The Myth of Political-Economic Party
Polarization
“I
actually think the divide is not that wide…. When you go to other countries,
the political divisions are so much more stark and wider. Here in America, the
difference between Democrats and Republicans — we’re fighting inside the
40-yard lines”
President
Obama, November, 2013
It is
difficult to read anything about American politics today without coming across
the claim that the political system is more polarized than at any time in
recent history and that this is the source of current intractable gridlock. However, as it pertains to the political-economic policy dimension, I believe the claim is false and
is due to a misconception of what polarization would involve, and the actual
type of division and animosity that actually characterizes party politics
today.
Technically,
polarization of the political parties would involve each of the two parties
moving in opposite directions toward the left and right ends of the political
spectrum. A stylized example of a theoretical party polarization is represented
in Figure A. Here you have, over a 30
year period, the Democratic Party moving toward the left end of the political
spectrum and the Republican Party moving toward the right end of the political
spectrum. They are moving in opposite directions and toward opposing ideological
poles
A more
accurate representation of the political-economic shifts of the two parties is
presented in Figure B. Here we have, since 1970, both parties moving toward the
right end of the political spectrum. But even though both parties have moved to
the right, fueled by their dependence on and cultivation of corporate campaign
contributions, the distance between the two parties can still widen if one
party is moving more radically to the right than the other. This describes the
Republican Party. As political scientists Mann and Ornstein put it in It’s Even Worse Than It Looks, “The Republican Party has become an insurgent outlier —
ideologically extreme; contemptuous of the inherited social and economic
regime; scornful of compromise; unpersuaded by conventional understanding of
facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political
opposition.” When one of only two
parties takes an extreme ideological position, sharp political division is the
logical outcome. This results in a growing
distance between the parties despite the fact that they have been moving in the
same direction.
The
alternative perspective presented here on the issue of polarization is based on
what we know about the Democratic Party, beginning with the Carter
administration, but solidified under Clinton, that involved a clear departure
from New Deal social democratic principles and an embrace of more conservative
neoliberal political-economic policies. Among the most notable under Clinton were
the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the Personal Responsibility
and Work Opportunity Act, and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act. All three of these pieces of legislation
moved the Democratic Party to the right as part of the “triangulation” strategy
adopted by the Clinton administration.
The Obama administration has done little if anything to reverse policy
in these three areas and, in terms of trade agreements, has actually pursued a
deepening of the global neoliberal apparatus as evidenced by his promotion of
the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).
So,
if the parties have moved in the same direction, what accounts for the real
hostility and antagonism between the parties and party members? I would like to offer two simple concepts,
based on the existence of a two-party versus multiparty system, which might
provide a partial explanation.
First
is what I call zero-sum partisanship.
This means that (as in a zero-sum game) any gain for one party (electorally
or legislatively) is viewed as a loss for the other; and any loss for one is
viewed as a gain for the other. Under this destructive arrangement, the notion
that there might be a mutually beneficial agreement or a basis for cooperation
or compromise between the two parties becomes increasingly unlikely.
A second closely associated feature of our party system
is binary partisanship. As with a binary numerical system, you are
either a 1 or 0. One’s political
identity, and the tone of political discourse, is shaped by one’s location into
one category or the other. If you criticize a Republican you must be a
Democrat. If you criticize a Democrat, you must be a Republican. If you are not
a 1 you must support a zero. There is no space in a binary system between 0 and
1; nor is there the option for a 0 to choose a 2, as this would automatically
be interpreted as assisting 1, and thus supporting a “spoiler”.
When Reince Priebus, the chair of the Republican National
Committee, was recently asked why the party was now embracing Trump, he
replied, "It’s
a binary choice. It’s Donald Trump or
Hillary Clinton."
Principled non-partisanship under the zero-sum and binary
conditions becomes nearly impossible.
Antagonism and mutual distain becomes the norm.
All of this has produced partisan co-dependent relationship between the two parties; each
depending on the other to serve as the nemesis against which to generate
antipathy among their base. Instead of
offering a politically principled policy agenda, the parties are content to
mobilize voters on the basis of the claimed horrors that will result if the
opposition is victorious.
For
example, in soliciting support and campaign contributions in the current
election, Hillary Clinton has made the following pitch: “Donald Trump is not a normal candidate, and if he beats us, it will be more than a defeat at the ballot box — it will be a once-in-a-generation setback for our values and our shared idea of what America means.”
Rather than proposing a progressive left agenda, as one might expect if ideological polarization were occurring, Clinton, and the Democratic Party of recent election campaigns, is content to run on defending the status quo from the reactionary right. This is aptly described by Matt Karp, in a recent article in Jacobin, as “fortress liberalism” – “the dominant mentality within the Democratic establishment”.
In short, the notion of political party polarization must be examined more carefully and critically as it suggests that not only is there extremism from both parties, but that the Democratic Party has somehow moved sharply to the left. On the central matter of political economic ideology, this characterization is clearly false. The fact that the greatest challenge to the Democratic establishment has come from the progressive social democratic left, and that that ranking officials of the Chamber of Commerce of Commerce and Wall Street moguls such as Michael Bloomberg are now actively supporting Hillary Clinton for President, provides further dis-confirming evidence of the ideological party polarization claim.
Rather than proposing a progressive left agenda, as one might expect if ideological polarization were occurring, Clinton, and the Democratic Party of recent election campaigns, is content to run on defending the status quo from the reactionary right. This is aptly described by Matt Karp, in a recent article in Jacobin, as “fortress liberalism” – “the dominant mentality within the Democratic establishment”.
In short, the notion of political party polarization must be examined more carefully and critically as it suggests that not only is there extremism from both parties, but that the Democratic Party has somehow moved sharply to the left. On the central matter of political economic ideology, this characterization is clearly false. The fact that the greatest challenge to the Democratic establishment has come from the progressive social democratic left, and that that ranking officials of the Chamber of Commerce of Commerce and Wall Street moguls such as Michael Bloomberg are now actively supporting Hillary Clinton for President, provides further dis-confirming evidence of the ideological party polarization claim.
No comments:
Post a Comment