The Inevitable Polarization of American Politics
By whiskeyboarder Posted in The Parties — Comments (7) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Often I find that the material that I produce for a blog that I maintain solely for personal satisfaction is applicable to ideologies present here at RedState. As I am interested in intelligent, critical feedback, I often find it worthwhile to submit my material here. What follows is an example of such a case.
THE INEVITABLE POLARIZATION OF AMERICAN POLITICS
The following was encouraged by a comment posted in response to the most recent edition of Educated Soldier. Within the comment was a detail made in passing that, upon rereading effectively caught my attention.
The comment suggested that, perhaps, it would be useful to shed my current political biases. This is to suggest that one could choose to present and understand political discourse in a less segregated type of way. Perhaps, America would be best served to no longer exist along a deep Republican / Democrat divide. I respect this suggestion because it was framed around noble reasoning. As stated (and I am paraphrasing): the current situations facing the United States are too critical to become bogged down by political party divisions.
Abandon Right and Left wing biases. – This idea immediately struck me as surprisingly profound. The task seems so easy. But it is not. Indeed, to abandon such biases would constitute a paradigm shift in the way one perceives modern American politics.
Now I am not old enough to remember a country prior to the institution of mandatory red-state / blue-state categorizations. But these categorizations exist now, are very much real, and influence the common American citizen’s way of life in more ways than I believe we may first imagine. If my understanding of politics, especially as applies to the federal government, is correct, America is being led by two parties that are pushing their representatives to the extremes of their respective political platforms. The Democrats are becoming much more “leftist,” and the Republicans (save for John McCain, ironically) are striving further to the right. These tendencies promote authentic fears.
My personal fear is stoked by the possibility of an increasingly government subsidized way of living the American life. My fear is not provoked by clichés of modern political rhetoric. I do not fear, contrary to popular belief, that government-provided health care will inevitably lead to socialism, which will – in turn – lead to the death of America’s treasured personal freedom. My fear is that most any unearned government subsidy leads to moral hazard. The ability to get something for nothing leads people to addiction. The addiction is a type of “What can my country do for me” dependency.
Despite having fought terrorism directly and attempting to rejoin the fight currently by becoming Special Forces – qualified, my gut fear isn’t of Al Qaeda and the like, but of an American generation any less self-motivated than the one I am currently growing in.
So long as the Left is pushing further to its political extreme, hinting toward a future where more public services are usurped by government entities, I will have trouble abandoning my polarized, biased perception of the American government and those that actively participate in it.
One of two options can occur that could effectively aid in alleviating my politically biased language. The one moderate candidate running for President can win and, by doing so, encourage the legislative branch toward re-achieving the middle where, throughout American history, it has had the tendency to dwell. The other option is that one of the other two candidates can be victorious but be much more centrist during their time in the office of the President than their current campaigns suggest will be the case. The latter seems doubtful.
Any other option coming to fruition would aid only in stoking my darkest fear stated above. Should that be the case, I can not see how I could observe and discuss American politics without being intensely biased.
"Many of us are quite disposed to barter [freedom] away for what we call energy, coercion, and some other terms we use as vaguely as that of liberty - There is often as great a rage for change and novelty in politics, as in amusements and fashions." ~ Federal Farmer
worst governments of the 20th century and largest genocides in human history. Mao, Stalin, and Hitler--the three mass murderers of the 20th century each wanted to "perfect" mankind.
In contrast, conservatism is very very humble. Burke and Smith were really really smart to think as they did without having the benefit of 20th century history.
We have the benefit of history, and yet the "perfectors" of mankind are still quite prominent. Outside the US and a few select Western countries. their side is winning.
us from utopia.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
We just called them different things. North South, industrial/farm, west vs east pick the ones you like.
As long as people want different things we will polarize.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
What is in the middle now, in many cases, would have been left-wing 30-40 years ago or even more recently. There is no stable middle ground - that is why we have to keep pushing rightwards. The middle will move to the left if we let up, and it is doing so more than fast enough now.
I suggest you read Thomas Sowell's "A Conflict of Visions." In it he makes the case that what he calls the "constrained" and "unconstrained" visions of man, roughly today "conservative" and "liberal" are the sources of how we view our political reality and dictate our positions on issues.
Sowell looks at eighteenth century philosophers, like Burke and Smith, as well as some lesser known thinkers like Godwin and Condorcet, to argue that since the Enlightenment, two competing views of human nature have existed. One, the constrained view, sees people as narrowly self interested and base, and the purpose of political society is to channel these "vices" into some kind of public good, using incentives as well as the ennobling power of tradition. This is what the Founding Fathers "right" of Paine thought. The other, the unconstrained view, sees society as oppressing mankind and believed humans could be "perfected" through a rational and ordered government that allocated its resources effectively, and heedless of tradition, in pursuit of the public good.
These worldviews will always be in conflict and the tension between them shapes our politics today on a range of issues. How can political discourse be moderated? Well, one suggestion I would make is to reform the primary process so that the party establishment selects the candidate best representative of the group's interest as a whole. This would never happen, but it would lessen the impact of radicals on both sides of the fence over the nation's top leader, an office that, in theory, should remain as nonpartisan as possible.
"Many of us are quite disposed to barter [freedom] away for what we call energy, coercion, and some other terms we use as vaguely as that of liberty - There is often as great a rage for change and novelty in politics, as in amusements and fashions." ~ Fed