Political sectarianism in America

[sukumvit boy]

In my humble opinion this is such a critical issue and the extraordinarily good paper from the 30 October 2020 issue of the journal "Science" did such a great job of defining the causes and solutions that I decided it deserved a seperate thread.
Why is the traditional Party system of American politics ,that has served so well for so long ,now seem to be 'broken'?
What happened to the system of compromise for the benefit of all ,that the founders intended ?
What do we need to do to get it working again?

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/370/6516/533

[Stavros]

Your opinion need not be 'humble' when the focus is on so critical an issue.

To summarize the article, the team of researchers explain their concept of Political Sectarianism by referring to three formative processes: 'Othering', 'Aversion'. and 'Moralization'. Thus,

1) Americans may identify with one party rather than another, but regard the 'others' not as equally valid in their affiliation, but people who have abandoned 'the tribe' and appear to be not just 'others' but 'the enemy' with partisan identity being shaped by Religion, Race, Education and Geography.

2) Thus 'Aversion' is a trend made possible by the end of the Fairness Doctrine in broadcasting and the media, so that the hostiiity shown to 'the others' is underlined and promoted by a one-sided media that not only reports in favour of one side and against another, but in doing so reinforces whatever prejudices have created the separation of people into 'tribes'.

3) Lastly, 'Moralization' gives you the language which demonizes the other -there is no hope of one party praising another for a real achievement; loyalty to the 'one true party' requires that the 'enemy' be permanently disabled, insulted, abused, ridiculed, and thus make any reconciliation or compromise seem not just absurd, but a betrayal.

Superficially or not, this explains the otherwise daft claim that during this Pandemic, to wear a mask is to identify as a Democrat; not to wear one, a Republican. More worryingly, Republicans believe in armed militias and the Bible more than they seem to believe in Democracy and the Constitution; Democrats appear to be 'More American than You' by seeking to reduce gun ownership and relying constantly on the Constitution to justify its policies.

The article is written in the context of 'Science' which for these authors means the political science of number crunching, and techniques derived from Psychology. While it makes some pertinent arguments, it fails to explain sectarian politics in the context of American and Global history, and fails to do so by contextuazing what has happened in politics over time to produce so lamentable an outcome.

The authors are in my opinion wrong to claim that the sectarian divide is worse in the US than in European or other counties at a similar stage of development as the US. They fail by using their model instead of another, for what has happened in Europe in the last ten years is the fact that parties that in some cases had existed for the best part of 100 years -the Socialist and Social Democratic parties of France, the Netherlands, Germany, Italy, and Greece, are either in disarray, or in the case of the German SPD, appear now to be a Regional rather than a National party, not least because Angela Merkel has adopted or co-opted so many SPD policies as her own.

Moreover, if one looks at the Centre and Right, one finds instability -the French centre centre/right has failed since the end of the Third Republic to create one enduring party -numerous versions came and went from 1918 to 1958, and once de Gaulle parted from the scene his Rassemblement du Peuple Français morphed into variations desiged to be closer or further away from 'the last Great Frenchman'. Italy has moved to the right, but has a coalition of two rather than one party, both of which hate each other. The centre/right Chrisian Democrats who dominated Italy from its origns under de Gasperi in the 1940s to the corrupion scandals of the 1990s, has collapsed and disappeared, and with it a 'rational' Conservative party. The attempt by Silvio Berlusconi to create a solid centre ground party has similarly flopped, with his decade or more in power seen as a giant flop that was more about him than Italy, an early example of a Personality Cult replacing rational politics. Merkel's domination of German politics has raised the most obvious question- who or what can follow her, how, if it does, will Germany change, or remain the same?

Ok, so sectarian politics of the venal loathing we see and hear in the US is not replicated in Europe, not even in the UK (Farage is busted flush) where Brexit has broken the country into pieces but where I suspect there is a desperate hope, undermined by the architect of Brexit, Boris Johnson, that 'it will be alright when it happens' -watch that space. But, and I think this is critical, party politics in Europe has been convulsed in the last 10 years and does not resemble what it was for the previous 90.

This is where history and politics enters the frame, because what the Science authors fail to do, other than identify Newton Gingrich as a pivotal figure in the (de-)Moralization of American party politics, is explain when this trend began and why. Nor does it suggest that there is an even simpler reason for sectarian divides: failure. In this context, it is the profound changes that have taken place to Capitalism that have changed the way we work, where we work, and the rewards we get from work. It is as if the Science team first read their Marx, then decided that it was culture rather than economics that was driving political change -it is clearly both.

Thus, the history, and this is my take on it, shows that the US has never fully healed from the Schism that was created by the Confederate terrorists who attacked the US at Fort Sumter in 1861 and provoked so devastating a war, though one must also put that into the broader context of what Langston Hughes called 'the American heartbreak' -Race-. In the aftermath of that war, the South may have lost its slaves, but it gained the very kind of segregation -physical, ideological, social- that is embedded in the sectarian divide described by the Science team.

Moreover, the 1960s was the Pivotal decade, because not only did Segregation become illegal, as one of its architects LBJ noted ruefully, it meant the Democrats losing the South. Partisan politics did not die immediately, think of Kamala Harris criticising Joe Biden over his warm relations with Southern Bigots, but what happened was a slow 'mission creep' iwith the enduring resentment by the South that 'the North' -ie Democrats- were still trying to dictate to the South how they should live, and above all treat Black Americans as Equals.

From this vantage point, and throw in all 'the others- Feminists, Gays, Transgendered, Environmental Activists- and 'Liberal' no longer describes the American of 1776, but its enemy. It is a country that has surrendered, or capitulated to a mosaic of foreigners and weirdoes who do not stand on the pillars of 'their America' = God, Family, Country.

The climax of this assault on America/Defence of America, was the election of Barack Obama, a point of No Return when a Black Man walked into the White House as President.

From these roots, I see the changes noted by the Science team; my own historical perspective is biased, but at least it is there as a framing device whereas the Science article does not engage in the reality. Crucially, what lies in the space between this sectarian divide is that none of the major parties in America or Europe, with the possble exception of the Germans -and because of their traumatic sectarian and global warfare- has managed the successful transition from a predominatly Industrial to a Service economy since the 1980s. What we have seen are phases of growth and then recession, of mass unemployment and reductions in it, of the phenomemal growth of the global economy, but a division of spoils that rewards '1%' with billions of dollars, while '99%' slump into a stagant pond ever burdened by debt.

Add to this a sorry coda creating its own mendacity: BLAME -what went wrong in the UK? Blame the EU, then leave it. What went wrong in America? Globalization, attack China.

Political parties are at a critical juncture in history, do we even need them? Are we about to see Trump maintain his relentless attack on the US by forming a social movement, an alternative to BLM? But can either of them achieve their aims outside Congress? Maybe this is just a phase the US is going through, and four years from now, Trump will have been exposed as a tax cheat, a fraud whose property empire was built using tax-payer loans, whose value is inflated, its tenants powerless and afraid. And people, even his current supporters tired of his permanent references to himself as a Great Man, with no viable policies on which to build an alternatiive America.

Or maybe he just wants to go down in flames, like Atlanta, defeated, exhausted, and irrelevant.

[Stavros]

I shoud add with regard to the comparison between US and European parties, that the disarray in Europe has not happened in the US where there has been a stable, some would argue, stagnant two party system for most of the last 100 years. Morevoer, not only has this duopoly not been successfully challenged, the phenonemon of Trump has shown that the only way for a Maverick outsider to succeed has been through the existing system -the Republican Party may not be the the Party of Lincoln, or Hoover, Eisenhower, Nixon or either GHW or GW Bush, but the US still has a two party system. As for the radical changes that were promised in 2016, the incoming President merely smothered Washington DC in a swamp of corruption and lies to take advantage of the financial opportunities for himself and his familly, so one wonders why anyone can be fooled into thinking he changed anything for the better.

I think it means that, for example, the Black Panther Party in is original and its contempory forms, could, and can never be more than a fringe party with minimal impact on the party system. It remains to be seen if Third Party candidates and parties, from Ralph Nader and the Greens in elections of the past, or the Liberarian Party in the 2020 election, were effective alternatives, but in closely fought elections with two parties competing for the most votes, alternatives merely make the victory of the Democrats or Republicans more or less likely, they do not change the balance of power, which remains in a Congress where only two parties rule -and is it surprising that when there is an Independent candidate winning an election, as with Bernie Sanders, he does not seek the Presidency as an Independent, but as a Democrat?

It poses the question: why do Americans have only two dominant political parties? Is it the simplicity of choosing either/or? Where are the regional parties, for example, in Alaska or Hawaii, or even Califoriina? For example, the UK has the Scottish National Party, and neither the Conservatives nor the Labour Party seek election in Northern Ireland, so while Labour and the Conservtives dominate, certanly in Governmet, the UK has greater diversity of political representation.

With the final question -can the US change its party politics? What would change look like?

[filghy2]

It poses the question: why do Americans have only two dominant political parties? Is it the simplicity of choosing either/or? Where are the regional parties, for example, in Alaska or Hawaii, or even Califoriina? For example, the UK has the Scottish National Party, and neither the Conservatives nor the Labour Party seek election in Northern Ireland, so while Labour and the Conservtives dominate, certanly in Governmet, the UK has greater diversity of political representation.

I think the electoral system has a lot to do with it. A 'winner take all' system will naturally tend towards duopoly because minor parties find it almost impossible the get into a position where they have any influence, which means a vote for them is essentially wasted. The only exception is where their support base is sufficiently concentrated, as with the SNP.

In Australia the two major parties only receive about 75% of the vote nowadays, and much of that seems attributable to the electoral system:
- the upper house is based on proportional representation, so minor parties often hold the balance of power
- the lower house is based on preferential voting, which means that a vote for minor parties is not wasted and they can have influence through their recommendations on preferences

If you look at the US electoral map, there are in a sense two regional parties called the Republican and Democratic parties. Republicans are the party of middle America and the South, and Democrats are the party of the East and West coasts and the Great Lakes. In Australia support for the two major parties is fairly evenly spread, so that every state changes hands periodically. There are large parts of the USA where that never happens.

[sukumvit boy]

Thanks,Stavros, for that excellent summary of the "Science" magazine article and your erudite critique . And flighty2 for your Australian perspective on the issue. I understand that voting in Federal elections in Australia is compulsory! Your Australian and UK proportional representational systems are certainly better ,in my view , than our "stagnant"2 party system.

[sukumvit boy]

I only hope that, as the authors of the article stated, our poisonous sectarianism "is neither inevitable nor irreversible" . I hope election finance reform,reform of social media algorithms, and a spirit of respect for opposing points of view can and will follow.
Reminds me of the Dali Lama injunction,"Be kind whenever possible,it is always possible."

[Stavros]

Your Australian and UK proportional representational systems are certainly better ,in my view , than our "stagnant"2 party system.

It is a mixed bag in the UK -Parliamentary Elections are Single Member Simple Plurality -ie, first past the post, winner takes all. There are various PR systems in regional elections, particularly in Scotland and Norther Ireland -this article addressed those systems.
https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/...sed-in-the-uk/

PR has been rejected as the method for electing the UK Goverrnment in Parliament, most recently in the 2011 Referendum. I oppose PR because it is an entry into politics of small parties, and usually not effective ones -we had a Coalition in 2010 because Cameron failed to convince enough people to vote Conservative, but sharing power with the Liberal-Democrats, allegedly to the left of the Conservatves did not prevent the economic austerity measures that Government embarked upon which have caused so much damage to the NHS and our public services.

The real concern is that PR would give an entry into politics of New Wave Fascists like Nigel Farage, which is something to be avoided- he has never been able to get elected to Parliament after 7 attempts, and his party rarely wins a substantial vote. If you want a comparison, look at the extremist parties in Israel who become part of the Government even when they get barely 5% of the vote -indeed, though Netanyahu didn't need such extremists to expand illegal settlement activity in the Occupied Territories, most of the fringe parties support it anyway. The UK has been broken by Brexit, to introduce PR for Parliamentary elections would, in my view, aggravate the misery of Brexit by creating one unstable Government after another, no one party capable of forming it -and we may be headed for political instabity anyway, so why make it worse?

What is more pertinent is what has been said before -is Trump going to create a new movement or party, or insist on leading the Republican Party -and will they get rid of him between now and the mid-terms in 2022, or after that if he fails to take the House and Senate?

[filghy2]

And flighty2 for your Australian perspective on the issue. I understand that voting in Federal elections in Australia is compulsory! Your Australian and UK proportional representational systems are certainly better ,in my view , than our "stagnant"2 party system.

Australia was only created as a federation in 1901, so we had the advantage of being able to learn from other countries' experiences. Our 'founding fathers' studied other systems (especially the US, UK and Canada) and tried to combine what they saw as the best features. I think they were very wise to reject a presidential system because too much power in the hands of one person seems to be one of your big problems.

Proportional representation is used only in the Senate, so it doesn't determine who forms the government. The House of Reps where the government if formed is based on preferential voting in single-member electorates. How this works is explained in the link, but the general principle is to ensure that the winning candidate is acceptable to more than 50% of voters.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electo...m_of_Australia

Politics in Australia is much less polarised and dysfunctional than in the US, and I think much of that has to do with the electoral system, as well as the fact that extreme views (eg anti-government or religious fundamentalism) have never got much support here. The features of the system (compulsory voting, preferential voting, an independent electoral commission) mean that the major parties must try to appeal to the middle ground rather than focussing on their own enthusiasts. They certainly cannot hope to form government if more than half of the country dislikes them. In our system, Donald Trump would never have succeeded and the Republican Party would be in deep trouble.

[broncofan]

Are you guys willing to tackle a niche issue like New York v. Chicago pizza? I think Mr. Fanti was right in that you need some experience on the ground to offer an opinion on this one.

In my view Chicago pizza lovers are becoming like a third party. In popularity it's New York pizza, then two week old leftover lasagna, then Chicago deep dish.

In all seriousness, I'm enjoying reading this discussion, please continue!

[sukumvit boy]

WHAT ? Oh,LOL.
At first I thought you were talking about the 'pizzagate' conspiracy ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pizzag...spiracy_theory