Posted by Since the 1970s (according to Fault Lines: A History of the United States since 1974) we have seen a continuing deterioration in our politics that makes it difficult, if not impossible, to have a civil conversation in which people on different sides listen to each other. Our positions have become more extreme as shown in the chart below. In 1994, 64% of Republicans were more conservative than the median Democrat; by 2014, that percentage has increased to 92%. Similarly, in 1994 70% of Democrats were more liberal than the median Republican; by 2014, that percentage had increased to 94%.
Not only have our beliefs become more divergent, but the way we see each other has also become more extreme. Each side thinks the worst, not the best of each other. Each side picks out extremes and treats these extremes as representative as the group as a whole.
An example of the images of political extremism which makes conversations impossible
When Democrats think about Republicans they tend to believe that Republicans don’t care about poor people, and, as a result, their economic policies, like the tax cut, support the interests of the wealthy. Democrats believe a large number of Republicans are racists. Democrats believe Republicans support “law and order,” even in the face of a criminal justice system that is anything but just. Democrats believe Republican support for laissez-faire capitalism means a lack of concern with the fact that there are people in America who live in such poverty that their children are undernourished. Democrats believe that Republican opposition to public health care solutions is based on the fact that the Republican Party is controlled by big Pharma. Democrats believe that the petro-chemical industry controls the Republican Party and thus leads to Republican opposition to any program that combats global warming. Democrats believe that gun interests coupled with a slavish commitment to the second amendment means it is impossible to pass any meaningful legislation to regulate “the right to bear arms.”
On the other side, Republicans tend to believe that most Democrats are closet socialists who want big government to solve all our problems. Republicans believe that Democrats want a world without religion, with sexual license, without borders, without police, without the Second Amendment. Republican believe Democrats can be described as “woke,” abortion-loving, anti-white, coastal elitists, who hate the police and the military, and who prefer global forms of governance to American independence.
I want to argue that these generalizations about the political positions of the political parties obscures rather than clarifies. While there are many strong differences of opinions between Democrats and Republicans, many of these are amenable to traditional political approaches. This truth has frequently been obscured by our tendency to talk in both generalities and loaded words. If you call your opponent a “socialist,” you are saying that there is no common ground between you. I believe the following words should be removed from our political discourse:
- Socialism (or socialist)
- White nationalist
- Woke
- Identity politics
- socialized medicine
- law and order
For most conflicts, for example, the current conflict between baseball owners and baseball players, resolution involves compromise. Should we play 68 games or 120? Should players be given a pro rata salary based on the number of games played? Or should they receive less than 100%? While the actual compromise depends on which side is stronger, it is clear that a compromise somewhere between the competing positions is available. Following is a list of what I believe are the most important issues roiling our politics; it is my position that most of these are amenable to finding political compromises, much like the baseball example above.
- Bigger vs. smaller government
- Greater government involvement in health care vs. less government involvement in health care
- Reduced trade restrictions vs increased trade restrictions
- Expanded social safety net vs. reduced social safety net
- Higher taxes vs. lower taxes
- Reduced military spending vs. increased military spending
- More consumer protection vs, less consumer protection
- Greater support for unions vs. greater opposition to unions
- Fewer restrictions on abortion vs more restrictions on abortions
- Greater restrictions on guns vs. fewer restrictions on guns
- Greater regulation to protect the environment vs. less regulation to protect the environment
- More regulations to combat global warming vs. less regulations to combat global warming
- Increased reform of police and criminal justice vs. decreased reform of police and criminal justice
- More immigration reform vs. less immigration reform
- Weaker border protection vs. stronger border protection
- Treatment of drug addiction as a medical problem vs. treatment of drug addiction as a criminal problem
- Increased rights and protections for minority communities vs. status quo
- Increased rights and protections for LBGQ communities vs. decreased rights and protections for LGBQ communities
Republicans would argue, rightly, that this issue is not presented fairly. They are not arguing for less protection for LGBQ communities. They are arguing that in some cases increased protections come at the expense of the rights of religious communities. Where two sets of rights come into conflict, it is difficult to see a compromise.
Proposition 1: Most of the issues that divide us are amenable to compromise
When I started this post, I believed that it was the words we use that divide us one from the other. There are still words that we use unfairly as descriptors and whose use makes reasoned discourse difficult, if not impossible. Yet, aside from a set of words that can best be described as basic identifiers, most issues can be described as amenable to compromise. The words divide, but the true issues are nuanced, and involve degrees: more or less, tighter or looser, etc.
Regulation, for example, can be broken down and discussed by looking at specific regulations. It cannot be the Republican position that all regulations are bad. For example, a regulation that prevents children under 12 from working is likely to be agreed to by almost everyone. Likewise, in issues like the size of the government, the level of taxes, the level of regulation, the size of the safety net, and many others, it is generally the case that the true differences are a matter of degree and thus, it is theoretically possible to have useful discussions about specifics.
Similarly, the perennial debate over government involvement in provision of medical care, despite the characterization as a battle to save the health care industry from socialized medicine, is not about socialized medicine when looked at clearly. There already is substantial government involvement in the health sector: medicare, medicaid, the VA, the NIH, the CDC, etc. The question then isn’t about “socialized vs. private medicine;” it’s about what kind and how much government involvement we want in our health care system.
Proposition 2: Our politics would work better is we avoided using loaded terms to describe our position and the position of our opponent.
For example, calling someone a Democratic Socialist, even if true, doesn’t further any attempt to find common ground. We should not be arguing socialism vs. capitalism, but whether certain specific welfare state issues, such as food stamps, should be expanded or contracted. That question is amenable to research and to a discussion based on facts. What is the impact of food stamps on nutrition, particularly of children? Who should be eligible? Do food stamps lead to a reduction in economic effort? How does the provision of food stamps affect food prices? Should certain foods be ineligible? How big should the program be? Can it be shown that food stamps provide more economic benefits to the economy as a whole than they cost?
The big objection to this proposal, to breaking down a problem into more chewable bites, is the idea of the “camel’s nose” or “slippery slope.” For example, if the FBI is allowed to infringe on our privacy on the internet, the next thing you know is that they’ll be reading our mail. This is analogous to saying that if Susie bought one can of cola from the grocery store, next thing you know she’ll buy them all. Whether Susie is going to stick her whole body into the tent (to mix metaphors) depends on the kind of person Susie is.
The problem we face is that most participants in any political debate these days believe that Susie is grasping and greedy and will never be content with just her nose. Once we expand the social safety net, we’ll immediately be facing demands to expand it further. Or once we start placing limits on immigration, we’ll be asked to expand those limits.
This argues that the issue at the center of our political disagreement is our lack of trust. If neither side trusts each other, how can resolve these disputes? Most labor disputes (which are clearly examples where most of the time the problem is how much each side will give) get resolved by compromise, because there is a deadline, or because the lack of agreement is costly to both sides. But except for the need for Congress to pass a budget, most of our political issues don’t face a deadline or exhibit greater costs from lack of a resolution than from a resolution.
Conclusions. Assuming we are people of good will, most of our major political disputes are amenable to resolution. We need to eliminate “loaded” words from our vocabulary. We need to avoid discussions over “big” issues, or highly general issues, and instead concentrate on a set of small issues that are easier to compromise over.In order to do that we need to trust each other. How do we build trust? That will be the subject of a future post.
