July 05, 2004
The Political Spectrum
Much is being made about our “deeply divided nation” these days. I heard a radio talk show host yesterday declaring that we’ve been polarized into extremes, as he was espousing a more “balanced” position. But I know that Americans are not typically political extremists. So what gives? Well there is a lot of labeling of politicians as extremists going on. And as a result there’s a lot of shrill talk on both sides about how dire the effects of the other guys being in power is/will be. But, while we may at times correctly note elements within our political system which are extreme, we miss the point if we think that the divisiveness is about extremism.
In fact Americans are mostly extreme about being against extremes, to the point that we avoid engaging in constructive dialog with people whose views we deem to be out of the "mainstream", whatever that means to us. In our history, as in many other nations today, persons of very disparate political beliefs coexisted side by side without so much stigma attached to their positions. Sure there were arguments, and stigmatizations going on, but in 1912, Eugene Debs, a socialist candidate for President garnered six percent of the national vote. Not much, but no one calling themselves a socialist could draw anything like that today. Italians familiar with our politics would just laugh if you asserted that the American political parties were drifting toward extremes. There you have virtual fascists and communists in the mix along with all the other parties, and politics is more fluid than it is here. I'm not suggesting that is better than here, just that extremes are accepted more matter of factly as part of the political fabric.
Yes we need balance, but balance comes not by everyone finding some single perfect centrist position, but by people with different perspectives engaging in dialog and civil debate. Ideas should be considered for action without the conclusions being foregone because of who suggested them. This is why I believe Watchblog is an important attempt to gather writers of varying viewpoints around the table for political discourse, which focuses on the message and not the messenger. It's vitally important in a republic that thoughtful points of view be fairly represented in our governing process. I'm correctly positioned here in the Democrat/Liberal column, but I don't think of myself as an extremist, nor do I think that those representing the other columns here are extremists. In fact I will declare that it would be quite unhealthy and unbalanced for only my positions to be represented in the body politic, and even that having my positions be centrist would not be ideal. My views are very much in earnest, and they do deserve a place in our political discourse, but so do the views of libertarians, conservatives, and communitarians in our society. Policy should derive from a synthesis of reasonable viewpoints, arrived at after reasoned discussion and consideration of the impact on all of us.
So if you see me railing on this site about how unconscionable some particular action of the Bush administration is, remember that I continue to declare, it's not about how far right this administration is, it's about how far wrong they often are!
So if it is not extremism, what does account for the polarization that we seem to be seeing in America today? I'm not sure, but I suspect many factors contribute to it. One factor is the "if you're not with us, you're against us" mentality, which emanates from the administration itself. They may declare that was not meant to apply globally to all issues, but it's hard to imagine more divisive language. It encourages those who agree with your policy to vilify those who don't, and creates hardened resentment among those who disagree.
A second factor is the packaging of talking points by both sides in our political debates, which encourage people to accept a whole litany of positions as tied together in one bundle, when in fact reasonable people choose positions individually according to their own values and experience. While I don't believe most people actually buy one slate of positions to the exclusion of the other slate, there is a subtle muzzling that goes on, which discourages those within organizations, or even within loose coalitions, to take exception to particular portions of their organization's platform. We may belong to groups whose purpose is to make waves within our society, but then ironically be timid about making waves within the group.
A third factor is that some of the polarization is more perceived than it is real. The simple fact that so many polls find the country split so close to 50/50 causes many to perceive that split as a polarization, when in fact the percentage of people on either side of an issue has nothing to do with polarization. Yes there are many on both sides who do feel polarized, but there are also many on both sides who do not.
Whatever the causes of our polarization, whether perceived or real, there is a yearning on the part of many to bring civility and reason to the fore, and to dispense with the name calling and vilification that has become so rampant. Of course ugliness has always been with us, and always will be, but our system of government with its checks and balances and legislative process still provides a framework to find common ground and enact policy in the public good if we can protect it from those who would subvert and corrupt it to bend to their narrow interests.
Posted by Walker Willingham at July 5, 2004 09:07 AMThe political spectrum is indeed a hugely complicated topic. One factor however, which appears missing from your adept analysis however, Walker, is the other 50% of Americans who we do not see at the polls.
If even 25% of those believe the system no longer works for them or the benefit of the American people as a whole, are they extremist? If minority of numbers is the criterion, then, yes, I suppose they are. But, that appears to me to be a very naive definition. The extremists are of no consequence provided their lot is sufficiently well off to prevent them risking losing what they have in a political endeavor.
But, what if 15, 20, or 25% of those who don’t vote, have lost, or are about to lose, almost everything that makes living in America worthwhile? They already feel they have lost their voice in government, and should they lose their access and opportunity to the American dream, may we not see the creation of a seedbed for terrorism, revolution, and civil unrest unparalleled since the 1960’s?
Extremism must be given a voice, and your argument is a very deserving one. For in the subconscious of every American is the notion that it is sufferable to not get what you want from society provided your voice in that society has been heard. Take that voice away, and what was sufferable, can easily become insufferable. Our founding fathers showed the world what can happen when a government which turns a deaf ear to a sizeable minority, becomes viewed as the source of insufferable rule.
I cannot agree more, that our political process must, for self preservation, give voice to the extremists, and due consideration of their individual proposals. But, it appears even the Democratic Party fails to see the need for this most fundamental cornerstone of democracy as evidenced by Nader: Democrats Are Afraid of Democracy.
Posted by: David R. Remer at July 5, 2004 01:31 PMThough I had not intended my post as justification for giving voice to “extremism”, certainly I did mean that due consideration should be given to thoughtful ideas which might currently be out of the mainstream. If being out of the mainstream or being supported by a small minority is your definition of extremism, then yes, I would agree. I, however, think of extremism as unrelated to popularity. Regarding slavery as an acceptable practice in the antebellum South, was evidently a mainstream opinion in its time, but I regard it as extreme and not worthy of defense. Suggesting that minors should never be tried as adults, on the other hand, appears to be a minority opinion today, but it certainly is not extreme.
Thanks David for your contribution to the discussion. It is wise that we keep in mind the large proportion of our population that don’t turn out at the polls at all, and consider that apathy is not always the cause of their lack of participation.
As for the Democrats’ fear of Democracy, Nader as is often the case makes good points, and sharing many of his views I want his voice to be honored in any discussion about national policies. However, the Democrats’ fear remains my fear too, as long as we retain the current electoral process. That particular fear could be alleviated, and third parties simultaneously be given a larger voice if only we would adopt Instant Runoff Voting as the standard in this country.
Posted by: Walker Willingham at July 5, 2004 03:37 PMThat’s an interesting article, Walker.
I think you miss one facet though. Americans are not polarized into extremes. Most are centrists on most issues. You can see an example of this in the way that the extremist Republican leadership is coming under attack from a large number of moderate Republican legislators. Clinton, a centrist, enjoyed 60-70% approval ratings (no 50-50 split there). Another example would be the large number of Republican voters who feel that their party no longer represents their views - though most are not worried enough to actually vote for a Democrat. :)
I totally agree about bringing civility back to politics. We can start by debating the issues, rather than immediately starting the fear campaigns and the personal attacks.
Unfortunately, when you want to talk about the estate tax, you immediately get hit with the fake “lost the farm” scare tactic. Or if you want to debate whether its wise to raise the federal debt limit, it immediately gets tacked on to a defense appropriations bill - back it or you’re a troop hater.
Crazy.
Walker, by extremes, I meant political ideologies outside the mainstream, like Greens, Libertarians, Socialists, Communists, etc. The latter of course are viewed by a majority as extreme, but, as political ideologies outside the mainstream, they should be grouped all together. Under the 1st Amendment, even fascists should be heard if they can garner an audience in sufficient numbers to warrant political participation (extremely unlikely). But the point of the Constitution is that representative government is meaningless without political voice. And the best defense against revolution or civil unrest is political voice.
Posted by: David R. Remer at July 6, 2004 08:42 PMAP-
The estate tax maybe a fake issue for you, but it is a very real issue for people like me in rural areas. I know first hand.
So please do not dismiss opposing views on political subjects so easily. It only adds to animosity from the other side.
Posted by: George at July 7, 2004 12:15 PMGeorge, the proposals I have watched discussed on C-Span exempt family homesteads and homestead farms, ranches, etc. I don’t see a threat by the left or right to family rural operations or homesteads. I forget what the cut off was from the Dem’s but, it was a very large figure - 3 or 4 million dollar estate value exempted in the case of family farms and ranches if I recall correctly. Seems fair to me. The bigger threats to rural farming and ranching are property taxes, interest rates, and buyouts by corporate farmers which account for most of the loss of America’s family farms and ranches.
Posted by: David R. Remer at July 7, 2004 07:59 PMDavid-
This issue looks less severe than it is, but IMO that is because of the tactics used by estate planners and lawyers to keep family land transfers out of probate. For people who live in rural areas the current laws have a severe impact on many families when settling an estate, although that impact usually comes through legal fees, survey costs, and accounting costs. Not to mention the hardships it puts on families (my father and my aunt still seldom speak).
Another big problem that people like my wife’s family has is if your land is adjacent to or within close proximity to the urban sprawl going on in these parts. This sends your land valuations dramatically higher on what was twenty years ago just some woods or pasture 40 miles from nowhere. Some might argue that you have benefited from the system by accumulating such wealth, but that is only if you intend to sell the land. Her family is forth generation dairy farmers, with generation five on the school buses.
The current system favors families who have the resources to acquire estate planning services prior to a death. The ones who can’t (or don’t) address the issues prior to death have to deal with a probate system that is designed to maximize the return of wealth back to the government. I know a lot of people who have gotten burned; people who can’t afford such a hardship in the first place. So changes in estate laws will always be a hot bed issue here, and people on my side will continue to use the political process to at least stop the bleeding if not improve the estate transfer process.
