Cacophonous Concerto—How Polarization Makes Everything Sound
Bad
One of the truly wonderful things about being a parent is to
see your child dressed up in a silly robe and an even sillier square hat,
tasseled and sashed, looking painfully young and even more painfully half grown
up.
I had that pleasure this past weekend at Northwestern: a
kaleidoscope of marches and brass, and orbs and scepters, and meetings and
lunches and prizes and a thousand pictures and probably as many hugs (mostly of
complete strangers.)
Ricardo Muti, the world-renowned conductor of the Chicago
Symphony, gave the commencement address. He was charming, speaking of the power of
music to unite, telling a story of the time he coached a policeman on how to
make fabulous riches wearing white tie and tails (mostly, move your hand
one-two-three, trust the orchestra to know what they are doing, and try to look
both impressive and enraptured) and finally talking about the human need for
person to person communication as the only real salvation. Less text, more talk, persevere, preserve, and
nurture your relationships.
Muti’s words might have been chosen for a large audience,
but the day before, in a far more intimate setting, Sandy Goldberg, Chair of
the Philosophy Department, said something that struck me as the critical
corollary to Muti’s words, and something perhaps even more important. Philosophy
isn’t just about ideas or abstractions.
It does something more critical.
Philosophy teaches people how to talk to each other, and philosophy teaches how to disagree.
I’m sure neither Muti nor Goldberg was thinking about
politics, but they couldn’t have been more prescient. Democracy works best when there is constant
communication, vigorous but respectful disagreement, and a commitment to
continued discussion.
Unfortunately, we seem to be moving, rather rapidly, in the
opposite direction. The evidence of
increasing polarization is stark. The Pew Research Center for the People and
the Press has published the first of a five part series Political Polarization in the American Public. Pew polled 10,013 people over a three-month
period earlier this year. It then went
back and did more in depth follow up interviews with a representative
sample. What the Pew study found was
fascinating, and a little unsettling.
There are two major trends that emerge—the growing uniformity of opinion
amongst members of the same ideological group and political party, and the
growing antipathy they feel for each other.
Let’s dive into the numbers, but first, take a deep
breath.
92% of Republicans are to the right of the median Democrat,
and 94% of Democrats are to the left of the median Republican. That tells you that there is no real middle
ground for consensus and deal making.
Instead, the parties have to take the next step—swap one priority for
another.
Can they do that? Can
they, in Sandy Goldberg’s construct, act the philosopher, agree to disagree
respectfully and talk through issues?
Can they see the other side as anything other than antagonists?
First, many of them have to hurdle their own gut. 27% of Democrats see Republicans as a literal
“threat to the nation” and 36% of
Republicans say the same about their Democratic brethren.
And, about that word “brethren” I would tread lightly. When
consistent conservatives and consistent liberals were asked how they felt about
one of their immediate family members “marrying the wrong kind” 30% of the
conservatives and 23% of the liberals couldn’t cope.
Well, maybe you wouldn't want your sister to marry one, but
that doesn’t mean the place has to be fumigated if he visits, right? Actually, no.
50% of consistent conservatives and 35% of consistent liberals want to
live in a community where most people share their political views, 57% of
consistent conservatives want those folk to be coreligionists (only 17% of
consistent liberals care about that) and 76% of consistent liberals want racial
and ethnic diversity while only 20% of conservatives do.
So, governing had become impossible, right? If, on the most basic and visceral level, we
can’t even abide living near people on the other side of the spectrum, how do
we try to compromise with them to reach a governing consensus? Is democracy is
doomed?
I would offer a qualified no. There is no question that polarization has
increased markedly since 1994, and that the two poles don’t even see the same
reality. Pew calls it living in
“ideological silos” where joining the “club” means adopting a long list of constantly
reinforced articles of faith.
There is also no doubt that politically opinionated people
tend to be more motivated to vote and have a disproportionate impact on
elections. Pew found that, “nationwide, 21% are either
consistently liberal or consistently conservative in their political values. But
these people make up a larger share of the electorate – 28% of people who say
they always vote and 34% of those who always vote in primaries.”
Yet,
there are things to be encouraged about. Partisanship has grown markedly, but
still only 21% of the voters are inflexible ideologues. That means 79% are not. The rest of us don’t have to let those 21%
decide for us. But there’s a catch. We
can be pretty certain that the 21% is not uniformly distributed. In some places, the concentration of the
rabid is going to be much higher, given the propensity for like to want to live
with like. That places a far greater
burden on the less doctrinaire to do something that they seem unwilling to
do—step up to the plate and make their voices heard through the ballot box,
starting with the primaries.
And the
responsibilities don’t end there, because the fringes are anything but
marginalized. Even if the 79% weigh in
in the primaries, we are still going to have a substantial number of people in
Congress who seem to have very little interest in either lawmaking or
compromising. A lot of them are angry,
and truly loathe not only members of the other party, but any of their own who show the slightest deviation from revealed truth. If
you want to see something truly hair-raising, watch Chris McDaniel’s “non
concession” speech after he narrowly lost to Thad Cochran in Tuesday’s
Mississippi Republican Primary.
McDaniel is almost sputtering with rage, accusing Cochran of all sorts
of irregularities.
Just
a few more thousand votes, and McDaniel would have been the nominee, and likely
the next Senator from deep Red Mississippi. He would join a Congress that is filling up
with people just like him, always looking for someone to punch. It would have been another movement away from
the discussion, respectful disagreement, and the compromise that a democracy
demands.
Therein
lies the paradox for the 79%. We want what Muti and Goldberg want--to start the
orchestra working together, communicating with each other, arguing even, but within
the confines of a team. We expect that
there will be false notes and dissonance, but it’s not going to improve if
everyone goes off into their private practice room. But we also don’t like our institutions or
our elected representatives very much, and our very revulsion for how poorly
they do and how ugly they are estranges us.
Instead of diving in and wresting control, and working at it until it
sounds the way it should, we turn away and yield to it.
The
next time you see some bill in Congress, perhaps imperfect, but largely a
positive, being sabotaged by a group of absolutists, remember that. It's not them. It's us. There are way more of us then of
them, and it’s only our inaction, and our silence, that enables them.
If
you really want better, you have to open your mind, and open your ears, and,
ultimately, you have to fight to have others do the same.
There
is no other way to make beautiful music together.
June
25, 2014
Michael
Liss (Moderate Moderator)
Please
join us on Twitter @SyncPol
