It is in the nature of politics for groups to hold onto cherished ideas and signature policies. People are drawn to parties or ideologies because they believe in them, and once in are unlikely to step out or away. Thus, ideas and policies are persistent, and political groups self-perpetuate by clinging to long-established ideas and policies.
Opportunities for idea and policy changes arise in two fashions: First, as time marches on, people enter and exit the political sphere. New people bring new ideas, and old people who’d resist those new ideas step away or pass on. Second, when political power shifts and the body count of a party’s elected decreases, new faces and their new ideas have a chance to enter the fray.
Both of these are forms of “churn,” and it is in the churning of government via elections and the aging process that produces much of the change to the political landscape.
Much, but not all. The changing circumstances of our world also produce political change. Whether they be technological, sociological, or geopolitical, these ever-evolving circumstances affect how we interact with each other and how we think about governance. Some changes are gradual, others are more abrupt, and some seem to appear out of the blue.
Often, we can predict how parties will react to changing realities, based on their track records and on their (rather loose) ideological tethers. Often, but not always – there is irrationality and there are contradictions in both major parties. One such contradiction that is particularly puzzling is the Left’s vehemence in its alignment with Islam. Islamic ideology – even before we get to Radical Islam – seems fundamentally contrary to modern liberalism. Religious dogmatism, intolerance for and subordination of non-Islam, subjugation of women, virulent antipathy toward gays, disinterest in personal liberty, and so forth are all in direct conflict with the Left’s values and priorities, yet it is the Left that champions Muslims in America and around the world.
How to explain this dissonance? Some might argue that the Left is embracing its self-proclaimed championship of minorities and the oppressed, but what of the minorities that Islam oppresses? And, the Left isn’t exactly a safe haven for religiosity, given its track record of opposition to the institutionalization of Christian ideals in America. The latter is part of the Left’s well-established history, which compounds the puzzlement over the Left’s defenses of Islam.
One rationalization of this dissonance is that the Left, seeing hard antipathy towards Islam on the Right, simply adopted a contrarian position because the Left believes the Right is wrong about everything. Indeed, as we contemplate today’s political landscape, the idea that liberal policies are knee-jerk antitheses of positions taken up by conservatives explains a lot. Why, for example, have gender fluidity and transgenderism become such high-profile matters, especially given how small the transgender population is? Could it be as simple as a thumb in the eye to those who are uncomfortable with these ideas? Similarly, the Right’s reaction to gay marriage seems overwrought and reflexive, given the size of that population and the overall societal trend.
This “if my opponent says X, I must say Y” ping pong doesn’t contribute to reasoned debate, or move towards mutually acceptable solutions or compromises, but it does feed the tribalism that is part of basic human nature. And, in our ever-faster-paced world, with instant news, sound-bite journalism, multi-tasking, short attention spans and endless distractions, it makes it easy for people to decide, quickly, what their position on an issue should be. If “your team” elevates a topic or issue to wide visibility, you might look to them for your talking points. But, if it’s the other team, the zero-sum attitude of modern politics virtually demands that you say “no” when they say “yes.” This leads to louder “yeses,” and will goad you to louder “nos.”
Do enough of this, live long enough in this rat-tat-tat mindset, and you’ll stop bothering with introspection or “I don’t have an opinion yet” reserve. Even if your long-running natural instincts are to choose your battles and gather your facts before opening your mouth, when all those around you are popping off in immediate opposition to each other, you risk getting left in the dust if you don’t play that game.
This tribalism was greatly exacerbated by President Obama’s approach to governance. Far from being the uniter he promised to be, he has instead been an overt, binary partisan since his inauguration. When he had his Congressional supermajority, he dismissed the Republicans entirely. When he lost the supermajority, he and his party machinated their legislation rather than working with the opposition. When he lost the House, he elected to stand defiant rather than emulate Bill Clinton’s realignment. When he lost the Senate, he declared that he’d use his “pen and phone” rather than work with the opposition. It’s no wonder, then, that average folks have become so rankly partisan – they’ve emulated what they saw at the top.
Now, as Trump gets ready to take over the reins of the executive branch, the reflexive contrarianism has reached fever pitch. Elected representatives, people who have sworn to obey and uphold the Constitution, are declaring Trump’s presidency “illegitimate” before it even began, based on a greatly exaggerated and deliberately misrepresented “hacking” of John Podesta’s email account. This is at least in part to Republican contrarianism, the roots of which are found in Obama’s partisanship. Roll it back further, and we find some degree of contrarian politics in the GWBush years, in the Clinton years, in the GHWBush years, and in the Reagan years. Take note, though, that this contrarianism got stronger and more prevalent in more recent years. Reagan did work with a Democratic Congress, Clinton did work with a Republican Congress. Looking even further back, take note of the fact that the GOP defenestrated Nixon, its own president, for his bad acts. Forty years ago, contrarianism and tribalism were set aside in favor of respect for the Republic and for doing what’s right. Today? Can anyone conceive of a party impeaching its own president for actions on a par with Nixon’s?
Who’s going to lead us out of this escalating contrarianism? It’s not inconceivable to think that Trump could be that guy, if only the Left would give it a chance. While his nativism is indeed anathema to liberals and lovers of liberty, he doesn’t have many other ideological tethers. Indeed, he was a Democrat for much of his life, and in that vein he’s shown little partisanship when it comes to social issues. The Left has been working overtime to brand him as a racist, bigot and homophobe, but the evidence for all that (once you walk back from the extremism the Left has embraced in those matters in the last couple years) is rather thin. Furthermore, Trump’s “America First” ideas on trade and industry are traditionally the Democrats’ bailiwick, as evinced by his success with blue collar voters and in Rust Belt states.
Unfortunately, Trump is so viscerally offensive to the Left that they’re far likelier to be knee jerk contrarians to everything he says and wants to do than to recognize that, in numerous ways, he used to be one of them. Their rote opposition to all things Trump has produced and will continue to produce rote support for all things Trump from his fans, and the ping pong will thus continue.
Is there any room left for reasoned discourse? Can anyone who wants to judge policies on their merits rather than on who came up with them find room for his voice in today’s political world? Looking down the road, is there room for a uniter, for someone who can dampen the tribal contrarianism in favor of finding compromise, common ground and mutually-acceptable solutions?
For that to happen, people have to risk being the quiet voices of reason in a room full of partisan cacophony. The question is – which would you rather be?
Loading ...
Your post illustrates the echo chamber and how the walls of this chamber are growing ever thicker. My hopes are that given President Trump’s shift from left to right, he will be able to work with democrats on the other side, even though over 50 are refusing to attend his inauguration. It is too bad President Obama didn’t hold himself to his pre-election rhetoric (red state, blue state, united state) and try to also work with left leaning conservatives. Instead, it appears to me that he took Senator McConnell’s comment about making him a one term president (how’d that work for you, Mitch?) to much to heart and then refused to work with a single person with an R behind their name (even though he repeatedly claimed “bring me a better idea and we will work on it”).