Most Divided?

 Most partisan Senate ever?  Why it's been worse

The above linked article is an attempt to determine if we are in the midst of the most divisive period our country has ever experienced.   To do this, the author quotes and analyzes the exit interviews of departing Senators.  As I read some of the statements, I found myself disagreeing with the Senators more often than not.  Here is an example:

"These departing veteran senators say that partisanship isn’t solely measured by vote totals in Congress' upper chamber, but by a bitterness that floods Washington as a whole and often soaks the entire nation."

I agree with the metrics proposed, however I feel the Senators are not in tune to the divisiveness currently plaguing families, communities, and towns.  The "bitterness" eluded to is intensified by media coverage exposing only the extremes of any given political issue. 

“'It’s possible that this is a very partisan time, and yet it’s not the most partisan time,' said Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh. The son of former Indiana Sen. Birch Bayh, who was elected in 1962, recalled the Civil Rights and Vietnam eras as more destructive than today’s political squabbles."

Though I respect and admire Senator Bayh for his service, I think that he is delusional in this belief.  I did not grow up during Vietnam, but have heard about the retaliatory violence that accompanied the protests and rallies of the that era.  I have been taught by my parents and grandparents, teachers and professors, and even movies, that there is a limit inherent in our freedom to disagree with the government.  When that limit is reached, national security concerns will be cited, and the army will be called in.  That is why I think we did not see the same public outrage about the war in Iraq.  People learned to fear overstepping an invisible line.   It's not that the anti-war sentiments didn't exist.  Plus, I think that much of "protesting" took place via blogs like mine, in the much safer world of the internet. 

Furthermore, the destructive tendencies of the Civil Rights movement, such as the actions of the Ku Klux Klan, are eerily reminiscent of some of the hate crimes being perpetrated against Arabs today.   I realize the casualty count of African Americans far surpasses the construction equipment  and holy books currently being destroyed by bigots who detest Islam, but the sentiments are the same.  And the potential for far worse is unfortunately there.

“I remember seeing machine gun nests on top of government buildings here in Washington to protect them from demonstrators,” he said of the 1960s. “We had political assassinations — Martin Luther King, Robert Kennedy. We had the anti-war demonstrators shot at Kent State University.”

Though we don't see men with machine guns on top of government buildings in Washington I am sure Big Brother is there.  The political assassinations of the Civil Rights era, coupled with the catastrophe of 9/11, has resulted in the safest national capital in history.  People know how pervasive the government's ability to watch, and respond has become.  That is why I think we will never see the kinds of demonstrations and assassinations we did in the past.  And if we do, the perpetrators will be labeled as "terrorists." 

Moving on, I think that Senator Bunning's is only partly right when he makes this statement:

"'It’s always been partisan,' said Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky. 'But the reason it’s so partisan now is because of the big, wide separation in numbers.'"

Though the numbers play a big part, I think Bunning fails to identify the true culprit.  I believe the primary reason for the extreme divisiveness we are experiencing within both of our legislative bodies is due to the media.  The politicians feel pressured to live up to the extreme opinions perpetrated by both right and left wing sources.  The 24-hr news cycle means that everything is a story, and that Senators need to latch on to issues and make firm stands if they want to see their name in the ticker.  

There were parts of the article that I was in absolute agreement with, including this statement:

"Regardless of its origins, veterans of the institution are quick to say that partisanship should not be despised for its own sake. 'Partisan politics,' declared Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd, 'is what made the place.'”

Most people, after a moment of silent reflection, will realize the wisdom of this statement.  It is much easier to just blame "politics" for lack of progress than to step back and realize that we have come this far because of, and despite, the system we have in place.

But Senator's Dodd's other statement I find some fault with:

"Dodd said he’s 'mystified' by arguments that senators should become more bipartisan. “'It’s the wrong words,' he contended, 'we need better civility in the process.'”

I don't think "bipartisanship," or civility," is what the Senate currently needs.  Rather, an injection of moderation and compromise may do the trick.  Historically, however, governing has been a tumultuous task, and I don't see it changing much in the near future.
___
4/9

Just a quick comment:  So many times, I read that the huge divide between left and right in today's political landscape is caused, or at least precipitated by, the media.  This is especially evident on the right.  Though I agree that sensationalism sells, at some point doesn't it become corny?  Or at least so redundant that people will stop caring, like the boy who cried wolf?  I have read many times that folks like to have their beliefs re-affirmed, and that is why wackos like Rush Limbaugh have so many listeners.  But, if offered a viable, more realistic alternative, wouldn't people finally wake up?  Maybe I am just wishful thinking, but it seems to me that everyone and everything jumps the shark at some point...