Have the lines already been drawn? (Political Cartoon)
I recently finished watching the Ken Burns documentary called "The Civil War" with my friend Book. It was a great documentary that really exposed the true reasons for the war and the fundamental political differences that eventually required armed conflict to resolve. Ironically, the same basic political differences (slavery aside) remain and continue to fester. States rights, the role of the federal government and its reach remain hot issues.
When we were about three discs into the five-disc series, Book and I were at Barnes and Noble doing some Christmas shopping. I saw a book titled "The Second Civil War: How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America" by Ronald Brownstein. I had heard the author's name before, but I wanted to make sure the book was written by a legitimate source before making the purchase, so I went along my way.
In the meantime, I could not get the title out of my head. I kept thinking about my own fears about our political climate and how vicious politics have become. After my research, I discovered that the author has been a finalist for the Pulitzer twice and is a well-respected journalist from the Los Angeles Times. The book has been met with acclaim and has been praised for its even-handed view of the situation and its measured and academic approach.
I almost became obsessed with purchasing the book to see how it flushed the topic out. Long story short, I bought the book and read the first chapter.
Going into the book, my thoughts are that the idea of compromise has been pushed to the back-burner. This was done in an unusually-extreme way by George W. Bush's Republican Party (W's "my way or the highway" tactics), and (as an inevitable backlash), then by the Democratic party. Obviously the Democrats stink at this, as evidenced by its failure to stand up to bullying. The unquestionable consequence is that both parties and, as a result, the supporters of both parties, have taken a "take-no-prisoners" approach to politics. The best example is that the president will not sign a war funding bill with ANY strings and the Democrats won't present ANY without widrawal requirements. Realistically, neither can have what they want, yet neither will compromise. Time to find a middle ground, but no one is willing to. This kind of thing keeps the government from accomplishing anything.
Compromise seems dead. This is backed up by Brownstein, who shows that partisan voting is up to over 90 percent as opposed to the previously-consistent 70 percent from the 50s through the 70s (and some of the 80s). The result is sheep-like voting with the party line instead of doing what the voter thinks is right. I cannot believe they all just simply agree at a rate of 90 percent. Such things minimize political courage, which is now punished relentlessly. Compromise is now considered a sign of weakness. That's sad.
Let me state unequivocally that I am a firm believer in compromise. I believe that compromise should be the goal in politics. Lack of compromise leads to rancor, bitterness and a sense of defeat in a political opponent. Inflicting such heavy-handed political gains upon the opponent leads to the same treatment when the political winds shift. It also leads to a feeling that the population as a whole is not represented. And therein lies the basic argument for compromise. The varying beliefs of politicians represent the beliefs of his or her constituents. Compromise is true government on behalf of all the people.
I can feel it today. I absolutely do not feel like my point of view has been represented or defended successfully in the least bit from Jan. 20, 2001 until November of 2006. I say that even though I am a moderate. Moderates on the right side of the spectrum also feel this way. That's not good. But it would be equally bad to inflict the same. Two wrongs do not make a right.
Just because I name the Republicans as the first offenders (as does the author when discussing the current situation) doesn't mean I absolve Democrats of any blame. After being pushed for so long by a Republican-controlled Congress and White House, Democrats have responded in kind (or at least they try). I agree that they must stop the one-sided debate and put the brakes on Bush's runaway train, but they must follow up with an insistence on compromise rather than capitulation. In that regard, I guess it's not so bad that the Dems don't seem very good at hard-line politics.
As I begin this book, I will be asking myself whether this is a Second Civil War as asserted by the author. Obviously it's not a shooting war (at least not yet and hopefully never), but is it an ideological Civil War? Has our country fractured as badly as it appears?
The joke political cartoon above seems to illustrate just how clearly the lines have been drawn. The elections are increasingly coming down to the "purple" states that could swing (Ohio, Pennsylvania, etc.). The other states aren't even close. I appeal to the middle to take this country back.
I am interested in any thoughts on this subject. Is this an ideological Civil War? It sometimes feels like one. I will follow up with how the book influences my thoughts if it does.
I recently finished watching the Ken Burns documentary called "The Civil War" with my friend Book. It was a great documentary that really exposed the true reasons for the war and the fundamental political differences that eventually required armed conflict to resolve. Ironically, the same basic political differences (slavery aside) remain and continue to fester. States rights, the role of the federal government and its reach remain hot issues.
When we were about three discs into the five-disc series, Book and I were at Barnes and Noble doing some Christmas shopping. I saw a book titled "The Second Civil War: How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America" by Ronald Brownstein. I had heard the author's name before, but I wanted to make sure the book was written by a legitimate source before making the purchase, so I went along my way.
In the meantime, I could not get the title out of my head. I kept thinking about my own fears about our political climate and how vicious politics have become. After my research, I discovered that the author has been a finalist for the Pulitzer twice and is a well-respected journalist from the Los Angeles Times. The book has been met with acclaim and has been praised for its even-handed view of the situation and its measured and academic approach.
I almost became obsessed with purchasing the book to see how it flushed the topic out. Long story short, I bought the book and read the first chapter.
Going into the book, my thoughts are that the idea of compromise has been pushed to the back-burner. This was done in an unusually-extreme way by George W. Bush's Republican Party (W's "my way or the highway" tactics), and (as an inevitable backlash), then by the Democratic party. Obviously the Democrats stink at this, as evidenced by its failure to stand up to bullying. The unquestionable consequence is that both parties and, as a result, the supporters of both parties, have taken a "take-no-prisoners" approach to politics. The best example is that the president will not sign a war funding bill with ANY strings and the Democrats won't present ANY without widrawal requirements. Realistically, neither can have what they want, yet neither will compromise. Time to find a middle ground, but no one is willing to. This kind of thing keeps the government from accomplishing anything.
Compromise seems dead. This is backed up by Brownstein, who shows that partisan voting is up to over 90 percent as opposed to the previously-consistent 70 percent from the 50s through the 70s (and some of the 80s). The result is sheep-like voting with the party line instead of doing what the voter thinks is right. I cannot believe they all just simply agree at a rate of 90 percent. Such things minimize political courage, which is now punished relentlessly. Compromise is now considered a sign of weakness. That's sad.
Let me state unequivocally that I am a firm believer in compromise. I believe that compromise should be the goal in politics. Lack of compromise leads to rancor, bitterness and a sense of defeat in a political opponent. Inflicting such heavy-handed political gains upon the opponent leads to the same treatment when the political winds shift. It also leads to a feeling that the population as a whole is not represented. And therein lies the basic argument for compromise. The varying beliefs of politicians represent the beliefs of his or her constituents. Compromise is true government on behalf of all the people.
I can feel it today. I absolutely do not feel like my point of view has been represented or defended successfully in the least bit from Jan. 20, 2001 until November of 2006. I say that even though I am a moderate. Moderates on the right side of the spectrum also feel this way. That's not good. But it would be equally bad to inflict the same. Two wrongs do not make a right.
Just because I name the Republicans as the first offenders (as does the author when discussing the current situation) doesn't mean I absolve Democrats of any blame. After being pushed for so long by a Republican-controlled Congress and White House, Democrats have responded in kind (or at least they try). I agree that they must stop the one-sided debate and put the brakes on Bush's runaway train, but they must follow up with an insistence on compromise rather than capitulation. In that regard, I guess it's not so bad that the Dems don't seem very good at hard-line politics.
As I begin this book, I will be asking myself whether this is a Second Civil War as asserted by the author. Obviously it's not a shooting war (at least not yet and hopefully never), but is it an ideological Civil War? Has our country fractured as badly as it appears?
The joke political cartoon above seems to illustrate just how clearly the lines have been drawn. The elections are increasingly coming down to the "purple" states that could swing (Ohio, Pennsylvania, etc.). The other states aren't even close. I appeal to the middle to take this country back.
I am interested in any thoughts on this subject. Is this an ideological Civil War? It sometimes feels like one. I will follow up with how the book influences my thoughts if it does.
2 comments:
I would agree with most everything you have said in the article here. It is time to elect representatives who will be able to work together in congress. A good first step would simply be a government that doesn't spend more time pointing fingers and playing politics then anything else. I understand that there will always be people in congress with very different opinions, our country is way too diverse to not have that happen, but if personal attacks would stop, I guarantee we would see approval rates go up, and people would be able to begin dialoging. I think the cartoon you posted to illustrate the problem is very short sighted, and way too simplistic, but the written blog post itself is sound.
The book is GREAT. I've learned that Woodrow Wilson was also partisan to the point of alienating the other party. Although it was not to the level of today, it was enough that it cost him the League of Nations. He had never bothered to form relationships with Republicans and as a result they didn't help him at all.
I'm cutting through the book quick. Fascinating reading.
As for the cartoon, its what all political cartoons are: exageration, simplified and all other things a one-panel statement about a grand topic can be. I first saw it after the '04 election and it felt so true at a time (an angry time for me) when our division was most stark. Such things attempt to reflect the emotion at the time.
Post a Comment