I recall back in the late 80's or early 90's sitting in a political science class while listening to a professor talk about European politics and explaining that in many countries the political parties managed to infiltrate into every part of life, which often meant that Europeans had a stronger political identity than their American counterparts. It was not a greater political awareness per se, just that their political affiliation had entered every aspect of their lives. Newspapers would have party affiliations (which may be a good idea -- see"Media Double Standards and a Proposed Solution"), social clubs would have political affiliations, even pubs and soccer clubs would have political affiliations. While this may not hold in every country, or may not be as widespread in some, it was a good illustration of how politics had managed to infiltrate every aspect of life, at least in some nations, turning the party into a big part of one's identity, an almost surrogate family.

At the time, it seemed alien to me. I could comprehend it, but I could not see it in America. I understood some union members had a similar situation, but unions were the exception, not the rule. I could not conceive of an America where Democrats and Republicans had such an identity, where politics would be part of every aspect of life. When I grew up, even fairly recently, politics was just part of one's life. I might mock the liberals I knew, but they were not enemies, they were not some alien being.

Not so now. The US is fast on its way to becoming a lot more like those European nations I heard described in college. We may not yet have Democrat soccer teams or Republican bars, but we are moving that direction, with politics becoming more and more a part of every facet of life. As I explained in "The Myth of Polarization" we were always polarized, but we kept it limited to our political beliefs, not entering into other parts of life (at least in the 20th century). There were times when this was not true, when politics became so divisive it became part of every other facet of life, but they were the exceptions, and as soon as the issues were resolved, the division disappeared. In modern times, politics was but one facet of life.

So, what happened?

Well, part of it is exactly what I explained in "Clinton and Bush Killed the Center", as politics became more bland and disappointing, we became more extreme, and as we became more extreme, we felt the divisions more and more. But that is but a small part, there is more than that.

Another part is the birth of personal recrimination as politics. Some trace this to the Clinton impeachment, but that largely rests on a misinterpretation, seeing it being "about sex" rather than "about perjury". Clinton was not impeached for personal foibles, but because he did violate the law. The dispute over Clinton may have fueled some resentments for some, but it was not the birth of this anger. In fact, if we look at every contention battle that raised anger among the faithful, we can go back even farther and look at Ted Kennedy's slanders against Judge Bork, and the subsequent public show trial of Clarence Thomas, that greatly angered the right and created a bit of a divide. In fact, that may be the first time in modern memory that people defined themselves by their position on a political issue. But, despite the anger when it took place, it did not create the division, as soon as the issue was resolved the tensions died down and the sides blended back together.

No, the division between left and right only came about in 2000, when the "Angry Left" was born. For whatever reason, the accusations arising out f the disputed Florida recount simply never went away. Unlike the Clinton impeachment or the Bork or Thomas hearings, the resentment stayed and festered. Followed by the Swift Boat Veterans, the charges of racism in 2004, and a host of other slights, the Angry left continued to grow. And, in response, there arose what I have called "the Angry Right" (see "The Angry Right and Conservatives" and "Rethinking My Earlier Position"), a group on the right dedicated to using the same distasteful methods as the angry left, making politics part of every facet of their lives.

Nor are the politicians without blame. They like this division, so long as the numbers don't move too far in the wrong direction, at least. Angry individuals donate more, volunteer more, and provide reliable voters. And so it was in the interest of politicians to feed the faithful red meat, to stoke the flames of resentment and encourage these personal resentments in matters political. Rather than trying to heal rifts in the name of national amity, it was in their best interest to emphasize these differences and make them stronger in order to ensure the best turn out at the polls.

But why now? What is fueling this change in the nature of politics?

I have to say the answer is simple. We finally have two real different philosophies.

We have to realize this division which we see would seem very familiar to our ancestors. The Jacksonian revolution, and the Jeffersonian, both of those fueled similar resentments, though the customs of the times couched their fights in different terms and different actions. (Eg. The protests of today were mostly unknown in the era and would likely have been seen as riots and put down, even our "peaceful" protests. Our ancestors realized what we seem to forget, the origin of the protest is a show of force, and the threat of violence, so they were much less tolerant of mass gatherings. This is also why I do not believe in protests -- see "Why Conservative Protests Are So Small".) But throughout the period leading tot he Civil War, and even after, until about 1880-1890, such dissent between members of the various parties were common. We may not have been quite as formal about it as European nations, but there were Democrat clubs, party affiliated pubs and the rest.

But in the 1890's the Democrats changed.The party of laissez faire and gold absorbed the Progressives and changed into an interventionist party of big government. As the Republicans had always been the party of protectionism, that left us with two parties supporting big government, just with different biases. And at that point, the nature of politics changed. We no longer had two different philosophies, we just had internecine squabbles between big government advocates over who should benefit.

And you can see it in the politics of the time. There was political unrest, but it was between the mainstream and the communists and socialists. The two major parties were in accord over so many issues the disputes that had divided them seemed largely to vanish. Not that there were not periodic disputes. Prohibition, immigration, war, and a number of other issues raised brief debates, but once they ended the general amity was restored. And so, from about 1900 until about 1960 we see a long period in which both parties displayed a relatively quiet coexistence.

In the 1960's, things began to change. With the Goldwater challenge to the country club Republicans, and the far left's emergence to push the Democrat party leftward, there arose a gulf between the two parties we had not seen since 1900. Still, those were largely fringe movements for most of that decade, and the Goldwater movement would not see fruition for another decade after that. But the seeds were sewn. (See "Learning Too Much From History", "Conservatives and the "Big Picture"" and "The Political Spectrum".)

But there was one other factor preventing a general split. Even once Reagan's election gave notice the Republicans were no longer the party of big government favoring big business, that there was a second political philosophy, there was still a quiet detente, mainly because there were still a huge number of Republicans of the old school, and the Democrats controlled congress. Without any natural power base, the advocates of small government still had too little power to disturb the balance.

It was only in 1994, with the Contract With America and Republican Revolution, that the small government philosophy came into its own, and began to challenge the big government beliefs. And it is not a coincidence that that marks the beginning of the true polarization of America. It is then that we see the two parties beginning to take over every aspect of the lives of their partisans.

All of which is a long winded way of saying, it is a natural thing. When you have real philosophical differences, as we finally do after a half century or more of big government being the policy of both parties, you will have discord. The big government advocates will see their opposite numbers as threatening their good work, and the small government advocates will see the opposition as threatening freedom. It is only natural that this would lead to a deep rift, which would spread to all aspects of life. We are only surprised by this because, for a long time, we had no real difference of opinion, both parties endorsed some form of big government, and so there was no dispute.

Not that I think that makes such polarization a good thing. As I wrote in "In Defense of Civil Debate" I favor fighting such arguments civilly, as I believe we can achieve more through civilly seeking for the truth, challenging one another's beliefs,rather than taking everything quite so personally. All I am saying is that it is understandable, and the natural outcome of finally having two viable philosophies once again.

POSTSCRIPT

This entire essay was inspired by a comment I posted in response to FinalRac's article "Do you remember, 'You are there?'".

POSTSCRIPT II

I know some of these points may conflict with a few earlier statements. I have been giving a lot of thought to the way our society expresses itself and also how our political beliefs influence the rest of society. For example, "Our Rude Behavior" looks at how our political philosophy alters our treatment of each other. But, as I put more thought into the question, I find sometimes I have to modify or reject previous beliefs. So if I contradict here something I said before, that is because I have come to realize my old belief was either incomplete or in error. And, almost certainly, in time I will probably reject some things I have said here. That is how knowledge advances. Were we tied forever to our first beliefs or our initial statements on a subject how poor would be our understanding of the world.