(10 points by Sunday) Political discourse in the past 20 years: Your serious thoughts and suggestions?

In my view, along with the obvious technological changes (cable news ect), one must look to the catalyst that has sparked such discord. I would dare to say that even in the Bush 1 years, the hate meter had not pegged the way it has today.

In my mind, discord evolved into full blown hatred when Bill Clinton won the presidency. The precursor to this moment in time was the "Christian Right" movement that evolved out of the social decline during the 80s. If you recall, the 80s gave birth to sex-without-shame with anyone you choose to have it with. Drugs became the DOW of the streets. Music deteriorated into four letter epithets. radio "Shock Jocks" were becoming popular. Neoconservatives had a solid footing within the Republican party and TV evangelicals decided it was time to play politics (Christian Right).

Thus, Bill Clinton took office while all of the above was coming to a head. This is the first time I recall talk show hosts speaking so vehemently about a sitting president. Bill Clinton became the GOP embodiment of all that was evil in America. The more poplar Clinton became, the lower the rhetoric and political discourse descended. Thus, the drumbeat of hate and division grew ever louder.

Prior to this time, presidential sexcapades were never mentioned, even though they did occur. Now, the gloves were off. You'd thought that Clinton was Satan in the flesh after listening to the ever more popular radio talk shows. Nothing he did was ever right. Clinton was vilified 24 hours a day, seven days a week. When he won the second term, I think this was the final turning point. it was all out war between congress and the White House. Hatred is contagious. The problem is that the neoconservative/evangelical GOP hybrid had established themselves as Gods spokesmen and Clinton as the anti-Christ. This led to the "you are either with us, or against us" there was no in-between with this group.

Up until this time I admired conservatives for the things they claimed to stand for. Then suddenly I was faced with a self righteous, hate filled group of people. Meanwhile, the hard left was sinking further into chaos of drugs, sex, and hip hop. Television shows became more vulgar. So the divide grew ever wider. When the GOP paid $66 million to find out if Clinton had an affair, that about tells how radical their hatred for Clinton had grown. Eventually the hard left started fighting back (Larry Flint) and now the gulf has only been wider one other time in US history, the Civil War.

Sex was not an issue of national scandal until the GOP went on a mission to expose Bill Clinton's sex life. (Not defending him in any stretch and do not condone his adultry)

Solutions:

How do you end the circle of verbal violence? In my personal view, the GOP drew first blood and did so again by personally attacking those who were against the plan to invade Iraq. Calling people cowards, traitors, treasonous, and haters of their own country, on national TV day after day was way over the top. I don't agree with liberal stances on things such as abortion, gay marriage, and such. I do agree that the GOP, in all of their arrogance, launched a verbal onslaught against them which began with Bill Clinton.

If for example,TV evangelicals would get out of US politics and if gay extremist would stop forcing their agendas down the nations throat (simply one example), this may slow down the verbal assaults which, in turn, may lower everyone's adrenalin. But every time I speak with a conservative in person, the first words out of their mouths are "those liberals" yada, yada, yada. The GOP leadership along with their radio talk show hosts are the driving force behind the discourse of hate in my view. Change their discourse and you will change the dialogue 100 fold. Once the dialogue changes, people will be able to reconcile and work together.

I agree with Suthrnlyts, but think several parts deserve expansion. For one thing the amount of information available to just about everyone via the internet, cell phones, blackberries, etc. means that people have access to basically everything all the time. It's electronic omniscience. 20 years ago you would have had to painstakingly prepare an argument by going to the library, and any rebuttals you weren't prepared for made you look the fool. Nowadays I can google voting records, stances, scandals, and even historical references in seconds. You would think that all this information would make people more capable of choosing a better candidate, but it actually does exactly the opposite. The amount of information available is orders of magnitude greater while analytical ability has remained the same. Consequently MOST people use all this information to simply reinforce what they already believe. I can spend all my time on the internet reading, listening, and watching political commentary that I already agree with. Whether it's 100% factual or not, the analysis of the data has been left to others. And they usually make a pretty convincing argument. So instead of people who believe something but are willing to admit they don't know everything (like 20 years ago) you have people who are CONVINCED that they've deeply researched the issue and come to the best possible conclusion. And any attempt to prove them wrong will result in a furious hail of website links backing up their claim. If you see it on the internet it must be true. So the conclusion of my first part is that thanks to modern technology everybody is convinced that they already know everything, and that makes true debate with someone holding dissenting views almost impossible. If you can't concede a point then you can't have a discussion. Period. (yes I see the irony)

The second big thing that has changed the political dynamic is the complete demonization of political opponents. Once again the volume of information available to everyone plays a part. Smear campaigns waged by groups like MoveOn and the Swift Boat Veterans make it very simple: candidate A is EVIL. EVIL EVIL EVIL! This message comes fast, it comes hard, and it gets spread like wildfire. What you get is people who refuse to think about an issue and instead react completely with emotion. Congressman A belongs to the X party. X is EVIL. Congressman A supports Y proposal. Therefore Y is EVIL! That's it. I'd say 80% of America doesn't think things through in any greater detail. And what does it get us? Candidates like Hillary Clinton, who is either worshipped or vilified. Same with Bush. Now it's a question of voting for good vs. evil, and good and evil are defined by the parties. Want a third candidate? Good luck. Nobody will risk their vote when even a mediocre candidate is worlds better than the Satan running for the other camp. We've turned politics away from a question of the best way to manage our country and made it instead into a moral crusade where the other group is the ENEMY. No mercy, no quarter, KILL THE ENEMY! How does this benefit the system? Simple: it ensures that, outside of a minor variance, power will always be about evenly split between democrats and republicans. The variance will favor one or another, but it will even out over time. Meanwhile they'll never have to give up power. They can run Bozo the Clown and still get 49 to 51% of the vote. They don't want us looking at issues and deciding for ourselves. They want us to connect with the party, get all hot and sweaty, and vote for their guy.

So how do we fix it? That, my friend, is the million dollar question. I honestly don't know. I'm a very active Libertarian who tries to educate people about what I think the proper role of government should be, but I routinely run into the brick wall of the two party system. My views might be interesting. They might be logically valid. They might resonate with the listener. All of that means nothing because the person is only voting AGAINST the most evil candidate. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it do a backflip. What we need are some true moderates to run. Moderates that cannot be cast as the devil, and will make people turn away from emotion and start looking at the issues as issues again. I don't see it happening. But if you come up with some great plan feel free to let me know.

Two reasons the political divide has changed so dramatically in the past 20 years.

First, we are living right now in a fear-based culture. People are acting and reacting based on fear of threat to the country (terrorists, immigration problems, global warming, whatever). When people are afraid, they tend to dig in their heels and hold tighter to their beliefs -- and it's not just politics. So much of our daily lives are in flux -- which makes people less comfortable, and less willing to compromise.

Second, the current administration -- mainly the executive branch, but also Congress and the Courts -- are acting in a very partisan way -- and with all three branches leaning toward the conservative side, that makes many on the other side less willing to compromise. But even many fiscal conservatives are very unhappy with the way things are going. The more people get pushed, in particular when they get pushed against their core values, they respond by digging in their heels.

Add to all of that the media -- which tries to condense reality into sound-bites for short attention spans -- meaning that people are reacting much more shallowly and much less attention is being paid to the in-depth issues.

What can be done? We need to take a step back, take a deep breath, and stop being afraid all the time. We need to take the time and put forth the effort to deal with issues on their merits. Stop labeling people. Stop generalizing behaviors to millions or hundreds of millions of people. Stop demanding all-or-nothing solutions.

We can only find solutions that work in reality -- and that rarely includes all-or-nothing answers, since reality doesn't work that way. And those solutions can only come when we start dealing with people as individuals, not huge groups.

I think there are numerous reasons as to why the dynamics have changed so much. I attribute most of it to awareness and of course, much of it to brainwashing. When I write this, I’m including both sides.

In those days, we didn’t have 24/7 cable news, we didn’t have a paparazzi that reported each and every move that was made. The internet didn’t exist and even back then, although there were a lot of: “You wash my back, and I’ll wash your back.”, type trade-offs going on, we simply weren’t aware of how much. Add to that the influence that special interest groups and big business has on our politicians of today. Perhaps it wasn’t much different years ago, but it’s certainly more noticeable with the technology that we have available to us today.

So, how to fix things: Without voter awareness and the willingness to create changes by voting out those who are in power and have been for a number of years, nothing will really change. Check out voting records, look at where the campaign money stems from. Find out if they’re voting for YOUR best interest and not that of others. We have the power to change things. Unfortunately, I believe that we’re far too complacent to take the action that will provide positive change.

I’m a Republican who has taken the trouble to check out voting records and plan on voting against my own Congressman because he’s not voting for his constituents. He has sold out.

This would have to be a nonpartisan effort. How many people would be willing to do that?

I sort of think it's a sign of the times. After all, we live in the age of talk radio and soundbytes, so I think a lot of politicians deem it acceptable or even necessary to stoop to a low level of behavior to appeal to the voters, because people expect their leaders to talk tough and they go for style over substance.