The Tragedy of Partisanship

A few weeks ago, there was an editorial penned by political commentator Randy Ruiz which, without blaming one side or another, appealed to society (including both politicians and the general public) to open themselves for meaningful discourse and dialogue as opposed to shouting rhetoric at each other. It's not a earth-shattering concept, but perhaps it's telling that his admonishment is first of all necessary, and second of all, seems so elusive in what has become an increasingly polarized political environment.

Ruiz makes a couple of good points. First, he notes that political positions and values have been pigeon-holed and categorized (derisively) by unhelpful labels. He notes:

Any proposal including the words "government-run" elicits cries of "socialism" and "communism." Any argument invoking the words "God" or "moral" sparks accusations of "right-wing extremism," "fascism," or "Bible-thumping." Instead of listening to each other's ideas, we spot the warning label and run the other way.

There is no dialogue, simply name-calling and preemptive marginalization. It's almost as if the content of ideas and solutions is less important than "from which side" of the political fence it came from. If it came from the "other" side, you can automatically prepare your response to blast it as wrong-headed and morally bankrupt.

Ruiz also correctly points out that extreme political polarization of our society also leads to a self-perpetuating cycle of selective-information gathering that entrenches and fuels passions around already held views, but fails to inform around different viewpoints which could thus lead to dialogue and collaboration. He writes:

We tend to listen only to like-minded opinions as media fragmentation encourages us to filter out varying perspectives. If you're a liberal, you avoid FOX News. If you're a conservative you revile MSNBC. The dynamic is even more pronounced online, where a niche media source can be found for any outlook. This silences the opportunity for meaningful dialogue and deliberation that might lead to reformulating positions, forging sustainable compromises, and developing consensus crucial to moving our nation forward on complex issues.

He lays out some suggestions which have merit, but I fear (perhaps pessimistically) will do little to solve the deeper problem. Why? Even if his suggestions for open listening and discourse are adopted by more and more people in the general populations, politicians will always be swayed by a survival and victory instinct. Or put another way, is the chief motivation of any politician to do what's best for the people? Or to do what will most likely get him or her (re)-elected?

Joe Klein recently wrote what I found to be an extremely cynical essay in TIME, recently, essentially denouncing Republicans as nihilists who are so blinded by their obsession to topple the Obama-led government that they're willing to destroy the country if that's what it takes to guarantee failure for the Democrats. I'd like to believe it's not true, but when Republican Senator Jim DeMint gleefully states that if they are "able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him," that's sounds pretty bad.

The reality is that the stink exists with both major parties. The real losers are us. Until we start holding all of our government officials accountable for results and not rhetoric, things probably won't change a whole lot.