Why the Divide?
A reader of the last blog wrote, “There is a great divide in this country, one where life-long neighbors stop speaking because of the signs in their yards. Why did it cross from electing who we thought could best run the country to who we thought had to represent a specific belief in how to live a life?”
How did we get here? The change has been gradual. The contributors numerous. The media provides a platform. Single interest groups stir up conflict and fear. Our political philosophy that was once pragmatic (how do we solve this problem) is now largely ideological (how do we impose what we believe to be True).
Name calling and attacks on personal integrity by leaders across the political spectrum have become common. The public, sensing permission in the actions of leaders, particularly the President, follow their example. We are all tempted to retaliate in kind.
The change has also been intentionally promoted by conservatives. Grover Norquist, founder of Americans for Tax Reform and a longtime leader of the conservative movement, embraced toxicity as a political goal. A Denver Post article on the increasing rancor in politics quoted Norquist: “We are trying to change the tones in the state capitals—and turn them toward bitter nastiness and partisanship. . . . Bipartisanship is another name for date rape.”
Norquist has also advocated taking “government down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub.” The two goals are related. When people are alienated from politics and government by the constant nastiness and partisanship the water in the tub rises.
When the nastiness and partisanship get in the way of solving problems, and government doesn’t work, government itself loses credibility. The loss of credibility reinforces the conservative mantra expressed succinctly by President Ronald Regan, “government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.”
Conservative media personalities contribute to the toxic mix, not only with harsh rhetoric but with little regard for facts.
Charlie Sykes, once the leading conservative voice on Milwaukee talk radio, said shortly before his retirement in 2016, “I’ve long thought the alternative media was a positive development that would counter the mainstream media monopoly. It’s only this year you go, ‘OK, what have we done here? We’ve created this monster.’ . . . You look around and you see how much of the conservative media infrastructure buys into the post-factual, post-truth culture. . . . I understand that we are advocates and defenders, but when do you veer off into pure raw propaganda?”
Words are chosen for their potential effect without consideration given to their relationship to what is real. In recent days, Tucker Carlson of Fox News denounced protesters as violent anarchists, called Senator Tammy Duckworth a “moron” questioning her patriotism, labeled former President Barack Obama a “greasy politician” and suggested George Floyd’s death was caused by drug use.
Democrats are not immune from the toxic virus. Embracing the virus, however, contributes to the atmosphere conservatives are trying to create.
This past week, after the Platform Committee of the Democratic National Committee voted not to include support of Medicare for All, Our Wisconsin Revolution said the vote “shows the Party’s disregard for human life … party officials feel so strongly that the most vulnerable among us do not deserve even the most basic medical care … frankly, they do not care whether we live or die. … the contempt that party elites have for the people is on full display. Biden is the current de facto party leader, and because he has no problem writing off our lives as expendable, there is nothing stopping party officials from following suit.”
The author is not trying to persuade, but stoking the anger of supporters, pointing them to an enemy that has to be fought.
The rhetoric raises everything to the level of principle. The merits of alternative ways of achieving a goal cannot be discussed if there is only one Truth. If you are against the one True solution you are for the problem. You are the problem.
Consider a similar exchange between Organizing for Action and the NRA after a congressional vote on gun legislation.
The message from Organizing for Action: “Yesterday, 45 senators chose to ignore their constituents and stand with the gun lobby. . . . Those senators made a cynical calculation that, at the end of the day, the gun lobby would be louder and stronger than we are. Yesterday was just round one. We will keep fighting. . . . The special interests have been at this longer, and they can do a real good job at scaring people by distorting the facts—they think we’ll go away quietly. . . . We’re going to keep fighting, and someday soon, we will win.”
The president of the National Rifle Association delivered a similar fighting message to his members: “Our feet are planted firmly in the foundation of freedom, un-swayed by the winds of political and media insanity. To the political and media elites who scorn us, we say let them be damned. . . . We will never surrender our guns, never.”
The messages are typical. The words are heated. The opposition is demeaned. The specifics of the controversy are not mentioned. Principles that cannot be compromised are at stake. The enemy must be defeated.
PACs and other single-interest groups nurture an us-versus-them mindset. The messages they send out are designed to stir up conflict and fear. I have yet to receive a letter from any organization I belong to that starts with, “We have just reached agreement with [insert any opponent here], and we no longer need your money.” Rather, the letters are designed to get me concerned enough, mad enough, to write a check. Conflict keeps organized interests of all kinds financially healthy.
The media also plays a role in the divisiveness. Provocative statements make the news. Politicians, looking for publicity and not being dumb, make provocative statements.
The portrayal of politics as a game which you win or lose also keeps conflict going. A New York Times story this past week on the economic recovery negotiations illustrates the danger in compromising. “Republicans believe Pelosi was counting on them to cave in the end, after she struck a series of deals with Mnuchin in the spring that some Republicans ultimately came to regret. … this time the GOP side did not cave, at least not yet.”
When one side “wins” and the other side “caves” neither moves to accommodate the other. The problem doesn’t get solved. Each side blames the other. Conflict continues.
With the conflict and anger, people who are not caught up in the fight, disengage. I overheard a clerk in the neighborhood liquor store talking to a customer about buying a TV. She didn’t have one, but then recalled this was an election year and decided to put off her purchase till next year.
Those who think government has a useful role to play in building community are not the winners in this game.
Douglas Kane is the author of "Our Politics: Reflections on Political Life" published in 2019 by Southern Illinois University Press
[subscribe2]