|
|
|
|
CIAO DATE: 12/03
Politics Remain Stalemated
On The Issues
April 2002
America's major political parties are deadlocked, torn by clashing values born in the culture of the 1960s. Thus far, President Bush and his war on terrorism have remained above the fray—but as the focus shifts to Iraq, partisan politics may spread to the military campaign.
Politically speaking, it's still November 7, 2000. The two parties remain deadlocked. The red state/blue state division of America persists, with the red (Bush) states like Texas getting redder and the blue (Gore) states like California getting bluer.
That's because the division enshrined in the 2000 election map wasn't a division over policy.
It was a division over values: liberal America and conservative America. Nothing has happened in the past year and a half to heal that division.
No, not even September 11, which was widely expected to break the stalemate in U.S. politics. Yes, there is widespread agreement on the war. And broad support for President Bush. But those things are above politics. Even Bush is above politics. The evidence? Most Democrats support the president. It's the right thing to do at a time of national crisis.
But beneath the exalted level of the presidency and the war, deadlock and confrontation persist. You can see it in the legislative process—the failure of Congress to pass a meaningful economic-stimulus package, or an energy bill, or prescription-drug coverage for retirees, or a patients' bill of rights. You can see it in electoral politics—Bush's negligible influence in the New Jersey and Virginia governor's races last year and in the California Republican primary this year.
The war on terrorism has not transformed U.S. politics. In fact, there are indications the opposite may happen. The war may become more political as it goes on.
The roots of America's political deadlock go back to the great civil rights war of the 1960s, a cultural civil war in which a New Left and a New Right emerged to challenge the country's post–World War II consensus. The center emptied out, especially after Presidents Gerald R. Ford and Jimmy Carter failed to govern effectively from the center. The dominant figures of U.S. politics in the late twentieth century were Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, two presidents whose political identities were forged by the conflicts of the 1960s. The 2000 election was a showdown between Reaganism and Clintonism. The result? A tie.
Europeans are often perplexed by the failure of Americans to get over "the sixties." After all, they, too, were convulsed by great cultural changes during that turbulent decade. But only the United States experienced a ferocious backlash against those changes, partly based on America's religious culture.
Religion has lost influence everywhere in the industrial world. But in America, it continues to thrive. In the early 1990s, I held a post as visiting professor of American politics at a leading Jesuit university. One of the perquisites of that position was an invitation to tea with the cardinal. After we exchanged pleasantries, the cardinal asked, "Is there anything happening in American politics that I should be aware of?"
"As a matter of fact, there is," I answered. "Since 1980, religious Americans of all faiths—fundamentalist Protestants, observant Catholics, even Orthodox Jews—have been moving toward the Republican Party. At the same time, secular Americans have found a home in the Democratic Party.
"This is something new in American politics," I explained. "We have never had a religious party in this country." Then I went a fateful step further, adding, "I'm a little uncomfortable with a religious party in this country."
The cardinal pounced. "Well, I'm a little uncomfortable with an irreligious party in this country," he said.
Stalemate.
By 2000, it was even more true that religiosity defined politics. Regular churchgoers voted heavily for then–Texas governor George W. Bush. Nonobservant voters went strongly for then–vice president Al Gore. American politics had become less and less about economic interests and more and more about lifestyle–a 1960s word.
What brought things to a head was Clinton. Clinton created an odd legacy in American politics. He brought the country together on policy and tore the country apart over values.
Clinton really did create a policy consensus. And why not? He stole most of his policies from the Republicans. Clinton's most significant policy achievements—welfare reform, the North American Free Trade Agreement, a balanced budget—passed only because of Republican support.
For most Americans, however, Clinton's most important attribute wasn't his policies. It was his values. He was the first, and so far the only, president to come out of the culture of the 1960s. (Bush is of that generation, but not of that culture.)
Conservatives never accepted Clinton as legitimate, no matter how much they agreed with his policies. To them, Clinton was the draft dodger, the war protester, the womanizer, the truth-shader, the gun-hater, the gay-protector, the noninhaling drug fiend.
Clinton may have gotten elected because of "the economy, stupid," but what defined his presidency was "the values, stupid." The 2000 election brought three decades of cultural conflict to a head. And neither side was able to prevail.
Stalemate.
This kind of close party balance is not the normal condition of American politics. Usually one party dominates: the Republicans in the early twentieth century, the Democrats in the mid–twentieth century. The only other time we had a deadlock was during the thirty years after the Civil War.
Then the conflict was North versus South, not liberal versus conservative. What were the politics of the late nineteenth century like? Bitter and intense party battles. Two reversals of the popular vote (1876 and 1888). And the partisan impeachment trial of a president (1868).
The current partisan stalemate seems likely to persist for a while. Despite President Bush's record-high popularity, there's no evidence the Republican Party has acquired a lasting advantage. The latest USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll asked registered voters how they would vote for Congress. The result: 46 percent for the Democrat, 46 percent for the Republican.
Stalemate.
An Ominous Forecast
Can anything break the stalemate?
Redistricting goes into effect this December, and it's supposed to shake things up in the U.S. House of Representatives. But it won't. Redistricting is likely to perpetuate the stalemate, because in state after state, most notably in California, new district lines were drawn to protect incumbents.
In a democracy, voters are supposed to choose the candidates. Redistricting allows the candidates to essentially choose the voters. And the candidates always choose voters who will keep them in office.
The stalemate of the late nineteenth century was broken when a new wave of progressive politics swept the country and cast aside old party divisions. A lot of people expected the trauma of September 11 and the war on terrorism to create a new politics, turning the red state/blue state division of 2000 into ancient history.
But America's New War has not created America's New Politics. The war in Afghanistan has been nonpolitical. Now the Bush administration wants to expand that war into Iraq. The USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll asked Americans how they feel about sending U.S. ground troops into Iraq. The result: 46 percent in favor, 50 percent opposed.
Stalemate.
Ominously, that stalemate has become highly politicized. Conservatives and Republicans favor using U.S. ground troops in Iraq. Liberals and Democrats are strongly opposed. This is the first time since September 11 that a war issue has become partisan and divisive.
Iraq is likely to be far more controversial than Afghanistan. America's Old Politics—the political division of 2000—could end up infecting America's New War.
William Schneider is a resident fellow at AEI.
Email this citation