourges to so many and any time there are major shifts in a culture, there are going to be reactions. (Think the Reformation and Oliver Cromwell) Bad times! And obviously we aren't the only culture challenged by ideological fundamentalism. It must be some sort of knee jerk reaction common to humans to revert to the comfort of "simple faiths" when change gets too scary.

I am not a historian, but I think that the last administration that was so divided was during the administration of Lincoln and that was bad times indeed. But sometimes here on DU I read of people talking about being actually estranged from family because they dared criticize the President, and that just reminds me of the whole "brother on brother" theme of the Civil War years. Now, I'm not saying that is where we are heading. I'm old and tired enough to hope not. I want to believe we can stay within this flawed system that has held us together for so many years. But that's me and I know there is a whole lot of folks here that think otherwise.

[Blue_In_AK]

9. Welcome to DU, Granny

from another granny. I like the way you think. :toast:

[TallahasseeGrannie]

10. I'm not sure of the ettiquette here..

about taking up bandwidth for thank yous, but ... THANK YOU.

[Blue_In_AK]

11. From what I've seen, people don't worry too much

about band width. I've seen many one-word (and four-letter) posts. :)