In a post yesterday on bipartisanship James Joyner wrote this
As I’ve noted many times, American politics is rather odd. Compared to our European counterparts, our two major parties are remarkably similar in ideology.
with which I agree and this
There’s a bipartisan consensus (not shared by each individual, of course, but by the leadership) that we should have a massive military budget, a small-by-European-standards welfare state, have more-or-less free global trade, have a slightly progressive tax system, and so on and so forth. The debate, really, is at the margins. Or, as George Will often put it, “a football game played between the 40 yard lines.â€
with which I have a few quibbles. I think there has been an American consensus but I don’t think it’s precisely along those lines. I think it takes a somewhat more general form so that instead of a consensus that “we should have a massive military budget” the consensus is more along the lines that the world is a dangerous place, there are people out there who would do us harm, the country is worth defending, and we have a right to do so. The massive military budget is the consequence of how the consensus is implemented in practice rather than the consensus itself.
There are some other specific policy items in the national consensus. For example, there’s rather obviously a consensus that the next generation should receive an education and that the responsibility for paying for that extends beyond the kids’ parents.
In my view most of the consensus isn’t about policy but about meta-policy. One of those items of meta-policy sure seems to me as though there were a serious danger of the consensus’s evaporating: the idea that our differences can be worked out without violence or compulsion, in discourse.
In a post over at Dean’s World, Aziz Poonawalla, whom I generally consider a reasonable guy, wrote the following:
…Ron Paul’s views and his hate towards minorities and gays is actually well within the mainstream of the GOP, a party that has exploited divisions in its cultural war (one that promises to be waged anew should Huckabee take the nomination). The essay describes Paul as an iconoclast within the GOP, but other than his view on Iraq, he isn’t really beyond the party orthodoxy (and even is Iraq views have a solid grounding in the paleocon school, who are out of favor at present but clearly remain a part of the base).
which I don’t think is particularly reasonable but, unfortunately, is a view that seems to be gaining steam.
The problem with that view is that, if genuinely heinous, unacceptable views are within the mainstream of a political party, there’s no basis for compromise, negotiation, or discourse with that party. Additionally, if you can’t convince those who hold such views (mockery, sarcasm, and insults are not a form of persuasion, they’re an impediment to persuasion), your only alternatives would appear to be to physically overpower your opponents or harness the force of government to do so whatever representative democracy might say, darn it. There would be a moral imperative to do so.
I continue to believe that the differences between our political parties are less important than the similarities and there’s plenty of room for solutions to the problems that face us that won’t violate the fundamental beliefs of either. But I’m honestly beginning to fear for the Republic.
Agreed. I also think a significant change took place after WWII when we had not only a large standing Army, but also significant tax revenue for the Congress to dole out. In the 19th century, standing up an Army was a burden on the States since it took manpower and capital away from the States. Today, the opposite is true. Our military brings a huge benefit to States, both through personnel and what their spending contributes to the local and state economy (not to mention tax coffers), but also defense contracts. It’s no surprise, obviously, that Congress people most strongly support those weapons-systems as “vital” that happen to be in their states or districts.
This is an example of what I believe is a larger problem – that the primary purpose of the Congress today is to dole out money to their states and political interests. The other roles of Congress have been subsumed by this – oversight, legislation, etc. The only exception is perhaps confirmations.
Ron Paul’s views and his hate towards minorities and gays is actually well within the mainstream of the GOP, a party that has exploited divisions in its cultural war…
Partially true statements which, combined, add up to a falsehood. After LBJ’s civil rights act it is certainly true that racists moved from the Democratic Party to the GOP. Which isn’t quite the same as placing that group “well within the mainstream.” Not even in 1968, and less so today.
And it’s true that the GOP has exploited cultural divisions, but those divisions are not primarily along racial lines.
No doubt some small percentage of the GOP identifies with Mr. Paul’s apparent bigotry. Just as some small percentage of the Democratic party really does hate America. Neither position is mainstream or acceptable to the mainstream of the parties. As long as the fringes remain the fringes the parties should be able to work together.
In theory.
The GOP’s acceptance of the Dixiecrats is one of my main objectives against the party.
That’s my take, too, Michael. But I’m becoming increasingly concerned that the idea that members of the opposite party really are evil is becoming a mainstream if not prevalent view in each party. Liberal democracy just can’t be maintained that way.
“I continue to believe that the differences between our political parties are less important than the similarities and there’s plenty of room for solutions to the problems that face us that won’t violate the fundamental beliefs of either.”
I agree with you totally. But you saw how fast the discussion unraveled at OTB, I’m sure — and that was an exceedingly moderate post.
“…the idea that members of the opposite party really are evil is becoming a mainstream if not prevalent view in each party…”
Maybe I’m way off base (it’s happened before), but for all the benefits gained via the internet, and open / instant speech and communication, I think that some of the “demonization” has increased via repetition and amplification. There’s always somebody out there to agree with even the most fringe-y opinion, and suddenly one has the support of a crowd…
But of course it’s not just online. More and more, I am encountering knee-jerk hostility in public now. It’s disconcerting enough in an electronic environment, but it’s downright intimidating in person. And bizarrely, they’re all repeating one another there, too. It’s as if everybody has a script.
Even if someone like Obama (as a current example) could actually bridge the divide and find the common ground for respect and discussion (much less actual policy implementation), I’m not at all sure “the base” on either side would allow for it anymore. There’s just so danged much water under this bridge now.
I’m not sure I see things quite as darkly as you, Dave, but I’m very concerned, and have been for quite a while.
I’ve started wondering whether it’s part and parcel of something that might be more than a political or societal trend. Take a look at my posts on visualcy.
Polimon,
Good comment. To add to your thesis, my theory is that the diversity of media today (particularly the internet) allows people to eschew all but their own predisposed viewpoint and rather than think independently, it seems a lot of people simply parrot the arguments of others, no matter how flawed.