Interesting Responses

Interested in whether people who were politically aware adults in 1968-1969 think we are more bitterly divided now than we were then, and whether things seem bleaker now in terms of national unity.

— TryingToHelpHat (@Popehat) October 25, 2021

I was in college around then; I leave it to you if that's adult.
Anyway, it's hard to say. There were very deep divisions, but the fault lines were very different—mostly age and race, but much less geographic, religious, or even partisan. (The South was solidly Democratic then.)

— Steven M. Bellovin (@SteveBellovin) October 25, 2021

More solidly racist, too. "Democrat" did not mean "LBJ Democrat," no matter what people think today. He was the one who gave the South away with the VRA, as he put it. He was right; both to sign it, and in what he predicted.

I only study period, so don't count in data pool. But I'd say yes & no. Not more bitterly divided, as seen in political violence being much less common (though hardly unheard of) now. But *much* more politically polarized, preventing gov't from meaningfully addressing divisions.

— KC Johnson (@kcjohnson9) October 25, 2021

LBJ resigned (refused to run again) because "government" couldn't meaningfully address divisions over Vietnam, which divisions continued (and grew worse) for 7 more years.  Nixon widened the war, rather than diminish it, then had a "secret plan" which was only a ploy for re-election.  Who knows what he would have done if not for Watergate.

Dr. King was killed for battling racism.  Today, we have cowards threatening school board members (threats that are terrible, but will they act on them?  Not all that likely.)  RFK was killed because of the situation in Palestine at the time (though oddly, what wasn't widely publicized after his death).  And the '60's gave way to the political violence of the '70's, which has disappeared down the national memory hole except as it is remembered for it's apotheosis, Patty Hearst and the SLA; and as one of the subplots in "Network."  The one nobody remembers from that movie.

“Seem” carries most of the weight. Pretty sure we were objectively in worse territory then. We just didn’t have splintered media/social media

— Noman (@itnor1) October 25, 2021

It was pretty much media that said Vietnam was fine and college kids should shut up and get back to class. Oh, and blacks had won enough with the CRA and the VRA. And, again oddly, nobody really noticed Loving v. Virginia; not like they did Obergefell.  The most radical thing the media did was when Cronkite mildly criticized the ongoing Vietnam war, which obviously was going nowhere, and he said so on camera.  No, we didn't have "splintered" media:  we had one voice national television media, and newspapers like WaPo which criticized Dr. King for getting out of his lane at Riverside Church (where he denounced the war, too).

"Splintered media" was not allowed.  Was that better?  Or worse?

I was more physically scared by the times, but I was very young. I remember Dr. King’s murder, and then RFK, and I remember Viet Nam on the news every night. I was scared and shaken then, but I feel less hopeful good‘s likelihood of ultimately prevailing, now. More dejection now.

— Heidi in Tacoma (@HeidiTacoma) October 25, 2021

My memories, too. Although I have to say: welcome to adulthood in the real world. Same as it ever was.

Without a doubt. Divisions over Vietnam and civil rights were intense, but at least everyone tended to deal in facts and truth. Interpretations of facts would differ but we didn't have people denying reality

— Don Campbell (@DonCamp79297417) October 25, 2021

And yet I remember people denying the failure of the war, and even denying that Nixon had good reason to resign, or Ford to pardon him (you can't pardon someone for crimes that were not committed, or at least pretty plainly evident.) To which I would also attach this:

pic.twitter.com/F8suwju0JX

— Joe Smith 🇨🇦 (@joesmith323) October 25, 2021

Nobody seriously questioned why the National Guard at Kent State were using live rounds; nor why the only students shot or killed were not engaged in the protest the Guard was there to suppress. No member of the Guard was held responsible. The students on campus that day were deemed responsible for getting in the way of the bullets. No, I'm not making that up. Of course, this was 1970, but it was the bitter end of the '60's activism/protests.

So, no, we weren't more "bitterly divided."  We just knew who counted, and who didn't; and we acted accordingly.  And as the pictures from Kent State make clear, it had very little to do with race, and a great deal to do with whether society condoned your public actions; or not.  Now we do it according to race; mostly.

Is that better, or worse, now?