Have you watched US presidential debates across the decades?

(1992) https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jWo88Lr0rzw&t=102s

They've objectively gotten meaner and dumber with each cycle.

It definitely seemed to get very sides-like-sports-teams in the mid 90s just after this (when Newt was speaker) and just gotten progressively worse over time.

You can also see that Congress has become this trash: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figures?id=10.1371...

I think a large contribution to this behavior is the limited number of representatives. A terrible law and a huge disservice to the American people.

Also, you know, gerrymandering.

The US needs a constitutional amendment that just picks one of the mathematically-based methods for evaluating voting districts and makes it mandatory.

Mostly I agree with you, but politicians should be insulted and ridiculed. I’ve had enough nauseating bipartisan back-slapping for one lifetime.

I would rather replace them with real humans.

The US might be much closer to an authoritarian lurch than 20 or 30 years ago, but don't romanticize the recent past. My understanding is that polls around the time of the Kent State massacre... Where unarmed students were shot in the back by the military for the crime if protesting the Vietnam war... had almost 50% of the population supporting the military and saying the kids had it coming. Nixon had tons of support right until he resigned. There was never any level of social cohesion, the divisions just hadn't metastasized yet

It's a hard thing to accept that in the arch of history our current times aren't as unique as they seem.

Even times like this occurring in a world that has the power to self-destruct isn't unique.

What is unique is the speed at which information travels.

True, I don't believe the world has ever evolved this fast before.

I think the problem is seeking social cohesion to begin with, and seeing the US government as the tool that controls it. I think historically people had a much greater sense of distinct social spheres and political spheres.

Like a documented Tiananmen Square massacre ...

The trust was built on basking in the glory of WW2's victory and fear of nuclear annihilation. Maybe part of it too was the quality of life for 80+% of the generation was better than their parents in clear ways beyond "our TVs are better."

The first two I'd like to avoid something analogous for a new order based on trust, but maybe the last one we can bring back if our leaders start to have a larger vision beyond focus on GDP, Stock Market returns, inflation, and unemployment rates.

Top bracket taxed at 90%. Wealth disparity not at worse than 1920's levels as it is currently.

I see what you see.

But I'm not convinced the result is a disaster.

Evolution moves in a spiral, every round brings new insights.

"The good old days" is a worn trope, but there may be a point.

Women's employment and/or compensation in the United States peaked approximately two decades ago, and has since declined. Xi Jingping wasn't China's dictator yet, so China was a bit more free. Crimea hadn't been annexed yet, and Russians had much more access to the internet. The alt-right was still in its infancy. Brexit hadn't happened yet.

Hence, when a British think tank claims freedom is falling across the world, I'm inclined to believe it. And levels of authoritarianism are inversely correlated with trust.

On the flipside, a whole generation of people across many of the poorest parts of the world have experienced increases of standards of living due to globalization.

I would say that you go back to the past two sets of prez debates and tell me that the "lie" ratio wasn't 10:1 or 20:1 between the two candidates. I would trust most HN people to revisit those and give a reasonable estimate. I think that's why I'm skeptical of "two-sides" most of the time.

American society was only "refined" if you were part of the accepted classes. The US has whitewashed our history with rose tinted glasses. It's always been pretty bad, just the winners get to tell the story.