America’s Great Divide: From Obama to Trump
FRONTLINE begins its 2020 election year coverage with a two-part, four-hour documentary series investigating America’s increasingly bitter, divided and toxic politics.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
From veteran FRONTLINE filmmaker Michael Kirk and his team, America’s Great Divide: From Obama to Trump draws on revelatory new interviews with key political and cultural figures, as well as an unparalleled archive of in-depth broadcast reporting across two presidential administrations, to offer crucial context for the current moment.
Part One traces how Barack Obama’s promise of unity collapsed as increasing racial, cultural and political divisions laid the groundwork for the rise of Donald Trump. Part Two examines how Trump’s campaign exploited the country’s divisions, how his presidency has unleashed anger on both sides of the divide, and what America’s polarization could mean for the country’s future.
Tags
Who is online
46 visitors
Watched Part 1 last evening. This film gives great perspective to the last 12 years; I highly suggest watching.
Hi Larry,
Thanks for the recommendation. I have a funny feeling that this will only vindicate my feelings of the last 12 years.
Be aware that the first few minutes are painfully nostalgic. It'll choke ya up to think about how far we have come since then.
Being on PBS, I am sure it is factual, fair, and balanced.
S/
...and now we know how fair YOU are; making negative comments about the program without seeing it for yourself.
I suppose you leave all the hard work of research and investigation up to fox news.
[deleted]
I love how you jump to that conclusion without even watching it.
But Fox... now that is always factual, LOL!
HA! Great minds, LOL!
Now, now, no need to get personal, which appears to be your schtick.
I was referring to PBS in general, not this particular program
The way you seem to be salivating about it tells me it is not...
factual, fair, and balanced.
And you'd be wrong. The fact that few conservatives watch public television is a sad commentary on how far from rational many have become. PBS is all about education, learning new things, being exposed to different peoples and cultures. Sesame Street is an incredible learning vehicle for children around the globe and teaches a wide range of subjects, from math, language, grammar to anger management.
" Study Finds Sesame Street Improves School Readiness"
"New Survey Confirms PBS KIDS Is a Trusted and Vital Resource in Preparing Children for School"
I can see how a lack of exposure to PBS would likely lead to and support insular, bitter, angry, xenophobic ideologies where ridiculing education, especially "higher education", remains a mainstay of many conservatives daily lives. I believe the reason is few have the fortitude or backbone to admit to themselves that a better education, exposure to other cultures and pursuing knowledge outside of their religions would actually solve many of the problems they complain about. Either that or most are just too lazy to do the work necessary to pull themselves out of the bitter hole they've allowed themselves to sink into. If they just came home and put on some PBS, some "Find your Roots" or "frontline" or even just "PBS Newshour", the whole view of their horizon would begin to change.
PBS is the most fair and balanced network on television. I'm not saying some of the shows don't have their own perspectives, I'm saying that they present a wide variety of viewpoints with very little of their own editorializing. Anyone intentionally avoiding PBS in their homes is doing a great disservice to themselves and their children.
I've watched PBS for decades...in fact we have two such stations here in Denver, and they are having pledge drives
over 50% of time while showing the same tired old shows over and over again.
Both outlets have had a liberal bias since they went on the air and the taxpayers should quit funding them.
You presume to judge and describe people without knowing them, and seem to be stuck in "bitter hole" of hate and intolerance of others yourself..
How ironic, a pot chastising a kettle?
Sounds like they need some fund drives,,,we have watched three brand new programs on our PBS channels already this week! Great stuff about nature, animals, and art and music....
The Public Broadcasting Service ( PBS ) is an American public broadcaster and television program distributor . [6] It is a nonprofit organization and the most prominent provider of educational television programming to public television stations in the United States, distributing series such as American Experience , America's Test Kitchen , Antiques Roadshow , Arthur , Barney & Friends , Clifford the Big Red Dog , Downton Abbey , Finding Your Roots , Frontline , The Magic School Bus , Masterpiece , Mister Rogers' Neighborhood , Nature , Nova , the PBS NewsHour , Reading Rainbow , Sesame Street , Teletubbies , and This Old House . [7]
PBS is funded by member station dues, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting , corporate contributions, National Datacast , pledge drives , private foundations , and individual citizens. All proposed funding for programming is subject to a set of standards to ensure the program is free of influence from the funding source. [8]
Since the mid-2000s, Roper Opinion Research polls commissioned by PBS have consistently placed the service as the most-trusted national institution in the United States. [4] [9] A 2016–2017 study by Nielsen Media Research found 80% of all US television households view the network's programs over the course of a year. [1] However, PBS is not responsible for all programming carried on public television stations, a large proportion of which may come from affiliates , including such member stations as WGBH-TV , WETA-TV , WNET , WTTW , WHYY-TV , Twin Cities PBS , American Public Television , and independent producers. This distinction regarding the origin of different programs is a frequent source of viewer confusion. [10]
PBS has more than 350 member television stations , many owned by educational institutions , nonprofit groups both independent or affiliated with one particular local public school district or collegiate educational institution, or entities owned by or related to state government . [5]
~WIKI~
Did ya hear that?!
The most-trusted national institution in the United States!
Ya mean a TRUTH bias?
Using a strawman accusing him of watching Fox, Why yes, yes you do think alike.
KD,
We both know he watches Fox since he has said so in the past. So how is that a strawman?
The moment you prejudge anything, you are showing a bias. See Nerm down below here: 3 . I actually respect that, even if I end up disagreeing (I don't know if I will disagree, since I haven't seen it yet), since he gave a full explanation that was well thought out, instead of the usual sound bite.
Can you see the difference?
This is a discussion site. If all you are going to do is put your virtual fingers in your ears, then why bother?
Glad you can speak for both of you. I myself have never seen him state what he "watches".
Maybe you should jump on Larry's other seed and ridicule Greg for being clean and sober since your great minds think alike?
Maybe you should jump on Larry's other seed and ridicule Greg for being clean and sober since your great minds think alike?
[deleted]
Nobody is ridiculing greg for being clean. We are debating the merits for and against marijuana use.
Do you often think that people who disagree with an opinion are ridiculing the other? That must make it tough to have a constructive conversation.
I think that was pretty clear from Larry's response.
Well, I have.
I have no need to. And you seem to totally disregard what I wrote to you while you were working hard to defend Greg's comment or really lack of one.
So I will repeat and see if you can answer:
The moment you prejudge anything, you are showing a bias. See Nerm down below here: 3 . I actually respect that, even if I end up disagreeing (I don't know if I will disagree, since I haven't seen it yet), since he gave a full explanation that was well thought out, instead of the usual sound bite.
Can you see the difference?
This is a discussion site. If all you are going to do is put your virtual fingers in your ears, then why bother?
btw.. I also made a similar comment to John, who actually wrote a thought, but also prejudged. I don't see you feeling so upset about that.
Gee time frames says you made your comment 10 minutes after mine so it would be kind of hard for me to comment on that don't you think?
Nothing stopping you now.
You know that the Koch brother(s), donate a lot of money to PBS, right?
[delete]
You really have gone over to the dark side...
...dark side...
LOL, what do you think this is, an installment of Star Wars ?!
C,mon dude make an argument or buzz off.
I saw it and it is an eye opener. I highly recommend it.
Thanks Paula, appreciate the support. It really is a good show.
Larry I enjoy the Frontline specials though I may not agree with them. They are right about one thing - those two presidents were the most controversial in my lifetime. I had a big problem with the initial premise in the first paragraph. It was the democratic party that divided the country along racial lines. Whether or not Trump is a beneficiary may only be partially true. I have yet to see a major response from the descendants of the "Great silent majority." The next election will tell us more.
Thanks Vic for your comment.
would you share what you disagreed with specifically? Why would you say it was the Democratic Party that divided the nation along party lines?
I believe my friend has it right. The democratic party has used identity politics to pit every group against the rest of the country. Would you agree? Tell us the reason to call Americans "clingers" or "deplorables"? Why are inner city minority communities, which have been governed by democrats for decades being told that their problem is systemic racism? Why the false claims of voter suppression every election cycle?
The complaint I have with Frontline is as I pointed out (Part 2 description) (I know we haven't seen)- specifically this line:
"Part Two examines how Trump’s campaign exploited the country’s divisions, how his presidency has unleashed anger on both sides of the divide, and what America’s polarization could mean for the country’s future."
I think exploit was the wrong word. The word should have been benefited! Trump benefited by the division that began under Obama.
I have two children and two grandchildren that are of a different race than white.
You may think that minorities are being told that racism is their problem; however, I can tell you from first hand experience, that it is very real, and systematic. They don't have to be told, they live it every single day.
It's ridiculous that a majority can judge that a minority isn't being discriminated against, and that their problem is their belief that they are.
The problem is that they are being told that they are.
It's ridiculous that a majority can judge that a minority isn't being discriminated against
That's four day old fish. I'm not buying it!
That's four day old fish. I'm not buying it!
Okay...
Then give me a fresh fish that explains to me how it is that a minority is judged correctly by a majority. Give me an argument that will show the minority that they are imagining the discrimination they face continually.
As well...
...equate how a person experiences said discrimination, with others who report on that discrimination. How does that reporting mean that people are "being told". How is it that a majority will adequately describe that unexperienced prejudice that the minorities face?
In a country where minorities can become anything they want, including President of the United States, I would think it would be obvious.
How does that reporting mean that people are "being told". How is it that a majority will adequately describe that unexperienced prejudice that the minorities face?
Remember the lie that Michael Brown had been "murdered?" Two presidential candidates recently repeated the same lie? The fact that Brown died trying to take a police officers gun gets lost as there are people more comfortable with the lie. It's all too easy to blame others for what troubles us.
Michael Brown was murdered.
He wasn't trying to take the officers gun.
All we have is that officers' word and he was lying.
Why did you bring up Michael Brown in the first place?
President Obama didn't spread division.
It was all the folks who hated that black man in the white house who spread the division (which includes the majority of the gop congress).
"The fatal shooting of an unarmed black teenager Saturday by a police officer in a St. Louis suburb came after a struggle for the officer’s gun, police officials said Sunday
nytimes.com/2014/08/11/us/police-say-mike-brown-was-killed-after-struggle-for-gun.html
Please note: I don't complain about having to go fetch links to news which has been widely reported on!
Don't buy it. Dirty cops/cops always cover for each other.
Cops/dirty cops always cover for each other.
Don't buy it.
I don't care how many links you and Vic provide.
Imagine believing Michael brown was murdered
Not hard to imagine. A lot of black men, women, and children, are murdered by dirty cops every day.
There are a lot of KKK/racist/white supremacist scum in the police force.
Right here in Baltimore there are scads of dirty cops caught planting drugs, guns, on innocent victims.
Obviously
As so many articles on Newstalkers go, this one is immediately trolled by someone who has nothing to say, but oh so badly wants to say it.
------------------------------------------------------------
I KNOW when the great divide started , and where it comes from.
Rush Limbaugh, in 1993, was the first person in the media who created an all encompassing idea that one side of Americans is at war with the other. He opened each daily show with the number of days , he claimed, that America was held hostage by the Clinton administration. This was the beginning of right wing media as a force, and the beginning of daily misinformation being fed to people who wanted to hear it. When the white fear associated with Obama becoming president happened the groundwork was already there.
It's all about "fear of a black (and brown) planet". That is the base line for all of it.
You would gain from this film John...give it a go if ya get a chance.
I'm gonna have to look for a repeat of the show (at least PBS does a lot of repeats) as this does look interesting. But I would hazard the divide started earlier. Reagan was pushback against Carter who was IMO the wrong president at the time. But the two party divide started here with pushback against the policies and ineffectiveness of Carter.
It is on both the PBS link above as well as Youtube.
John,
You are being very closed-minded about this. Watch it and then give your opinion.
Uh, no.
John, take a chance.
Take a chance on what? I have seen the part 1 video.
This is how we see our current President:
Check this out. Trump is about one percent lower than Obama was at the same point of his presidency in approval rating. Trump is at 44.8% and Obama was at 45.9%. That's pretty good considering the MSM's hatchet job.
I watched the first episode, although I did drift in and out. The story is told from the perspective of the elite's conventional wisdom. What struck me was how that elitist conventional wisdom is so out of touch with what is happening in the country. The story conveys, without saying, that the conventional wisdom holds that ordinary people are not sufficiently informed or intelligent enough to grasp the intricacies of problems that the elite are solving.
President Barack Obama chose sides before his inauguration. Obama chose to bail out the financial sector for its mismanagement of risk and chose to address the hardships of ordinary people as an afterthought. Obama chose to be a globalist, supply-side, Kissinger Democrat before he stepped into the oval office. Obama chose to be an Eisenhower Republican. The trajectory of Barack Obama's two terms was determined by that choice. Obviously President Obama, like President Clinton, believed that adopting a fundamentally Republican approach at the beginning would foster political compromise. The reality is that Eisenhower Republicans were kicked out of elected offices; the elite's conventional wisdom was tossed out with the Eisenhower bath water.
Perhaps I missed it but I didn't see a mention of Occupy Wall Street. OWS was the warning sign that the country had lost faith in the elite's conventional wisdom. OWS deliberately avoided being partisan but, nevertheless, was a political movement. The political message was that none of the partisan elite was on the side of ordinary people. While Democrats in control of government made some effort to capitalize on OWS; it became fairly clear that OWS didn't accept that Democrats (or Republicans) were on the side of ordinary people. Keep in mind that OWS preceded the TEA Party. OWS may have facilitated the rise of the TEA Party by highlighting dissatisfaction with the elite's conventional wisdom. (My opinion is that support for politicians like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren is consequence of the OWS movement.)
Even though Barack Obama campaigned on change to win the election; President Obama strove to be a conventional president. President Obama was guided by a conventional wisdom that the country was rejecting. President Obama's greatest failing as president was inability to set aside conventional wisdom and listen to ordinary people. Obama placed his faith in technocrats and an elite who claimed to best understand the problems and were most qualified to engineer solutions. However, a large segment of the country had become skeptical.
Donald Trump's election was a repudiation of conventional wisdom. Yes, President Obama's attempts to defend and protect that conventional wisdom played an important role in why we have President Donald Trump. President Trump really is a consequence of President Obama's two terms.
Strange, I didn't sense that at all. Do you often sense that others are behaving as elitists?
As a matter of fact, it was very straight forward and laid bare much of the setting around which the country viewed the ongoing situations. I would venture to say that it was brilliant in it's simplicity and convention.
The episode was a story told from inside the beltway bubble. Events that occurred outside that bubble were portrayed by how those events affected the beltway bubble and how the beltway bubble attempted to influence the events.
The story wasn't told from the perspective of those outside looking in or those inside looking out. The story is told from the inside looking at the inside.
Ok I disagree.
I don’t interpret an insider view as elitist.
Nerm, your comment, inexplicably in my opinion, ignores the racial aspect of this whole thing. If you saw the part 1 documentary you know that a racial reaction to Obamas presence in presidential politics is a large part of the story.
And what was the racial aspect of the whole thing? Weren't there racial expectations? Wasn't that the implied change that Barrack Obama campaigned on?
Barrack Obama ran as a transformative candidate but President Obama strove to be a conventional president.
It's simple. The reason the country became so divided is not because Obama was a conventional president, it is because he wasnt a white one.
Obama got 43% of the white vote in 2008. He couldn't have won without them. America is color blind. Progressives are not! That's how simple it is.
Was Michael Steele motivated by President Obama being something other than white?
The reason the country became so divided is that conventional wisdom failed to recognize the real changes in the country. The conventional wisdom was that opposition to Barrack Obama was due to racism. Was Michael Steele a racist? Consider that BLM was attempting to do what Barrack Obama failed to address; expectations were not being satisfied by reality.
It should be noted here that Michael Steele has quit the gop because he deplores what the once Grand Old Party of Lincoln has become. It is no wonder the gop has been steadily losing membership...
Barrack Obama could have just as easily run as Republican candidate. Obama could have run on free trade, private sector solutions for economic problems, projection of American leadership on the world stage, tougher immigration enforcement, and protecting family values. Obama's stance as President on important issues (and less important issues) was consistent with establishment Republican politics. As President, Barrack Obama had to evolve toward accepting progressive ideas. Barrack Obama chose to be a globalist, supply-side, Kissenger Democrat before he was inaugurated.
Didn't you recognize who and what President Obama was?
I seriously doubt that Republicans would have rejected Barrack Obama as a Republican candidate just because he isn't white.
Why is that surprising? Michael Steele's Republican establishment was primaried by the TEA Party. And Donald Trump has turned Republican conventional wisdom on its head.
Today's Republican Party is quite different than the 2009 Republican Party.
It is no longer the Republican Party and everyone should just admit it. It’s now the Trump Party. How sad,,,Republicans will regret ever giving rump any play whatsoever.
Is some ways, that is correct. The Republican Party is currently drifting without a political anchor.
Republicans seem to have forgotten that Abraham Lincoln was a nationalist who fought a civil war on the idea of national union. "United we stand, divided we fall" is nationalist call for unity. Patriotism doesn't really mean anything without nationalism.
Democrats of Lincoln's time were free trade globalists just as they are today. Antebellum Democrats were proponents of supply-side economics just as they are today.
Ronald Reagan transformed the Party of Lincoln into another Party of Jackson. But Ronald Reagan is dead and Donald Trump has finally laid Reagan to rest. President Trump has forced the Republican Party to choose whether to continue to be a party of money grubbers (like Democrats) or return to its Lincoln roots as a party national unity and patriotism.
Over the past decade (or longer) the Republican Party has been confronted with an existential question; what does being Republican mean? Trump is driving the party back to its roots of Lincoln nationalism. But as we have seen, the money grubbers are powerful and capable of easily creating political civil war.
This is how we see our current President: