UNITED WE STAND DIVIDED WE FALL
The US has become increasing polarized during the last decade. At least since George W. Bush obtained the Presidency following a vote that was so close that the courts had to decide he won, our country has been divided along party and/or ideological lines. The media has fueled this process. The reason or reasons that they have done this have been discussed ad infinitum. Some say it is to further the conservative or Republican cause or goals ( Fox) or to further the liberal or Democratic cause or goals (almost every other media outlet). Others say that it is it simply to draw viewers, listeners, readers, etc. (I.e. make money). The reason is much less important than the result or impact. It is tearing US apart. The normal and usual disagreements have become louder, less polite and/or civilized, more vociferous, and increasingly violent. I fear further and greater increase in this trend until violence becomes an even greater threat and an eventual collapse of our country. Do not think that this is alarmism or that it cannot happen. Our country did suffer from a split about 150 years ago, other countries have suffered this fate within the much more immediate past (Yugoslavia and the USSR come to mind), and the word “secession” has been bandied about by prominent US politicians in the past two years and even within the past week. This polarization is a threat. Few, if any, politician seems to consider the issue a problem that requires serious attention to remedy. Sure, there is lip service to ending “partisanship” or “partisan politics,” but what is really meant when a politician of either stripe means when they say this is, “those other guys need to agree to do things the way my side says is the way to handle this.” There is no real consideration of cooperation or compromise. At the moment, of course, the Democrats possess sufficient majority that they can and have ignored what Republicans want, need, or believe in pushing the Democrats’ ( in my view) socialist agenda. The Republicans have acted similarly in pushing their agenda when they had a similar advantage in numbers. In fact, it appears that they have taught the Democrats ways to overcome some of the few checks and balances that were drawn up in the Constitution and come into existence via custom to prevent just this sort of bullying and ramroding. I believe that our system of government and country has been successful because of the requirement of compromise and consensus that the aforementioned checks and balances required. Our forefathers took extreme measures to prevent both the “tyranny of the majority” (the reason for the Senate in the bicameral legislative branch) as well as steps to prevent a minority to have undue influence (e.g. the House of Representatives and the Supreme Court). They were so smart in designing this system that it has taken the smartest lawyers in the world almost 250 years to tear it down. The politicians will not voluntarily reverse this trend and go back to the original design and intent. I recently read a book by a liberal thinker and writer from the University of California at Berkeley (unnecessarily redundant, I know), George Lakoff. In that book he suggested models for US politicians that seem to be pretty accurate representations of how they see themselves and their roles. He suggested that conservative politicians see themselves (and that we should see them acting) as “strict parents.” He says that they pass laws which are aimed at teaching us citizens how to take care of ourselves, be independent. This would be kind of like a father who responds to a request of a child for money to go to a movie, by refusing to gift the money, but offering the child an opportunity to earn it. Lakoff suggests the model of a “nurturing parent” for liberal politicians. These politicians take positions which would provide US citizens the necessities of life and attempt to protect and keep US citizens from harm (including harms we cause -or would cause - ourselves). This would be kind of like how a mother would gift money to the child whose father had required the child to earn the money he/she wanted because he/she did not have time to do the work the father required before the event for which the money was needed and/or the weather conditions prevented the earning activity. While most of US would bridle at the suggestion of these models that we are seen as children, I believe that most of US can see how the actions and laws that each group seems to want to pass frequently fit into the suggested framework. I certainly see it. I am convinced that our country needs both groups. I have become convinced of this not only because of my conviction that the design of the architects of our federal government, but in contemplating Lakoff’s models in light of discussions with child psychologists. I have yet to meet or talk with any psychologist who does not insist that children require both parents (typically the father filling the “strict parent” role and the mother the “nurturing parent” role) in order to reach optimal development. As I understand the concept, the children need the strict parent to provide the influence to teach them how to live on their own and to take the risks that are necessary to do so, but also need the nurturing parent to ameliorate this situation and prevent such excess that the child take risks that harm him/her. Does this situation not have a parallel for US adults and our politicians? Do we not need laws which encourage and allow us the freedom to take risks and to be independence to maximize our talents, energies and opportunities (e.g. tax laws that provide incentives for business activities)? Do we, or at least some of US, not also need laws which protect US from the unscrupulous or from those who can and will overpower US (e.g. consumer protection laws)? I believe so. I want the freedom to make my own decisions. I want to be able to take advantage of every skill that I might have. I want the freedom to reap the rewards of good decisions, and am, correspondingly willing to accept the results of my bad decisions. However, having used the consumer protection laws to represent and help people I have seen that even smart, sophisticated people need these sort of laws. I can even see the possibility of needing them myself. Who among US cannot foresee the possibility of needing the “Lemon Laws” to obtain redress against a car manufacturer who makes a car that does not express its problems for a few days after purchase? Who among US wants to eat $30,000 that the purchase of such a vehicle might cost? We need both sets of politicians. We don’t need either to dominate. If Conservatism were to be carried out to its extreme (I doubt that there are enough Republicans who would go this far exist) there would be so much freedom that anarchy would reign and the strong dominate to such an excessive degree that they might cease to exist (not good, because then we would not have a working class). If Liberalism were to be carried out to its extreme (there appear to be more than enough Democrats wiling to go this far) the government would control all businesses and commercial activity in the country. It would also control many of our personal decisions (e.g. what we buy, what we eat, etc.). In fact, the accuracy of this statement can be seen in laws recently proposed and/or passed during the Obama reign. Obamacare requires that US citizens buy health insurance whether we want to or not. They have passed law discouraged tanning and eating certain foods because they are not good for us (see a nurturing parent here?). My solution to this is to wipe out all the ways that the parties have used to get around the checks and balances drawn up by the Constitution. Additionally, I would suggest that anytime that both houses of the legislature and the Presidency are held by the same party, that that no legislation be allowed to pass without a certain minimum number of votes from the opposing party in each house. This, of course, would have to be required by law and probably a Constitutional Amendment. The chances of obtaining the amount of consensus necessary to obtain the numbers to pass such legislation in today’s polarized environment is unlikely to the point of invisibility. However, if it does not, or some level of unity and spirit of willingness to compromise return, I predict dire consequences and a very bleak future (or a very short one)) for the US and US citizens.
