The graph makes it rather look like as if the decline in happiness began half a decade ago. The pandemic certainly didn‘t help but I would guess it all started with the polarization during the Trump administration.
The real polarization occurred when Bush Sr. made a deal with Democrats to raise taxes and cut spending. That was the last time there was significant bipartisanship on domestic policy. When Clinton ran he went to the right because liberal Democrats had fared poorly in the previous 3 Presidential elections. As a result Republicans moved further right and pretty much since then Republican strategy has been to move to the right of whatever a Democratic President wants. For instance, Obamacare is essentially the same plan the Heritage Foundation concocted in 1994 in response to Clinton’s healthcare plan. Romney enacted that plan in Massachusetts.
After 3 decades of “libtards” and other epitaphs (of both parties) hurled at any member of an opposing political party the country is irrevocably entrenched polarization. Only a true crisis or truly hard times will alleviate this mess we are in.
I feel like over last several years something started happening with our media that makes it appear more sensationalized (at least to me), add the multiplying factor of the internet and you have a recipe for unhappy people.
A bit of nuance is important here to prevent false equivalency.
Fox News was explicitly started with the intent of being the media arm of the GOP. They employ a bunch of “talk shows” which spread blatant lies and disinformation: all allowed because the org admits that these aren’t reporters, they’re just hosting a “show”. On a channel called Fox “News”. Do most viewers get that distinction? Who cares.
While other channels are guilty of doing similar shit to certain extent, Fox News is several orders of magnitude different in how far they go with twisting facts and misinforming their viewers.
>> They employ a bunch of “talk shows” which spread blatant lies and disinformation: all allowed because the org admits that these aren’t reporters, they’re just hosting a “show”
It's allowed because Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The graph pretty ridiculously changes the graph from the source to remove labeling of individual years. In the original source the graph is steady up to 2018. Even then it looks like the source lacks data for both 2019 and 2020.
We've been more polarized recently, sure, but it didn't start with Trump. Obama was a polarizing person as well - many right-wingers said they'd move to Canada if Obama was elected. Trump was just a continuation of the already existing polarization. Heck, his whole campaign in rural areas was based on, essentially, "your voice has been ignored, and I can give you one"
Why was Obama so polarizing? From the other side of the pond he looked like a garden variety politician from whom you could expect… well, the expected.
I know that there is an accusation from the US left that all of the right’s obstruction and hostility was just barely concealed racism, but I assume that many in the GOP are not just frothing racists and do have some thought out issue with his actions.
How was Obama more polarizing than, say, Bill Clinton? I remember W being polarizing because he came off as a mouth breather, but Obama just seemed so bland.
> How was Obama more polarizing than, say, Bill Clinton?
When it comes to drone strikes on American citizens: he was the judge, jury and executioner, all that without charges or prosecution, just by saying "they're not really citizens because they are now 'enemy combatants' which BTW does not grant protection under the Geneva Convention and does not require a formal declaration of war either because... reasons?"
We have separation of powers, laws and due process for good reasons. All this rubbed me the wrong way.
Was this a polarizing issue in the sense that extreme approval and disapproval of drone strikes on American citizens is mirrored between Republican and Democrat voters? Or, perhaps voters are more likely to be forgiving when their side is in charge? I'm not commenting on drone strikes. But, in either case I don't see this issue popping up as a frequent answer to why people thought Obama was polarizing.
Relative to his predecessor and successor's activities, focusing on Obama's drone strikes has always felt like a deep cut. Something people bring up when they need to search for a reason not to like someone that reflects on their principles rather than their emotions.
Remember that they impeached Clinton, over sex, after an investigation into his financial affairs went nowhere. The goal was impeachment; the reason would come later.
For Obama, they had his race, and that was sufficient. Not every Republican is a frothing racist, but they're certainly happy to appeal to the frothing racists. But at core, it was simply that he was a Democrat. Democrats are inherently polarizing because they are not Republicans, and the reasons come later.
Obama did take a number of jabs at "country folks" for instance his "cling to guns and religion" comments.
Some minority of people didn't care for his race undoubtedly. But also he was a liberal community organizer from Chicago at the head of a bright new rainbow coalition of social justice (in theory, in practice not so much) and many traditionalists just didn't care for that whole image.
As far as president, he was a good speaker but that's about as far as it went.
He didn't do much of the stuff he said he would, the wars went right on, he weaponized agencies against his political opponents, no radical social justice was achieved, growth in GDP during his time was basically deficit spending (ditto for Trump). He really wasn't as good as people think, he just talked nicely.
To be fair talking nicely seems to be the majority of the job. I'm unsure how much we can really credit or blame a president for the state of the world and even what the government does during their presidency.
I always thought it was weird that "community organizer" was so often used as a pejorative against Obama, someone running for political office. It's like criticizing a writer for being a grammar nerd.
Because Obama and Co castigated anyone who disagreed with policy as a racist. Also Joe Biden during the 2012 campaign said that Mitt Romney wants "to put y'all back in chains"
I think it's a mistake to assume that there are only "frothing racists" or "normal people" - the spectrum is a lot broader and has a broad impact (on politics, and elsewhere), as well as 2nd order effects.
The polarization has been increasing at least since Reagan. For every president since Reagan/Bush Sr., the other side's contempt, hatred, and opposition has grown. This has been true on both sides.
