Starting with the June 30th
posting, “Next: Polarization,” this blog
has featured postings that review the factors and elements making up the
nation’s current divisive politics and, in turn, affect its governance. This posting will end this targeted emphasis by
providing some summary comments concerning one of those elements: the advantages rural conservative areas have
over urban liberal/progressive areas when it comes to voting strength.
To capture this issue with a summary statistic, here is
what Ezra Klein points out: “By 2040, 70
percent of Americans will live in the fifteen largest states. That means 70 percent of America will be
represented by only thirty senators, while the other 30 percent of America will
be represented by seventy senators.”[1] And given the ability of senators to
filibuster and the need to have 60 senators to end a filibuster, rural
interests will be able to effectively block any federal legislation urban
citizens need.
This was recently hinted at when the COVID virus was
affecting northeastern states, like New York, but had not filtered out to the
rest of the country. One heard, well,
that’s a blue state problem, why should red states care or spend tax dollars to
solve their problems? That is, it could
be stated as a “blue/urban state problem.”
And that illustrates Klein’s point.
In addition to the Senate, as the selection of presidents
is currently constituted, these rural states can be determining who the chief
executive will be and given the shift of power the presidency has enjoyed,
urban areas can further be penalized.
And one needs to remember, it's not “land” that is being underrepresented,
it’s people.
And in terms of substantive policy, rural equates to
conservatism and that has various consequences.
Their candidates run from gerrymandered districts, they benefit from
biased campaign funding laws, and also benefit from various voter restriction
laws (such as voter identification requirements). In turn, this will tilt the field even more. So consciously, the issue among Americans, as
they talk about it, is not urban-rural, but as the Democratic-Republican
divide.
That is, the issue is one of partisan identity which goes
along with the other conflicted identity divides, such as race, ethnicity,
gender, etc. that this blog has highlighted.
Conversations among Americans center on the animosities associated with being
either “blue” or “red.” And one
foundational fact that underlies this whole business is that the system was not
set up to account for political parties – the founding fathers didn’t even consider
them.
Klein considers various reforms that addresses this
constitutional shortcoming. The reader
is encouraged to read his book, but those reforms exceeds the limits of this
account. What is of primary concern here
is that given the imbalances in place and given how the Constitution sets
up the amendment process, one is hard pressed to see any changes that will
ameliorate the undemocratic arrangement that currently exists.
There are changes that can be implemented that fall short
of ratifying any amendments, but, again, they would call for those in power –
from rural areas – to see beyond their partisan interests and look toward the
common good. There exist serious cultural
shortcomings that do or would preclude even the consideration of such changes. The natural rights view is too self-centered to
even think of such possibilities.
With that pessimistic message, this blog will bring its
treatment of polarization – as a focused issue – to an end. It will now take a few postings to review, in
summary fashion, how the natural rights theory affects the current American political
landscape. That stretches from the
makeup of the political culture, the ubiquitous issue of maturation, and the polarization
beleaguering the political landscape. In
part, these topics constitute what ails civics education today.
No comments:
Post a Comment