Via Real Clear, we find this Charlie Cook piece on the decline of our political rhetoric. Cook cites some usual suspects who commit the crime of turning our political discourse from one of honest disagreement to shrill attacks: cable news programs, talk radio, the rise of the Internet. I suspect that these phenomena are only part of the problem. Surely they have the characteristic of "preaching to the converted," and when one addresses only those with whom one agrees one is likely to focus on purity of thought rather than finding common ground with one's opponent. And the Internet certainly allows people to attack each other anonymously. The Internet also is virtual arguing. You do combat with disembodied souls who aren't really people, just a collection of political opinions. Thus it is easy to move from "your politics are bad" to "you are bad," since our opponent's politics are all we know about him or her. Look at how quickly some in the virtual world go from "you are wrong" to "you are a liar."
I think Cook neglects a few more essential reasons for our harsh political discourse.
1. The ideological polarization of the parties. For whatever reason, most liberal Republicans are now Democrats and most conservative Democrats are now Republicans. Some people approve of this occurrence because it allows voters to make clear distinctions between the parties and hold them responsible for their actions. Certainly the ideologues like the idea of one liberal party and one conservative party. But another result is that one can find no common ground with the opposing party. The other party is in fact totally unacceptable. Look at the 2004 election, for example. The Democrats could not let Bush win, because there is no one in Bush's party that shares Democratic ideals. And the opposite is true for Republicans and Kerry. A Kerry victory would have meant a thoroughly liberal administration. Thus the opposite party becomes totally unacceptable and anything that can be done to win is justifiable. Our politics would be better if we had more liberal Republicans and more conservative Democrats. Don't hold your breath.
2. As our politics has become more open it has gotten more harsh. People don't like to hear it, but cameras in Congress has probably lowered the level of political discourse in the nation. Legislators no longer merely legislate. They are always "on." Dan Rostenkowski and Bob Packwood (yes, flawed examples) always said that the only reason the historic 1986 Tax Reform occurred is because Rostinkowski and Packwood went behind closed doors and horse traded. They didn't have to worry about publicly selling out important constituencies. Cameras have turned the Congress from a place of legislation to just another political TV show. The low level of debate on the Murtha proposal for withdrawal from Iraq probably doesn't occur if there are no cameras. People should realize that information can be public without being popular. If we had no cameras in Congress, the Congressional Record would still be available to all, thus it would be public. But the actions of Congress would no longer be "popular," meaning they would not be playing to a popular audience.
It goes without saying that both of the problems I have illustrated are here to stay, as is our low level of political discourse.
Recent Comments