Hacker News Reader

Comment by hga | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com