All political debates whether in elections or in governance are translated by the participants into an “us” versus “them” contest. The trick is to make the “us” bigger than the “them.” Even though a lot of college kids take poli sci to avoid math, the reality is that politics in a democracy is really about division and that is as it should be. The only time everyone in a democracy should be united is when everybody in a democracy has the very same interests and principles at stake. In other words, total unity in a democracy is only reasonable in the face of a real existential threat, or on questions with little or nothing at stake (i.e. should we go to war, or should we designate January “neuter your pet” month?). The rest of the time, which is most of the time, calls for national unity are at best an unintentional affront to the principles of individual rights and popular sovereignty. Unfortunately, because politics is such a high stakes endeavor, it seems that only those willing to elevate the values and policy positions of their opponents to the level of an existential threat can succeed. Such hyperbolic passions naturally lead to an ugly and unprincipled “ends justify the means” mentality. The necessary division of democratic politics is transformed into an arms race of divisiveness in which unilateral disarmament is suicidal and ignoble "means" thought to be "justified" by noble ends actually reduce the viability or potential realization of the ends being pursued.
In yesterday’s historic election in Massachusetts I heard supporters of both the Democratic and Republican Party candidates indicate, only half-joking, that the “fate of the Republic lay in the balance.” In fact, I’m pretty sure I used that language with a fellow lefty or two. Sadly, I also succumbed to hyperbolic passions yesterday (for neither the first or last time I’m sure) in reaction to what looked like a Republican sign holder’s vandalism of my sign for the Democratic candidate (he was actually just putting it down because it was unattended, which is required by law). I verbally assaulted this poor guy so fiercely that he should have punched me right in the nose. Thankfully, he was a patient man and after about 30 minutes I realized my folly and asked for and received his forgiveness. Clearly, I had exaggerated the importance of my party’s victory in the election and had rationalized (however briefly) that my uncivil behavior was acceptable given the stakes.
If you are not familiar with politically motivated hyperbole, incivility, and thuggery, it’s only a click away. Go to any Internet discussion board on which politics is “discussed” among anonymous posters, or type “politics” into the YouTube.com search engine. It ain’t pretty and unchecked it is ultimately corrosive to our way of life. Unfortunately, the more widespread it becomes, the more it creeps into mainstream debate. Republican Joe Wilson’s “you lie” shout at the President during an address to a joint session of Congress and Democrat Barney Frank’s brutal undoing of a member of the “Birther” movement at one of his town meetings both represent (in my opinion) the infectious and almost irresistible nature of hyperbolic passions. I’m sure some Americans on the right and left respectively found Wilson’s and Frank’s behavior cathartic and emotionally satisfying without appreciating the corrosive implications of these incidents.
President Obama and the national Democrats don’t need to succumb to the temptation to “go Rove” on the Republicans because of yesterday’s stinging defeat, but they do need to divide a sufficient number of “us” from a smaller number of “them” by boldly stating their case for (Big D) Democratic reform proposals in a way that clearly and explicitly equates Democratic Party policy options to broadly held values in the American electorate.
Democratic and Republican Party politicians and operatives could go a long way toward reducing the corrosive impact of hyperbolic passions on our politics by being more explicit and assertive about bringing voters to their party’s principles rather than simply competing to connect their personal images to universally supported values like hope, change, honesty, integrity, hard work, sacrifice, etc… Downplaying or blurring of party principles and loyalties to maximize votes in the short-term produces unstable electoral coalitions that are not capable of providing the necessary support between elections that elected officials need to accomplish anything significant.
President Obama and Senator-Elect Brown may have made this very mistake; a mistake that is being more quickly exposed and punished in the “new” media age. Voters with cable TV and computers, but no political party membership cards, wooed by vague connections (or out-of-context hyper-specific connections) between their values and those of candidates can be communicated with and persuaded much more quickly and effectively in the 21st Century. This comes in very handy (and is very hard to resist) when you can score political points by pointing out every misstep great and small of an opponent, distort the context, and contrast it to their campaign promises. Brown’s campaign asked anxious voters, “How’s all that hope working for you now?” Between now and the 2012 election, possibly without regard for Brown’s actual conduct in office, Democrats will no doubt be inundating voters who supported Brown yesterday with questions like, “What happened to all that stuff about “no more business as usual” and “being an independent voice in the Senate?”
For his part, President Obama’s commitment to “post” partisanship now looks like a very bad fit with his bold, yet vague and universal appeals to “hope and change” during the election. By appealing to everyone with “hope and change” he seems to have given opponents -like Scott Brown- an easy, if equally vacuous, counter argument. Since Obama has not done enough to publicly tout and chronicle his progress, he has left an opening for his opponents to chronicle his administration's progress on their terms and without authoritative enough rebuttal. Without details about the content of Obama's hope and change agenda anybody whose hopes remain unrealized and whose impressions of politics have not changed much are ripe for the pickin for Republicans.
Some analysts have attributed Obama's apparent partisan "unilateral disarmament" as an element of his "post" partisan aspirations that now look like unintentional political suicide. I believe that President Obama’s hope of greater cooperation between the parties in government requires a “new” partisanship that is just as competitive but much more self conscious and transparent than present day notions of partisanship, not the fuzzy notions of unity that animate calls for “post” and/or “bi” partisanship based on the at once naïve and cynical pretense of objective political truth in American politics.
In an electorate that is broadly loyal to and supportive of political parties, petty personal attacks don't go away or lose all their force, but in general elections between major party candidates they fall largely on deaf ears. Ask yourself why Democrats and Republicans downplay embarrassing revelations about fellow party members but relentlessly skewer members of the other party at every opportunity. It’s because they hope to attract sympathy for themselves from voters that dislike so-called “party politics” and who think of themselves as “independents.” Voters who recognize which political party generally represents their broad interests and principles are virtually immune from the so-called “politics of personal destruction,” not because they are “blinded” by partisanship, but because they are aware of and in touch with their own political principles and interests enough to recognize which party most consistently represents them. They know that elected officials make and enforce laws and want those laws to be made and enforced according to their principles and interests, not some vague universal idea that loses meaning when the rubber meets the road. Well-informed partisan voters ignore the pabulum being fed to the so-called “swing voters” and understand the difference between the broad values of each political party and the petty stereotypes and caricatures of each political party pitched relentlessly by opposing political operatives.
So, what exactly should the President and the Democratic Congress do now?
First, they should all re-read "Profiles in Courage." Then, they should pass a real health insurance reform bill with or without Republican cooperation. The anxious voters of Massachusetts who are unclear on or misunderstand the content and consequences of reform should be educated and informed via vigorous and comprehensive outreach campaigns. If they still don’t like it, then they can and should vote accordingly in the next election, and Democrats should be okay with that. Health insurance reform is too big an issue to be treated the way politicians treat issues they consider less important than their continuance in office. If a member of Congress supports healthcare reform thinking it would be bad for his constituents, he’s nuts. If a Member of Congress opposes a healthcare reform thinking it would benefit her constituents, she’s nuts. Any Democrat who thinks the present approach to healthcare reform would hurt his or her constituents isn’t really a Democrat in the first place and should change parties. Any Democrat who thinks the present approach to reform would help his constituents but who opposes it for fear of electoral defeat or hope of a “more perfect” bill ought to consider another line of work.
After healthcare, it should be on to jobs, Wall Street reform, the Employee Free Choice Act, a climate change bill and more, all under the bold leadership of the President and the banner of the Democratic Party. The Republicans won't join hands with them and sing Cum Bi Ya, but they will likely be forced to pursue there united opposition more transparently, which is as it should be.