More Comment Fodder
While I don’t agree with all the particulars in this Daniel Henninger op-ed in The Wall Street Journal, I surely agree with his premise:
The men who made the American Constitution understood that nothing in the pristine vapors of their nation was so special or unique as to ensure that Jack would never despise the opinions of Tom–and more than anything would like to shut Tom up, for starters. It is clear in the Federalist Papers that the Founders, above all, tried to reduce the destruction often done to civil life by political factions. I don’t know that James Madison is spinning in his grave over the factionalism washing through U.S. politics, but surely he is heaving heavy sighs.
So what went wrong?
(And if your answer is based on “the liberals – or conservatives – are all to blame,” then you don’t have an answer at all. You’re part of the problem.)
I think it’s generational.
I think it’s because we are moving from a republic to a democracy.
I forget the exact quote or who said it, but the people have figured out they can vote themselves bread and circuses. All that remains is to fight over who gets to decide which bread and circuses.
Nothing. Read up on the politics of the 1790s, which makes today’s rancor seem like garden party chit chat.
The things that are screwing with our political system are “reforms” that interfere with the Madisonian dynamics: things like campaign finance reform, and perhaps the direct election of senators.
I think Henninger is right that a large share of the blame goes not just to the transfer of power to unelected judges, but specifically to the graven-in-stone nature of judicial decisionmaking. And it’s not just the judiciary; entitlement programs, current-services-baseline budgeting, gerrymandering, incumbent-friendly ‘reforms’ and yes, wars, all allow a momentary advantage in the partisan complexion of our political bodies to be translated into near-permanent changes in the nation. Polarization is a direct result of the recognition that to today’s victors belong not only today’s spoils, but tomorrow’s, and tomorrow’s, and tomorrow’s.
Well said, Crank. I think you’re correct that an awful lot of the factionalism comes from a desire to centralize both power and spoils. All I’d add is that there’s an additional element of denying those to the other guy. At least some of the truly nasty stuff comes from a belief that the other guy is not just wrong (and thus subject to convincing by discussion) but actually willfully evil and therefore deserves to be supressed.
“I forget the exact quote or who said it, but the people have figured out they can vote themselves bread and circuses.”
Pretty sure that was Robert Heinlein, though I can’t recall the exact place where he said it. Guess that means I should read all my Heinlein over again.
I started to actually answer the question, but I can’t collect my thoughts on so complex a question while at work. I’ll have to give it a shot later.
From the column: “These legislators have become little more than clerks to judges and the complainants in their courts–the law as not much more than a brief.”
Perhaps partly true. But part of what has gone wrong, and was not recognized by Henninger, is that in many cases the legislative branch has abdicated its responsibility and has been content to “let the courts sort it out.” They do what’s politically expedient (including sometimes knowingly passing unconstitutional legislation) and leave the tough calls to the courts (including sometimes tossing out such legislation).
For example, one of the reasons the ADA is (or at least was) a mess is that Congress in some places wrote intentionally vague passages, so that the language would be politically palatable and so that the judiciary could do the dirty work.
Why has the legislative branch abdicated responsibility? One big reason is career politicians. (I do not support term limits, btw.)
Another big polarlizing factor: The people on the extremes are the loudest, and most likely to vote.
For the answer to the question as to what went wrong, look no further than two posts up. When a society can (d?)evolve to a point where a debate on the definition of truth is not some clever mental exercise but a serious philosophical discussion in search of knowledge we’ve moved beyond or below the threshold where civil discourse is possible. All societies are based on some form of commonality, a set of ‘givens’ from which all else is derived, it is societal bedrock. It’s as if we’re given the foundation to a house. We can argue how many bathrooms and bedrooms the finished product will have but the final outside shape of the house is indisputable. The foundation is our truth, our given, and to suddenly redefine or question that truth renders discussions of bathrooms and bedrooms mute. Our commonality is fractured; civil discourse breaks down because we’re arguing two different realities.
So what is ‘wrong’ is not so much we legally sanction killing unborn infants (fetuses if you’d prefer) while protecting the infirm, or criminalize discrimination while sanctioning affirmative action, or deny homosexuals the right to marry while making heterosexual divorce all the easier. These are schizophrenic symptoms of a society at war with itself over its foundation, its ‘givens’, its truths. What’s wrong is we’ve coalesced into two distinct camps. Those that believe the Constitution is a living, breathing document whose meaning can change with the breezes of moral relativism and thus alter the truths the Founders considered self-evident. And those that believe those imperfect men have written the most simple, yet beautifully elegant document in the history of the world. That through luck or Divine guidance they touched on fundamental, undeniable truths that neither men nor governments can alter. The problem, of course, is these camps are mutually exclusive, their foundations incompatible, rendering any debate on the house to be built superfluous.
For the answer to the question as to what went wrong, look no further than two posts up. When a society can (d?)evolve to a point where a debate on the definition of truth is not some clever mental exercise but a serious philosophical discussion in search of knowledge we’ve moved beyond or below the threshold where civil discourse is possible. All societies are based on some form of commonality, a set of ‘givens’ from which all else is derived, it is societal bedrock. It’s as if we’re given the foundation to a house. We can argue how many bathrooms and bedrooms the finished product will have but the final outside shape of the house is indisputable. The foundation is our truth, our given, and to suddenly redefine or question that truth renders discussions of bathrooms and bedrooms mute. Our commonality is fractured; civil discourse breaks down because we’re arguing two different realities.
So what is ‘wrong’ is not so much we legally sanction killing unborn infants (fetuses if you’d prefer) while protecting the infirm, or criminalize discrimination while sanctioning affirmative action, or deny homosexuals the right to marry while making heterosexual divorce all the easier. These are schizophrenic symptoms of a society at war with itself over its foundation, its ‘givens’, its truths. What’s wrong is we’ve coalesced into two distinct camps. Those that believe the Constitution is a living, breathing document whose meaning can change with the breezes of moral relativism and thus alter the truths the Founders considered self-evident. And those that believe those imperfect men have written the most simple, yet beautifully elegant document in the history of the world. That through luck or Divine guidance they touched on fundamental, undeniable truths that neither men nor governments can alter. The problem, of course, is these camps are mutually exclusive, their foundations incompatible, rendering any debate on the house to be built superfluous.
Double post, bummer, sorry
To take David’s post a little further, our system of government with its checks and balances requires consensus to achieve anything. That consensus is easier to achieve when the only ones doing the asking and telling are rich white men. As our society becomes more diverse, democracy becomes noisier. Our past history suggests that we will adapt, and consensus will again be achieved, but it remains to be seen.
Veeshir:
It was Alexander Tyler who said it, in regards to the collapse of Athenian democracy 2000 years ago.
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage.”