Politics v partisanship, part 2
a paid subscriber weighs in
I want to call your attention to a generous subscriber’s response to the column day before yesterday, “Politics versus Partisanship”
https://cynthiawatson.substack.com/p/politics-versus-partisanship
He actually offered a bit of research to support his analysis which is refreshing since we so often just defer to our gut reactions these days. I share his words, then welcome hearing from others on this question.
“…How refreshing would it be for public servants to be non-partisan? Will we see it in our lifetimes? Some quick research into partisanship yielded an interesting article from the Pew Research Center (2016). In one chapter of the article: “The Roots of Partisanship” one paragraph that stuck out to me was this: “More than half of Republican leaners (55%) and 51% of Democratic leaners say harm from the opposing party’s policies are a major reason for leaning to their party. No other factor comes close—just 30% of Republican leaner and 34% of Democratic leaners cite the positive effects from their preferred party’s policies as a major reasons.”
Https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/22016/06/22/2-the-roots-of-partisanship/
Emotions run deep in these discussions. People are entrenched in their fundamental beliefs and core values and it’s hard to sway them…even when, at times, they’re presented with indisputable facts that their view/belief is wrong. And while on the topic of cabinet post nominations and confirmation hearings, watching the lack of civility and decorum across both political parties was really disheartening…but unfortunately not unexpected. In 2021, A bill was introduced the the House (H.W. 549) entitled “STOP Bullying Act. The bill was intended to “…amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to establish a grant program that will support efforts at the State level to establish anti-bullying task forces to study, address, and reduce bullying in elementary and secondary schools, for other purposes.” Sadly, it appears it never made it out of Committee. After watching the confirmation hearings over the past few days, Congress may want to consider a similar Bill which would apply to both parties across Congress. It’s clear that it’s more important to Senators to get their points “on the record” vs. actually engaging in meaningful dialogue. These elected officials are representatives of We the People which includes cabinet nominees and anyone else summoned to provide testimony. “WE” should be treated with the same decently and response that of them demand.”
Well, that is pretty damning but descriptive paragraph. Is he convinced Senators seek first to make points for reelection coverage than to achieve a path ahead for the country? It appears the 100 Senators are arrogant enough to assume reelection is the name of the game to keep their party in power, regardless which.
Let me highlight two aspects that are telling. The question analysis based on evidence for or against something increasingly recedes into American history, despite this being theoretically the most educated generation this country has ever had. More rather than fewer sources of “evidence” exist—and therein may lie the problem. We see people peddling demonstrably false information because it fits the party’s narrative.
We as average citizens too often never chase down anything more than a single supporting story (too often based on unverifiable speculation) as we make partisan decisions because we have found the answer that fits the argument we are making. That’s the inverse of the scientific method, of course, but it’s much more comfortable than testing a range of other explanations or pieces of information. We don’t even trust science, as I have railed on about for months. Too often we choose the story that fits the argument we want as if there were no cost to that process. This feeds our problem: though not likely to browbeat everyone into accepting “our” side, it’s easier than guilt by association if we do communicate with the other side.
And the subscriber is correct that both leaders and mere members of both parties reek of uncivility while lacking decorum in government where they represent us but are increasingly unwilling to engage with the other side without taunts and barbs because they think their voters expect it. Might it be that the elected officials have trained the voters to anticipate such reactions?
Contrary to anyone’s professed partisan biases, the country is pretty evenly split. The reason that the Republican victory this time looked so huge was that our “first past the post” voting system gives the seats to the party with the larger number of votes following any election but that does not mean the opposition did not receive voters. Too often our conversations implicate that nonsense. Democrats lost the Senate and did not retake the House but millions of Americans across the country, including in the reddest of red states voted for Democrats while millions of GOP supporters in California or New York voted for their party but did not win all of the seats there. The House, in particular, retains a wafer-thin. Republican majority but that is because of our election process rather than because the country now has 149 million Republicans and 1 thousand Democrats. Let’s be accurate, even if it messes up some of our partisan preferences.
Similarly, the Electoral College victory Trump won was itself decisive but the raw tabulation of popular vote was truly razor thin. Harris lost to Trump by 2,400,000 votes out of 150,000,000 cast ballots, hardly a grandiose tidal wave victory in popular votes.
We are a split nation along party lines. We have been for a while. The failure to recognize the other side’s de facto legitimacy does not eradicate its existence. Governing under these realities forces us to use bipartisanship, like it or not. Ask Senator Thune who has the majority position in the Upper House but still needs 60 votes to get much done, well beyond the 53 people with R next to their name at present. What exactly will Representative Johnson do when he must raise the debt ceiling but a bunch of his caucus is apparently ignorant of why it’s important? He will turn to the other party out of necessity to govern.
The lack of civility and decorum strikes me as childish, whether an appeal to civically-illiterate voters or our more recent political figures determined not to miss any opportunity to “own” the other side (I never thought I would type those words as they strike me as so ridiculous). The boorish behavior also shows how shortsighted annd anhistorical our current crop of elected officials are because that tiny majority above can and will shift over time. Only those truly ignorant believe that political preference can remain set in stone: ask anyone from East Texas what the partisan preference was like fifty-five years ago compared with 2024.
As the subscriber notes above, sizable portions of our political caste believe partisanship is the major problem we face. I concur it’s a notable but also fixable problem if we make an effort; the role we as citizens play can be powerful if we choose to engage as our contributions—large or small—change outcomes. Ask the Kansans who were told their state would never enshrine abortion in the state constitution. Step by step we can rebuild public participation, thus accountability for governance, but we Gwendolyn and George have to desire that outcome, a far cry from where we seem to be in mid-January 2025.
Additionally, we need reinvigorate two vintage concepts to our country. We elect officials to all levels of government to govern for all rather than the segment which voted someone into office. Civil servants do just that every single day in the overwhelming majority of cases. Instead, Congress seems to have confused governing with homesteading in a seat. Yes, a House member represents those hundreds of thousands in her district who sent her to the Capitol but she is part of a collective that operates on behalf of 340 million.
Second, compromise is the special sauce of governing. Of course principles are important but I have a hard time listening to people who bend with the wind for partisanship tell me about their principles as neither party currently has any principles other than retaining power these days. We cannot survive as a nation without compromise nor ought we even try. Compromise means listening, discussing, perhaps altering one’s views, and the associated steps to finding beneficial outcomes for all rather than trying to shove one party’s victory over the other into the media spotlight.
We are in a precarious spot these days as the United States of America. I pray we never confront a Ft. Sumter moment as Lincoln did in 1861 but no long find it inconceivable. And the partisanship is assuring things deteriorate for each and every one of us as the consuming task only focuses on payback rather than paying forward. That isn’t advancing anyone into the future.
I welcome your rebuttals, questions, comments, or anything else. I also welcome you circulating this if you find it of value as we need make society-wide efforts rather than merely those on the part of one side or the other. Actions definitely create consequences but we need different ones from what we have seen over the past generation.
Thank you for your time today or any day you read this column. I appreciate the subscriber’s comments above. Please consider becoming a paid subscriber for as little as $50 dollars a year, or less than a dollar a week. We are building dialogue here so let’s keep it expanding for all of our sakes. The waves of our society continue battering our political shore but how can we ameliorate the resulting erosion?
Be well and be safe. FIN
Domenico Montanaro, “Trump gets less than 50% in popular vote, but gets more than in past elections”, NPR.org, 3 December 2024, retrieved at https://www.npr.org/2024/12/03/nx-s1-5213810/2024-presidential-election-popular-vote-trump-kamala-harris