It seems to be generally agreed that public affairs go
better when the two national political parties each contain a mixture of views,
so that Congresses and Presidents can find common ground. At present, however,
the parties are highly polarized and unable to agree on many important matters,
sometimes including even the value of the non-military aspects of government.
Pundits usually attribute polarization to both the
Republican and the Democratic parties, as though each has moved toward its most
extreme positions.[1]
Actually, however, the Democrats have gotten more moderate. Those leaders now
called radical, like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, remain clear
supporters of free enterprise. They aim to civilize it, not replace it. Even Sanders’
self-proclaimed “socialism” seems more nostalgic nod to youthful radicalism
than identification with socialist political philosophy.
The Republican Party, on the other hand, has greatly
changed. Although it still advocates business’s interests, a Party descended
from Abraham Lincoln has discarded that legacy and in recent decades has
advocated few rights apart from that to bear arms. It now bases its popular
appeal on what I would call tribalism.
Tribalism is a political stance based on dividing people
into “us” and “them” tribes (white/black, native/alien, believers/secularists,
pro/con guns, Christian/Moslem, etc.), and giving political priority to
opposing “them.” Periodically this tribalism emerges in American politics, and
in recent years a rising tide of fear and anger has galvanized tribalists into
fervent and far-reaching political action, largely within the Republican Party.
They now outstrip even business interests in selecting Republican candidates. Their
candidates almost uniformly profess the uncompromising ideological views that
this tribalist “base” demands.
Two relatively recent developments largely explain tribalism’s
current power within the Party.
The first is Richard Nixon’s famous “southern strategy” that
capitalized on southern white hostility to President Johnson’s civil rights
measures. By supporting sympathetic political candidates, the Republican Party
attracted many former southern Democrats, turned the former Confederate states
Republican, and allowed traditional southern tribalism to shape the Party’s
ideology and programs.
In recent decades, a second and more currently powerful development
has been the stagnation of employment compensation. Although liberals have
noted this stagnation, the inequality that preoccupies recent liberal thought misdirects
Democrats’ attention: it is not the income gap between employees and the
wealthy that causes growing fear, anger, and disappointment, but rather the
economic misery and hopelessness that stagnation has brought to millions of
families.
In reality, the stagnation of employee compensation is not
solely a US phenomenon. Rather, the stagnation rests largely on two global
developments that both Republicans and Democrats have welcomed: free trade and
high tech.
In classical economic theory, free trade stimulates sales
and reduces costs, increasing prosperity. During the post-war period that ran
into the 1970’s, increasing prosperity was widely shared, raising real wages. Free
traders assumed “trickle down” would continue.
But rarely have the benefits of recent free trade advances
like NAFTA and market-opening agreements with China and other countries “trickled
down.” Rather, with new technologies like computers, speedy and extensive communications,
and automation these trade agreements have instead exposed US employees to the
international labor market. Consequently, some employees have lost jobs to
automation and offshoring; many have seen their compensation plateau or decline
due to competition with international wage rates; and most live in fear of job
loss or wage reduction.
Absent appropriate solutions from Democrats haring after
inequality, Republican candidates who specialize in scapegoating and
simplistic, mean-spirited solutions gain traction with those who regard their
family incomes as the most serious problem they face. Hence global trends
toward free trade and high technology have reinforced the deliberate recourse
to tribalism that Nixon’s southern strategy took.
What does the Republican Party’s turn toward tribalism mean
for the future and for the Democrats?
Republicans: Both
the business and the tribalist wings present some legitimate grievances. Many
who support Republican candidates because of employment and compensation
problems want the current stagnation reversed. And the business wing wants
regulations simplified or eliminated, presenting example after example of
ridiculous, unjust, incompetent, or counterproductive ones. But the widespread
Republican distrust of government hampers them from offering workable solutions.
Instead, both wings offer ideology: Tribalists would attack disfavored
minorities, enact theological precepts, and disregard conflicting Constitutional
rights. The business wing pledges fealty to long discredited laissez-faire and
economic concepts while disregarding corporate malfeasance. And both want tax
cuts regardless of consequences, while demanding foreign policies based on the
early and frequent use of vastly expensive military force.
Democrats: The
flawed concepts underlying national Republican policies mean that the Republican
appeal to many of its voters is rather shallow. If the Democrats shelve their current
preoccupation with inequality and focus on policies that would, without
significantly harming prosperity, allow employees to share in it, while offering
business a serious commitment to regulatory simplification, they may well
attract independents and parts of the current Republican constituency. But if they
fail to do these things, Republican demagoguery could prevail. And given the
concepts they espouse, this would be a catastrophe for the nation and the
world.
[1]
This attribution applies, not to all who identify with the parties, most of
whom probably do so more from tradition than considered conviction, but to
those who shape the parties’ ideologies and policy positions.
No comments:
Post a Comment