Is it just me, or does anyone else have the sinking feeling that the adversarial tone of US politics is only going to get worse after the election? Both sides seem to be setting themselves up with lots of implacable reasons why they could never support the other guy if, by some miracle, their guy loses.



Questions for debate:
Is consensus politics dead in America?

Did it ever exist anyway?

Can you foresee any circumstances where the left-right polical divide might become less acute and less vitriolic? If so, what?

To set the ball rolling, from what I can see, I think the people themselves are dog-tired of vitriol and want more consensus, but aren't getting it. I think the electoral system in the USA makes consensus rather easy - the separation of powers you have makes a single party controlling both houses of Congress AND the Whitehouse relatively unusual.

But I think, in Presidential terms, the only thing that will put a lid on things would be a result where the winner clearly wins by a significant margin. By which I mean a 60:40 (or greater) split, rather than the sub-55% winning post that you had last time, or which looks likely this time. So I think, whoever wins, you're in for at least another four years of sharp division.

One British observer I read at the weekend wrote that living in America today seemed similar to living in Northern Ireland, where politics is dominated by the two extremes shouting at one another and refusing on principle to ever listen to each other, while most ordinary people sigh and go about their business hoping not to get caught in the (now thankfully figurative) crossfire, and wish that someone - anyone - would address the real concerns they have in their day-to-day lives. Is this a fair representation?

Not by any means. Common cause still brings the two big parties together, and some would say that's not a good thing. But consider what happened with the environment situation in the 1970s -- key Republican figures actually led parts of the initiatives to clean things up.

And then there's the more recent bipartisan effort to balance the budget. We can even point to common cause regarding efforts in Afghanistan after 9/11. Even the beginning of Iraq had bipartisan support -- on faulty evidence and perhaps wrong thinking, but bipartisan support nevertheless.



Yep, see above.



Very much so. The war in Iraq needs to be resolved no matter who gets power in January. The economy still needs attention -- we need good, stable jobs to have a good, stable economy. Energy is becoming quite a headache as oil reaches beyond the $50 a barrel level and winter approaches. The deficit has to be addressed in some manner, else those enjoying fat tax cuts won't have much to tax anyway. The baby boomers aren't getting any younger, as everyone knows.



We're an intersting bunch, the US citizens. Think we've come a long way over the past four or so years, a definate collective growing up.

It's already becoming apparent to us that a bunch of shouting at the evil opposition isn't doing any good. Sure, it sells books and other media crap, but that's all it does. We know what the problems are, have a pretty good idea of how to solve them, and need to work through them.

As always, it'll be a muddling along, often more reactive than proactive.

I do think a change of leadership in the White House will help move ahead, but the same could happen with the Senate going Demo. The House might go Demo, and if so, it'll be less significant than the Senate.

If everything remains in Republican hands, we can expect four more years of the same thing. It looks like about half the country likes things as they've gone, but failed policies are still rippling through the population. It'll be a while before former Republican supporters find themselves looking back and wondering what the heck happened as they join the ranks of disgruntled voters who want a change. Some have already announced thier dissatisfaction with the last choice for Prez.

That's when you might see a 60-40 split, but we're not there yet -- if you believe the polls. We might already be there, just not aware of how much so. The trouble has been the great compression of history. It's unfolding about 10 times faster than before, where a war starts out with big support and loses it in only one year. An economy goes from black to red in a similar short time, and the energy situation goes from tolerable to very wierd overnight.

Do I need to point out that individuals have been going from fat and happy to lean and mean over the loss of one job? Or even the threat of loss? There's no safety net! Just a skinny little rope that's way to short to jump toward.

And where'd the career ladder go for those entering the workplace? It was here just a little while ago.

Well, lots more could be written along these lines, but my time is up.

Is consensus politics dead in America?

Concensus politics is the exception, rather than the rule, and has been since the country's founding. We have an adversarial system in place, one which has kept either side from doing major harm (or, some might argue, major good). This is not new.

Did it ever exist anyway?
No, but we Americans have a great capacity for coming through in the clutch. When something HAS to be done, it gets done. Without an overwhelming need, however, the government is unable to pass controversial, wide-sweeping initiatives. I think it's a good thing. I'd much rather the government do nothing than to interfere unnecessarily with our lives.

Can you foresee any circumstances where the left-right political divide might become less acute and less vitriolic? If so, what?

Ah, vitriol, the "new factor". I think this stems from the close, disputed election of 2000. Unfortunately, the Democrats have set up this election as a replay of 2000, already poised to dispute the election, claim voter disenfranchisement, and other "sour grapes" tactics.

I would hope that the party that loses will "go quietly", but the election is going to be so close that I doubt it will shape up that way. I think the Republicans are much more likely to "go quietly", considering they have a long history of losing elections. The Democrats, who controlled Congress for most of the last century, are unaccustomed to being completely in the Minority. It was shocking for them. Hopefully, they will get used to it...

Fair comment, Amlord, but even I, as an outsider, can see a flaw with one of your points.

It goes back waayyyy further than that, surely? You don't think that the way the Republicans went after Clinton over his various scandals and shenanigans represent a similar tendency on the right to play the man and not the ball? (Soccer terminology lesson 1 - you can only tackle the player with the ball, and you're only allowed to try and kick the ball, not the player.) I'm not talking about the legitimate criticism of him once he'd perjured himself, but of the determination in some quarters to find some dirt - any dirt - on him.

Indeed, with a more robust knowledge of recent US political history, I'm would be pretty sure that this "new" vitriol goes back at least as far as Nixon - the first really big example in the 20th century of how low politicians will sink for electoral advantage, surely?



I hope so too, but I'm not so sure; the Republicans in general may have gone quietly when Clinton won his first term, but the neocon subset of Republicanism went into apoplexy. Clintonistas, in turn, have been flushed purple since Bush II had the temerity to go and win their election in 2000.

What worries me really is conviction politics. Both sides are so convinced that "the other guy" is a reprobate totally unfit to govern, and that "our guy"'s very real weaknesses are actually strengths.

Specific examples ? Bush's inarticulacy, Bible-thumping and anti-intellectualism are good things because they help him come across as a blue-collar, God-fearing guy despite his Ivy League background. Plus, even better, they really bother liberals.

Similarly, Kerry's lofty intellectualism, relative agnosticism, anti-war history and willo-the-wisp decision-making are good things because they appeal to big-city liberals as a smart educated thoughtful guy. Plus, even better, they really bother conservatives.

It's as if appealing to potential supporters isn't nearly as important in this campaign (and, no doubt, future ones too) as is alienating ones political opponents. If Rush doesn't like you, you must be an ideal Democrat candidate. If Tim Robbins turns his nose up at you, you're the perfect Republican.

I think we could all do with a spell where the only convictions in politics happen in courtrooms. And not of politicians in the opposite camp to whoever is in power at the time, either.

Oh for a candidate that could admit they don't have all the answers, and - perhaps this is more important - oh for an electorate that would let them do so with no electoral penality.

Julian,

Actually, I don't think the situation is as bad as it might seem to be. One of the reasons I supported Bush was that he had a history in Texas of reaching across the aisle and drawing support from both parties. He has actually done this during his Presidency (the education bill, Homeland Security, etc.). However, one issue is overshadowing this--the war in Iraq. Given that he does seem to feel that this was necessary, I don't think there's anything that can be done about this, short of finishing it up and getting out of there...which is what the plan is anyway. Until then, I think it is up to the electorate to 'get over it', whichever way the election falls. It will take a groundswell of support for consensus to achieve it--that comes from the people up, not the top down.

I agree - the groundswell needs to be bottom-up (by definition). However, my gut says that when the extremists make all the running, the centre switches off politics, leaving only the extremists.

I don't see any imminent signs that "the silent majority" will rise up, as would seem necessary, and reinject commonsense consensus and rationality into the increasingly shrill political classes, since (also by definition) we never know what the silent majority think about anything. Them being so quiet, and all.

Far from it - I think the tit-for-tat rebuttal machinery and personality politics that have become ever more "important" since the advent of television (and, especially, since 24-hour news networks arrived) are the main reason so few "ordinary" people have any interest in politics. It's only cranks like us that care .

We have a phrase here - "the Westminster village" - that represents the way that the concerns of national politicians and their media watchers can get to be out of synch with real-world concerns. Is there a similar concept Stateside, and if so, does it have a name?

We certainly have the same phenomenon here, although I think we just call it 'politics' . Ross Perot gave a very interesting talk at Texas A&M when he was running for President. Apparently, a Scottish philopher back in the 1600's wrote an essay on The Inevitable Fall of Democracy, in which the 6 stages of democracy were outlined. The basic premise was that democracy would inevitably become the politics of the minority, disenfranchising the majority, until eventually the system collapsed from the tax burden created by catering to all the special interests. It was obvious from the points that they were indeed being followed, and that we were either in stage 5 or 6--ie. near the inevitable end. The only thing that could prevent it would be the upswelling of the majority...however, being disenfranchised, they would, as the paper suggests, simply opt out of the process.

We discussed the same phenomenon in one of my economics classes, of all places. There, we discussed how politicians would inevitably cater to the special interests, because they could be promised things that would garner their vote, with costs so minor to the whole that they would be ignored. However, in this process, it would be in everyone's interest to join some special interest group, so that their needs would be catered to...again, causing an inevitable fall of the system as the costs become unbearable, but with no one willing to give up their piece of the pie.

So, I guess we either all rise up, or simply sit back and watch the Day After Tomorrow unfold before our very eyes. <will get off the gloom and doom soapbox now >

Ahhh, here we go...I think this a synopsis of the paper.



Note the second paragraph...can anyone say with a straight face that we certainly seem to learned that we can vote ourselves money...and that this will inevitably create an unsustainable budget?

I should have said "the current incarnation of vitriol".

Of course, the party in power is the receiver of the vitriol and the party out-of-power is the vitriol hurler. What I meant to say was that this was not new (which is why I said "new factor".)

It is certainly not new, nor unexpected.

Sorry about the murkiness...

This is nothing new. Even the founders engaged in vicious political attacks and slander.
The only thing that changes is who represents what. My Grandfather used to say "If you want to go to war, elect a Democrat" (WWI & II) Republicans used to be about fiscal conservatism and limited government and today they compete with the Dems in its expansion and grasp.
It will recede when the "threat" of terrorism declines as all the "threats" we have faced are shown to have been overblown, but effective, fear mongering tactics of politicians to maintain their power.



I rate this as just another aspect of the "threats" that always seem to wait in the wings and a complete lack of faith in how the American ideal of Democracy was set up.
This is the first democracy that does not depend on nationalism but on the ideas of democracy itself. America is not so important as a geographical point or tribal identity, but as a philosophical one. I think the difference this time and the one that will allow it to continue, is that this time the idea of the importance of and the protection of the individual is the bulwark against the mob aspect of democracy. I also think the avoidance of a national "identity" but the ability to experiment with new political/economic ideas and the drive to foster independence from the national identity "whole" in the united-- but sovereign-- States , allows the experimentation and development of new models that will prevent the permanent decline of our democratic model.
We may be pigs at the trough wearing snorkels right now, but eventually someone with the right charisma will champion a more independent and libertarian
design and people will come.
There just hasn't been the right kind of charismatic personality promoting it. Let me do a Karl Rove with someone with a JFK jr kinda charisma and I could sell the Libertarian model.


Take the Constitution and Bill of Rights anywhere, remove the I am a Brit, German, African, Texan, Sooner tribal identity and it would flourish quickly.




hmm,not the most well developed political theory, but it is a work in progress.

Christopher,

I would take issue with the idea of the importance and protection of the individual being the reason why the Fall of Democracy would not incur...it is, rather, the very reason that it would. Politicians promising ever more to each and every individual...since, after all, they deserve it, right?...is exactly what is causing the budgetary problems we have today (that, and the naive view that it doesn't matter). However, I agree with you that the Libertarian party represents the potential solution. America has a strong fiscal conservatism that differentiates it from many other democracies, so there is certainly a strong liklihood that if things get too far out of whack, a new party following will occur to correct it. We're probably close to that stage now...as you suggest, if the Libertarians could but find the proper candidate, I think there are hordes of fiscal conservatives, from both mainstream parties, who would follow them.

I disagree, hobbes. Placing the importance of the Individual in relation to the NEEDS of the democracy as a whole is the very thing that changes the equation. This is the first time where the right of the Individual to supercede the desires of the democratic Society as a whole has ever been given a firm reality. Although the mob oftens wins, the chances of the Individual have a shot.
I don't necessarily think Libertarians are the answer, but the ideal of the Individual is still one of importance in American society. As more and more people get fed up with the inadequacies and idiocy of trying to create a one size fits all model that is the centralized model of government you will get a resistant drive away from the mob.

Example: Social Security. As the Boomers die, the younger generations will step away from the SS model. it is inefficient and strangling. Why anyone would want to follow such a model of failure willl seal the fate of SS and put a long overdue end to it.
Even the most basic investment scheme yields results that put SS to shame.



I think the cycles are valid but I don't beleive the endgame of the theory to be correct. There will be a drive towards the Liberty aspect once again-- and then as safety and comfort again rise, a return to the Selfishness. Boom and Bust, etc.

I also believe that the constant influx of immigrants will constantly refresh the Liberty aspect. Immigrants generally put native born US citizens to shame in how well they flourish in pursuit of the "American Dream". Their offspring who become the first native born generation will do a little better and I think the second generation after that will do the best--then comes the inevitable slide towards complacency. In other words they become "american". Pigs in the trough. but there willbe a new wave in the wings.

There will always be disagreement in the defintion of what American democracy should be, but I think the incredible variations that are the result of our outlook
will be what keeps us refreshed and evolving. Never stagnating.
It is hard to describe--I have not come up with a defining phrase yet, but while we will always evolve, we will still remain true to who we are. A different face and appearance--yet still clearly recognizable.

I feel that alot of republicans think the resistence to Bush boils down to partisan politics. I do not think that is true at all. I believe that people are resisting Bush out of a fear of what he has done and what he could potentially do if given another term. I do not think that politics have been this divisive since Adams and Jefferson were battling with the federalists and anti-federalists. A time so crucial that maybe only a diplomat of Jefferson's ability could have made the transition.

I do not see this as a war between republicans and democrats I think it is a war against Bush. This is the way the citizens of our allies feel as well. I was an independant until this election and I would like to be one again.

Say what you want but Bush Sr, Bob Dole, Al Gore and Bill Clinton were not feared by the people who chose to vote against them. Bush is feared and it should be evident that partisan politics are not to blame because at one time his approval rating was like at 90%. I think it should be evident by the reality that the democrats are currently mobilzed and united like they have never been before. 2000 was a gluttony vote. We were so content that it didnt matter what dope won. This is why even though most people sided with Gore on the issues (in polls) that Bush was able to (kinda) win....and it really didnt matter.

I do not think the opposition to Bush is based on the controversial 2000 election. That slate was wiped clean by 9/11. He had unprecedented support. Tom Daschle even hugged him!! That support has vanished. People are afraid of Bush's renegade foreign policy where those who dont go marching with us blindly turn into enemies, where the citizens of even our staunchest allies like the UK, Canada and Australia are afraid of us. Where the ability to admit mistakes and miscalulations is not demonstrated. Steamplowing ahead insisting that everything is great when it obviously isnt is what scares people. Summarizing complex issues and ideologies with answers as simple as "they hate us for our freedom" or "we're working hard" I think scares alot of people.

Whoever wins this election is in trouble. Social Security, The deficit, Iraq, The exploding muslim youth population in the Middle east whose hatred of us grows daily in leaps and bounds, the economy shifts that the industrialization of China and India will create that will threaten our own work force and economy. I would not want to be president and the only choices we have is a man who in many minds helped create and foster these problems and another man who shows little indication that he will able to correct them. We need a Jefferson, Lincoln or Roosevelt even a Wilson, Bush Sr or Clinton would suffice but we are stuck with people cast in the Grant, Hoover and Gerald Ford mold.

Sadly, I think that we will be disunited for a long time to come. If Kerry wins the republicans will be all over him for his entire 4 years.

AML,

One of the interesting things this time around, as all three branches of power are controlled by one party, is that the vitriol hurler has been on both sides: the one in power and the one out of power.

Another interesting observation is that the out-of-power party got its vitriol up late in the game. For years the out-of-power party just took the beating with very little attempt to fight back, due to some kind of attitude that bullies are best handled by ignoring them? No, sometimes they have to be slapped down.

To be fair, most of the vitriol comes from individuals who found a cash-cow schtick. It's just the money-making machinery pushing a popular song, and this one goes: "Anything you can do, I can do better." It's pretty childish, but popular still. Thinking about the tune "Coward of The County" here, regarding the out-of-power vitriol hurling.

Heh, I liked Jon Stewart's take that this is like fake wrestling on television. Both sides think the other side doesn't think correctly (or straight, or right, or whatever), but in the end the real winner of the fake competition is . . .

Well, that's at the core of the matter, isn't it. Just stop the fake vitriol hurling and talk about problems and their solutions.

Will this continue after the election? Don't know. Could happen. Vitriol hurling gets old after a while -- maybe its popularity is already on the wane.

I think that if anything is going to get done, it is going to be the responsibility of the people to contact their Representatives and Senators and say, look here, there is a country to run and people who look to the government to keep them safe and help them lead healthy, productive lives.

Yes, there will obviously be people who will refuse to drop the political bitterness and who will stubbornly refuse to cooperate in a basically bipartisan situation. But they must not be the majority.

The Congress will take its cue from the Administration, whichever one it turns out to be. The President will have to reach out to the other parties, and this will be difficult after such a nasty election. The keys are an honest desire to accomplish good things and the ability to communicate effectively.

If this isn't done, there is a possibility of things getting much worse with every election cycle.

Yes ...the term is "inside the beltway" the beltway being the Interstate 495 loop that encircles Washington DC.

I think a lot of this is being generated within this loop..this circle... and unfortunately I do feel it is shaping American politics today.

It is all very difficult for me to understand as I don't identify with any political demagogue and yet so many do now days..so much is written with only a particular view point or audience in mind. I know I am a minority but to me each of the approved candidates differentiate very little in my mind and I feel very disenfranchised in the system.

Edited to add even more...sorry keep thinking of things I want to say...

I watched the Democrat's convention because I felt if I was to have to choose one this would probably be the closest thing to my views.
I have never been to church but I would imagine that it is much like what I saw at this convention. I think religion or at least zealousness shapes American politics on either side far far more than what is ever admitted to.
I feel like it is much more an emotional thing here then say in Europe where it is just much more business like. I wish Americans would admit to at least themselves...politics is a business..not a religion. This is one of the reasons I think men dominate the American political arena...people just like getting the word of god from a man of god. There are not many female priests/reverends or whatever you would call them as there are not many female politicians.

Yes, AM, this is absolutely the core of the matter--seems so simple to rectify, doesn't it? Just talk about the problems and their solutions, implement them, and move on. When the parties involved do decide to do this, something good almost always happens. Neither side gets it exactly the way they want (which is probably a good thing), but a workable solution is developed which improves on the status quo. The problem is, far too often, each side assumes that it is better for their overall good to obstruct more often than compromise, all for the purpose of political gain. As PE suggests, the solution to that is also pretty simple. Write to your Congressmen, and let them know that you will find inactivity intolerable, and be sure to get rid of their sorry *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** if they can't figure out how to get some things done, regardless of which side seems to get the credit (since when compromise does occur, both sides usually go out of their way to indicate it was a joint effort). FWIW, I have done so regarding the SS issue, but, strangely, have received neither a response or seen any action . But, maybe if we ALL did it.....

bucket,

Someone once said that poltics is the art of the possible. Think we've run into some problems with attempting to run things like a business inside the beltway. That has brought us the closed door meeting sessions, which are very business-like. Guess we can't handle the truth?

I get your drift though. Let's run it like business is supposed to run, eh? Render unto Ceasar and all that.



Hobbes and PE, yeah. Let's make them sick of our letters, no matter who wins. Someone reads those missives, and sometimes the message gets through, but as mentioned, it takes a lot of like-minded constituents with the power of voting for it to happen.

Anyway, the campaigns sure get the vitriol going on both sides. I'm absolutely sick of it by now, as I am sure many others are.