BOB: I come away from our last two years on the “common ground trail” with some contradictory thoughts and mixed emotions. After traveling thousands of miles; talking to several thousand people; and interviewing politicians, party activists, pundits, polarizers, members of the press, and hundreds of voters from every region of the country, I am more convinced than ever that an authentic grassroots revolt is building against polarization, and that voters are ready to embrace consensus and common ground. What troubles me is that polarization is so ingrained in our politics, I’m not sure if a presidential candidate will seize this moment. Politicians tell us they yearn for common ground, and in the next breath say, “Don’t put that in your book.” Cal wrote a popular book called Blinded by Might. There were times I thought we should rename this book Blinded by Polarization.
We mentioned the classic Wizard of Oz film early in the book as a metaphor for the polarizing bullies who intimidate the political establishment in Washington. We know who they are—heck, we used to be in the gang—and we know they are like the little man playing the big bad Wizard in the movie. Pull back the curtain on the big bad polarizers, and you’ll find the same thing: small-minded, little people, using smoke and mirrors to convince us of their power and invincibility. Ironically, that’s why I’m optimistic, because it is a scam, and eventually scams, like bad marriages, don’t hold together. Cal, what’s your take on the Wizard?
CAL: I agree, Bob. Polarization is an addiction. It is addictive for politicians who think they have to smoke the stuff in order to win, and it is addictive for the people who make money and gain influence for themselves so they will be hired for future campaigns; it is addictive for the public, many of whom don’t know any other way in modern politics because most are too young to remember anything approaching reasoned debate. As with most strong drugs, it will be difficult to break the habit. The public must demand this for the good of our politics and the good of the country. Destroying one’s opponent solves not a single problem faced by this nation. Leaving one’s opponent with a level of credibility and humanity allows him or her to participate in the discussion that follows an election. That is good for the winning and losing candidate; it is good for the political process and it is good for the country, which too often seems to take a backseat in the quest by a few for power, prestige, money, and influence.
You have courageously battled your own addictions and have conquered them. Am I off base comparing political polarization to drugs and alcohol?
BOB: The only difference is that polarization is not a physical disease, but the psychological addiction is the same; dependence on a way of living, the inability to accept responsibility for the damage created, the refusal to listen to any alternatives, isolation, anger, it’s all there. One other similarity between polarization and chemical addiction is that they both fit the same definition of insanity; doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Addicts come in all shapes and sizes. I was struck by how many different types of polarizers are contributing to polarization; ideologues driven by one issue; profit-driven polarizers and the interests they represent; polarizers dependent on one party to protect their interests; party polarizers, including party apparatchiks and political consultants; for-profit individual polarizers; policy polarizers operating out of hundreds of tax-exempt think tanks; and finally the “bottom-feeders” who promote polarization to sell books, get lucrative speaking engagements, or sell tickets. And of course there is the media. For observations on this crowd, I turn to my coauthor. Cal?
CAL: The media are hypocrites about this. I know I’ve said it before, but it bears repeating. On the one hand, they editorialize about the “politics of personal destruction.” On the other hand, they invite the personal destroyers on their news and talk show programs for the simple reason that it brings them high ratings and big profits. Then, having had them on, they tsk-tsk about the depraved political discourse. There is a certain self-fulfilling prophecy in the media these days. They claim no one will watch serious programs, so they focus on stories like Anna Nicole Smith, Paris Hilton, and Britney Spears on her latest trip to rehab. But this insults the American people. It is also a matter of conditioning. If people only have junk food to eat, they will eat junk food. But if you give them a gourmet meal and ask which they prefer, most people would say they prefer the good food. The public has a role in this. If they want a higher tone, they will have to stop watching TV shows and listening to radio programs that take a lower road. It’s all about supply and demand. If large enough numbers of us demand something better, they will have to supply it. They think they’re giving us what we want, but it’s not what we need. The public can challenge them to do better and make them do better.
BOB: What seems to be the hardest thing for politicians to understand is that common ground is not a radical change in message or political strategy. It is a message that would work with any other message, as long as it’s not a return to polarization. We have had the hardest time explaining that common ground is not a set of ideas; it does not force a candidate to abandon his or her principles; and it does not force a candidate to run as a milquetoast moderate. Common ground is two things: first, it is a message that will attract voters to a common ground candidate willing to take on polarization; and second, it is a process of governing with a goal of undoing the paralysis inflicted on Washington by years of polarization. I only hope polarizers haven’t intimidated politicians to the point that common ground is not an option. Is there hope, Cal?
CAL: There’s always hope. Common ground is not an end, but a means. It isn’t a group hug and pretending that ideas and convictions don’t matter. It is the realization that no one gets his or her way all the time, perhaps not even most of the time. By putting the nation’s interest before personal interest, one serves not only the nation, but oneself. It is a curious formula. If you seek to elevate yourself, you often end up denigrating yourself. But if you seek to humble yourself, you are exalted by peers and the nation for your selflessness. That’s not a formula often practiced in self-centered Washington. But if people try it, they will find that it not only works, but that it also produces the kinds of political benefits they seek, but rarely find, when their first and sometimes only priority is self.
BOB: Too many voters make demands on politicians that they do not make on themselves. The number of people who vote remains appallingly low. When people do vote, too many make choices based on sound bites or a “voter information” card placed on their windshield. Politics is a full-time profession for politicians, and it should consume more of the public’s time and interest. Otherwise, politicians will think the public doesn’t care, or is not paying attention. That changed in 2006. Voters were paying attention and voted; even some traditional nonvoters decided to show up. I’m convinced that among nonvoters there is an overwhelming number of common ground supporters.
As we travel around the country and speak on common ground, we always receive an enthusiastic reception. Hopefully in 2008, this enthusiasm will lead to participation at the voting booth. People need to vote, not just in general elections, but in primaries. And they should recruit like-minded people in their own community to support common ground and to vote.
Finally, if they are able, they should open their wallets and contribute to sensible common ground politicians. The more people who participate in politics, the less potent the polarizers. The number of polarizers hasn’t increased; the number of sensible centrist voters has declined. Ironically, it is polarization that will bring them back.
CAL: What we heard from our interviews is that when Republicans and Democrats travel and otherwise spend time together, they, too, begin seeing the other person as someone other than the enemy of all things good and begin viewing him as a fellow human being, even a fellow American. Then, when they work together on a bill and compromise—not their principles, but their rigidity—and consider that the other person may have an idea worth trying, they produce something that neither side supports fully, but each side recognizes as better than getting nothing at all. The next time they disagree on an issue, they are more likely to repeat the pattern and find that common ground is not only good politics, but good for the country.
BOB: There is fear that a common ground candidate can’t attract the enormous amounts of money needed to run for president because most of the money in politics today is controlled by polarizers. I mentioned that common ground supporters at the grassroots level might contribute to a common ground candidate for president, and saw some evidence of this in 2007. Senator Barack Obama’s message in his presidential campaign is closer, so far, to a common ground message than that of any other candidate in either party. His bestselling book The Audacity of Hope sounds remarkably close to many of the message suggestions we have presented in Common Ground. In the first quarter of 2007, Obama raised an astounding $24 million (more than any other candidate’s total contributions for a party nomination) from 150,000 contributors including more than $6 million over the Internet.
There are also groups of polarizers mentioned above who will contribute to any candidate who has a reasonable chance to be elected president, if for no other reason than to get a seat at the table in the next administration. By the way, the nice thing about writing a book with an archconservative like Cal Thomas is that you know this is not a sly way of supporting Senator Obama, right, Cal?
CAL: Arch? Who’s “arch”? If I were “arch,” I wouldn’t be partnering with you! I like Obama’s language, but I want to make sure it isn’t a cover for liberal policies I could not support. On abortion, for example, what would be his middle ground? How about gay rights? What are his policies for fighting the terrorists without and within our country? Taxes? The size and reach of government? I want to know how he would negotiate on such things with a conservative like me. If it’s more than talk and selling books, I would be happy to take him seriously. But you know how modern politics has been. Some consultant tells a candidate he can make hay with a theme like common ground because the voters are fed up with polarization. Then, once elected, that person reveals his true self. It happens a lot, and both Republicans and Democrats have their share of people who could be indicted for such behavior. But if we want to see common ground politics practiced, we have to do more than preach it, and I trust we have made a start on this in this book.
BOB: My final thought, Cal, is what a pleasure it has been to ride the “common ground trail” with you. I’ve come to realize that not all conservatives are fire-breathing dragons ready to do harm to all I hold dear. You come to realize that once you rise above stereotypes and get to know someone, you can find common ground. If you don’t, at least you tried, and the climate is not so embittered that you can’t come together on some other problem. This book has been a bit of a mea culpa for both of us. After watching polarizers operate over the last two years, I can’t believe we used to be contributors to that insanity. Live, learn, and most important, don’t forget. Cal, I hope this has been only a small part of the journey.
CAL: We’re a good example of how common ground can work. Before we knew each other, we only knew “about” each other. I saw you as a liberal Democrat with “evil” ideas and positions conservatives associate with that label. You saw me as a conservative Republican with similar “evil” ideas and suspect friends. When we got to know each other and talked about politics, as well as personal and family challenges, we stopped seeing each other in stereotype and came first to respect and then (shock, shock) even to admire each other. The politics became less important than the relationship. And, most surprising of all, we found ourselves in agreement about quite a number of things, though we occasionally still differ on the best ways to achieve our common goals. But that’s what journeys are for. You make a lot of stops along the way and you learn something at each one. You want to drive this time, or should I?