Sept. 21 (Bloomberg) -- It’s a myth that American politics have suddenly lost civility and comity; a generation ago, there were many more bullies, racists and drunks in Congress.

Or as Jon Meacham’s acclaimed biography, “American Lion: Andrew Jackson in the White House,” reminds us, the halcyon days of congressional giants Henry Clay, John C. Calhoun and Daniel Webster were marked by vicious, vindictive politics.

Still the pettiness of today -- an obscure lawmaker calls the president a liar during a speech to a joint session; the patriotism, not just the policies, of both George W. Bush and Barack Obama are impugned, and Congress appears dysfunctional -- suggests systemic problems in Washington.

Several factors contribute to this state of affairs where the stakes and issues aren’t as divisive as 50 years ago or 150 years ago, but the acrimony and alienation persist.

For starters, there is the perpetual campaign. Many members of Congress start plotting the next election the day after the current one ends; this is especially acute in the House, with two-year terms.

Much of this is driven by the insatiable money chase. Congressional candidates last year spent $1.389 billion, almost twice as much as a decade ago and more than seven times the $194 million in 1978. Capitol Hill fundraising receptions are daily rituals.

This gives members less time to think about governing and these partisan pitches are disincentives to collaborate in the legislative process.

Campaign Finance

If the U.S. Supreme Court, in a case argued earlier this month, overturns 100 years of decisions prohibiting corporations from funneling money to political candidates, it will only exacerbate the situation.

Another polarizing effect is redistricting. In a largely bipartisan scam, incumbents strive to create safe districts. There are a little more than 50 truly competitive districts; in 2008, 88 percent of the congressional races were won by more than ten points.

An illustration of the stakes: as California prepared for redistricting following the 2000 census, Democrats paid consultant Michael Berman almost $2 million to design safe districts; the incumbent House members chipped in $20,000 apiece.

‘God Help Them’

“Twenty thousand is nothing to keep your seat,” said Democratic Representative Loretta Sanchez. “If my colleagues are smart, they’ll pay $20,000 and Michael will draw the district they can win. Those who have refused to pay, God help them.”

By drawing these convoluted, noncompetitive districts, politicians are spared worrying about diverse constituencies; nowhere is this more clearly demonstrated than in the racially directed redistricting in the South.

The goal was noble; to produce more African-American lawmakers in a heavily black region. This has been achieved. Today, there are 15 black House members from those states, up from only one 30 years ago. There also are 72 Republicans, more than double the total in 1978. In isolation, these two facts are encouraging developments in what once was a one-party white Democratic South. The upshot, however, is that the black lawmakers and the white Republicans spend little time talking to each other or to one another’s constituencies.

Feed the Beast

On a theoretical level, politically secure politicians should have more leeway to find compromises or common ground with the other side. It doesn’t work that way. Many of these incumbents see their greatest danger as an ideologically driven primary challenge. Thus the constant efforts to placate the base, to feed the beast that produces the money and enthusiasm.

The final and most insidious factor is the news media, the 24-7 cable television and the blogs. There are many positives that derive from this virtual public square: greater participation and more diverse information available.

Yet these outlets reward the superficial sound bite, the negative attack. With few exceptions there is little room for thoughtful or reasonable dialogue.

And while the audiences may be relatively small, the shrill tone increasingly sets the agenda. Much of the American news business is focused on finding the lowest common denominator and following Gresham’s law.

Glenn Beck

The once-serious Time Magazine last week put Fox News screamer (and crier) Glenn Beck on the cover; for Beck, in the spirit of the late Boston mayor James Michael Curley, all that mattered was that they spelled his name right and ran his mug shot.

The Becks of the world have no interest in substantive discussions. A case in point was the assertion by South Carolina Republican Congressman Joe Wilson that the president told a “lie” in asserting that the Democratic health-care initiatives wouldn’t cover illegal immigrants.

This could have generated a serious debate. Obama and most health-overhaul advocates claim that under the current system the uninsured get emergency-room care, which is inefficient and costly; the rest of us pay about $1,000 each to cover the care of the uninsured. If this is true for the 30 million Americans the president proposes to take off the uninsured rolls, why wouldn’t it also be more effective and ultimately cheaper to cover those immigrants, too?

Imagine having that debate in the land of the 24-7 bloviators, who instead treated us to days of discussion about whether there would be loopholes in the exclusion of illegal immigrants?

Even the casual primetime news viewer or blog reader can see the goal is to polarize. The single goal of Fox News almost any night is clear: destroy the Obama presidency; MSNBC had the same approach with George W. Bush.

It used to be argued that the body politic only would come together if forced to by crisis; one of the laments of critics of the Bush presidency was its failure to capitalize on the unity in America following the Sept. 11 attacks. Well, over the last year as the country has endured the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, the politics have gotten worse.

(Albert R. Hunt is the executive editor for Washington at Bloomberg News. The opinions expressed are his own.)

To contact the writer of this column: Albert R. Hunt in Washington at ahunt1@bloomberg.net.

Last Updated: September 20, 2009 06:00 EDT