Arguably, it is the politics of the 50s and 60s that were weird, at least in the sense of being different than the usual. There was a general recognition at that time BY THE ELITES THEMSELVES that too great a concentration of wealth and power leads to populist unrest and thence to the sorts of unstable populist revolt that plunged Europe into chaos and war. There was a recognition that we are all in the same boat, and we need to keep it afloat and off of the rocks, even if that means sharing some of your bread with the oarsmen.
But of course, as time passed and memories of the great depression and the war that it engendered faded, the elites forgot this lesson. So we started to see a greater emphasis by the wealthy on lowering taxes and weakening the safety net. Add to that the return of a rebuilt Europe and Japan to the world economy and we have seen the long slow relative decline of the middle class in the US.
What we have now are two political parties which differ mostly on social issues and not in their allegiance to money and those that have it. The difference in economic planning between the two is relatively small, unlike the 50s when the main difference between the parties was on economics, and both parties were a combination of those with liberal and conservative social values. The fact that both parties have at least acquiesced to the ever greater concentration of wealth led to revolts by economic populist voters in BOTH parties. Neither party has really done much to help the economy as it is felt by the majority of Americans.