Originally Posted By DAR I know this has been going on since the early Clinton days. But honestly, is that bad if you're a conservative? Should you be looked down upon if you're a liberal? We act like these are words akin to child molesters and rapists. I say be proud of who you are and if you're a moderate even better.
Originally Posted By melekalikimaka I'm not blaming anyone but it seemed like once "liberal" became a dirty word, people started reacting to the opposite, "conservative".
Originally Posted By barboy I remember well the pres. race of '88 where suddenly one could be stigmatized as a liberal. Bush 1 with the help of the politically savvy Lee Atwater painted Mass. Gov. Duk. a "liberal". (Bush 1 responding to an interviewer in a whiny wimpy voice "I'm not the one who calls himself the liberal")
Originally Posted By friendofdd Sadly, I think it is not the terms themselves. Those of one political persuasion seem to hold the other side in contempt or worse. Pick which side is which as it works from both directions. It used to be the "outs" were the loyal opposition and the differences were about ideas. Now they seem to be about personalities. I simply cannot understand how people can actually hate Bush or Clinton when all that is called for is civil discourse on political ideas.
Originally Posted By sherrytodd Repeat after me... "I am not a crook" "I had no knowledge of Iran-Contra" "Read my lips, no new taxes." "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" "Weapons of mass distruction"
Originally Posted By barboy I like your list. But I would have chosen "I don't remember" over "I had no knowledge of Iran-Contra".
Originally Posted By ecdc Chris Matthews often talks about working for Tipp O'Neil and how people would fiercely fight for their side, then go out for drinks together at the end of the day. My guess is that while people had always disagreed, the demonization began to occur in the 80s under Reagan. I don't believe Reagan was responsible, however. He believed in his side and he fought hard for it, but I don't believe he would approve of the current state of labeling the other side as unpatriotic or "wanting to lose" or saying they support a "Terrorist Bill of Rights", and further nonsense. The '80s had a resurgence of conservatism and Reagan's followers seemed to be the ones that stimulated the culture wars. There's a Saturday Night Live sketch that still pops up from time to time that was done around the 1985 or 1986 season called "The Liberal." The title character is in hiding from the rest of the world and a kindly teenager or college student hides him in her room, in a Fugitive-esque recreation. I think it's directly tied to religion. Suddenly it wasn't that we just disagree, perhaps even stridently, over politics, but that liberals were actually out to do harm to America and its families. Liberals then responded in kind, treating conservatives as religious kooks also out to do harm to America, free speech, and the Constitution. Then came Bill Clinton. I'll admit my bias and say I really like Bill Clinton; he's my Reagan. But he was far from perfect and all kinds of debates could be had about his policy decisions, his leadership, etc. That said, I don't know that I will ever (and I do mean ever!) understand how he could engender such rabid, intense, deep loathing and hatred. I remember how my mother would talk about him. And there were so many conservatives like her: she absolutely hated and despised him. And it was there from the beginning. It's not like my mom said, "Well, he's the President, let's see what happens," and then she grew to hate him. It was "Slick Willy" "Bubba", etc. from day one. At least I voted for Bush and then he earned by loathing.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I think the hostility can be blamed on shows like 'Crossfire' (now mercifully off the air) and talk radio in general. Hosts of various political stripe rail against the opposition in very personal terms. That's one thing if it is directed at politicians and public figures who know that's just part of the drill, quite another when it starts zeroing in on individuals as being un-American, evil, etc. Many of the biggest names in radio, who are largely preaching to their own choir, are often encouraging their fans to hate, advancing the idea that compromise is always 'losing', that finding common ground is 'weakness', that faith is something to either be mocked or used for political purposes. Both sides do this. And they do this damaging circus side show simply to make money, not out of any true concern for the country.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder To add to post 9, it had alot to do with Clinton serving two terms. Republicans had eight years of Reagan, they expected eight years of Bush and were cut off. It galled them no end because there was a sense of entitlement. There was a changing of the guard and tactics changed, i.e. talk radio. A bunker mentality developed, and Clinton and all FOB's were pounded mercilessly. They appealed to the lowest common denominator and prevailed. You weren't allowed to do anything but follow the party line. If you didn't, you were called out. Democrats, their tails between their legs, for the want of nothing else, began to respond in kind. This board, until obviously fairly recently, was a microcosm of that. Nothing but name calling and ridicule. There's always been a party divide, but it was more honset philosophical differences. Now you're a traitor if you're not a Republican, according to some. The Dems have their share of loons as well, but none to my knowledge have ever taken the "discourse" to such a low level.
Originally Posted By melekalikimaka <<I think the hostility can be blamed on shows like 'Crossfire' (now mercifully off the air) and talk radio in general.>> Excellent point.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>I think the hostility can be blamed on shows like 'Crossfire' (now mercifully off the air) and talk radio in general.<< I think this is a great point. While I was writing my post I was thinking about those things that happened in the '80s that might have further contributed to the division. One of them is the rise of televangelists and the 700 Club.
Originally Posted By friendofdd Looks as though a concensus is taking shape that it is the right which caused it. I think it happened on both sides and the things being mentioned have been in response. Again from both sides. Our society started to change dramatically in the sixties. The 'nam war was the catalyst, but "old" values (easy ones like being polite and kind, holding doors for others, etc.) were pushed aside. Crude language became the norm with the young and rude radio personalities started to emerge. I remember Joe Pine being a trendsetter. Don Rickles called people rude names and it was OK. It seems to me it is our society and the media and politicians reflect it. Guess I'm old fashioned, but I still find it difficult to understand the personal animosity between left and right, even here on LP.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <The '80s had a resurgence of conservatism and Reagan's followers seemed to be the ones that stimulated the culture wars. < See I see that differently. I agree with when the division started, but I believe it was done by anti Reagan people trying to portray him as something that he was not to bring him down, since he was so popular they couldn't take him on one on one. The Dems' ( the ones who weren't Reagan supporters and there were plenty of those too) - took to the low road, with personal attacks / false protrayals and even attempts at things like the race card to try and bring him down....it was the beginning of a different kind of politicing - not for ones candidate but focused on getting people to be against the current one. Before anyone gets on my case about how the Dems are not guilty, read my next paragraph first, the low road is an equal opportunity road in politics and neither party owns it. The real nasty stuff began with the Clinton administration though ( and most here know aside from thinking he is a real intelligent guy, not really a fan) - and I believe was done for exactly the same reason as people did it to Reagan. Clinton was popular with his own party and a portion of the GOP voters as well, enough that the GOP knew they would lose to him so they took the low road in attacks to try and win over some part of the populace. The same appealing to the lowest common denominator to separate people as was done during the Reagan period was raised to new heights (lows).... today it is considered politics as usual, and I hope one day it become not in vogue as it is today.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <The Dems have their share of loons as well, but none to my knowledge have ever taken the "discourse" to such a low level. < SPP, you are overlooking some of the extremely low road tactics taken against Reagan during his period in office as well. ( and it was not just Republicans that put Reagan in office so it is hard to say all the GOP enjoyed his 8 years, there were many who felt he didnot represent the GOP as they wanted - the far right wing that was silenced at least temporarily. the types of stereotyping Reagan faced and the attempts to get some groups to try and hate him irregardless of facts was raised to new heights in the CLinton and W administrations - yes, but had their roots during the Reagan years.
