People constantly ask me about the differences between left and right in American politics; what divides us as Americans? In some ways its an easy question to answer. The difficulty is, in fact, that there are so many useful (if incomplete) ways to explain it. The tricky thing is that every American can identify with elements of both wings of the American Eagle. Left and right revolve around the same fundamental philosophical/moral tenant, born of the Enlightenment, that each person possesses -or is endowed by their Creator with- individual freedom and self determination, natural rights thought justly limited only when they encroach on those of another.Individual liberty and self determination are creedal principles to which we all, as Americans, pledge allegiance. This fundamental philosophical, even epistomological, consensus both shields and exploses our politics to conflict. Though shielded from revolutionary or truly illiberal social and political ideas, Americans are exposed to the rhetorical ferocity of the family squabble. Our political cleavages pit one interpretation of individual freedom and self determination against the other.
Those with multiple siblings can recall that childhood conflicts tended to divide the family in two, rather than three or four, and that the coalitions on either side had fairly durable memberships, though the questions at issue varied. It's also clear that cruelty knows few bounds among family members. The American family has always divided into two dominant interpretations of our creedal "truths." Third and fourth interpretations simply cannot be sustained without breaching the boundaries of our liberal individualism, and thereby (re)uniting the American family against alien influences. Brothers can be at each other's throats, but if a third party takes a side or enters the fray, the intramural scrimmage comes to an abrupt end.
Scholars, artists, and journalists of all kinds have weighed in on the nature of our enduring family squabble, producing voluminous theories and claims. Ironically, many of these efforts have born fruit and yet the pursuit continues unabatted as if the soil lay barren. It's a disagreement about the role of government. It's a disagreement about morality. It's a disagreement about the definitions of creedal principles like freedom, equality, and democracy. These are all useful and insightful approaches to understanding our political differences.
At the on ground, where the scufflers actually get their hands dirty; it's a fight between south and north, rich and poor, coutry folks and city folks, God fearin and heathens, the moral majority and the counter culture, conservatives and liberals, Republicans and Democrats. It is both interesting and relevant to note that despite deep generational differences, American politics has never divided in any meaningful or durable way between young and old, something faintly illustrated by President George W. Bush's failure to reform Social Security despite ensuring that the changes would not impact current or imminent retirees.
At the theoretical/ideological level the argument over the interpretation and application of our universal truths - individual freedom and self determination - is rich and deep. It is nourishing and illuminating. It is an argument from which every American would benefit from joining. If conducted among people of good will and open minds, it is more conversation than conflict; it is an argument designed not for resolution but for continuance, growth, durability. Indeed, victory in the internal struggle over our creedal principles would strike a death blow to these cherished precepts. In Madisonian terms, it would destroy the marketplace of ideas designed to regulate and perpetuate our "conflicts within consensus." The Framers sought to create a competitive economy and political system within an immutable moral/ philosophical consensus. The competitiveness of the economy and political system AND the immutibility of the moral/philosophical consensus are essential for the preservation of the Framers' handiwork, and the continuance of what some call the "American experiemnt."
At the political level, where interpretations are hardened and applications are at stake, conversation yeilds to combat and the combatants disguard Socrates and Montesquieu, turning instead to Sun Tzu and Alexander the Great for counsel. While intellectuals examine and choose evidence to test propositions and ideas, politicians, clerics, and businessmen manipulate evidence to support preconcieved or mandated conclusions.
Our politics was conceived and designed to operate as a perpetual argument in which the contestants played by civilized rules in exchange for the guarantee that opportunity was aboundant and "final victory" was impossible, leaving one and all to live to work, compete, and win another day. Increasingly, however, the contestants in our liberal democractic society have abandoned the metaphor of reason and dialogue in a free market of ideas and adopted methods designed for the battlefield, for war, a state of conflict wholey incompatible with the faithful application of our creedal principles.
Someone once said "you shouldn't bring a knife to a gun fight." Less self evident in America today apparently is the more profound advice for us; you shouldn't bring a gun to a family squabble.