[JJ]

From the blog:

----
I recently bought a book at the local flea market entitled The Encyclopaedia of World Politics, copyright 1950.

When you look up "Republican Party," it says:

[The Republicans are] regarded as the more right-wing party. Yet, strictly speaking, the two great American parties cannot be exactly classified under the left-and-right pattern, and there are conservative as well as progressive republicans, as there are conservatives and progressive democrats. Both parties include sections of all classes of the population.

The same thing is repeated when you look up "Democratic Party."

This is obviously not an accurate description of modern American politics, where both parties are now hugely ideologically limited in agenda and appeal, and getting moreso with each passing year. It reads as very quaint and dated, but keep in mind the 1950s were not that long ago. Indeed, almost all of the recent political establishment grew up in that era, the era in which one's party label was still fairly vague and unideological designation. Until pretty much the last two decades, in fact, the party you joined was primarily an expression of familial solidarity, a narrow ethnic or religious identity, or a desire to participate in an existing regional power structure. A consistent ideology or philosophy was tacked on later, if at all.

Presidential politics provides a lot of nice case studies. Jimmy Cater and Bill Clinton, for example, became Democrats simply because their states were under a form of one-party rule at the time, making Democratic membership their only feasible path to political power. Al Gore, the two George Bushes, and Mitt Romney joined their respective parties because they had fathers who were already well-established politicians in their own right, and were thus forced into uncritically adopting the existing family "brand."

Then you have people like Bob Dole, who joined their party simply for reasons of strategic opportunism. They wanted to get elected, one party was currently in power, so they joined the other one.

It's not a coincidence that all of these guys have faced accusations of being wishy-washy, centrist sell-outs. Since they didn't join their parties on ideological terms, they've have to struggle mightily to fake an ideological orientation for themselves.

The most notable counter-example to this trend was good ol' Ronald Reagan. He started off as a Democrat — because that's what all good unionized actors were — before ditching the party in the early 1960s. That was an ideological choice; as Reagan became more politically active he believed that the Republican Party would prove a more hospitable vehicle for his increasingly conservative agenda.It was still a gamble, though, and a lot of the Republican establishment of the time distrusted Reagan for trying to narrow the party's appeal on such starkly ideological terms.

Obama is probably the second genuinely ideological president of the modern era. He went through his 20s during the Reagan years, and thus grew up in a political culture that was already beginning to polarize on a stark left-right axis (at least in popular perception). It's not fair to call him a socialist, or whatever, but it is fair to describe the President as a genuine creature of "the left" in a way few other successful Democratic politicians of recent decades have been.

Anyway, I guess my point is that the polarization and partisan bitterness of modern Washington is unlikely to be going away anytime soon. Meaningful cooperation between parties is only possible when the parties are either so ideologically similar, or so ideologically amorphous that there is no pride or principle to be lost through through collaboration. From Obama's generation onward, all would-be politicians have understood political parties to exist primarily as a way to express a very particular ideology in government, so as the ruling generation of Washington grows younger, I suspect partisan deadlock will only get more and more intense.

It's interesting, because the end result of this cultural shift will probably be the establishment of a more parliamentary-style of governance in America, which is to say, very rigid and homogeneous parties with highly disciplined caucuses voting in very predictable ways. This is a bad thing, I believe, because it undermines one of the greatest institutional strengths of the American system of governance, namely the very weak party structures, which I've previously praised.

[Bruce_the_vii]

I see American politics as caught up in some very specific ideas, which are persistent fads. The right wing will harp about abortion, the right to own guns, smaller government, the free market and defense. These perenial fads persist because of ineffective opposition to them. For example there is no room in the American federal budget for significant cuts. If you read even Wikipedia's entry under the "United States of America" it points out social security, medicare and these broad entitlements are most of the budget. You are not going to be able to cut Mom's pension. But "smaller government" remains the Republic face plate. It's a fad, a bit of rhetoric that sells. So the idealogy is this decades long persistance of specific issues. I'm not very well versed in American politics but I did notice the emphasis on these few issues.

[Psudo]

It's bizarre that tolerance is pretty much a universally respected value in the USA, and yet the political parties are acting pretty much exactly against ideological tolerance. What is it about tolerance that doesn't extend to ideology, at least not in this generation?

By the way, ideological tolerance is the best thing about this forum.

I can't think of anything that could even theoretically be done to mend the rift. Both parties still claim Big Tent inclusiveness despite it's obvious absence, so the rhetoric is already cliche and ineffectual for a theoretical unity candidate.

Bruce_the_vii wrote:

it points out social security, medicare and these broad entitlements are most of the budget. You are not going to be able to cut Mom's pension.

Small government types don't want to cut the current generation's Social Security benefits, but rather give young people an alternative, private retirement program that is outside the government budget. It'll take a generation for SS to fade away under that plan, but no one will have benefit cuts.

The same principle applies to smaller government advocacy more broadly. It's about minimizing the number of things that are government's job, especially the prohibitively expensive ones like Medicare. The opposing political political force supports increasing government's big, expensive jobs -- for example, Obama advocated for the health care expansion by saying it was essentially Medicare for everyone. Medicare is already one of the largest parts of the government budget while it is limited to a select group of 44.8 million people [source]. Expanding that to 307 million people (6.8 times as many) can only serve to make it that much more expensive ($678 bn × 6.8 = $4.6 trillion/year). Opposition to that move on monetary grounds is very realistic small government advocacy. Even if advocacy of government decrease is as unsustainable as you say, opposing government expansion is not.

The entire US Federal Budget was $3.5 trillion in 2009, according to the Wikipedia page Bruce mentioned.

[Bruce_the_vii]

Well not expanding the governments roll is an issue. The USA has substandard social programs and increasing to world standards would be difficult sell.

[Psudo]

The takeover of the parties by ideology is also reflected in the standards by which politicians are measured. Being an effective administrator has fallen behind being ideologically pure as the way to garner votes, perhaps because of Nixon's example. Such a great administrator with seemingly no moral compass discredits ability as the sole measure of a good politician, followed by Reagan's success replacing it with the ideological standard (no one talks about whether Reagan was a good administrator, but rather argue over his ideological stances; evidence that the ability standard was already faded). Perhaps a renewed emphasis on administrative ability would aid the situation.

[JJ]

I think there are a lot of conservatives who would consider "effective administration of government" is a liberal value, since it implies that the government exists to provide services, which is now a fairly heretical opinion.

[Zipperfish]

The hyper-partisanship and policy gridlock in the US right now are hallmarks of the post-objective society.

One of my biggest interests--as I'm sure everyone knows by now--is science and the role science plays in public policy. When I was young science was considered the ultimate in objectivity. "Scientists say…" intoned a commentator and that would be the end of the argument. "Well, the scientists said it, so it must be true." The same objectivity used to also be accorded to the courts and to the network news and major dailies.

The idea of objectivity seems quaint now, in the post-objective society. Not only are the news outlets and courts and scientists not objective, they are incapable of being objective. The mere selection of the word "terrorist" over "insurgent." The placing of an article below the fold instead of above it. Conducting a scientific study on subject A instead of subject B. Each so-called objective report was actually the result of a hundred, often unconscious, subjective decisions.

In my opinion, it has to do with the unprecedented barrage of information we receive on any given subject today. Any side of any issue can muster an overwhelming number of facts to support their point of view, simply because there is an utterly unfathomable number of facts out there. So the issue moves beyond the facts and becomes about which facts you choose and how you portray them. In other words, the argument moves away from the logical and towards the rhetorical. Which is ironic--you'd think more information would lead to more logical analysis. In fact more information results in confusion and an inability to make decisions. It's like that old saying "A man with two watches never knows what time it is."

Perhaps--as former KGB agent Yuri Bezmenov believes, the real problem should be ascribed to a breakdown in the moral structure of society--that is to say we are facing an ethical failure as opposed to an epistemological one. Without a moral structure--an agreed-upon notion as to what is right and what is wrong--information is degraded to mere data. It cannot be processed.

Here's what Bezmenov--who specialized in ideological subversion--told Edward Griffin in an interview in 1984.

Quote:

The demoralization process in the United States is basically completed already for the last 25 years. Actually, it's over fulfilled because demoralization now reaches such areas where not even Comrade Andropov and all his experts would even dream of such tremendous success. Most of it is done by Americans to Americans thanks to lack of moral standards. As I mentioned before, exposure to true information does not matter anymore. A person who was demoralized is unable to assess true information. The facts tell nothing to him, even if I shower him with information, with authentic proof, with documents and pictures. ...he will refuse to believe it.... That's the tragedy of the situation of demoralization.

[BartSimpson]

Zipperfish wrote:

Perhaps--as former KGB agent Yuri Bezmenov believes, the real problem should be ascribed to a breakdown in the moral structure of society--that is to say we are facing an ethical failure as opposed to an epistemological one. Without a moral structure--an agreed-upon notion as to what is right and what is wrong--information is degraded to mere data. It cannot be processed.

Here's what Bezmenov--who specialized in ideological subversion--told Edward Griffin in an interview in 1984.

Quote:

The demoralization process in the United States is basically completed already for the last 25 years. Actually, it's over fulfilled because demoralization now reaches such areas where not even Comrade Andropov and all his experts would even dream of such tremendous success. Most of it is done by Americans to Americans thanks to lack of moral standards. As I mentioned before, exposure to true information does not matter anymore. A person who was demoralized is unable to assess true information. The facts tell nothing to him, even if I shower him with information, with authentic proof, with documents and pictures. ...he will refuse to believe it.... That's the tragedy of the situation of demoralization.

I agree. Morality and concepts of absolute values are the foundation of a stable society. A society with fluctuating and transitory moral values will be forever in flux and it will inevitably destroy itself.

[Zipperfish]

BartSimpson wrote:

I agree. Morality and concepts of absolute values are the foundation of a stable society. A society with fluctuating and transitory moral values will be forever in flux and it will inevitably destroy itself.

I think it's an optimmization problem. Societies with absolute morals are incapable of change and eventually become antiquated and pointless--take for instance the current vector of the Catholic Church. For a moral-relatavist, as discussed, data cannot be processed into information; there's no discriminatory tool to separate good facts from bad facts.

The Jews seem to have it down pretty good, perhaps by virtue of having to retain a moral/cultural commonality while dispersed to the four corners of the world for the past couple of thousand years.

[JJ]

Psudo wrote:

The takeover of the parties by ideology is also reflected in the standards by which politicians are measured. Being an effective administrator has fallen behind being ideologically pure as the way to garner votes, perhaps because of Nixon's example. Such a great administrator with seemingly no moral compass discredits ability as the sole measure of a good politician, followed by Reagan's success replacing it with the ideological standard (no one talks about whether Reagan was a good administrator, but rather argue over his ideological stances; evidence that the ability standard was already faded). Perhaps a renewed emphasis on administrative ability would aid the situation.

I just got a glimpse of a great example of this in practice.

I was listening to an NPR story on Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, who will soon be retiring. He is a fairly liberal guy, yet he was, as the host remarked with much incredulity, appointed by a REPUBLICAN President, Gerald Ford.

Hearing the profile of the Justice, it was clear that he was a very sophisticated legal scholar, who took his job and position very seriously. Which, in Gerald Ford's non-ideological era, was all that mattered when you chose Supreme Court judges. Now, however, the whole matter of judicial competence or maturity or sophistication seems to take a huge backseat to the much more immediate ideological question of "will he vote for my side?"

It was interesting, though, because the show also discussed how Stevens was very much a conservative, in the sense of defending the interests and sovereignty of his own branch of government. That's something you don't see very much today, the idea of people who make a big principle of defending institutions, rather than ideologies. I guess it's because in today's political climate people see themselves as ideologues first, and office-holders second.

[CKASlacker]

JJ wrote:

Hearing the profile of the Justice, it was clear that he was a very sophisticated legal scholar, who took his job and position very seriously. Which, in Gerald Ford's non-ideological era, was all that mattered when you chose Supreme Court judges. Now, however, the whole matter of judicial competence or maturity or sophistication seems to take a huge backseat to the much more immediate ideological question of "will he vote for my side?"

It doesn't inspire much confidence when ideas themselves become polarized to the extent that they become "red or blue" ideas (to quote from Obama rhetoric).

There are good ideas and bad ones. Sometime good ideas become bad ones over time, and bad ideas become more palatable with more thought. It's not a good sign when they become too tightly knit to either the Republicans or the Democrats.

Obama's much-laboured health care reform may eventually pass -- but to what extent will the Republicans change / counter-act it when they eventually gain control of both houses and, if necessary, the presidency?

To be fair, this hasn't always happened in Canada. Sometimes striking down "bad ideas" are used in politicking in an effort to be elected (like the Liberals did with the GST). Funny how once a past government goes through the throes of passing a new tax, the new one (despite their claims to the contrary) finds the extra governmental revenue too tempting to forsake.

[Psudo]

JJ wrote:

I think there are a lot of conservatives who would consider "effective administration of government" is a liberal value, since it implies that the government exists to provide services, which is now a fairly heretical opinion.

Fiscal conservatism (in the sense of a lean, mean, and well-balanced budget) is inherently a type of administrative effectiveness. It might be a liberal value, but it might be a conservative value. Heaven help us, it might even be both. It might be actual common ground.

[commanderkai]

Just one quick question, could the polarization of Washington compared to 40-50 years ago be based upon issues like abortion, gay marriage, narcotics use, the support of war/military operations, stem cell research, and other political issues that are drenched in morality and religious faith?

[JJ]

It could be, but it's also due to the fact that the parties made a conscious decision to brand themselves in allegiance to only one side of each of these issues, and remain hostile and angry to anyone favoring the opposite.

[ID_Fox]

I apologize if this is considered a thread necro. However I believe that I have a theory to add to this discussion if you don't mind.

I'd wager to guess that a good reason that the United States is more polarized and is growing moreso is because of the increasing power of the federal government.

The US has 300 million people and the federal government is becoming ever present in the lives of these 300 million people. Issues that used to be confined to state governments did not spill over into other states and thus were debated among people who had similar values and came from a common area.

But now the stakes are growing higher. Issues are more frequently being decided by the feds and that means people from around the country are having to band together in ways they maybe should not. A person who lives in California is likely to be way more left than a person from Kentucky. Even people from Kentucky and Ohio have differences. But when people from Cali start having a say in how people from Kentucky and Ohio are going to live that's cause for a good deal of tension.

The solution: shrink the power of the federal government. While this is a pie in the sky wish I believe it's one that would work. When issues become confined to individual states there's no reason for them to metastasize into a polarizing cancer that sweeps the nation. California has a population of 36 million, Kentucky has a population of ~4.8 million. I'd be willing to bet money that its easier to make legislation that fits them than it is for 300 million people from 50 states all with differing values and traditions.

The point being that the feds are making a gigantic mistake to have a single governing philosophy in which they have a strong hand. Individual house and senate members may only talk to constituents from their districts but their decisions affect the entire nation on an increasingly growing number of levels. Therefore the nation as a whole has to form interstate factions that has no unifying philosophy yet needs to have some say in how things are decided.

That's just my theory. I'm sure there's more to it than that.