Once upon a time both of our major political parties were what were called “catch-all parties”. They both had liberals, moderates, and conservatives and their leaderships reflected that.
Over the last 50 years both parties have moved more in the direction of programmatic parties and their leaderships have come to be dominated by the most radical 10% of the population. Republican and Democratic National Committees of the sort that run the parties now would have been unthinkable. In a parliamentary system that may make a certain amount of sense but it makes no sense at all in a large, diverse country like the United States with a “winner take all” and “first past the post” electoral system like we have. The outcome is that most people are effectively disenfranchised. That is reflected in the waning popularity of our political parties. Forty years ago Americans were divided roughly evenly among Democrats, Republicans, and independents. Now independents outnumber either Republicans or Democrats.
In those olden days laws were enacted either by persuading legislators to vote for them or by compromise. Both persuasion and compromise are rooted in reason. Increasingly, laws are only enacted by mustering, at the most extreme, 50%+1 of the legislators to vote for them, generally along party lines. That is not rooted in reason but in tribalism.
Dave Schuler: Increasingly, laws are only enacted by mustering, at the most extreme, 50%+1 of the legislators to vote for them, generally along party lines. That is not rooted in reason but in tribalism.
Actually, in the most extreme, just a majority of the majority party, or as little as 26%. (See the Hastert Rule.)
Dave Schuler: Compromise Does Not Conflict With Persuasion
In the sense that persuasion is based on compromise, sure, meaning each side has leverage of some sort. But fundamental views are rarely changed by mere persuasion or reason. Someone who owns slaves, and who is consequently wed to the idea that slavery is the natural state of the world, isn’t likely to vote to end slavery, no matter how well reasoned your arguments. Indeed, they might very well fight to the death to defend their preconception.
Z: Indeed, they might very well fight to the death to defend their preconception…
And then spend generations rationalizing what had happened and blaming others for their own failings. Humans are not rational but rationalizing creatures.
“Reason is the slave of the passions.” — David Hume
Back in 1992 and 1994, I ran for state representative as an independent. This was a time when there were more cross-over votes than today. I think your description of our current politics as “tribalism” is pretty accurate. In 1992 there was no Republican on the ballot and the year of Ross Perot, so people we willing to listen and discuss the ideas. In 1994, it was a three-way race (R-D-I) and people retreated to their tribes. I had multiple people say, “I think you are the best candidate, but I can’t throw away my vote on a third party candidate and let ”them’ win.”
I think jungle primaries/ranked choice voting/50+1 requirements are all beneficial to break the “I can’t throw away my vote” mentality. Even in the states that have these type systems (GA, LA, ME, CA, WA, AK), rarely can anyone break through the tribalism.
Now we are skipping the 50+1 step and going to executive orders and ignoring laws Congress has passed and rulings by SCOTUS. Putting unelected people in charge of government functions. This has been escalating as the filibuster is used to prevent even the 50+1 votes. MAGA folks love it but then they lose an election they wont like it.
Steve
And the historically do-nothing Congress appears to be convinced that doing nothing is the best way for them to keep their jobs.