Zakaria Gets It Wrong

In his Washington Post column Fareed Zakaria blames identity politics for the growing divide in the United States:

The dangerous aspect of this new form of politics is that identity does not lend itself easily to compromise. When the core divide was economic, you could split the difference. If one side wanted to spend $100 billion and the other wanted to spend zero, there was a number in between. The same is true with tax cuts and welfare policy. But if the core issues are about identity, culture and religion (think of abortion, gay rights, Confederate monuments, immigration, official languages), then compromise seems immoral. American politics is becoming more like Middle Eastern politics, where there is no middle ground between being Sunni or Shiite.

I think he’s got it backwards. When you choose to cast your political positions using the language of rights and morality rather than ways and means, there will be no room for compromise.

Take health care reform, for example. When your position is based on the assertion that everyone has a right to unlimited health care of his or her choosing, it’s very different than when you base your position on the idea that the United States is a wealthy country and can afford to give its citizens certain benefits. The discussion will then be about the size and nature of the benefit rather than entering into an apocalyptic battle of Good versus Evil.

That’s how Social Security and Medicare were enacted into law. Neither is a right. They are both benefits. For the last half century ensuring that the elderly are not penurized in their old age is a value shared by Democrats and Republicans. Discussions are about what that means and how to accomplish it.