How does the political and cultural polarization today compare to that in the 1960s?
I was a teenager in the late 1960s, and I was paying rapt attention to what was going on. So I speak from that perspective.
1. The most bitterly polarizing issue was the Vietnam War. From 1965-1968, the most bitter division among political office-holders was Democrat against Democrat. President Johnson and his supporters defended the war. Senator Fulbright and other leading Democrats in Congress opposed it.
2. When Richard Nixon became President and continued the war, with expanded bombing, the issue became more clearly partisan, with Democrats opposed. But a lot of the public pressure to end the war slowly eased, because Nixon drew down the number of troops, ended the draft, and ultimately signed a peace agreement.
3. Culturally, the hippies were a big phenomenon in the late 1960s. They contrasted with working-class youth, who were known as “greasers” because of the product that young working-class men wore in their short hair. But by the mid-1970s, there was no more divide between hippies and greasers. Guys of every social background had long hair, along with those mutton-chop sideburns and thick mustaches so emblematic of the decade. And the hippies grew up, took showers, and got jobs. So I would say that by about 1975 American culture was more blended than separated. And of course back then everyone saw the same movies, watched the same TV shows, and had the same news sources.
4. Today, I would say that there is nothing as politically divisive as the Vietnam War. There is no enduring political issue per se. Like Seinfeld, politics these days is a show about nothing.
5. Instead, what we see now is plenty of political rage, directed against particular individuals or particular groups. The actual issues that attract attention are relatively minor incidents that get magnified in the media. Gone are the common sources of information, so that many people seem to live in bubbles in which those who disagree appear to be demons.
6. Today, the cultural divide is much starker. Social classes have much less interaction with one another, and this reinforces the tendency to demonize others.
On net, I believe that this is a more dangerous time than the 1960s. I suspect that many people would like to see the divisions healed. But the path that led to healing of the divides of the 1960s is not available today. We will have to find a different path.
Arnold,
Is the difference between the Vietnam War and say Iraq (and all the other ongoing ME wars) simply The Draft. Arguably, those wars have gone on longer and have less chance of ending, but since only paid mercenaries fight in them, nobody cares?
To what extent did Iraq divide the GOP in the same way Vietnam divided the Democrats? While obviously not as bitter, the impression I get is that Iraq decimated the credibility of the mainstream GOP, and that without it Trump wouldn’t be president.
If Nixon drew done troops, ended the draft, and signed a peace deal…how did he “expand the war”? Some bombing I guess, but bombing doesn’t really seem to matter that much (how many people do we bomb in a given year, I couldn’t even tell you).
Why was Watergate such a big deal? I’m no expert, but it seems like a relatively mild level of corruption compared to what I see generally?
Was Nixon a popular and successful president? His electoral results blow my mind sometimes, 520 electoral votes in 1972! Why did he fall from grace? Did he deserve it? Would it have happened if he was a Democrat? What is your opinion on him as a president and those times in general? I’m not necessarily boosting Nixon here, that was way before I was born so I don’t have much of an opinion.
Lastly, to what extent do you see the leftism of the 1960s relevant today. In my mind the sexual revolution is still a big deal and a big driver of modern leftism. It seems like anything related to gender or sex is a hill that leftist are willing to die on above all other hills. How much of modern leftism is driven by issues surrounding sex?
During the early part of his first term, Nixon did things like bomb the “privileged sanctuaries” in Cambodia, a technically neutral neighbor which had previously been off-limits to US military action. But as his term wore, Nixon instituted what he called “Vietnamization”. The number of US soldiers in the country was drawn down with more of the fighting done by Vietnamese. The last American young people to be drafted were around summer, 1971.
Meanwhile, Nixon had gone to Peking and Moscow and signed historic treaties. The US and the USSR agreed to reduce nuclear weapons and the People’s Republic of China basically said, “we don’t want to cause you trouble and actually, we’re more worried by our communist neighbor, the USSR, so let’s be friends (sort of).” As the Vietnam War was winding down, this looked to a lot of people like Nixon had actually pulled off his “generation of peace”
Domestically, after being battered by “stagflation” (slow growth plus inflation), the small government Republican Nixon instituted comprehensive wage and price controls, which were wildly popular at first. The timing was perfect, his opponent was “out of the mainstream”, and he won a landslide victory in 1972.
But controls led to complaints and “unanticipated consequences”. The Vietnam War dragged on. Nixon was looking less “pragmatic” and more “without principles”. He had based much of his appeal on the idea that he was the voice of the “silent majority”. Unlike hippies and such who thumbed their noses at respectability and “middle class morals”, Nixon was a model of rectitude. But then it came out that he wasn’t. He had ordered various illegal things. When the tapes came out with him swearing and not acting “presidential”, lots of people were pissed off and disappointed. He resigned. The Democrats got a landslide in the 1974 Congressional elections.
1) I do find the whole Watergate to be a third rate burglary kinda of stuff and assumed:
1a) Along with the Pentagon Papers, Watergate did change people’s perceptions of government institutions since it was the first major scandal since Teapot. Also there were loads of local government scandals, (NY payoffs scandal hit, and others) so it felt like we needed clean house.
1b) The Oil Embargo in 1974 was the Black Swan that ignited the (then) largest recession in post war years and broke the 1950/1960s political-economic system long term. (I believe the 1974 – 1982 as a long recessionary period that moved the Post War boom to Reagan Revolution.) There were worries the 1975 economy would near or reach the depths of Great Depression.
1c) As Robert notes, Nixon did a lot of unpopular stuff and even Republican Congress did not like or trust him anymore.
1d) From reading the Vietnam polls, the war was unpopular in 1968 but also Americans could not accept losing the war. So they want Nixonian Peace With Honor.
(how many people do we bomb in a given year, I couldn’t even tell you).
————
I count dead people.
Vietnam had a body count of 2.5 million Vietnamese. LBJ gets credit for 1.5 million, maybe a bit more. Nixon did his share.
The Boomers did much better in the Middle East, keeping the body count below a million. This compares to the greatest generation of 50 million, and their parents had another large WW1 count.
I give credit to the boomers. I think it boils down to how well we price, accurate pricing means fewer wars.
The history of Nixon is foremost on Trump’s mind because of something called the Nixon Vote. It means ‘hold your nose and vote for the alternative, safe candidate’.
It is a swing vote, the tail, end of distribution that thinks the government generally screws up. They vote the path of least resistance.
In addition to the war in Vietnam, the nineteen sixties had the racial struggle. Integration in the South, riots in northern industrial cities, and the switch of the South from the Democratic to the Republican party were a big deal. To me those times felt more dangerous because of the assassinations of several prominent leaders. The crime rates were higher; a walk across Times Square exposed you to dozens of aggressive prostitutes. There were 289 murders in NYC in 2018, and as recently as 1990 there were >2000. Obviously, perception of danger is subjective in large part, but I am willing to argue that a lot of today’s fears are exaggerated.
Agreed. But I think it FEELS a helluva lot worse to people who spend alot of time online.
I would say the United States of Null Hypothesis dictates that we naturally break up into about 15 separate groups. We should see that tendency in default if we think populations have optimum densities. So the highest priority for a Floridian is not related to the highest priority of a Texan.
“Today, I would say that there is nothing as politically divisive as the Vietnam War. There is no enduring political issue per se. Like Seinfeld, politics these days is a show about nothing.”
Well, we do have Trump. Like Vietnam, he serves as a focal point to deal with the real driver of political divisiveness, which is too much change, too quickly. The divide has one side wanting to deal with momentous change, and the other side furious at the amount of change they’ve already been forced to swallow.
I don’t understand how this can be viewed as a show about nothing. Its about as substantive as it can get.
Indeed. Vietnam was just a small sideshow war. Win/Lose, everything would be the same afterwards. Important to those getting drafted but not important otherwise.
What will America 2050 look like. Nothing like America 1950. And that will continue on forever. America 1970 still looked a lot like America 1950.
How much of America look the same with 1850 and 1950? The idea of most kids/teenagers finishing High School would be considered ridiculous in 1850 but the norm in the 1950s. Or the idea someone in the working class could live in quality 1,300 ft. house in 1850 would have considered crazy and yet by 1950 that would become the norm the next 20 years.
The longer I live the more I believe the Post-War Boom so even distributed economically because:
1) It was the first era of baby bust of the Great Depression
2) Lots of other nations had huge amount of dead.
3) The nation was proud to survive WW2 and The Great Depression.
And by the 1970s, we starting having adults that did not live through those events.
This is how out to lunch the right is. Being shot, bombed and doing the same to others is less dire than your neighbors being brown and speaking another language.
“A small sideshow war…” In terms of geopolitics, maybe. But it was hugely important in US domestic politics. The draft was televised each year. Everyone who knew an 18-19-year old watched. Every male teenager had it hovering over his head. So we were all intensely aware of the progress of the war. In all nearly 60,000 US soldiers were killed. Everyone knew a family who had lost someone. Total war casualties on all sides have been estimated at 2.5 million. Hardly a sideshow. Most of those 60k soldiers were working-class. The elites kept their kids protected by making sure they got into college and stayed there: batchelors, masters, Ph.D., whatever it took. This was the beginning of the domination of academia by the left, hugely consequential for today’s political divide.
My personal draft experience: I was an idiot, and lost my student deferment by dropping out of college after my first quarter in 1970. In the ‘71 draft my number came up 19. I was headed to the army, so I attempted to enlist in the Air Force. The night before my flight to Biloxi for basic training, my recruiter told me they had received a report from my optometrist. My vision without correction was outside the specs, and I was designated 4F: physically disqualified. Theatre of the absurd: disqualified by diopters. Since then, no draft, no risk of anyone involuntarily going into the military. This radically changes one’s perspective.
I can never remember if the Democrats are for or against net neutrality. I just know that the Republicans have blood on their hands for whichever side they came down on. It’s another one of the life or death issues: Net neutrality. All the angels are on one side, and all the devils over there. But which is which? The universities teach this cartoon about wicked people who need to be eliminated, and we know they are wicked because we are not them.
#3. I always associated “greasers” with the 50s. Maybe “squares?” I could be wrong.
Along with “a little dab’ll do ya” Brylcream grease for hair, there was a LOT of HS “downtown” type guys working on cars. (And more often then, but not now, getting an “uptown” girl. And getting her “in trouble”.)
Grease monkeys.
With cars that could easily be worked on, like the VW bug; or souped up hot-rods.
Car culture and cruizin’ (with the radio!) were new in the 50s & 60s.
NASCAR is still real, still kinda big, but not a college thing. Plus, after the big push for more fuel efficient cars, it became a lot harder to work on them.
Adding oil is now a LOT easier, tho; no special metal spout needed for the quart.
“But the path that led to healing of the divides of the 1960s is not available today.”
Wasn’t the “path” mainly that hippies grew up, got jobs, and started raising families? The optimistic case is that millennials do the same. Eventually, people turn into their parents. It may not be a coincidence that both crazy periods — the 60s and present — occurred when a large generation entered the period of irresponsible early adulthood. The pessimistic case is that, while Boomer hippies were narcissistic and rebellious, millennials are merely coddled. It may be harder to age out of coddling than to age out of rebelliousness.
#4 – Building the Wall, today, is more divisive than the Vietnam War was.
I, too, recall being in Jr. High & HS, eating TV dinners and watching the body count reports. US -4 died, Viet Cong – 54 died. Every single day. For years. Most Americans wanted to: win and leave. Many guys were in college to avoid the draft (like Clinton); these folk were tired of LBJ’s lies about how victory was so close.
I lived next to Watts (in South Central LA; South Gate), where there were race riots. The racist white Democrats had lost the moral war to Martin Luther King, and were losing political power. Ex-Dem George Wallace ran for President in 1968, along with Humphrey (LBJ’s Dem VP), and Nixon. Racist Wallace actually won a couple of states EC votes (last non-Dem / non-Rep to win a state?) — that’s how Nixon got elected at first. He became popular by ending the draft, pushing Vietnamization, and preparing to win and leave.
Nixon had been hated by the commies and socialists even as Ike’s VP in the 50s, when he was a strong anti-communist. After the 1970 Kent State killings (4 dead in Ohio – Neil Young), it became cool to hate him. Such Dems offered radical McGovern as the Peace surrender Now candidate, since Peace was cool, but working folk were anti-radical; thus more square Nixon.
The 60s: sexual liberation was big, and got BIGGER — with The Pill. And more careers. Roe v Wade was in ’72 but was, like some Doors’ hits, an “extended 60s” issue. Abortion remains an issue.
Civil Rights for Blacks was big. Integration remained an issue — and is still an issue.
TV & Movies – being Cool was better than being Virtuous. (Lots of sex with hot chicks is always cool…)
Sex … and Drugs … and Rock’n Roll
It seemed gov’t programs were making progress on sexual equality and racial equality. But somehow, today, there is even more rage against such inequality, in outcomes, than there had been before.
#5 “minor issues” — No. Abortion, and being pro-life or pro-choice (? pro-abortion) is NOT a minor issue. Perhaps even more divisive than the Vietnam War, or the Wall, because whichever side is politically dominant, like the pro-abortion folk are now, means the pro-life folk lose. Yet keep fighting. And the fighting can get more bitter over time.
In the 60s and 70s, even 80s, there were Dems who favored abortion, and those who were more Christian and more pro-life. This was changing under Reagan and by Clinton 92, almost no pro-life Dems. Similarly, there were pro-choice Reps, even like CA gov. Schwarzenegger, a pro-choice Rep. There might even be a couple left, but there might now be no pro-abortion Republicans in Congress (tho Trump seems more a casual, lip service pro-life guy).
There were also Reps getting hired by colleges, so that students could get a real education. Because of the successful “open secret” discrimination against Reps over the decades, the subtle discrimination has become overt, and even more into demonization.
As long as the USA accepts colleges discriminating against Republicans, the polarization will be increasing. More Reps as professors may not be sufficient, but it is certainly a necessary condition. (So that’s one thing I’m working towards now – like in this over-long comment.)
“But somehow, today, there is even more rage against such inequality…”
No, it just seems like that if you’re Very Online. Arson, murder, assault and bomb threats are a far worse form of strife than chic anti-white rhetoric from new media non-coders.
It’s all LBJ’s fault.
After the Civil War the South was solidly Democratic for a hundred years. Since the South is the most conservative, most religious and most martial part of the US this forced the Democrats to be more moderate and less far left. In return there was a substantial moderate wing in the Republican Party. Then LBJ, to his immense credit, got the Civil Rights Act passed and began a tectonic shift that ended with the formerly “solid South” being almost all Republican. That ultimately freed the Democrats to move decisively left and gradually expel all their moderates. At the same time the addition of the South to the already rightward-trending Republicans forced them further to the right and then they expelled all their moderates.
And that’s where we are today.