How Malpractice May Kill Our Politics

While partisans squabble, the Republican and Democratic parties are making their deathbeds.

National Journal
Ron Fournier
Add to Briefcase
Ron Fournier
June 16, 2014, 5:36 a.m.

Pic­ture two old men shar­ing an ICU unit — fatally ill with a little-known dis­ease, and sur­roun­ded by their large fam­il­ies.  Now ima­gine that the re­l­at­ives (many of them re­search phys­i­cians) don’t spend a minute or a dol­lar to find a cure. In­stead, they squabble over which guy will die first.

Such is the state of U.S. polit­ics. The Re­pub­lic­an and Demo­crat­ic parties, as rep­res­ent­at­ives of a broken polit­ic­al sys­tem, are los­ing the faith of the Amer­ic­an pub­lic. They’re seen as cor­rupt, in­ef­fect­ive, and con­cerned more about elect­or­al suc­cess than the plight of or­din­ary people or even the coun­try.

In my al­legory, the two ma­jor parties are in the ICU. Gathered around the sick beds are hard-core, hard­headed, and of­ten hate­ful par­tis­ans — the most lib­er­al and most con­ser­vat­ives Amer­ic­ans, whose share of the pop­u­la­tion,  ac­cord­ing to the Pew Re­search Center, is about 12 per­cent and 9 per­cent, re­spect­ively. Are they look­ing for a cure? No, al­most all of the en­ergy on the Left and the Right is spent pars­ing blame. Yes, Amer­ic­ans hate us, but they should hate the oth­er guy more!

They battle to be the least-lousy party.

In a land­mark study, Pew con­cluded that the U.S. pub­lic is in­fec­ted with the same par­tis­an vir­us that has po­lar­ized Wash­ing­ton. Amer­ic­ans “are more po­lar­ized along par­tis­an lines than at any point in the past 25 years,” the study says. The av­er­age gap in views between Demo­crat­ic and Re­pub­lic­an par­tis­ans has nearly doubled, with most of the in­crease scored dur­ing the Bush-Obama era.

Pre­dict­ably, the par­tis­an me­dia (par­tic­u­larly on the left) ar­gue past the grave­yard. For in­stance, con­gres­sion­al schol­ar Tom Mann wrote an es­say for the Brook­ings In­sti­tute that sought to squeeze the find­ings in­to his the­ory of Asym­met­ric­al Po­lar­iz­a­tion, and blame con­ser­vat­ives for the shift.

The au­thors of the Pew re­port find it more dif­fi­cult to deal with the ques­tion of wheth­er these im­port­ant changes are com­par­able for the two parties. A brief sec­tion on “Is Po­lar­iz­a­tion Asym­met­ric­al” care­fully nav­ig­ates the treach­er­ous wa­ters of­ten as­so­ci­ated with this ques­tion. They note the shift in ideo­lo­gic­al con­sol­id­a­tion among Demo­crats between 1994 and 2014 is more pro­nounced than among Re­pub­lic­ans, leav­ing today’s parties at roughly the same place. But they qual­i­fy that find­ing by also not­ing the sharp­er move­ment right among Re­pub­lic­ans in the last dec­ade and the fact that the in­creas­ing Demo­crat­ic ideo­lo­gic­al con­sol­id­a­tion is as­so­ci­ated with a na­tion­wide left­ward shift in at­ti­tudes on same-sex re­la­tions and im­mig­ra­tion

There are two reas­ons the Mann’s the­ory doesn’t fit neatly in­to the study. First, the data don’t sup­port it. No amount of cherry-pick­ing can dis­guise the fact that voters on both the hard right and the hard  left are grow­ing in num­bers and tough­en­ing their views. Second, it doesn’t really mat­ter.

This is my fun­da­ment­al dis­agree­ment with par­tis­an journ­al­ists and polit­ic­al sci­ent­ists who ded­ic­ate their ca­reers to meas­ur­ing in­cre­ments of fault — the GOP’s share of blame is 20 per­cent or 60 per­cent or 80 per­cent. Who cares? Not the av­er­age voter who merely wants her lead­ers to work to­geth­er and get res­ults. Give me a job. Give me a fair shot at a bet­ter one. Let my kids be more suc­cess­ful than me. And keep my coun­try safe.

That’s not Mann’s fo­cus. “But the asym­met­ric po­lar­iz­a­tion has reached the vot­ing pub­lic as well and is now a crit­ic­ally im­port­ant com­pon­ent of our po­lar­ized polit­ics and dys­func­tion­al gov­ern­ment,” he says. More from Mann:

Un­for­tu­nately, that sub­tlety was lost in a ma­jor rol­lout of the re­port by Pew Re­search Cen­ter Pres­id­ent Alan Mur­ray in The Wall Street Journ­al.  In an oth­er­wise ad­mir­able sum­mary of the re­port’s find­ings, Mur­ray wrote: “The study also un­der­mines the no­tion, pop­u­lar in Wash­ing­ton, of “asym­met­ric­al po­lar­iz­a­tion” — which blames Re­pub­lic­ans for caus­ing the di­vi­sion.” I’m not sure why he thinks this no­tion is pop­u­lar in Wash­ing­ton. When Norm Orn­stein and I in­tro­duced asym­met­ric po­lar­iz­a­tion in our Wash­ing­ton Post Out­look art­icle and book two years ago, the si­lence among mem­bers of the press and Wash­ing­ton es­tab­lish­ment was deaf­en­ing. False equi­val­ence — the in­sist­ence on bal­ance between the parties whatever the real­ity — was and largely re­mains a way of life in the main­stream press.

The “false equi­val­ence” charge is a dodge. Neither Mur­ray nor Pew (nor I) found any equi­val­ence in the par­tis­an­ship. It would be soph­istry to claim both parties are equally to blame; few, if any, con­flicts in life are 50-50 calls. Even few­er are ab­so­lute, with one side totally to blame, but ab­so­lu­tion is what Mann es­sen­tially grants the Demo­crat­ic Party when he la­bels the GOP “an in­sur­gent out­lier.” Mur­ray had the au­da­city to state that Re­pub­lic­ans are not alone to blame for the rise in par­tis­an­ship — a fact sup­por­ted by the Pew study and com­mon sense — and for that, he’s ac­cused of false equi­val­ence. I call that slur False Pur­ity.

A fairer read­ing of the poll comes from Chris­toph­er In­gra­ham of The Wash­ing­ton Post’s Wonkblog. While view­ing the data as mostly a re­pu­di­ation of the right wing, In­gra­ham scours the num­bers for the core prob­lem.

Here’s an­oth­er im­port­ant point: Des­pite their out­sized en­thu­si­asm for the primary pro­cess, the most lib­er­al and con­ser­vat­ive Amer­ic­ans make up re­l­at­ively small shares of the Amer­ic­an pub­lic — 12 per­cent and 9 per­cent, re­spect­ively. A plur­al­ity of Amer­ic­ans — 39 per­cent — falls squarely in the middle of Pew’s ideo­lo­gic­al spec­trum. But this group is by far the least likely to vote in primary elec­tions, and in gen­er­al elec­tions too, ac­cord­ing to Pew.

Be­cause of their sheer num­bers, this group of mixed-pref­er­ence voters could — should! — be the core of a cent­rist co­ali­tion. But be­cause of their dis­en­gage­ment, their in­flu­ence on the polit­ic­al pro­cess is di­min­ished re­l­at­ive to the more par­tis­an voices in the mix. This tells me that po­lar­iz­a­tion may be driv­en as much by apathy in the middle of the polit­ic­al spec­trum as it is by en­ergy at the more rauc­ous ideo­lo­gic­al ends.

In­stead of a si­lent ma­jor­ity, we have a si­lent plur­al­ity — and as Wash­ing­ton goes to war with it­self, it’s not pay­ing at­ten­tion.

The best journ­al­ists don’t let their ideo­logy col­or their dia­gnoses. When pos­sible, they hold lead­ers ac­count­able and write pre­scrip­tions for a troubled pub­lic. In­gra­ham says the si­lent middle needs to en­gage. I’d sug­gest they rad­ic­al­ize, be­cause the pa­tient is dy­ing.

RE­LATED: “How Eric Can­tor’s De­feat May Sig­nal a Pop­u­list Re­volu­tion.”

What We're Following See More »
UNTIL DEC. 9, ANYWAY
Obama Signs Bill to Fund Government
1 hours ago
THE LATEST
REDSKINS IMPLICATIONS
SCOTUS to Hear Case on Offensive Trademarks
1 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

"The Supreme Court is taking up a First Amendment clash over the government’s refusal to register offensive trademarks, a case that could affect the Washington Redskins in their legal fight over the team name. The justices agreed Thursday to hear a dispute involving an Asian-American rock band called the Slants, but they did not act on a separate request to hear the higher-profile Redskins case at the same time." Still, any precedent set by the case could have ramifications for the Washington football team.

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Bannon Still Collecting Royalties from ‘Seinfeld’
2 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

The Hollywood Reporter takes a look at a little-known intersection of politics and entertainment, in which Trump campaign CEO Steve Bannon is still raking in residuals from Seinfeld. Here's the digest version: When Seinfeld was in its infancy, Ted Turner was in the process of acquiring its production company, Castle Rock, but he was under-capitalized. Bannon's fledgling media company put up the remaining funds, and he agreed to "participation rights" instead of a fee. "Seinfeld has reaped more than $3 billion in its post-network afterlife through syndication deals." Meanwhile, Bannon is "still cashing checks from Seinfeld, and observers say he has made nearly 25 times more off the Castle Rock deal than he had anticipated."

Source:
IT’S ALL CLINTON
Reliable Poll Data Coming in RE: Debate #1
3 hours ago
WHY WE CARE
NEXT THURSDAY
Trump Transition Team Meeting with Silicon Valley VIPs
5 hours ago
THE DETAILS

Donald Trump's "transition team will meet next week with representatives of the tech industry, multiple sources confirmed, even as their candidate largely has been largely shunned by Silicon Valley. The meeting, scheduled for next Thursday at the offices of law and lobbying firm BakerHostetler, will include trade groups like the Information Technology Industry Council and the Internet Association that represent major Silicon Valley companies."

Source:
×