What's interesting to note is the special place the Ben Nelson and Olympia Snowe played in their respective political parties. Nelson was known as a conservative Democrat who often aligned with Republicans in social issues, but stood with fellow Democrats in their strategy around conomic stimulus and welfare programs. Snowe, on the other hand, stood with fellow Republicans in opposition to the Democrats' health care reform package, but has consistently voted in support of access to abortion and the confirmation of Supreme Court judges her colleagues had deemed as activist. These are two politicians who have not traditionally voted "down the party line" when it comes to the mainstream of their political party.
My point isn't to either applaud or criticize the records of Nelson and Snowe, but to note that the loss of both of these individuals is a blow to their respective parties and to the United States government.
It's telling that a quick Google search of reactions of their retirement announcements yield - at best - tepid reactions from many in their own party. Liberal firebrands such as Rachel Maddow disdainfully dismiss Nelson as a "sort of" Democrat whose usefulness was predominantly to give the Democrats a surprising vote from a conservative state like Nebraska. Conservative pundits Michelle Malkin spoke for many fellow conservatives with the quip, "DLTDHYOTWO (Don't let the door hit you on the way out)" as Snowe announced her retirement.
Unfortunately, too many people perceive moderate perspectives as a euphemism for compromise, and compromise as a euphemism for unprincipled. I have strong convictions and I'll be the first to admit that I'd love to have my government representatives mirror my own views. I'm also cognizant, however, of the danger of group-think and an absolute everyone-loses scenario when legislative gridlock occurs.
Whether they'd like to admit it or not, I have no doubt that having Ben Nelson involved in Democratic strategy sessions was highly beneficial for Democrats. He provided an alternative view to the mainstream party line and provided a voice for socially-conservative Democrats who have always felt that their views were always buried under the avalanche of liberal rhetoric. The same is true with Olympia Snowe, who tried to impress upon her fellow Republicans that there were a segment of people who liked small government and limited government obstruction on the entrepreneurial spirit, but were fiercely pro-environment and pro-choice. Regardless of whether they agreed with these "moderate" (detractors would call them "faux-Republican/Democrat") perspectives, they humanized and provided a window into a segment of the voting constituency. From a pure competitive perspective, wouldn't any party who wants to win want that?
The problem transcends politics and is pervasive in work and friendships as well. What happens too often is that people don't want to invite the "skunk to the picnic", and it's much easier to huddle with people who will vigorously nod with everything that you say as opposed to spending the emotional and intellectually energy of deliberating and exchanging opposing views. It's completely understandable and defensible. Life is certainly draining enough without the need to seek conflict and disagreement. In business, you don't want to have to debate and fight through obstruction after obstruction from doubtful colleagues, so you find people who will embrace your vision and strategy and move forward without question.
The downside is that our individual blind sides will just get more and more pronounced. Not only will our society will become more polarized, but we'll find ourselves increasingly unable to engage or find common ground and major mistakes will be made because instead of the wisdom of crowds, we'll get the tunnel vision of a view. And all of us will pay the price for it.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment