[Goose]

Still, I draw from that shared well of history we baby boomers were taught in the fifties and sixties, referencing the kind of unifying leadership that FDR and Churchill showed at the beginning of WWII, and Lincoln as he brought the union together during the civil war. The leader who shares the danger and threat, embracing it, rather than covering it up. Roosevelt the day after Pearl Harbor, Churchill during the battle of Britain, Lincoln's Gettysburg address. The leader who shows courage and inspires courage when it is most needed. And in all three cases, reelection or not, assassination or not, the history I learned credits them with effective leadership.


I wanted them as icons and shared memory, not as point of view or taking sides. But I guess our divisions do go back now even into divisions over what was true even 70, 80, 150 years ago. I thought if we go back a few decades, we reach some common ground. Apparently not. I'm surprised and disappointed.

I think you have touched on the problem. It was never true that everybody in the country was "united" behind these leaders as persons. These leaders were effective because they were leading the nation toward a shared goal, victory in a war. The details of that were anything but "united", but that didn't matter because politics and the public were different in those eras.
The public didn't expect to know and like their leaders. The got newspaper coverage and (except for Lincoln) an occasional radio speech. The press didn't probe public figures private lives and reveal their associated misdeeds. The public was willing to follow somebody they disagreed with on many levels if the leader was rational in his explanations and was basically successful. Lincoln would have lost the 1864 election (probably) except the Army scored some important victories  at the last minute.
While there were bitter political rivalries and significant disagreements, politicians were expected to work out a consensus, not torpedo the other party no matter what. The public and the politicians both accepted that. Leaders like FDR, Churchill, and Lincoln had to make many compromises to get their programs adopted. They did that with good grace, at least in public. That was part of leadership. There were also a lot of things you didn't do. You may hate an opposition member, but in general you did not attack their character, only their position on an issue. In short, while there was unanimity on virtually nothing, these good leaders coupled with a rational public got it done.
In our society today, you need to "like" the leader, and the leader cultivates your friendship even if it means refusing to do what needs to be done. It is a cult of personality, not of ideas. We get random tweets from all sources attacking people personally. So and so  is "the worst". If someone disagrees with you, they are not just wrong, they are evil. You must oppose the other political party even if what they suggest is exactly what you supported last week, because they are "bad" and it is a zero sum game. Whatever you do, don't take a position that will piss off your "base", whatever you believe that base to be, even if you know it needs to be done. Don't try to change their minds, pander to them. If you don't, somebody will say you are "the worst" and game over. Whatever you do, don't compromise and make an agreement. Makes you look weak and not morally upright.
Nobody can be an effective leader in this climate. Even if a leader actually attempts to lead and is willing to take the heat, the public won't hear him because of the "noise" from the people who are about who, not what. This must change, or democracy won't survive. The curse of parties, while indeed bad, is nothing compared to the cult of personalities in which we find ourselves.

[Goose]

Still, I draw from that shared well of history we baby boomers were taught in the fifties and sixties, referencing the kind of unifying leadership that FDR and Churchill showed at the beginning of WWII, and Lincoln as he brought the union together during the civil war. The leader who shares the danger and threat, embracing it, rather than covering it up. Roosevelt the day after Pearl Harbor, Churchill during the battle of Britain, Lincoln's Gettysburg address. The leader who shows courage and inspires courage when it is most needed. And in all three cases, reelection or not, assassination or not, the history I learned credits them with effective leadership.


I wanted them as icons and shared memory, not as point of view or taking sides. But I guess our divisions do go back now even into divisions over what was true even 70, 80, 150 years ago. I thought if we go back a few decades, we reach some common ground. Apparently not. I'm surprised and disappointed.

I think you have touched on the problem. It was never true that everybody in the country was "united" behind these leaders as persons. These leaders were effective because they were leading the nation toward a shared goal, victory in a war. The details of that were anything but "united", but that didn't matter because politics and the public were different in those eras.
The public didn't expect to know and like their leaders. The got newspaper coverage and (except for Lincoln) an occasional radio speech. The press didn't probe public figures private lives and reveal their associated misdeeds. The public was willing to follow somebody they disagreed with on many levels if the leader was rational in his explanations and was basically successful. Lincoln would have lost the 1864 election (probably) except the Army scored some important victories  at the last minute.
While there were bitter political rivalries and significant disagreements, politicians were expected to work out a consensus, not torpedo the other party no matter what. The public and the politicians both accepted that. Leaders like FDR, Churchill, and Lincoln had to make many compromises to get their programs adopted. They did that with good grace, at least in public. That was part of leadership. There were also a lot of things you didn't do. You may hate an opposition member, but in general you did not attack their character, only their position on an issue. In short, while there was unanimity on virtually nothing, these good leaders coupled with a rational public got it done.
In our society today, you need to "like" the leader, and the leader cultivates your friendship even if it means refusing to do what needs to be done. It is a cult of personality, not of ideas. We get random tweets from all sources attacking people personally. So and so  is "the worst". If someone disagrees with you, they are not just wrong, they are evil. You must oppose the other political party even if what they suggest is exactly what you supported last week, because they are "bad" and it is a zero sum game. Whatever you do, don't take a position that will piss off your "base", whatever you believe that base to be, even if you know it needs to be done. Don't try to change their minds, pander to them. If you don't, somebody will say you are "the worst" and game over. Whatever you do, don't compromise and make an agreement. Makes you look weak and not morally upright.
Nobody can be an effective leader in this climate. Even if a leader actually attempts to lead and is willing to take the heat, the public won't hear him because of the "noise" from the people who are about who, not what. This must change, or democracy won't survive. The curse of parties, while indeed bad, is nothing compared to the cult of personalities in which we find ourselves.