Wednesday, October 5, 2016

How Did America Become So Divided?

In this blog I want to explore how and why America became so divided. It is one man’s view, and I admit incomplete. You, the reader, might want to add your own spin and your own conclusions.

A Little Context

In two months I will celebrate 61 years in America. That’s about 80% of my total years on this planet. Although I did not aspire to leave Italy, my father decided that we should all come here.  You might say that father knew best. I have been blessed in many ways as a result of dad’s unilateral decision.

America has changed a lot since my arrival one cold evening in New York City. Some say for the best, others feel otherwise. They were different times. Having won the Second World War, America was in full boom while other countries were busy licking their war wounds and coping with rebuilding their infrastructure.

Change in Immigration Laws

In the late 1920’s, Congress passed a law limiting the immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe.  A quota of 30,000 per year was set-aside for these less desirable Europeans. Asians and Africans fared even worse. No quota was set for Northern Europeans wanting to come here. A system of preference was also established to prioritize visas. 

My grandfather Antonio and my father’s brother were U.S. citizens. Therefore, my dad and his family were entitled to the family reunification preference. Dad applied for the visa in 1950! We were given a visa in November 1955, shortly after my 18th birthday.

It was an unexpected birthday gift. My uncle was required to guarantee our financial well being for five years. The U.S. government would not provide any assistance to the newcomers. We had therefore to fend for ourselves. And so we did, glad to be given the chance to come.

Upon Arrival in America

It was a time when self-reliance and individual responsibility were lauded values. All work was celebrated as noble. No one wanted to be a burden on others.  It was frowned upon to be on the dole, to be on welfare, to be unpatriotic. Many worked 2 or 3 jobs to make ends meet without complaining or trying to game the system.

We were discouraged to speak Italian at home and with our friends. We were told to assimilate, that America was a melting pot, and that it was a privilege to be an American. Patriotic fervor from WWII still permeated society at large. Wanting to do my part, at age 19, although a non-citizen, I volunteered for the U.S. Army Reserves and served six months of active duty prior to going to the university.

In 1960 while at San Jose State University, I had the opportunity to shake John F. Kennedy’s hand. He was visiting the campus while running for President. His ideals of freedom, solidarity, and patriotism touched me personally. I was indeed not asking, “what my adopted country should do for me, but rather what I should do for my adopted country.” I accepted his challenge as my own.  It was my admiration of JFK that encouraged me to apply for citizenship.  

Things Began to Change …

The assassination of JFK, his brother Bobby, Martin Luther King, and Malcolm X exposed fissures in the nation’s fabric. The catastrophic war in Viet Nam fueled an explosion of anger and recriminations. The country began to breakdown into slices … those supporting the war and those against, those clamoring for justice and equality versus those wanting to keep the status quo, those self-proclaimed patriots and those choosing to burn their draft cards.

Southern States were unhappy with the civil rights legislation and what they considered an attack by Northern liberals on their way of life. Racial divisions and resentments started to heat up. African Americans struggled for equal access and social justice, long denied. A fracture emerged: those supporting racial equality and those wanting to dispense it at a much slower rate.

It was a common scene on the evening news to witness demonstrations, some peaceful, others violent. As the body count increased, so did the fury of those who opposed the war.  The riots at the Democratic Convention in Chicago were one of several tipping points, and led to the election of Richard Nixon.

The Vietnam War brought another change. Self-appointed pacifists created a sub-culture of drugs, free love, and rock and roll. The silent majority watched with astonishment and disgust as they saw their treasured values ridiculed and mocked as square and uncool. The left’s animus toward Nixon added to the budding division between the so-called silent majority and the far left rabble-rousers.

The Watergate scandal was one of the first nails on the unity coffin. The opposition’s loathing of the Republican Party and its perceived dirty tricks fueled the notion that the opposition was the party of the rich, of warmongers, and corrupt politicians. Never mind that it was a Democrat President that had embroiled the country in all the wars of the 20th century: WWI, WWII, Korean War, and Vietnam War.

Nixon’s downfall ushered in Jimmy Carter in 1976. Soon after, the Middle East exploded. Iran revolted against the Shah and took hostage hundreds of Americans. It became an ugly sight watching the evening news report on their plight. The rise in oil prices followed. Americans had to queue up to fill up. A picture of an impotent giant came to describe America. Interest rates spiked up to over 20%. Americans saw their beloved country on the ropes. Everything was changing so fast and not for the better.

Jimmy Carter’s failures of leadership made it possible for the Republicans to retake the White House in 1980. President Regan, a staunch conservative, eloquently brought the nation closer together. But Democrats did not approve of his attempt to change the welfare laws. Regan succeeded where his predecessors had not, working across the isle. He worked cooperatively with Tip O’Neil to bring about major reforms. He also instilled an increased sense of patriotism by taking on the USSR and attacking it as the evil empire.


The fall of the USSR ushered in a period of instability in the world, but brought about a much-needed rise in international cooperation. Regan had managed to heal some wounds while opening up others. His trumpeted economic policies were attacked as anachronistic and ineffectual, although they had brought about increased prosperity, some claim, primarily for those at the top. The left’s clamor for a bottom up economic policy was seen the antidote the nation needed to lift people out of poverty.

The Beginning of the End

I view the 1992 presidential election as a blow against national unity. We elected President Clinton with 45% of the vote. A mere 51% of eligible voters voted. Russ Perot’s supporters contributed to the defeat of Bush. Only 23% of the electorate voted for Clinton. Many never accepted Clinton as their president.

Clinton went out of the way during his second term to work with Republicans with breakthrough legislation that ushered prosperity and national calmness. In the end, the impeachment of Clinton for lying to federal prosecutors contributed another blow to national unity.  

The election of Bush II proved controversial and extremely divisive. Many Democrats never accepted him as a legitimate president. Some felt that Gore was robbed by the Supreme Court’s ruling to stop what had become a national farce in Florida.  

The election of Barak Obama was hailed as a monumental victory. For the first time, Americans came together and elected an African American. Surely, his election would heal the racial divide and bring the nation closer. Surely, the young president will lift many poor folks out of poverty and eliminate racial discrimination. I, for one, saw in Barak Obama, a Black JFK – a projection of sorts that was far from reality, I learned later.

The final blow to national unity took place during the first two years of President Obama’s first term. Emboldened by a landslide victory, Democrats controlled both chambers of Congress, plus the White house. They were eager to stuff down the Republicans’ throat legislation including a landmark change in our healthcare system. Short on magnanimity, Democrats cast their vote for Obamacare.

It was an opportunity lost! The law was so divisive that Democrat leaders refused to share it even with their own caucus. Fellow Democrats were told that they had to vote for the law first in order to find out what was in the proposed legislation. They felt that given their control of Congress, the opportunity was once in a lifetime chance to do something bold.

There was no question that the nation had to do something to combat rising healthcare costs, and provide baseline coverage for millions of uninsured Americans. With the support of the opposition the resulting legislation could have become a landmark example of national cohesiveness and solidarity.  Shortsighted political expediency would seed discord instead, and deeper division.

Closing

President Obama acknowledged that his inability to build national unity was his biggest regret.  He leaves behind in January, as a result, a nation in much need to come together.

I don’t know who will win in November: Clinton or Trump. The majority of Americans mistrusts both. I do not see the possibility that either will bring the nation together. They say that things have to get worse before they get better.

Maybe the next president? I surely hope so!



1 comment:

  1. Your recount of late 20th Century US history vis a vis how Americans feel about their government and their differing views of what it should do is a good one, as brief as it is.

    I agree the American people are more divided than ever: Republicans (conservatives and some libertarians) want government to do less and let people do more without so much government intervention (although Christian conservatives would like the government to outlaw abortion and certain sex-related behaviors). Democrats (liberals and some libertarians) want the government to do more to regulate, economic life in particular. It's harder to perceive such a stark divide in their platforms on foreign affairs.

    The basis for the divide are, IMHO, sharply differing beliefs of what makes for a civil and just society. Much has to do with economic activity: how wealth is created, how wealth is distributed, and what externalities are caused by wealth creation (e.g., pollution).

    We all wish we had better choices than Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. Donald Trump is abrasive, crude, and his personal behavior is not that of a role model. Hillary Clinton is clearly duplicitous and corrupt, while her personal behavior is far more acceptable (to me, at least). For me, bad personal behavior is less concerning than bad institutional behavior. Trump wins by that criteria.

    As for policies, while it is somewhat difficult to get a clear fix on Trump, I believe he will attempt to make government a less intrusive force in the economy, which I believe will result in more robust economic activity that will benefit many, including those at the bottom of the economic ladder. Doing that will create more social justice in a way that matters. I believe he will be more effective in strengthening the US's position in the world. The importance of that should not be under-estimated with the threats of Russia, China, and Islam that could be consequential in time.

    So, while I wish we had a Reagan or a JFK to vote for this time, we have to choose as best we can.

    As for the divisiveness in this country... it is hard to see how it can be reduced to where there is more agreement on what makes for a civil and just society. How would we realize that some of our thinking (both Republican and Democrat, conservative and liberal, libertarian and socialist) is both incorrect and extreme? Where can there be dialogue that would use facts and thoughtful analysis to make a case for more reasonable -- and less divisive -- views?

    ReplyDelete