A Divided Nation

By: M. Goldberg

Throughout the 20 Century, the United States struggled between the ideals of
th

racial and civic nationalism. Though the country was constantly at battle with these two
ideals, many still believed that the nation as a whole still had many common ideals.
However, beginning with the 1960’s the Unites States began to come apart. Movements
such as the anti-war movement that started with the Vietnam War and the Civil Rights
movement took place were both extremely polarizing and divided the country. Other
issues stemming from economic, political and social problems further divided the
country. The political system especially became extremely divided into liberal and
conservative principles. However, there were many people who did not associate
themselves with either side of the political spectrum. These people had become
disenfranchised by the government’s response to events in the 1960’s and along with the
Nixon Watergate scandal, created a political climate, which decreased many voter’s
enthusiasm about the American political system and about politics in general. This
created an America in which they were two extreme groups of people who were
uncompromising in their beliefs, and a large group in the middle that could swing either
direction depending on the political climate. This America continued to exist through to
the end of the 20 Century. By the end of the 20 Century, while it seemed as if racial
th th

nationalism had been defeated, civic nationalism no longer appeared possible as well,
mainly because in such a society it would be impossible to ever attain a consensus.
One of the major reasons why America began to fall apart in the 1960’s was
because of the issue of racial equality. There were many accomplishments for the Civil
Rights that were made in the 1960’s that included the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the
Voting Rights Act of 1965, but none of these issues were accomplished without bitter
struggle (Gerstle, 269). This was the beginning of the end for racial nationalism, but that
does not mean that it did not spark a fierce protest from southern whites (Gerstle, 269).
The government was still responding slowly to enforce the legislation and the Supreme
Court rulings that had been made (CSB, 116). This allowed Southern whites to continue
reinvigorate the ideals of racial nationalism and insist that blacks were not on the same
level as whites (Gerstle, 281). Many white volunteers in the south that attempted to
register voters had begun to question whether civic nationalism could ever become the
dominant one in American society (Gerstle, 283). The issue of racial equality had divided
the nation into the student and youth dominated volunteers who were advent supporters
of civic nationalism and the extreme white southerners who used violence against the
volunteers. An estimated 63 volunteer workers had been killed attempting to register
black voters in the south (Gerstle, 283). This however, was the extreme, most white
southerners did not resort to violence and killing in these situations.
The Student movement was a major part of the Civil Rights movement. The
SNCC had been formed in 1960 with the Greensboro sit-in movement (CSB, 117). The
Student movement began to lose patience with the rate of progress for racial equality,
partly due to the violence that they still faced in the south and partly due to the federal
government failing to protect them and enforce the laws. The Democratic National
convention of 1964 is a good example of political leaders giving blacks some of the
things they were asking for, in this case, black representation from the state of
Mississippi, by allowing two black delegates to attend the convention, but as “at large”
delegates rather than true delegates (Gerstle, 293). This had the result of further
alienating and radicalizing the student movement (Gerstle, 295). The SNCC began to turn
to the idea of black power changing course from the one that Martin Luther King Jr.
wished to take (Gerstle, 298).
This soon led to two factions developing in the racial equality movement. There
were those like Martin Luther King Jr. who headed one side of the Civil Rights
movement. This side believed deeply in the principles of non-violence (CSB, 128) and it
was King often compromised with white political leaders in order for his message to be
accepted by at least some whites (Gerstle, 279). The other side believed that more action
was necessary in order to achieve their goals. Malcolm X was at the head of this side. He
urged African Americans to take control of their communities and fight white racism by
any means necessary (Gerstle, 297). After his assignation his became a symbol for what
became known as Black power but that only made his influence grow stronger (Gerstle,
299). Many of the youth organizations such as CORE and SNCC, which had been
supporters of Martin Luther King Jr., became frustrated with the slow pace of change and
thus started to fill the ranks of the Black Panther party, a group that was based on the idea
of black power (CSB, 147). This divide in belief over the next step in the eventual goal of
racial equality was one of the main reasons the 1960’s began to come apart. The
radicalization of the student movement shows how the organizers of the Civil Rights
movement were beginning to lose faith in the American system.
Black power organizations began to decline in popularity sharply once law
enforcement agencies in the U.S. started doing everything in their power to limit the
effectiveness of the black power organizations. Meanwhile, Richard Nixon was elected
President, partly as result of the backlash against the lawlessness of the racial equality
movement and the end of 1969, black power organizations were on the decline. The
Nixon campaign seized on the student protests and violence that existed in the black
community to mobilize conservatives (Chafe, 395). Many lower and middle class
Americans resented federal programs aimed at blacks and the poor because they believed
that they became the forgotten people (Chafe, 396). Many whites believed that they were
being victimized for someone else’s advantage (Chafe, 396). While parts of racial
nationalism may have began to erode, civic nationalism also didn’t become dominant
during this period. Political leaders failure to enforce legislation led to civil rights
becoming dissatisfied with the American political system in general.
Another major reason why the country began to fall apart was the issue over the
Vietnam War. Originally the United States’ involvement in Vietnam began when the
French left in the early 1950’s and it gradually escalated to the point of a full-out war
(Chafe, 249).
As soon as the war began to escalate however, an anti-war movement began to develop.
Unlike previous wars, such as World War Two where the nation had been very united in
a common cause, the Vietnam War was completely different. Johnson’s administration
continually lied to the public on the state of the war and purposely withheld information
about what the current policy in Vietnam.
One example of Johnson doing so came while debating the possibilities of
increasing the troop presence and how to pay for it in Vietnam. His advisors told him to
tell the Public that he was increasing troop levels by 100,000 and that following this there
would be an increase in taxes in order to pay for America’s further involvement in the
war (Chafe, 279). However, Johnson only announced the troop level increase and didn’t
raise taxes, creating the illusion to the American public that the country was not at full-
scale war (Chafe, 280). This is just one example of Johnson misleading the Public on
America’s progress in the Vietnam War. The Public did eventually find out how the war
was truly going for America, and as people, with the help of mass media and the
television, saw the acts of violence and cruelty that were taking place in Vietnam, a
strong anti-war movement began to develop (Chafe, 285). This anti-war movement
would divide the nation even further into those who believed that the United States must
win the war in Vietnam, and those who believed that the war was unwinnable and that
our presence in Vietnam was unjustified (Gerstle, 286). By the time the Vietnam War had
come to an end, the political unity that the nation had held had been shattered (CSB,
261).
The Vietnam War and the Civil Rights movement had the impact of making the
American people distrustful of their political leaders. Johnson continually lied and misled
the Public, creating mistrust in the American people. The failure of the government to
enforce the civil rights legislation of the early 1960’s made people believe that the
government could not live up to its promises. Then the Watergate scandal took place,
which had the effect of distracting people from the issues of class, gender, and equality
and also had the effect of creating even more distrust in the government. Despite the
number of protests that were taking place, these protest movements began to fall apart
because they seemed to have no effect on those people in power (Chafe, 390). The failure
of these protest movements led more people to become convinced that political
expression was useless (Chafe, 391). By the early 1970’s the revolution and the protest
movements of the young had begun to lose their power and there was far less hope that
the young could change society (Chafe, 395). The main effect that this had on society
was that it created an environment where many voters and people lost faith in the country
and its direction.
The events of the 1960’s had a dramatic effect on the behavior of voters. America
voters oscillated wildly during the 1970’s and 1980’s (Chafe, 413). An example of this is
that voters gave the Democrats a huge majority in 1974 mainly to the adverse effects that
the Watergate scandal had on the Republican Party. Then trend reversed however and the
people then gave the Republicans a huge majority in 1980, mainly because of the
unpopularity of Carter (Chafe, 413). Richard Nixon had established the context in 1970
in which voters sea-sawed between the two major parties, not being able to decide which
party to pick because both kept failing the American voter (Chafe, 431). Another
important note is almost half of the electorate chose not too vote. This trend has
continued throughout the rest of the 20 Century. Ronald Reagan, though he had a
th

lopsided victory in the 1980 election, was chosen to be president by only 28% of the
electorate (Chafe, 437). The non-voter party made up 47% of the electorate making it the
dominant party (Chafe, 437). More and more Americans had come to the conclusion that
political decisions were made by a small elite, and that elections had little chance of
changing what really happens (Chafe, 439). The fact that so many voters had become
disenfranchised and simply did not care in the political process nor did they believe in the
government, is shown by the fact that only 29% of voters believed that the government
will do what is right most of the time (Chafe, 434). The fact that so many Americans
chose not to participate in the political process made it difficult for the country to become
united because these people do not participate in shaping the direction of the country by
not participating in elections.
While a significant majority of the population who considered themselves to be in
the middle of the political sides had become so disenfranchised and a had lost so much
faith in the government that they no longer cared who won an election, the two political
sides in America were becoming even more divided in the fight to win over these middle
voters. Racial nationalism and civic nationalism were still conflicting with one another.
This often translated into conflicts between the conservatives and liberals. Each side was
guilty of making the other side seem to be the extreme and this was one of the main
reasons why America was still becoming more divided even following the events of the
1960’s. Richard Nixon was able to become victorious in the 1968 election because he
was able to generate enough conservative support by using the student protests of the war
and of civil rights to prove that those who took part in these events were simply a loud
minority and that the majority of Americans were being overlooked because of these
people (Chafe, 395). Nixon cracked down on student protests and Nixon further divided
the population by polarizing those on the left as radicals. While this had been done
before, the effect this time was much greater because of the polarizing nature of the
issues at hand.
Following the political scandal of Richard Nixon were Gerald Ford and Jimmy
Carter. Neither of these presidents was very popular and this contributed further to the
alienation that many voters had and the lack of faith that Americans had in their
government (Chafe, 432). The election in 1976 was very close with Jimmy Carter barely
winning (Chafe, 433.). Jimmy Carter proved to be just as incompetent as the American
people believed most of the political leaders were. One example of Jimmy Carter giving
the American people more reason to distrust their government is with the oil embargo
that OPEC enacted during the 70’s (Chafe, 436). The oil embargo drove up dramatically
the cost of oil and also created long lines at gas stations that become images of a
government that did not know how to govern. The election of Ronald Reagan in 1980, by
an enormous margin, would make it seem as if the American people had united behind a
political leader. However, the extremes in America still existed, the conservative and the
liberals, or racial nationalists and civic nationalists, and the huge victory for Reagan was
simply because the majority of Americans who considered themselves to be in the middle
had gone with Regan as a vote against Carter.
Reagan’s political beliefs were in stark contrast to those of civic nationalists.
Reagan believed that the least government was the best government (Chafe, 454). His
policies reflected more of the old right beliefs and that contributed to the divide in
America between the conservatives and the liberals. In order to drive the economy out of
the stagflation that had developed under Carter, Reagan developed his economic beliefs
and this was later called Reaganomics. Reaganomics was the belief that sharp tax cuts for
the wealthy would eventually trickle down to the America poor, and that the only place
where government should increase spending is for the military (Chafe, 455). While
Reagan’s policies led many people to believe that the nation had recovered, the logic
behind his policies was flawed and that eventually led his policies to show their true
colors in the recession of 1987 that spawned out of a huge budget deficit (Chafe, 466).
The American people had once again been let down by a political leader to lead them out
of their unhappiness. Only Reagan’s stark defeat of communism, allowed George H.W.
Bush to prevail in the 1988 election.
 While politically the national had become more divided, with even more
Americans becoming dissatisfied with the government, America had also become divided
economically. During the 1970’s, America was quickly on its way toward becoming a
two-tired society due to economic and social issues (Chafe, 426). Those on the bottom of
society had no hopes whatsoever of ever attaining middle class status. The rich and
middle class had access to better education centers, technological skills that gave them a
better chance for prosperity and employment. The poor on the other hand had no access
to decent health care or education, which was no environment that would ever give them
a chance to escape (426). Class emerged as a permanent dividing line in society, which
threatened to divide America into two ever-growing parts (Chafe, 449). Following the
1970’s the policies of Reaganomics did nothing to help the growing divide between the
rich and the poor. While unemployment may have decreased under Reagan, half of the
new jobs that were created paid wages that were below the poverty level for a family of
four (Chafe, 467). While many believed that Reagan’s economic policies of supply-side
economics and the trickle down effect in which tax cuts for the wealthy will eventually
reach the lower class, this was proven wrong by the growing number of homeless and
poor (Chafe, 457,467). This started a trend that is still prominent in America’s society.
The Reagan tax cuts had benefitted the richest 5% of American families and the top 1%
of the American economy saw their wealth skyrocket (Chafe, 518). At the same time, the
bottom 20% saw their wealth decline and the middle class suffered a decline in wealth
compared to that of the top (Chafe, 518). This divide between the rich and the poor shows
that America starting in the 1960’s had become an extremely divided country not only in
political views, but in economics as well.
America had also become divided on many social issues as well following the
period of the 1960’s. Political leaders such as Reagan led the fight the ensured over social
issues (Gerstle, 357). These issues later came to be known as the culture wars. These
radicals enraged Reagan during the 1960’s and it angered him that they were protesting
the war and that they were were willing to place their social conscience above that would
be good for the nation as a whole (Gerstle, 358). Both Reagan and George Bush also
attempted to portray blacks as lawless, violent, and lazy, and these values threatened the
values that Americans held dear (Gerstle, 358). Reagan and Bush also used God and
expressed message of faith. However, Reagan did take some steps that helped to erode
the power of racial nationalism. He appointed Colin Powell as his national security
advisor, which is one example of Reagan preventing racial nationalism from running his
policy (Gerstle, 360). Reagan often spoke of America being God’s country and he
repeatedly stressed the importance of having values and virtues (Gerstle, 362). These
culture wars attempted to answer the question of whether America was to be portrayed as
a nation that aspired to treat all people equally and by the law and give all people liberty
and opportunity or whether America was to be depicted as a nation that was
compromised by racial exclusion (Gerstle, 365).
This cultural standoff began to give way in the 90’s. The liberal nation began to
be revived partly because of the economic boom that took place in the 90’s that
benefitted African Americans and that lowered the unemployment rate among black
youths (Gerstle, 365). A new liberal philosophy developed that emphasized that all
individuals irrespective of race should follow the law and that using racial exploitation as
an excuse was not acceptable (Gerstle, 365). Bill Clinton became the leader of this group
of liberals who placed emphasis on a more regulatory state and a modest multiculturalism
attitude (Gerstle, 366). Bill Clinton also was able to further diminish the power of racial
nationalism due in large part to his own personal comfort with African Americans and his
commitment to affirmative action (Gerstle, 367). Some African Americans went so far as
to call Bill Clinton the first “black president.” African Americans began to occupy
positions of visibility and influence in media, politics, education, military as well as the
entertainment system. All of this would have been unimaginable to the Civil Rights
leaders of the 1960’s. The intermarriage rates between white and black Americans have
risen significantly over the past generation quadrupling from 3% to 12% in 1993. It
would seem as if the racial nationalist attitude had finally come to an end (Gerstle, 370).
This did not mean however, that blacks had become achieved equal status in society with
whites. The number of blacks that lived in poverty continued to grow with more than
one/third of African Americans living in poverty and more than 50% of young black
Americans living in poverty.
Entering the 21 century it was clear that America had become more divided than
st

ever. This became clear with the 2000 election in which the Bush margin for victory was
2000 in Florida, which was the dividing state (Chafe, 525). Almost immediately
following this rumors began to spread of voter suppression, and voter fraud (Chafe, 525).
The outcome of the election wasn’t decided until weeks later when the Supreme Court
finally made its ruling (Chafe, 529). However, the damage had been done and the
passionate debate and the democrat’s refusal to give up had divided the country even
further. Then after the terrorist attacks on 9/11, the nation appeared to overcome division
and unite behind the tragedy that had occurred. However this appearance of unity was a
façade. The unity fell apart when Bush used the terrorist attacks and his war on terrorism
to justify his decision to invade Iraq (Chafe, 544). The war in Iraq, against an enemy that
was not responsible for the pain that the country had suffered, had the effect of once
again dividing the country upon the justifications for a war with a foreign country that
was not clearly our enemy. In an open letter the George. W. Bush Cindy Sheehan openly
criticized the war and the president saying “George, in 2000 when you stole that election
and the Democrats gave up, I did too” (CSB, 434). She then went on to blame Bush for
the death of her son who was a marine in Iraq (CSB, 435). There were countless other
people like her who protested the war and protested the presidency of George W. Bush.
At the end of the 20 Century the United States was as divided as ever and not it seemed
th

that because of the Bush administration, that divide had grown even further. The
problems of inequality appeared to have gotten worse under Bush than better (Chafe,
568). Income disparities had dramatically expanded and America’s schoolchildren were
continuing to fall behind those of other industrialized nations (Chafe, 568).
While racial nationalism had been defeated, there seemed to be nope for gaining a
consensus on the civic nationalism ideals. The United States only seemed to become
united under extreme conditions such as 9/11 or an extremely unpopular president. And
even then the unity that these moments seemed to create did not last for very long. The
hopes of civic nationalism ever becoming the dominant ideal in American society seem
to be fading. Americans are simply too divided over social issues such as abortion and
other religious issues where there are no hopes for compromises. It also seems that
America has no hope of ever becoming united politically as well. There will always be
two sides to the political debate, that label the other side as being extremist, and a large
group of Americans who call themselves independent and do not associate with either
side of the political spectrum. These Americans swing elections and are crucial to any
politicians’ hopes of being elected. The events of the 1960’s created an America where
social, economic, and political issues divided America into two sides, and left many
Americans in the middle. The events of the 60’s also caused many Americans to lose
faith in the government, which is directly responsible for the decline in voter turnout in
recent decades. The lack of voter turnout makes it even harder the country to become
united, because if Americans aren’t going to the polls to voice their opinion, then the no
one will know how they feel about the issues. Therefore, the events that took place in the
1960’s had extremely damaging effects on American society, effects that America is still
in the process of recovering from.