I wonder how this dynamic changes. We have had periods of our history that mirror this one in the "you are either for us or against us" mentality mutually held by members of the two major parties. And we have had seasons of bipartisan consensus on many issues (though virulent opposition - of the "you are not just wrong, you are evil" variety - at the fringes seemingly always remained). It would be interesting to see the range of reasons we move from a season of sharp division to a season of comparative comity. Times of national crisis due to external threats are obvious ones. I'm struggling at the moment to think of others, which begs the question of whether or not we can do anything about the dynamic you describe aside from our own personal refusal to engage thusly.
The other times I would point to involve a highly effective leader. Andrew Jackson is one who comes to mind - at first glance, a guy who seems very polarizing. When he took office many of his opponents thought the apocalypse was upon them. But good policy decisions (for the most part - he had a few bad ideas too) broadened his appeal over his two terms. The country was stronger when he left office than when he entered. There was no crisis that sparked any of this. Reagan accomplished something similar, though arguably the backdrop of crisis was there in terms of anemic economic performance and looming foreigh threats. I look at our present situation and think, we're just one good leader away from better times.
Whew! I shall wait until your next message to comment. Thanks so much. Hugs
Interesting....made me think ! 😊
I wonder how this dynamic changes. We have had periods of our history that mirror this one in the "you are either for us or against us" mentality mutually held by members of the two major parties. And we have had seasons of bipartisan consensus on many issues (though virulent opposition - of the "you are not just wrong, you are evil" variety - at the fringes seemingly always remained). It would be interesting to see the range of reasons we move from a season of sharp division to a season of comparative comity. Times of national crisis due to external threats are obvious ones. I'm struggling at the moment to think of others, which begs the question of whether or not we can do anything about the dynamic you describe aside from our own personal refusal to engage thusly.
The other times I would point to involve a highly effective leader. Andrew Jackson is one who comes to mind - at first glance, a guy who seems very polarizing. When he took office many of his opponents thought the apocalypse was upon them. But good policy decisions (for the most part - he had a few bad ideas too) broadened his appeal over his two terms. The country was stronger when he left office than when he entered. There was no crisis that sparked any of this. Reagan accomplished something similar, though arguably the backdrop of crisis was there in terms of anemic economic performance and looming foreigh threats. I look at our present situation and think, we're just one good leader away from better times.