[pmoriarty]

"We have objective evidence of severe legislative polarization at the federal level going back to the 1980s"

Political divisiveness in the US goes back much further than that.

In the "you think it's bad now" department, I remember reading about the case of, I think it was in the 1800's, of a congressman assaulting another congressman with a cane over some political issue.

Of course the most infamous case of political divisiveness in the US was the Civil War.. which, judging by the Confederate flags man conservatives/Republicans proudly fly and the reactions they get from more liberal parts of the political spectrum, and the incomplete desegregation of many parts of the country, discrimination against minorities, vilification/adulation of Confederate statues, etc, still hasn't been fully resolved in many people's minds.

Getting to more recent, but still older than 1980's, political events.. it's not like the country was united during the Vietnam era or during that of the 60's counterculture.

Or look at the socialist/anarchist unrest and workers strikes (and police/corporate violence against them) or suffragettes of the early part of the 20th Century.

Plenty of times in America's history when the country was very divided, and today's divisiveness is nothing new.

As long as there's rapid change it's likely to continue, as some people will want to slam on the brakes while others want to go full steam ahead.

[forgingahead]

I remember reading about the case of, I think it was in the 1800's, of a congressman assaulting another congressman with a cane over some political issue.

This was the Caning of Charles Sumner:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caning_of_Charles_Sumner

And yes, you and the grandparent comment are exactly right - this has been going on for ages, precisely because the economic incentives of media have been to create strife and discord for the eyeballs (and now clicks). Even in the days before 24-cable news, I remember thinking it would be nice that if when the nightly news came on, they would just say "All is well today. Have a good night!". And close the program.

But they can't - imagine the reaction from their advertising customers? "We paid you for these slots, you jolly well better produce the eyeballs on it!".

The mainstream mass media has been a weapon for as long as it's been around. In previous generations the elites and government kept quiet about it, because it served their purpose of cohesiveness and national unity, especially after WWII. (Never mind the consistent denigration of the Russians externally, I'm referring to internal Anglo Western societies).

But at some point in recent history, it switched instead from being more profitable to have national unity, to being more profitable with national DISunity. And so all and sundry have become "issues of the day", feeding the beast of the content and advertising machine.

[pmoriarty]

"imagine the reaction from their advertising customers"

Imagine the reaction from their viewers!

The sad fact of the matter is that the media strategy you describe would be worthless if the viewers didn't lap it up and ask for more.

The media's just giving most viewers what they want.

[forgingahead]

True, but there is a reason most human societies (excluding the West in the past 10 years) have had strong restrictions on the excesses of human behaviour. Just because the animal can do something, doesn't mean it should, precisely because society as a whole doesn't benefit when individuals do that.

In most societies, you still can't drink to excess and drive, nor advertise cigarettes, nor sell them to minors, nor do all manner of narcotics or have polygamous relationships willy-nilly. All these things are certainly what people would like to if possible, but social norms and laws put a lid on it. There is certainly screeching about some or all of those issues (like by some parties here on HN, Reddit and elsewhere), but by and large those restrictions are good for the functioning of a healthy society.

Media consumption, and in fact media production, was regulated, initially by technology (you couldn't broadcast widely before radio) and then by law (The Hays code in the US and its subsequent incarnations).

Cable defanged that, and the internet has destroyed it.

I'm not for censorship, but harmful media production and consumption should certainly be contained and punished if done with malicious intent. It's not easy though - we all agree that online recordings from certain Middle East groups are inflammatory and can radicalise innocent people into doing foolish things, but we can't see as a society that the same radicalisation has been happening in the Western press as well. The targets are just different.

[watwut]

> Media consumption, and in fact media production, was regulated, initially by technology (you couldn't broadcast widely before radio) and then by law (The Hays code in the US and its subsequent incarnations).

Written media origin however are very inflammatory and divisive writings. Well before corporate media.

[jollybean]

Yes but in the 1880's punching someone wasn't that big of a deal. They could have gone to the bar later and got drunk together and made legislation the next day.

Underneath the House of Commons (and I believe somewhere in US Congress) was a bar, and after arguing in the Commons, everyone would go downstairs and get wasted. The 1st PM of Canada drank 12 ounces a day minimum. Imagine that. 12 hard drinks a day (!).

What definitely has increased is the use of procedural tactics and such manoeuvring, the filibusterer, executive statements, congressman never taking the position of the other side. Also, the Republican/Democrat situation was not divided into urban/rural camps so much until recently, and that's a big kind of divide. 'Everyone' (quotation marks) used to be Christian, at least nominally. The Catholic/Protestant divide was big, but largely due to culture (i.e. Italian vs. English). I feel that the 'Evangelical / Atheist' divide even much wider. African Americans have a voice now (thankfully) and their presence as an active piece on the board can very easily be inflamed either in good faith or sometimes not. The Latino community is massive and they seem to be a 'behind the scenes', silent force, a the MSM doesn't give them the time of day, but they are voting, although pragmatically I don't their presence adds to any negative confrontational dynamic. But those are new vectors for division.

So we are in a new divisive situation there's no doubt about it.

[blaser-waffle]

> Yes but in the 1880's punching someone wasn't that big of a deal. They could have gone to the bar later and got drunk together and made legislation the next day.

Bollocks. Charles Sumner gettin whupped with a cane WAS a big deal and made national and international headlines.

It was a direct response to Sumner criticizing slavery, and helped cement opinions in the South that they'd need to take drastic action to preserve that institution.

[jollybean]

There was tons of physical fighting in that era [1], that some newspapers wanted to make a big deal of a specific fight isn't evidence of that much.

That said, that was probably a very divisive era.

[1] https://us.macmillan.com/books/9780374154776