Comment by declan | Hacker News Reader

Comment by declan | Hacker News Reader

Let's say that political polarization is in fact increasing since 1996. But there's this little thing called the Internet that went mainstream that year -- and had a far bigger impact on yet another cable TV station (that was not even available in major markets in 1996).

Also I can think of plenty of other causes that are equally or more plausible than the ones cited by the authors:

* MSNBC launched in 1996.

* 1996 presidential election, hotly contested because Democrats wanted to take back the House from the GOP (did not succeed) and Second Amendment advocates were alarmed because of 1993 and 1995 anti-gun legislation. There was the 1996 FBI white house files controversy, Clinton signing the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, etc.

* Drudge Report launched in 1996 (followed by Lewinsky scandal in 1998).

Though I think greater access to alternative media via the Internet, no matter what your political persuasion, is the most likely cause of greater polarization. You no longer had only ABC|NBC|CBS and your local newspaper and radio station. Republicans now had Drudge, Democrats had MSNBC.com, socialists had wsws.org, libertarians had Cato.org or Reason.com, etc.

and Second Amendment advocates were alarmed because of 1993 and 1995 anti-gun legislation.

To my memory, 1993-4 were the critical Clinton years for gun control polarization. It started with the BATFE's "ricebowl" Waco raid, the Ruby Ridge trials during 1993 brought that Republican era atrocity into sharp light, the 1993 Brady Bill passed at the end of the year, followed of course by the 1994 ban on new "assault weapons". Clinton himself credited gun control for the historic loss of the Congress in 1994, and many noted the first re-election defeat of a Speaker of the House since 1862 (when the nation was much, much more polarized, in the middle of a Civil War that killed over 600K).

I don't remember being hardly so concerned in 1996, can't even remember any Federal legislation gaining traction in 1995, although we were very determined to keep the Congress in Republican hands.

Is US politics particularly polarised now, though? More polarised than 1968? More polarised than 1852? More polarised than 1983, when Reagan was President and all the left could talk about was how much they hated Reagan? (Not old enough to remember it, just going off the music and film from the period.)

It is more polarized than 1983, which I am old enough to remember. E.g. Tip O'Neill, Speaker of the House through the end of 1986, was willing to work with Reagan.

I came of political age in the '70s, watched Watergate unfold, can still remember where I was when we learned Nixon resigned; the Left's hatred of him was implacable, I've read that was true since around 1948-50. But things weren't quite so bad after he left the scene. We loathed Slick Willie with a passion (now, not so much...), but we could at times work with him.

The 2000 election, though, that really polarized things, protesting the legitimacy of an election at the highest levels is utterly dangerous (one of the greatest things about our sorts of systems is solving the succession problem, one set of people running the nation replacing another), and Obama hasn't helped.

You’re conflating two things: the polarization within the Congress and outside it.

Before, when people didn’t have access the way they do now, the small connected elite of politicians and other decisionmakers were able to coerce and smooth out issues for their constituency. Now, for better or worse, the people’s views are being enforced more directly.

I'm using the Congress and Presidential elections because they show to some degree the revealed preferences of the people, I don't trust polls very much, especially as polling organizations are finding it harder and harder to get responses and as people continue switching to cell phones.

As for "access", one counter WRT to this study's claimed time frame is the end of the "Fairness Doctrine", which severely stifled radio and TV political discussion from not all that long after its promulgation in 1949 until its end in 1987 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine). Conservative talk radio, Rush Limbaugh being the best known example, became a major thing immediately afterwards. That channel, outside the control of the "small connected elite" became a driver of politics well before 1996.

Speaker Tip O'Neill shut down the government 7 times under President Reagan and 5 under President Carter. Thinking that Speaker O'Neill was willing to work with President Reagan about budget matters isn't historically accurate. It was his way or the highway, and the news did not demonize him for it.

All I can say is that I watched both in real time and stand by my opinions of just how severe these various periods were. Note, for example, O'Neil allowing the passage of Reagan's tax rate cuts. Sure, he was about as utterly vicious a class warrior as we've ever seen on the modern political stage (e.g. https://www.nationalreview.com/nrd/articles/336185/good-ol-t...), but he could have totally shut down Reagan's agenda if he was willing to pay the political cost, the House leadership has near absolute control over the agenda, which wasn't true for the Senate in modern times until Harry Reid.

Although you do have a point about how the MSM treats budget conflicts for a Democratic vs. a Republican Congress. One complicating factor is that the Republicans did not control both houses during the period 1955-1993.

If you look at Speaker O'Neil's history, the Democrats did not control both houses during some of those shutdowns. He did shutdown big parts of Reagan's agenda in the first years of Reagan's presidency.

The difference today is other people have audiences. So, instead of becoming the bastions of accuracy and fact checking, the NY Times, ABC, NBC, etc. have continued to be pundits. Washington hasn't changed one bit since the 1800 election, its the fourth estate that tries to influence instead of inform.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com