> Nevertheless there were kind of bipartisan agreement to push this program which, in current situation of the divide in the society, would be hard to achieve,
Note that the bipartisanship of the post-WW2, pre-2000s period was almost entirely a product of the long series of overlapping political realignments going on, which left the main political divides in the country poorly aligned with the split between the major parties—there was intense political polarization, and at many times intense political violence, but it wasn't partisan because the splits cut across rather than between the major parties.
> Also the claim that 1960s were turbulent is not really correct. In fact, 1970s were really turbulent with the rise of domestic terrorism
Thr 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s were all turbulent, and domestic terrorism (including state and state-tolerated terrorism, particularly around racial issues) was quite prominent in the 1950s; “domestic terrorism” was not unique to the 1970s, though calling domestic political violence “terrorism” may have increased then.
Note that the bipartisanship of the post-WW2, pre-2000s period was almost entirely a product of the long series of overlapping political realignments going on, which left the main political divides in the country poorly aligned with the split between the major parties—there was intense political polarization, and at many times intense political violence, but it wasn't partisan because the splits cut across rather than between the major parties.
> Also the claim that 1960s were turbulent is not really correct. In fact, 1970s were really turbulent with the rise of domestic terrorism
Thr 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s were all turbulent, and domestic terrorism (including state and state-tolerated terrorism, particularly around racial issues) was quite prominent in the 1950s; “domestic terrorism” was not unique to the 1970s, though calling domestic political violence “terrorism” may have increased then.