Every now and then,  I read something reminding me a great many believe our political dysfunction is rooted in simple partisanship. I have just done that again, reading The Serve America Movement by Alana Dunagan and Reed Galen on the American Interest website.

What Causes American Political Dysfunction?

The Serve America Movement (SAM)  is an incipient third party movement. Alana Dunagan is the Treasurer and a Director of the party, and Reed Galen is Chief Strategist. They begin their essay with the following paragraph.

American politics is at an historic inflection point. We all know it. We all feel it. While the turbulent 1960s, with its spate of assassinations and unrest, shook our democracy and politics to the bone, those times did not cause large numbers of us to question the fitness of the two major parties to be the custodians of our democracy. Today is different. At SAM, the Serve America Movement, we believe that we are in the midst of what will be the most significant political realignment in this country since 1854, when the two then-dominant parties began to splinter and, less than six years later, had re-constituted themselves into the two parties that have since dominated our politics.

What makes them think they can effect such a realignment? Why do they believe they can remove our political dysfunction? Their diagnosis for our problems is the following.

. . . the self-interested extremism of both parties has been worsening for decades. Instead of governing in the best interest of the country, the two incumbent parties remain locked in “tribal” hyper-partisanship. Beholden to extremists in their respective parties and the power of special interests, legislators from both parties find partisan advantage in blocking legislative progress without regard to the actual needs of the nation as a whole or the common good.

SAM’s solution is to form a coalition of “patriotic but deeply concerned citizens from across the country and the political spectrum . . .” The problem with this cure is it mistakes what the disease is.

SAM’s diagnosis is much the same as that of the “No Labels” movement. Both organizations believe an American majority can find substantial areas of agreement. This majority could be spliced together from portions of the two existing major parties. Accomplishing this, we could tone down today’s partisan passions. Then, politicians of good will could reach agreements to solve common problems.

Yet, political dysfunction is based on something far more fundamental. Our political fights are rooted in basic disagreements about the nature of social reality. One ideological side, the progressives of the Democratic Party, believes government must be the fundamental tool for solving social and economic problems. They are convinced unfettered free-market capitalism leads to social harm. They also believe capitalism creates increasing income inequality between the rich and everyone else.

The other major ideological side, the neoliberals of the Republican Party (usually mislabeled “conservatives”), believes most social and economic problems are actually created by governments, particularly the federal government. I have written about the evidence for this point of view extensively. To see some of the arguments, consult my essays with links provided on the Ideologies page.

The most important source of our political dysfunction is not “tribal hyper-partisanship,” but antithetical and extremely passionate beliefs about what is good for our country. How can Democrats compromise with Republicans on anything when they believe Republican policies will create or worsen social and economic problems? How can Republicans in good conscience concede anything to Democrats when they believe Democratic policies would be disastrous for the country?

Political Dysfunction in the Age of Trump

Our national experience  since the election of Donald Trump demonstrates political hostility between the parties is growing much worse. The ideological balkanization of the United States started long before Trump’s election, but has accelerated in the last two years. The anger of progressives toward Republicans has hardened to the point of total resistance to any position the Republicans take. This hostility has reached such an extreme extent that some Democratic politicians have urged their followers to verbally attack any Republican they meet in public. Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) has said publicly Democrats should tell Republicans they are not welcome anywhere in public.

Democrats have favored open borders for a long time. We should not be surprised then if Trump wants to build a Mexico border wall that Democrats would oppose it. However, calls by prominent Democrats to abolish the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency (ICE) in order to support illegal immigrants should give anyone pause. This course is being advocated by such Democrats as Sen. Kirsten Gellibrand (D-NY), New York Mayor Bill De Blasio, House candidate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Representatives Mark Pocan (D-WI), Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), Jim McGovern (D-MA), Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), and Mike Capuano (D-MA). It seems only completely open borders will satisfy Democrats.

If Republicans want to eliminate many economy stultifying regulations and cut taxes for companies and the middle class, Congressional Democrats will be implacably against all such actions to the very last Democratic legislator. The reason for such Democratic opposition is not because of “tribal hyper-partisanship,” but because progressives believe all such policies are harmful to the nation. The Republicans would do the same against progressive policies if progressives held the reigns of power, and for exactly the same reason.

How Do We Eliminate Political Dysfunction?

The short answer  is we can not, at least not in the short term. We have already seen the strategies of SAM and the “No Labels” movement are unrealistic. For the foreseeable future, both major parties are going to be adamantly opposed to each other’s policies. There is only one way consistent government policies can be enacted and allowed to work over a significant period of time. That is if one ideological side or the other gets control of the legislature and the executive branch. They must then hold it for more than two presidential administrations for the policies to work over time. This control will require having at least 60 votes in the Senate to halt any filibusters.

Such a political environment will be very difficult to bring about. There is plenty of evidence that ordinary Americans of different ideological persuasions are beginning to despise each other. The Pew Research Center has been keeping track of how Democrats and Republicans view each other for some time now, and as their plot below demonstrates, American partisans are liking each other less and less.

As of April 2016, majorities in both major parties for the first time viewed the policies of the other party not just unfavorably, but very unfavorably. What exactly this means can be seen in the Pew Research bar charts below. In them, the responses in April 2016 are displayed both for all partisans of both parties and for those partisans with high political engagement.

In both parties strong majorities among the politically committed are frightened by, angry with, and frustrated by the policies and views of the other party. Fear and anger fused together equals hate.

In addition, the fractions of the American electorate that view themselves as Republican, Democratic, or independent have remained remarkably constant and close to each other for a very long period of time.

In 2017, Democrats claimed the allegiance of 33 percent of the electorate, while Republicans had 26 percent. However, independents counted 37 percent of the electorate in their ranks. For many years, whichever side could persuade a larger fraction of independents to side with them would win the election.

What would it take to eliminate political dysfunction? Because of the ideological polarization, I fear only significant conversion of people from one side or the other will work. I can conceive of nothing else that could produce consistent policies for a long period of time. This would imply a long period of discussion about our different visions of reality, and which visions are more accurate. Otherwise, everyone will continue to work at cross purposes. Could we complete such a national conversation before the building hatred induces us to start killing each other?

Views: 2,614

GO TO HOME

Sharing is caring!