With the GOP nomination process in full swing, politics in the U.S. are in high gear. Candidates are trying to stake out positions and lock up key constituencies. This frequently entails bold promises and solemn oaths as to what they will achieve once they are elected (no one runs for the nomination anticipating defeat). Essential to winning any political contest is distinguishing yourself from your opponents. Distinguishing yourself from you opponents these days means convincing the electorate that you are bolder of vision, stronger of will, and more capable in action than the other candidates. This results in a more partisan and aggressive politics. It is this more partisan and aggressive political process that many are increasingly finding distasteful. They pine for more amicable and less ideological days, when politicians would have gentlemen disagreements that would be addressed through polite discussion. There is much to this position. The political process has indeed become more acrimonious and partisan over the years but this is not due to politicians or parties. Indeed it has little, if anything, to do with our political system at all. It due to division among the electorate. It is the electorate that has become more partisan, not the parties. Politics have become more and more acrimonious because the line between private and public business is growing finer all the time.
Emotion and sentiment have become integral parts of our political process. We want passion on the part of politicians. We want leaders who feel strongly about issues. We want our government to share our sentiments. The problem here is that emotions and feelings do not lend themselves to calm, rational discussion. They touch on the most personal and intimate parts of the human psyche. It is possible to have a calm and detached discussion over fiscal policy. It is not possible to have such a discussion over an issue like abortion. The public may be willing to sit patiently through a political discussion over interest rates but if the topic turns to a more personal subject such as what their children should learn in school their emotions will stir.
This would not be so much of a problem if personal and more intimate matters were treated locally or in isolation, at least they would not be grist for presidential campaigns. But the power of the federal government and the near unlimited reach of the courts have made even the most personal aspects of our lives matters of national concern. You may still be able to think, say, and believe what you like in the privacy of your home but once you step out the door your actions and words are circumscribed by law. In public you are obliged to conform your speech and actions to the prevailing public sentiments.You may teach your child what you like at home but once that child is in school she will learn how to think along socially and culturally acceptable lines. The contentiousness that attends national politics is over which sentiments will prevail where the lines will be drawn.
When political discussion veers from legitimately governmental issues such as finance or foreign policy into social issues such as "diversity" and "values" the water quickly becomes roiled. "Diversity" and "traditional values" are not policy positions. They are open brackets free to be filled by the hopes and fears of people, just like "growing the economy" or "getting spending under control" are not economic policies. They are little more than slogans crafted to calm the fears and soothe the concerns of the electorate. As such they too are simply blank space to be filled by the public.
There always has been profound disagreement over the proper limits and scope of government. The further the government reaches into the personal beliefs and private lives of individuals the more contentious the disagreement. The more power government has over our lives the higher the stakes in any election. The higher the stakes the more bitter the contest becomes. Political parties do not cause conflict. They reflect it. Political partisanship is not the problem with American politics. Disagreement over policy is healthy. Parties should not be condemned for it. Parties are institutions created to organize the political process and make it coherent. They are an attempt to bring order out of chaos.
What is the problem is that the stakes in any national election are enormous. The federal government affects trade and commerce. It sets the direction of the courts. It allocates resources and sets social policy. It influences education. Indeed it touches every aspect of our lives. If the blame over increasing partisanship is to placed anywhere, it is squarely on the shoulders of those who put government at the very center of American society. We are no longer content with a chief executive whose job is to administer the government. We want a leader with a vision. We want a champion to fight for our cause. National elections have ceased to be about politicians and parties. They are about visions.
It is an admirable evasion to lay our selfish and shortsighted political system to the charge of parties and politics. The truth is parties and politics do not create division, they reflect it.
