The Pew Research Center didn’t exactly drop a shocker on us last week: Our nation, the center’s survey found, is deeply divided.
The good folks at Pew only needed to look at Facebook, Twitter or online comments in the hours after Osama bin Laden was killed — a decidedly good development for the country, I’d argue — to see that we’re nearly divided beyond repair.
The world’s most dangerous man was about to meet Luca Brazi and sleep with the fishes, yet Americans were sniping at each other. The right was unhappy that Barack Obama seemed to take credit for the hit with his “me, myself and I” speech from the White House, while the left needled George W. Bush for his inability to do the job himself.
Are Donald Trump jokes all that unite us these days?
The Pew study found that “staunch conservatives” and “solid liberals” (their terms) share almost nothing in common, and while the “middle” of the political spectrum is growing, it’s not necessarily growing more moderate. It’s being populated by people who hold strong ideological views but no longer feel at home with either party. Basically, the study shows the slow death of the two major parties that are too often dominated by extremes.
And while a deeply divided nation is nothing new — this year’s 150th anniversary of the Civil War tells us that — it’s deeply troubling. If we can’t even come together on the killing of bin Laden, it’s unlikely we’ll find common ground on meaningful debt reduction or a tax code overhaul.
I’m oversimplifying, but I think the sour partisan taste that’s been lingering for nearly two decades can be traced to a handful of things: a 1960s hangover; the Internet and 2 4/7 cable news; and the electoral triumvirate of Clinton- Bush-Obama.
When the anti-war, ex-pot-smoker Bill Clinton ousted a war hero from America’s Greatest Generation to win the White House in 1992, it marked a generational shift in politics and opened old wounds.
When we’re not fighting over today’s divisive issues — war, debt and whether Trump has a weave — we’re still battling the social issues of the 1960s: abortion, gay rights, drugs, race.
Clinton also really knew how to stir up those on the right, who grew to hate him for his slickness, his politics and his success.
Then came George W. Bush, whose presidency was tainted before he could even take office. When half the country thinks you stole an election — and they picket and boo your inaugural parade — the divide only deepens. Then came war in Iraq, angering the left (and some on the right), and then runaway spending, angering the right (and some on the left).
Barack Obama was supposed to heal the country, but before you could even boo his inaugural parade, he pieced together massive stimulus spending and a takeover of the U.S. auto industry that launched the Tea Party movement.
All three presidents have such strong love-him-or-hate-him personalities there’s no in between.
Sprinkle that bitter brew with 2 4/7 cable news channels that serve as echo chambers for each side’s extremes and toss in the anonymity the Internet offers for posting vituperative rants and you’ve got quite a chasm.
The nation will always be divided to some degree, but it doesn’t have to be this deep.
A fairer redistricting process would curtail gerrymandering and create more competitive congressional districts. Politicians then would have to be accountable to more voters than just those on the far left or right. That would start to tamp down some of the over-the- top rhetoric.
And some argue that a vibrant third (or fourth) party might help.
I’m guessing a booming economy would be a good start toward healing our wounds. That and unplugging the Internet.
Editorial page editor Dan Haley can be reached at dhaley@denverpost.com. Follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/danhaleyDP.
