The reason there are so few female politicians is that it is too much trouble to put makeup on two faces.
—Maureen Murphy
BEFORE ANALYZING THE TWO PARTIES, IT’S WORTH LOOKING AT THE geography, people, and philosophy of the parties today as described by humorist Dave Barry. Residents of the mythical red states are “ignorant, racist, fascist, knuckle-dragging, NASCAR-obsessed, cousin-marrying, road-kill-eating, tobacco-juice-dribbling, gun-fondling, religious fanatic rednecks.”
The mythical blue-state residents are “godless, unpatriotic, pierced-nosed, Volvo-driving, France-loving, left-wing Communist, latte-sucking, tofu-chomping, holistic-whacko, neurotic, vegan weenie perverts.” The best satire contains some truth, and Barry’s list shows how some people on one side view those on the other side. It might be fun to read, but is it helpful to the country if it is viewed as accurate? How can anyone find common ground with the “other side” if their side takes such a view?
America’s political activists are in general agreement about what defines the parties. Republican activists say Democrats are the liberal party. Democrats are pro-union and antibusiness, pro-abortion and pro–gay rights, including same-sex marriage. Democrats are for big government, love welfare programs, and oppose foreign wars and maybe even God. They’re also against free trade, favor high taxes, and are isolationists. Ann Coulter and other pompous polarizers are making a fortune sticking these labels on Democrats.
Democratic activists say Republicans are pro-business and antiunion. Republicans favor the smallest government possible with the fewest regulations, and they believe in using the military to exert American influence around the world, in the process getting us into wars we have regretted. They oppose tariffs, dislike government regulation of business, and favor lower tax brackets, which disproportionately benefits wealthy Americans. The Republican Party is against all abortions, and opposes gay unions and legal benefits for same-sex couples. Republicans want to seal our borders to keep immigrants out and open the church-state border to let God in, making them religious fanatics in the eyes of Democrats.
These are the views of the political and media elites, but a majority of Americans don’t see either party entirely this way. The historical record during most of the twentieth century provides little support for the picture today’s activists paint of each other. We will avoid another social studies lecture here, but we also must point out some facts that provide a strikingly different narrative of the Republicans and Democrats both before, and at times during, the current period of polarization:
None of this seems to fit the Dave Barry/liberal polarizers’ description of Republicans, does it?
None of this sounds like the Dave Barry/conservative polarizers’ definition of Democrats, does it?
We can hear the polarizers (left and right), the media, the political science professionals, and the ever-ready pundits saying, “Nice try, Cal and Bob, but you’re talking about Republicans and Democrats as far back as a hundred years. Get with it, the world of politics has changed. There aren’t many Republicans or Democrats like that anymore!”
Yes, there are. Moreover, there are a lot more of them than all the polarizers—left and right—combined!
The 2000 and 2004 presidential campaigns ended in virtual ties. The polarizers, and their polarizing sympathizers in the press, academia, and lobbying and pundit communities, declared that the results proved just how polarized the country has become. Ridiculous. The vast majority of voters in both elections were neither polarizers nor polarized. For example, the vast majority of voters who supported George Bush favored strong environmental regulations, as did those who supported Al Gore. The vast majority of voters who supported John Kerry supported a strong national defense, as did those who voted for George Bush.
This brings us full circle to the fundamental thesis of Common Ground . The country is not polarized. Polarizers and their amen corner in the press and among political elites are the ones who are polarized, and who have much to gain from continuing to stir the pot.
To go back to our examples of the roughly 100-million-plus voters in the presidential contests of 2000 and 2004; the majority of these voters, no matter who they supported, want a clean environment and a strong defense. By suggesting voters are divided on these and other issues, the polarizers are foolishly saying that half the voters would be happy to have more toxic waste sites, or that the other half is not in favor of a strong military to protect their families from terrorists.
How have polarizers gotten away with selling the idea of countrywide polarization? It is because they control the levers of politics, and spend hundreds of millions of dollars to maintain control.
For a long time in national politics, both political parties believed consensus made for good policy (and politics) and that no simplistic definition (or color, for that matter) could be applied to such a diversity of interests that was embodied in America.
Do supporters of each party differ in their policy approaches to solving the nation’s problems? Of course they do. Do the majority of supporters of the two parties insist that the answer is either black or white, as the polarizers insist? Of course they don’t. Do the overwhelming numbers of supporters of both parties believe that finding consensus and a common ground solution on virtually all issues (including abortion) confronting the country is preferable to no solutions based on intractable polarizing agendas? Absolutely they do.
There are many political analysts who have used exit polls from the 2006 election to suggest that America is divided. In those polls, however, voters were provided with only two choices—for example, “Do you favor or oppose gay unions?” Forced to answer only one of two ways, the voters were split on the issue. But if the following option had been included in the question—“Do you believe that reasonable people on both sides of the gay union issue could and should find a consensus opinion?”—the vast majority of respondents, we believe, would have supported consensus.
Therein lies the fundamental point about the corrupting influence of polarization. Polarizers insist on black and white (or red and blue), while the country much prefers a reasoned shade of gray (or purple). But you can’t raise money on kindness and consensus, and actual achievements are death to one’s fund-raising goals. One must always have an enemy if the money is to flow. And that’s why the polarizers have done so well. Polarizing has worked…for them and their candidates, but not for the country.