Forwarding the Conversation

President Obama came into office riding a wave of post-partisan hope.  The hope was that he could usher in an era that placed good policy over good politics and was characterized by civility and compromise. Instead, we have seen – from both the left and the right – extreme rhetoric and the civility of a group of kindergarteners.

This level of discourse cannot and should not be tolerated in our political discourse. It is not a phenomenon of the Left or the Right, it is a phenomenon of anger throughout the country. This anger has manifested itself in the Tea Party movement and the recent protests over immigration. What strikes me as particularly odd is that there has been very little discussion about where this anger comes from. I find it unlikely that the anger over the healthcare bill is about the legislation itself. If it were, I imagine we would have seen much more targeted and specific rhetoric attacking the bill itself. Instead, we saw citizens at town hall forums calling their elected officials socialists.

A recent poll conducted by the Pew Research Center noted that since February of 2000 that anger towards government has increased by 11 percentage points. They also note that increasing frustration with government is not a new phenomenon, but increasing anger towards government is new.

So, what does all of these mean to our democracy?

The people that I talk to tend to intuitively believe that the tone of our political discourse is unhealthy. People cite a variety of different ways that it negatively impacts our country, but it seems that nobody can put a finger on why it is so negative.

Before getting to that I do want to establish that both sides of the aisle have been spreading half-truths and fear to rile their base. In an off-year Congressional election the party whose base is most excited typically wins more seats. As a result, Sarah Palin’s claim that the healthcare legislation would contain “death panels” and the Democrats assertion that Republicans hate Hispanics are – in essence – battle cries.

This type of rhetoric damages the process in a variety of ways. I will explore the following impacts in the rest of this post:

• The electoral box
• The anger hypothesis

The Electoral Box
When political candidates pander to the extremes of their party in order to get elected they put themselves in an electoral box. The electoral box is the phenomenon that occurs when candidates owe their election to the extremes of their party. Since these candidates draw their electoral strength from the extremes, once elected, they are forced to take polarized policy positions, which makes it difficult for them to compromise. Compromise is difficult because if they upset their base enough times they will have a difficult time being re-elected. There is no better example of this phenomenon then John McCain who recently criticized bipartisan efforts to craft immigration reform, an issue that he championed during President George Bush’s second term in office. Furthermore, McCain recently stated that he never called himself a Maverick. It has been widely noted in popular media that McCain has tacked further to the right on issues in order to fight off a challenge from former Rep J.D. Hayworth. As a result, McCain has fallen in line with the Republican party, which has made him unable to work with both sides of the aisle to create policy.

From John McCain I would like to focus on Marco Rubio. Rubio is the former Florida Speaker of the House and is the likely Republican nominee for the open U.S. Senate seat in Florida. Rubio has run on a far-right platform that has demonized Governor Charlie Christ for accepting federal stimulus money. He has also run hard against anything having to do with President Obama. Rather than defend this claim by providing specific examples, I would challenge anyone who disagrees with the statement to look at Mr. Rubio’s campaign website and provide me with an issue on which he openly says that he agrees with President Obama (www.marcorubio.com). As a result of Mr. Rubio’s rhetoric, the following question comes to mind: If Mr. Rubio wants to be re-elected by the Florida voters who can he legitimately work with the Obama administration on any major policy issue? The answer, I believe, is that he has almost no room for compromise, and that is detriment to the process. Policy creation is not about the clash of opposing polarities, it’s about hard-fought compromise. Because of how Mr. Rubio is running for office he has almost no room to compromise with the administration for fear of his constituency turning on him (the same way they turned on Governor Christ).

The final example I will invoke is that of Scott Brown. While Scott Brown ran on a platform that opposed President Obama’s healthcare plan and his handling of the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), he also conceded that he would be a reformer who worked with both sides of the aisle. During his victory speech he reinforced this point by saying “When in Washington, I will work in the Senate with Democrats and Republicans to reform health care in an open and honest way.” This rhetoric puts Brown in the position to work across the aisle to create effective policy. Because he did not have to pander to the extremes of his party in order to win he is now in a position where he can compromise. To further reinforce this point, he was one of the only Republicans to vote with the Democrats to end the filibuster of the Jobs Bill.

The Anger Hypothesis
Demagoguery that demonizes the opposing side reinforces and strengthens the anger and distrust that already exists in the country. This election cycle has seen a slew of new candidates on the right that have been out to paint the Democrats as socialists who are trying to destroy the country. Furthermore, the cable news pundits have been out spreading half-truths (and sometimes outright lies) about the opposing sides. As personalities like Glen Beck and Keith Olbermann gain popularity the polarization in the country will increase. When people, who are already more prone to being suspicious of government, hear every single day that their President has a socialist agenda and is trying to undermine the foundation of the United States it would make sense that they get angry. Furthermore, of those who associate themselves as being a part of the Tea Party Movement, in a recent poll, 53% consider Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity news rather than entertainment. Furthermore, 63% of those who associate themselves with the Tea Party Movement said that they get a majority of their news from Fox News. With these types of numbers it is understandable that an entire segment of the population feels as if their President, and Government, does not share their values. In the same Tea Party poll 75% of respondents said that Barack Obama does not share the values that most Americans try to live by. This is an enormous problem for our democracy because it completely delegitimizes anything that President Obama tries to do. To see the full results of the poll click here.

The basis of the anger hypothesis is that demagoguery leads to anger and anger leads to distrust in government. This distrust in government manifests itself in a number of ways to peaceful demonstrations, to threats against the lives of politicians, to the inability of elected officials to get things done. Therefore, it is incredibly important for us – as Americans – to be mindful of believing everything we hear.

What now?
From here forward, my blog will be a forum for how we – as a nation – can come together to cure the disease that currently infects our democracy. The assumption underlying this entire experiment is that there is a relationship between the health of our politics and policy. I hope that in this post I was able to effectively draw that link. My next posts will be dedicated to developing ways to strengthen the democratic process through civility, common sense, and common understanding. If you are interested in contributing to this forum please feel free to leave a comment, or send me an e-mail if you’d like to contribute a post. You can contact me at ross.rocketto@gmail.com.

Until next time, stay classy democracy…