« Silly Political Tests | Main | Darfur and the Art of Persuasion »

February 20, 2006

Moving Beyond Partisanship

McQ of the Questions and Observations triumverate discusses the current atmosphere of polarization and partisanship in Washington (and the U.S. more generally). I recommend reading the whole thing, as it offers a much more detailed look at the problem than I essayed last week, but I'll sum it up by noting that McQ puts much of the blame on two actors: political parties and the media, and he makes some recommendations that, if implemented, would go far towards resolving the problem of extreme polarization we face. Unfortunately, the odds of either institution making the changes McQ advocates is essentially zero.

Political parties only have reason to change if their current techniques are not working. While Republicans do currently control Congress and the Presidency, their hold on both of those institutions is hardly strong enough to demand massive change from the Democrats. It is quite possible (though sadly unlikely) the Democrats could retake the House or the Senate this November, and the odds are quite good that a Democrat will occupy the White House in January 2009. Given these facts, there is very little motivation for either party to make the kind of wholesale changes McQ advocates (even if they might be better for the nation as a whole), because if one party makes the changes and the other stays the same, the party that stays as it is will win more elections and be able to take or retain power. Despite our personal beliefs regarding how people ought to vote, the fact is that people vote to give themselves goodies when given the choice.

As for the media, it is possible they will change if falling ratings force it, but the odds of their returning to some idealized 'objective' standard of coverage that never existed anywhere outside of history of journalism classes are basically zero. The most popular news channel out there is Fox, which is well-known as a conservative network (how conservative tends to vary based on one's political preferences). If news channels decide to change their approach, they are more likely to attempt to attract a more shallow, but more loyal audience by being more blatantly biased (since true objectivity isn't going to attract much of an audience since it will necessarily mean puncturing the pretensions of all sides). As the popularity of Daily Kos shows, skewing one's coverage can seriously raise audience share. While it is possible some parts of the media may attempt to move towards a more objective standard of coverage, the sad fact is that most media outlets are attempting to be objective with their coverage now, no matter how badly many of us may think they're doing. Recommending they become more objective may sound nice, but it's not a very practical solution.

It seems unlikely there is a solution to the problem of faction and partisanship for the simple reason people just disagree too greatly for there to be a middle solution. If one person believes that government should do only the bare minimum and another person believes it is government's place to act to solve people's problems, there is no real middle ground. Splitting the difference only makes both sides unhappy: limited government types are unhappy because government is too sprawling and diffuse and expansive government types are unhappy because government isn't handling the other issues they feel are important. The prescription drug bill is a good example of the phenomonon: conservatives are unhappy because government has created a new entitlement while liberals are unhappy because they don't feel the benefit adequately provides for people's needs.

The United States has always meant different things to different people. But with the nationalization of almost every political issue in modern times, those views can no longer reside comfortably in the same country. By federalizing issues, we force our opinions on others, guaranteeing that one side or the other will be unhappy with the results. But our culture has changed too much to go back. Where we once considered ourselves residents of states first and a country second, few Americans today truly consider themselves residents of a particular state. Mobility and changes to the culture make us Americans who happen to live in a particular state. And as we have come to consider ourselves Americans, we have gotten in the habit of applying solutions to America rather than to a particular state. We live at a time when a Republican President has told us that when someone is hurting, government has to act, and people assume that to mean the federal government. Unless that trend can be reversed (federalization, not necessarily the insistence that government must act), people will continue to be unhappy with where the country is going, and the polarization will only grow worse.

America is in the process of redefining itself. Where it will end up no one can be certain. But what is certain is that a sizeable minority of the citizens will be unhappy with the destination, and they will not be shy about voicing their discontent. Polarization is going to get worse, not better.