Partisanship is a Helluva Drug

More or less every morning, I receive the Askblog email from Arnold Kling, a person I began following early this year. Some of the emails soar over my head tracing majestic arcs across the sky to remind me that I am not now and might never be smart enough to understand them. I am okay with that and have decided that occasional intellectual humiliation is a small price to pay for the emails I do understand because those often make me think about something challenging. Arnold Kling does not cater to a general audience.

In January he was twice a guest on the Bill Walton Showand his first topic was The Three Languages of Politics. In his second appearance he shared the program with noted author and thinker, Yuval Levin, as they discussed The Politics of Nostalgia.   Both are well worth listening to especially if you are increasingly fed up with the subject, as I am.

Before returning to Kling, Bill Walton, the producer and host, is a successful businessman who has deep concerns about the direction of the country. Unlike others who are concerned, Walton does something about it and he produces a high quality audio and video show. At a time when the value of creative endeavor (I hate the word content) is deeply discounted (think zero), he brings considerable intellectual horsepower and substantial resources to educating the curious.

And now back to the show. According to Kling, “politically aware Americans seem to split into three tribes, and those tribes use the skills of cooperation not to work with each other, but instead to mobilize against each other.”

They’ve sorted themselves into three tribal coalitions—progressive, conservative, and libertarian, each of which asserts moral superiority over the other two and each of which speaks a different language that is incomprehensible to the others.

Conservative language values civilization.  What preserves law and order?  What preserves the virtues of western civilization?

Progressive language focuses on the relationship between oppressor and oppressed.  It takes the side of the oppressed, and looks for ways to limit the power of the oppressor, while increasing the power of the oppressed.

Libertarian language frames political realities around the individual.  What increases the ability of the individual to live the life they want to live?  They measure everything on a scale of coercion.  If I’m not coercing you, you shouldn’t coerce me, not even with laws.

What if you see merit in each of the languages? It does not seem difficult to favor virtue, show concern for the poor and find government at times overreaching. Problems arise when any of the three approaches becomes an absolute – all of one and none of the others. Can any policy issue ever be resolved with that mindset?

Yet rigid distinctions best suit political communication and cable news. Depending on the candidate or news outlet, each of the three approaches is portrayed as a light switch – on or off  “are you on the team or not?” – when they would be better considered as rheostats – a preference for a bit more of this and a bit less of that.

In today’s politics, nobody wants to solve anything. News outlets want readers and viewers (to say nothing of the advertising that follows them and, best of all, the bounty of political ads every other year) while candidates want money (mostly to pay for the ads) and votes. Readers, viewers, donors and voters are the commodities in short supply so they are served precisely what they want lest they take their business elsewhere.

Political debate has, to the great advantage of those who profit from it, become they way people define who they are. Yet that debate has only to do with winning or losing and nothing to do with solving.

According to Jonah Goldberg, “One of the reasons our politics is so contentious and angry is that we can’t agree on what the rules are. Some of us want to argue that certain policies are good and certain policies are bad. But a vocal chunk of Americans don’t really care about what the policies are; they would much rather argue that their side is right. They don’t care if these are the same policies or comparable to those they denounced earlier. The system is clogged with bad-faith arguments, hypocrisy, and flip-flopping.”

“In short,… partisanship is a helluva drug.

People like Arnold Kling and Bill Walton are trying to be the antidote.

 

6 Responses to “Partisanship is a Helluva Drug”

June 13, 2019 at 9:06 pm, GARRARD GLENN said:

I simply don’t understand what Jonah Goldberg states:

“But a vocal chunk of Americans don’t really care about what the policies are; they would much rather argue that their side is right. They don’t care if these are the same policies or comparable to those they denounced earlier. The system is clogged with bad-faith arguments, hypocrisy, and flip-flopping.”

Why argue about something if you don’t care about what you are arguing about (policies)?

That’s nuts. The rabid partisans of the day want to argue about stuff they don’t care about. They just want to win arguments, and demonize the opposition.

That’s nuts. Is there any precedent for this in American politics? Or are the mental faculties of humanus americanus degrading to the point of endless, hopeless irrationality?

Reply

June 14, 2019 at 3:31 pm, Haven Pell said:

I am in a small minority that believes the rabid partisanship is beneficial to the election industry and that outrage is bing intentionally mobilized

Reply

June 15, 2019 at 5:10 pm, GARRARD GLENN said:

I think the rabidity started on the Left, after Mrs. Clinton lost her last election. This loss was simply unacceptable to certain segments of the Left, including a large majority of the media. I find it baffling for the Left to be so outraged by the loss of such a mediocre candidate as Mrs. Clinton. I do not recall anywhere near this amount of outrage over an electoral loss in my lifetime.
Of course, Mr. Trump happily joined the fray. He loves ad hominem and ad feminam give and take. This is pure enjoyable sport for Mr. Trump, as it always has been. But there may be a spot of method to his madness. By fanning the fires of irrationality, he may be driving the Left even further Left, which will provide the voters with a more defined choice in 2020. Mr. Trump is betting the rabidicized Too-Far-Left is not a choice the voters will make. This may not be a bad bet. Barring a recession, of course, which may sink Mr. Trump.

Reply

June 16, 2019 at 9:12 pm, Haven Pell said:

It is too bad the parties do such a poor job of promoting good candidates.

Reply

June 13, 2019 at 9:12 pm, Ron Bogdasarian said:

Maybe it is time for the blue and red states to secede from one another with purple states being a kind of buffer

Reply

June 14, 2019 at 3:29 pm, Haven Pell said:

Or simply let more decisions be made at the state level? Disney World has awful boring food because it has to have universal appeal. Once you aim for that you get bland. Why does everything need to be the same? Is it that unthinkable for Boston to do things one way and for Omaha to do them another? Can Oregon and Wyoming differ?

Reply

Leave a Reply

We are looking forward to hearing your thoughts! Please keep in mind that all comments are moderated, and abusive or spammy comments will NOT be published.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *