The Partisanship Trap
Throughout this decade, there has been much coverage of the intense partisan fights that have become the standard in Washington, D.C. and in many other places throughout the country. As nearly every single issue becomes a political football for politicians to fight over, observers wonder what happened to those "good old days" where the parties often worked together and even stayed in the capital to meet socially and come to compromises.
However, one must realize why these sides engage in bitter fights at every opportunity. The fact of the matter is that both sides have much to lose if these partisan battles become less frequent.
Consider the massive amounts of money raised for presidential campaigns. Is all this money being donated because the candidates are just that popular? Perhaps some contribute out of sheer admiration for a candidate, but even Hillary Clinton, who is not particularly popular with much of the Democratic base, is making a mint for her campaign every quarter. It is not because so many people out there view her as the ideal candidate but because she has the Clinton brand and is politically smart enough to have a good shot at being at least barely acceptable to 50% of the electorate. Democrats are eager to take back the White House after eight years of George W. Bush, thus they are donating in record numbers. The unpopularity of Bush combined with much anti-Bush rhetoric on the campaign trail leads to massive amounts of money.
Although Republicans have not been raising as much as Democrats, they too are fueled by the motivation of keeping the other side from the Oval Office. Rudy Giuliani's major draw is that he too could be seen as somewhat acceptable to a very slim majority of the electorate. Should Clinton be the Democratic nominee, even more funds would be donated as the prospect of another Clinton presidency will put most Republicans in line with the Republican nominee.
This extends to the outside groups (527's as called by their line in the tax code) that place themselves on the front lines of the partisan battle. This is why such groups (like MoveOn.org and the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth) send out advertisements and announcements proclaiming that those evil bastards on the other side are a threat to your "values" (whatever such "values" may be), so give money to the cause of defeating their attempts.
Besides, what would happen if both sides did get together much more often to hammer out agreements? A sharp rise of criticisms that "those Washington politicians are all the same" would result. This gave rise to candidates that focused their rhetoric on "cleaning out Washington" or ranting about "those Washington insiders," even as they themselves became entrenched Washington insiders. Not surprisingly, such talk quickly went to "those evil Washington insider bastards are a threat to your values."
But even while there is that campaign angle, politicians do often brag about "bipartisan" agreements. Given how rare such things happen, it must surely take a person of unique skill to reach out and get those evil Washington insider bastards to screw their heads on straight and agree to whatever proposal was on the table. If such bipartisanship were the norm rather than the exception, such a statement of pride would be nothing special.
Just like there is the liquidity trap for interest rates that are so low, due to a lack of investment, rates stay low, there is the partisanship trap for politics so entrenched that there would be too much to lose for participants to scrap the partisan fighting. However, as bad as things may seem these days, there are still chances to turn it around, though it may take politically courageous people to call a cease-fire and meet. This is nowhere near as bad as it could be. Intense partisanship prompted violent outbursts in our country's history (such as when Republican Senator Charles Sumner was caned in the Senate chamber by Democratic congressman Preston Brooks after Sumner ridiculed Brooks' uncle, Democratic Senator Andrew Butler, for a speech impediment caused by his heart condition while blasting away proponents of the Fugitive Slave Act, with Brooks being one of the Act's authors) and fueled much of the motivation for Southern states to secede due to irreconcilable differences (no matter how wrong they were in such views concerning slavery), leading to the Civil War. There is not yet evidence to suggest such a thing is likely today. But a bit of peace and quiet every once in a while would be nice. We may even then solve some of the country's biggest persistent issues. Until the next battle, anyway.
However, one must realize why these sides engage in bitter fights at every opportunity. The fact of the matter is that both sides have much to lose if these partisan battles become less frequent.
Consider the massive amounts of money raised for presidential campaigns. Is all this money being donated because the candidates are just that popular? Perhaps some contribute out of sheer admiration for a candidate, but even Hillary Clinton, who is not particularly popular with much of the Democratic base, is making a mint for her campaign every quarter. It is not because so many people out there view her as the ideal candidate but because she has the Clinton brand and is politically smart enough to have a good shot at being at least barely acceptable to 50% of the electorate. Democrats are eager to take back the White House after eight years of George W. Bush, thus they are donating in record numbers. The unpopularity of Bush combined with much anti-Bush rhetoric on the campaign trail leads to massive amounts of money.
Although Republicans have not been raising as much as Democrats, they too are fueled by the motivation of keeping the other side from the Oval Office. Rudy Giuliani's major draw is that he too could be seen as somewhat acceptable to a very slim majority of the electorate. Should Clinton be the Democratic nominee, even more funds would be donated as the prospect of another Clinton presidency will put most Republicans in line with the Republican nominee.
This extends to the outside groups (527's as called by their line in the tax code) that place themselves on the front lines of the partisan battle. This is why such groups (like MoveOn.org and the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth) send out advertisements and announcements proclaiming that those evil bastards on the other side are a threat to your "values" (whatever such "values" may be), so give money to the cause of defeating their attempts.
Besides, what would happen if both sides did get together much more often to hammer out agreements? A sharp rise of criticisms that "those Washington politicians are all the same" would result. This gave rise to candidates that focused their rhetoric on "cleaning out Washington" or ranting about "those Washington insiders," even as they themselves became entrenched Washington insiders. Not surprisingly, such talk quickly went to "those evil Washington insider bastards are a threat to your values."
But even while there is that campaign angle, politicians do often brag about "bipartisan" agreements. Given how rare such things happen, it must surely take a person of unique skill to reach out and get those evil Washington insider bastards to screw their heads on straight and agree to whatever proposal was on the table. If such bipartisanship were the norm rather than the exception, such a statement of pride would be nothing special.
Just like there is the liquidity trap for interest rates that are so low, due to a lack of investment, rates stay low, there is the partisanship trap for politics so entrenched that there would be too much to lose for participants to scrap the partisan fighting. However, as bad as things may seem these days, there are still chances to turn it around, though it may take politically courageous people to call a cease-fire and meet. This is nowhere near as bad as it could be. Intense partisanship prompted violent outbursts in our country's history (such as when Republican Senator Charles Sumner was caned in the Senate chamber by Democratic congressman Preston Brooks after Sumner ridiculed Brooks' uncle, Democratic Senator Andrew Butler, for a speech impediment caused by his heart condition while blasting away proponents of the Fugitive Slave Act, with Brooks being one of the Act's authors) and fueled much of the motivation for Southern states to secede due to irreconcilable differences (no matter how wrong they were in such views concerning slavery), leading to the Civil War. There is not yet evidence to suggest such a thing is likely today. But a bit of peace and quiet every once in a while would be nice. We may even then solve some of the country's biggest persistent issues. Until the next battle, anyway.
posted by Will at 10:38 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home