And those of us (myself very much included) who are not committed to either party are not exempt from this phenomenon, at all: ‘Independents who say they lean — but are not committed to — either party have grown further apart from each other, particularly in their views on the role and effectiveness of government.’ People are sorting socially and geographically to match their political preferences. Interestingly enough, the author traces these changes back, ultimately, to the ‘Southern strategy’ of the Republican Party under Nixon. But the best insight to be found here is that technocratic Beltway centrism is a tribal phenomenon in spite of its pretensions to the contrary.
And the conclusion is spot-on:
The U.S. cannot address its political challenges — and they are many — until its pundits, public, and politicians understand the shape of the situation we’re in. Asymmetrical polarization is the defining feature of American political life. As George Will might say, “deal with it.” The sides are drifting farther and farther apart, one far out into the choppy waters of reactionary lunacy. Those attempting to find a place between them are increasingly, well, at sea.
Quite. Hat tip to Dave Brockington on Lawyers, Guns and Money.
I wonder why the shift to the Right has been so pronounced while much of the Left has stayed relatively mild (especially on economics, where the Left is very weak).
ReplyDeleteBeyond all of the obvious answers such as the greater resources of the Right and its concerted efforts to create an alternate intellectual universe with its own think tanks, news channels, and even schools, I often ask myself why it is more acceptable to be, say, a devotee of the Austrian School as opposed to a Marxist (not that I support either school of thought).
I imagine much of it has to do with the Cold War, but that period of history ended over two decades ago. Furthermore, many Western Marxists have rejected the nastier aspects of the Marxist legacy (for example, coming out against Marxist-Leninist violence, state totalitarianism, dropping central planning in favor of cooperatives and workplace democracy, accepting and supporting civil liberties, including religious freedom, etc.). I am thinking of fellows like the Marxian Prof. Richard D. Wolff, whose thought I encountered while reading the Distributist Review of all things!
To make a long story short, I often wonder if it is easier to be on the "far" side of the political spectrum that supports the powerful (so, for example, being a right-libertarian)as opposed to the weak (socialism).
Nobody likes being accused of supporting a political philosophy because they are just “whiners” and “losers” who blame the “winners” for their problems. It is easier to be a libertarian and blame the government and poor people for keeping you down! (See Joe the Plumber for a good example of this kind of thinking). Or even simpler yet, many people just want to be on the side of the winners.
Hi John!
ReplyDeleteVery good point you make. Back in the day, I'll lay dollars to doughnuts that it was more popular and acceptable to be an apologist for Herod and the Roman client state than to be a member of the Sicarii, a Pharisee or, Heaven forefend, a follower of the Way. The rich and the powerful are always able to buy the support they need, and have been since the days of yore.
And you're right about the Western Marxists. It is very true that most of them decried the abuses of Stalin and Mao. But since Stalin and Mao have passed, the more honest of them have attempted to bridge the gap between Hegel and Marx, or have gone into post-structuralism or post-modernism; the less honest have basically sold out. Very few of the mainstream 'socialist' parties in Europe stand up anymore for public ownership of utilities, support of unions or democratic accountability of government (one noteworthy and laudable exception being Austria's SPÖ).
To be honest, I am finding the sort of left-libertarian economics you describe (syndicalist cooperatives, workplace democracy, scepticism of corporations) all the more appealing, even though they have to work out the antinomy that the anti-family social policies they support would ultimately undermine their laudable economic goals.
Anyway, just thought this study was interesting. And scary. Mostly scary - I wonder what sort of social upheaval will have to take place in order to overturn this order of increasingly-separate, increasingly-incommensurate political silos.
Hello Matthew!
ReplyDeleteI think it will be hard to get people from the different parts of the political spectrum to work together constructively as long as there is such a major divide over worldviews. In the past, there was a kind of basic cultural consensus, even if there were sharp disagreements over economics and foreign policy and the like.
The Culture War seems to have changed that. It is harder to cooperate because of the powerful imagery used. For example, some secular liberals see religious conservatives as the "American Taliban," and some religious conservatives see secular liberals as evil heathens.
It is a bad situation because, deep down, I think most Americans are upset about many of the same things, but we cannot have a constructive dialogue on these issues. Cable news doesn't help much either.
Hi John!
ReplyDeleteAgreed about the silo effect, and the narrowing use of language on both sides (though, I would strain to note, the degree of 'linguistic closure' is more exacerbated on the right side of the equation than on the left) as a result of the Culture Wars. As for constructive dialogue, I pretty much agree that the public fora are kind of shot to hell from people shouting at each other (and I'm truly as guilty of this as anyone; this isn't me trying to hypocritically stand outside the debates that, as a blogger, I can't truly escape).
Maintaining person-to-person contacts with people of differing perspectives (and not just over Facebook) may prove to be important in having these constructive dialogues, though the Grist article seems to hold that even that is becoming more difficult. That may be one of the true virtues of the academy as a physical location, where evil 'statist' bastards like myself can rub shoulders with libertarians, where liberals and conservatives can have public discussions and so forth.