Watching the recent election results and the more recent unseemly tussle for House speaker brought home an issue we’ve all watched evolve for years. How did we get to this partisan polarization and legislative impasse in spite of the fact that most Americans (and theoretically those we choose to represent us) inhabit a region much closer to the center of the political spectrum.
Back when I was a kid back in the middle ages – actually the 50’s and 60’s, party politics was seldom a discussion around the old dinner table. Oh, we talked about candidates, friends running for different offices, but rarely in terms of what party they were. They were either a good person or not, based on our knowledge, often personal, of the candidate. That simple. Both my Grandad, an Independent, and my Dad, a Republican, served as Mayors of our town. My Grandmother was a Democrat, my Mom and Aunt were Republicans. Never caused a problem, never an issue. They usually voted for the same candidate anyway because they thought that person was best for that job. That’s how it used to be not that long ago.
While the cult of personality has always been a part of the political process, the identity politics and the depth of divisiveness we’re experiencing today is certainly a phenomenon within my historical framework. It’s not just that you believe a politician is a scoundrel, or that a party leaves a lot to be desired, but the demonization of a person for having a different point of view than you do, is most disconcerting. People recently avoided family gatherings during the holidays simply because someone held a different perspective on issues than you. Is that rational? Have we really sunk to that level of discourse where a politician or political party supplants the ties of friends and family? How sad.
It also paralyzes our process to the point where anything one party brings up will be voted against by the other party even if they had brought up the same issue previously. It’s a pretty darn sad state of affairs. It has now fallen to our Presidents and courts to provide guidance whilst our Congress marinates in mediocrity and governs via hyperbolic sound-bite.
So let’s step into the wayback machine to chart what I believe is the foundational basis for how we got from there to here. I realize this is perhaps a simplistic view as our Congress is replete with historical skirmishes, including fisticuffs, gunplay and duels on and off the floor, but the modern era seemed, for awhile at least, to have adopted a more statesmanlike approach to governance.
In 1982 Ronald Reagan was President, and a Republican Senate was under the nominal control of Howard Baker. Of the 53 Republicans and 46 Democrats, 30 Republicans were considered most conservative while 10 Democrats were listed as most liberal, leaving a whopping 60 members who were considered moderates. Those 60 members could get stuff done even if the fringes disagreed.
In 1994 Bill Clinton was President, and the Senate was split 52R to 48D with Bob Dole as headmaster of the circus. The number of Republicans considered most conservative had grown to 35 while the number of Democrats counted most liberal had nearly tripled to 29. Still, that left 36 folks in the moderate camp who could still get the people’s business done by rounding up a few allies on both sides of the aisle. In 1995, perhaps sensing the direction this was headed, a group of Democrats formed the so-called Blue Dog Coalition, or caucus. At its peak, the Blue Dog Coalition boasted nearly 70 members made up of more moderate Democrats who focused on fiscal stability, national security, and working across the aisle to reach common goals — ideals that often led them to spar with colleagues who had slowly drifted further to the political left.
By 2002, under George W. Bush, the Senate was split 51R to 48D with Trent Lott calling the shots for awhile. But the number of Democrats labeled most liberal had expanded to 45 while the number of most conservative Republicans has grown to 46. That left just 9 lonely moderates tilting at windmills in the center as conservative leaning Democrats migrated to the Republican Party and liberal leaning Republicans became Democrats. And the fringes just kept getting fringier.
Fast forward to 2010. Barak Obama was President and Democrats under Harry Reid controlled 51 seats while Republicans held 47. Moderates had been eliminated, the Blue Dogs were extinct, and the division that stymies our Congress today, was set firmly in place. Whereas members used to rationally discuss issues and try to reach a consensus, today the word ‘compromise’ is viewed as a dirty word. Members of both parties used to routinely gather for after-work drinks, party together, and work together. Last time I was in DC, we witnessed a member who wouldn’t even ride the same elevator as a member from ‘across the aisle’.
Current House Speaker Mike Johnson was almost not reelected to his post because he had the temerity to reach a compromise with Republicans and Democrats to pass legislation. Oh, the horror! Better to let the business of the people grind to a halt than try to work both sides of the aisle for a common goal. Yet not a single Democrat voted for him either, preferring to tilt at partisan windmills. That’s pretty sad too. Bipartisan agreement used to be a goal which meant the best interests of the American people was being served. Today it has become a discrediting virtue.
Well, we now have an “America First’ agenda coming from the White House, some of the Republicans coming into Congress are proudly not your father’s bombastic conservatives, and there’s a renewal among some young Democrats to reconstitute the Blue Dog Caucus. Maybe that’s a positive sign for the future. One can only hope.
