[Note: From time to time, this blog issues a set of
postings that summarize what the blog has been emphasizing in its previous
postings. Of late, the blog has been
looking at various obstacles civics educators face in teaching their
subject. It’s time to post a series of
such summary accounts. The advantage of
such summaries is to introduce new readers to the blog and to provide a
different context by which to review the blog’s various claims and
arguments. This and upcoming summary
postings will be preceded by this message.
And, in addition, by this blogger’s count, this posting is the 1000th
posting of this blog. Thank you.]
In the last posting, this blog shared
research pointing out that organizations, including governments and their
agencies, are subject to harboring “incubating” problems that can grow and
burst upon either their personnel or the people they serve in very impactful
ways. Ezra Klein[1]
makes the connection that such problems and their hidden qualities have
contributed to formulating the nation’s current polarized landscape.
The
process by which this takes place can be best understood by reviewing case
studies of such events but basically what happens is that those who are
affected by such problems, in order to gain political advantage, find
themselves teaming up with others. These
others are similarly looking for allies in pursuing their claims. Since governments or political systems are
not aware of the aforementioned problems and/or their potential to become
virulent, the problems grow.
This growth with the aligning that takes
place, is a cycle that gathers steam and as Klein points out, “This
sets off a feedback cycle to appeal to a yet more polarized public,
institutions must polarize further; when faced with yet more polarized
institutions, the public polarizes further, and so on.”[2]
These
cycles develop their own individual character and specifics, but one can find
recurring factors that give each case its vibrance. For example, the actors seek to satisfy the
basic motivation to garner the political assets – in these cases, allies – so
as to compete successfully over the issue(s) that they are addressing. This has always been a basic strategy of
weaker competitors,[3]
but of late, traditionally powerful actors find the necessity to do likewise.
By seeking allies, these actors have formed
two grand alliances – a right of center alliance and a left of center
alliance. In doing so, each has subdued
or found compromise within their ranks over their disagreements, have
emphasized their commonality, and highlighted their distinction from the other alliance.
In
this, and this blog will address in later postings, the left of center is a
more diverse group than the right of center group but each side, due to the collective
size of its opponent, cannot afford to go it alone. The result is a well-entrenched division not
seen, possibly, since the days leading up to the Civil War.
This
national arena falls woefully short from an ideal federated arena. In that ideal state, one does have contentions
between and among competing entities, but they are over discreet issues and their
accompanying rewards and costs. These distinct
episodes are treated separately or in singular fashion and, therefore, allow those
who compete one day can and will be allies the next.
That
is, these participants agree one day and disagree another day within the same congregation
of fellow participants. But when the
issues of contention are connected as they are today, competitors and allies become
the same set of characters over all the issues they confront. This adds to any motivation an entity might
have to vilify those who are not seen to be in his/her camp.
This
level of demarcation undermines any semblance of congregating in legislative
bodies such as in Congress. That
legislative body has become two houses of well-defined belligerents divided
into ongoing teams of opponents, the liberal/progressive team and the
conservative/nationalist team. This division
simply reflects the electorate of today.
All
of this did not happen overnight. Each
issue or area of concern has evolved during its respective incubating
periods. This blog outlined one such concern,
that of immigration. The right of center
alliance on this issue was easier to form then the left of center
alliance. That is usually the case, but
in terms of this issue, the left had to find accommodation between centered
pluralist advocates and multi-culturalist advocates – a pair of well-defined rationales
or perspectives that disagree on basic policy choices when it comes to immigration.
Today,
those differences lie just below the surface.
It, along with other divisions, will most likely reemerge when the
overall polarization is settled to a workable level. However, this is but one area of
concern. There are others, many
others. There is gun control, gay
marriage, science, religion, business regulations, minimum wage, race
relations, policing policies, infrastructure, abortion rights, etc. Some
of these seem to bind naturally to each other, some do not.
And
the binding among advocates can be strained at times, but practicalities push
the advocates to look over, ignore, or otherwise find some way to get along
with allies and to vilify opponents.
That, in a nutshell, is the current political, polarized landscape and
the division seems to be growing and be further entrenched.
One
set of events that encapsulates this national scene was the 2020 election. A great trivial question at some future date
will be, which candidate for president received the second highest number of votes
for the presidency in the history of the republic. The answer will be the loser of the 2020
election. One can divide the electorate
as the pro-Trump faction and the anti-Trump faction.
During
the years of Trump’s tenure, an observation made was about how he would stoke
up his base by some action or Tweet.
What wasn’t mentioned was that by the same behavior he would also stoke up
the anti-Trump faction. It happened that
the anti-Trump faction proved to be larger on election day and hence it
resulted in the Joe Biden victory.
No comments:
Post a Comment