Partisanship and Nastiness

Recently, I attended my 55th year reunion at Amherst College. It is traditional to hold panels on topics of contemporary relevance. One of these, sponsored by my class, was entitled: Political Bipartisanship: Why and How It Has Failed in Current American Politics. I had wanted to be one of the panelists, but there wasn’t time. However, the chairman of the panel allowed me to make a four minute comment, using the mike (and I was grateful). Below, in capital letters is more or less what I said and then added, in regular type, are some of things I would have added, had I more time.

1. I POINTED OUT THAT CONTEMPORARY PARTISANSHIP, AND THE NASTINESS WHICH ACCOMPANIES IT, HAD A RECENT ANTECEDENT–1993. IN THAT YEAR, EVERY REPUBLICAN IN THE SENATE AND HOUSE VOTED AGAINST BILL CLINTON’S TAX INCREASE, DESIGNED TO REDUCE THE DEFICIT AND THEREBY LOWER INTEREST RATES AND INCREASE INVESTMENT. (The vote was 51-50 in the Senate–Al Gore–and 218 -216 in the House.) SOME OF THE NASTINESS INCLUDED ACCUSATIONS THAT BILL AND/OR HILLARY HAD KILLED VINCENT FOSTER.
There were also accusations about White Water and endless attempts to prove criminal behavior, but nothing criminal was ever found. Also, I admit the nastiness of that period doesn’t come near what it is today, but as one will see in one of my arguments as to why partisanship has triumphed, the causes of both 1993 and 2008-10 have similar roots.

I THEN GAVE 5 REASONS WHY WE HAVE THE SITUATION WE HAVE.

1. 9/11: IT GENERATED FEARS THAT DON’T GO AWAY AND FOR MANY ARE INCREASED BECAUSE WE HAVE A PRESIDENT NAMED BARRACK HUSSEIN OBAMA. (Perhaps, also playing a role in contemporary anger, fears and nastiness is the humiliation many still feel about losing the Vietnam War.)

2. ENTITLEMENT: CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICANS FOR YEARS WERE SHUT OUT OF POWER BY THE EASTERN MODERATES, SUCH AS THOMAS DEWEY (THE GOP CANDIDATE IN 1944 AND 1948) AND NELSON ROCKEFELLER. EVEN MR. REPUBLICAN, ROBERT TAFT, WAS KEPT FROM GETTING THE NOMINATION IN 1952. WHEN THEY DO GET POWER, IN 1980 (WITH REAGAN) AND AGAIN IN 2000 (WITH GEORGE W. BUSH), THEY FELT THEY WERE ENTITLED TO THE POWER THEY HAD FINALLY ACHIEVED. (MOSTLY, MODERATES WERE NO LONGER PART OF THE PARTY.) THE CONSERVATIVES FELT THAT NOW THEY WOULD HAVE A CHANCE TO RECONSTRUCT THE ECONOMY AND SOCIETY THE WAY THEY FELT IT SHOULD BE–MEANING, IN GENERAL, A REVERSAL OF THE NEW DEAL AND WHAT FOLLOWED (SUCH AS THE FAIR DEAL AND GREAT SOCIETY). DENIED THIS POWER, NOT ONCE BUT TWICE, THEY IN EFFECT THREW PUBLIC FITS. THE CURRENT LACK OF BIPARTISANSHIP AND NASTINESS REFLECTS THIS ENTITLEMENT DENIED. I might add that when, in 1964, Goldwater did receive the nomination, some of the epithets hurled at the Rockefeller-ites were as nasty as much of what are hearing these days, just different.

But also, in an article I read since reunion weekend, written by the respectable writer, Peter Beinert, in Time, to the above psychological argument we should add a situational factor. In the 1970's, the filibuster rule was adopted. This meant that aggressive Republicans, like Newt Gingrich, Tom DeLay, Trent Lott and Grover Norquist decided they could use the filibuster to discredit government, and the Democrats–in the first instance, the Clinton Administration–to position themselves for taking power again (except that under Gingrich, in 1994, it backfired). As Beinert points out, since 2009, the Republicans have increased their filibustering, increased their attacks on any waverers amongst them, crippled reforms in general and in part, health care, in particular. But, ultimately, it is because they feel entitled and have an unwavering view of their virtuosity.

Along different lines, two points: First, Democrats also changed, since after the Civil Rights Act of 1965, the “Solid (Democratic) South,” (essentially the segregationist South) turned Republican and more or less over time became the “Solid (Republican) South. Secondly, the ferment of the 1960's–the Free Speech Movement, the marijuana days–drugs and sex–(perhaps we could call this the Spirit of Woodstock–since I have a summer house there) led to an anti-government attitude among leftists, who thought the government had no right to tell them what to smoke and who thought the Great Society was being manipulated by liberal politicians who didn’t know what they were doing (or perhaps didn’t care and were in the pockets of corporations). This leftist critique of authority intriguingly led years later to a critical right wing view of governmental authority–examples being the belief that climate experts don’t know what they are talking about and school officials shouldn’t force evolution down student throats–leading, in part, to home schooling.

3: IGNORANCE. IN THIS COUNTRY, POLITICS OPERATES IN A CULTURE OF EXTREME IGNORANCE. THE AVERAGE AMERICAN, FOR EXAMPLE, BELIEVES THAT 20 % OF OUR GDP GOES TO FOREIGN (ECONOMIC) AID, WHEN THE REAL PERCENTAGE IS LESS THAN ONE HALF OF 1 %. PEOPLE IN EFFECT BELIEVE THEY ARE BEING TAXED HEAVILY FOR SPENDING THAT IN REALITY DOESN’T EXIST.

4. COLOR. IN MY VIEW, THE SITUATION WOULD NOT BE SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT HAD HILLARY CLINTON WON THE PRESIDENCY, RATHER THAN OBAMA. BUT THERE ARE MANY OLD-FASHIONED AMERICANS OUT THERE WHO, MORE OR LESS, LIVE IN THE PAST. THEY LIKED IT WHEN GAYS WERE IN THE CLOSET, BLACKS KNEW THEIR PLACE (AND IT WAS DEFINITELY NOT 1600PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE) AND WOMEN (OR AT LEAST ONE OF THEM) RULED THE HOME AND NOT THE HOUSE.

5. THE ECONOMY. EVERYONE KNOWS, OF COURSE, OF HOUSING FORECLOSURES AND HIGH LEVELS OF UNEMPLOYMENT. I WOULD ALSO FOCUS ON INCOME DISTRIBUTION. WE HAVE THE GREATEST INCOME INEQUALITY OF ANY IN THE DEVELOPED WORLD. AND IT IS WORSENING. FOR NEARLY 40YEARS, REAL WAGES–WAGES ADJUSTED FOR INFLATION–HAVEN’T INCREASED. MEANWHILE THE RICH ARE DOING SO MUCH BETTER. FOR EXAMPLE, THE TOP 1/100 OF 1 % “EARNED,” IN 1972
1 % OF OUR TOTAL INCOME. IN 2008, THIS HAD RISEN TO 6 %. (This statistic comes to us from a Berkeley professor named Emmanuel Saez, who was given the highest award the economic profession can give–the Nobel is given by others–the John Bates Clark award, given every other year (then) to that economist under 40 who makes the biggest contribution (and it is now given every year).

FEW, WHO ARE STRUGGLING, KNOW (OF COURSE) THIS STATISTIC, BUT I THINK THEY FEEL IT, FOR NOT ONLY DO THEY KNOW FRIENDS WHO ARE UNEMPLOYED (OR ARE THEMSELVES UNEMPLOYED) OR HAVE HAD THEIR HOMES TAKEN FROM THEM, OR LOST THEIR NEST EGGS, BUT THEY ALSO READ OF BANKERS TAKING HOME MILLIONS IN BONUSES. (Enough, even, to enrage me.) A friend points out that Tea Baggers have above average income. That they do, it appears. And most, I read, want to keep Medicare and Social Security, even though Big Government is of course bad, but not if it helps them. But many of the Tea Baggers do not earn above average income and many who are outraged about the bankers are not Tea Baggers. The impact of inequality is, I think, real.

What I did not have time for is any mention of what should be done. One panelist listed dozens of things, none of which were significant, in and of themselves, but could change things if adapted or made legal. I would have preferred that he acknowledge that while these proposals have little chance of having an immediate impact, they can provide a guide when the time for meaningful change is ripe.

From my perspective, the necessary condition, but not sufficient one, for lessening vitriol and restoring a greater degree of bipartisanship, is having a much improved economy. Unfortunately, the short term prospects are not good. Paul Krugman sees perhaps a Lost Decade here, similar to what Japan experienced in the 1990's (and to some degree experienced in the decade which followed). Robert Shiller, of Yale, who amazingly predicted both the dot-com bubble and the real estate bubble, is fearful that the economy will turn down before it gets above where it was in 2007 (what is typically called a double dip). And just a few days ago, the very much respected OECD (the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) forecasts that the unemployment rate in the fall of 2011–almost a year and a half from now–will be at 8.4 %. This is incredibly high, so many years after the cyclical peak, especially when one considers that in the late 1990's, the unemployment rate fell to 4 %.

But the long run prospects are also not good. In brief, what is needed is more infrastructure spending, more funding of lower level education, given what our international competition is doing in math and science, and more spending to cleanse our environment. And all of this implies greater taxation, not less. And, unfortunately, it is not something to be paid for by the upper 1/100 of 1 % (or even the upper 10 %). By emphasizing no new taxes on people making less than $250,000 (which is appropriate now), Obama is (unwittingly) undermining what will be needed in future years.

The upshot is that we are not likely to do what is economically needed. Thus, the future may give us a positive (but unhappy) answer to what was discussed in another panel: Is America in Decline?