Monday, November 30, 2009

Makes me want to vomit.

By E.J. Dionne Jr.
The most surprising and disappointing aspect of our politics is how little pushback there has been against the vile, extremist rhetoric that has characterized such a large part of the anti-Obama movement. President Obama's White House has largely ignored those accusing him of "fascism" and "communism," presumably believing that restraint in defense of dignity is no vice.

Republican politicians, worried about future primary fights, have been reluctant to pick a fight with a radical right that seems to be the most energized section of their party. Their "moderation" has consisted of a non-benign neglect of the extremists and of accusing the president merely of "socialism."  Jim Leach spent 30 years as a Republican member of Congress who went his own way. If this meant standing almost alone against his caucus, he was content to do so.

Leach lost his Iowa seat in the 2006 Democratic tide. He turned to academia, not the lobbying trade favored by so many defeated politicians, and in 2008 engaged in the ultimate act of a maverick (a real one) by becoming a Republican for Obama. The new president in turn appointed Leach chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities.

"Little is more important for the world's leading democracy in this change-intensive century," Leach argued, "than establishing an ethos of thoughtfulness and decency of expression in the public square.

"If we don't try to understand and respect others, how can we expect them to respect us, our values and our way of life?" But our own political practice belies anything remotely like "civility," a word that Leach has as much a right to use as anyone in public life.

"It is particularly difficult not to be concerned about American public manners and the discordant rhetoric of our politics," he declared. "Words reflect emotion as well as meaning. They clarify -- or cloud -- thought and energize action, sometimes bringing out the better angels in our nature, sometimes lesser instincts." But what are we doing in this great democracy? "Public officials," Leach observed, "are being labeled 'fascist' or 'communist.'

And more bizarrely, significant public figures have toyed with hints of history-blind radicalism -- the notion of 'secession.' " This last is a reference to Texas Gov. Rick Perry's effort to ride to reelection by invoking a concept that we thought had been discredited in 1865.
"There is, after all, a difference between holding a particular tax or spending or health-care view," he said, "and asserting that an American who supports another approach or is a member of a different political party is an advocate of an 'ism' of hate that encompasses gulags and concentration camps. One framework of thought defines rival ideas; the other, enemies." As a result, "citizens of various philosophical persuasions are reflecting increased disrespect for fellow citizens and thus for modern-day democratic governance."

Leach still has a lot of the old moderate Republican in him, and he is critical of a political system that, by creating so many safe one-party seats, has produced strong incentives for politicians "to remain firmly positioned far from the center." He adds: "Institutional polarization is the inevitable result." That's true, too, especially in the GOP.

3 comments:

terry said...

One word "Gerrymandering" It's wrong- wrong- wrong. I have harped about for years it creates polarization and no compromise which is the essence of good policies. No one group has all the right answers.

Baxter said...

Terry:

Though the Dems may not have all of the answers these days, they sure have most of them. The current GOP offers nothing but cynicism. I miss the internationalist, good government, fiscally responsible, establishment party of the distant past. While ending gerrymandering will not and should not improve the lot of either party - it will greatly improve our democracy.

District-fixing is a problem with relatively easy solutions, however, both parties like the status quo. It empowers each respective activist base at the expense of the middle. Safe seats create elected officials beholden to the far side of the spectrum. With a few notable years excepted, over 95% of House incumbents running for re-election have won over the past 25 years.

If we could do away with the voting rights act and create objective, democratic criteria for establishing districts, to be followed by each of the state legislatures, it would accomplish a great deal. Further, with such criteria in place, perhaps the SCOTUS would not longer require each district within a state to be the exact same size. I am fine with +/- 5% of average if it is conducive to respect for existing local boundaries or elimination of the need to redistrict at all if the number of seats doesn't change (as is the case with over half the states every ten years).

Such changes would dramatically improve the representation of constituents and frustrate the political hacks. There would still be naturally safe districts, however, the number would effectively but cut in half if not by two-thirds. Detroit will remain represented by a liberal Democrat and Mesa by a very conservative Republican, as each district should. Meanwhile, far more districts would fall into the purple category in between.

The status quo needs to change - our democracy depends on it.

Baxter said...

I guess it stands to reason that an excellent article by an excellent mind makes the Good Doc want to vomit...