Partners in Partisanship
One aspect of my doddering old age is my witnessing of numerous periods of political upheaval and national distress. Recently I’ve been troubled when I hear several friends of my vintage rationalize our current sad state of affairs as “no worse than the string of 1960 assassinations, the terrible conflict and losses of the Vietnam disaster, the disgrace of Watergate, or the tragic events and aftermath of 9/11.” To me, the anguish of those terrible occurrences offers little solace, and I continue to feel that the current rancor, bitterness, and pervasive lack of trust and respect is unprecedented. The partisanship which has become an integral part of our public discourse has resulted in a complete dysfunction of our elected government and a reason for national embarrassment and international ridicule.
Regardless of the inevitable election campaign rhetoric which invariably promises “healing” and “bipartisanship,” our leaders have failed to guide us to meaningful consensus and even a nod to common decency. Willingness to compromise, which is essential to dealing with serious challenges in governing in a democracy, is never even considered. Instead, our elected representatives, when they fail to get their way, are quick to demonize, insult and ignore the opposition. Dishonesty, misleading hyperbole and blatant self-serving tactics, mostly motivated by the next election, have become central to the habits of our decision makers.
We are entering an election cycle which tends to expose and exaggerate the ill will and shallowness of what has become the shameful way we elect our president. Most people I talk to despair at the prospect of the apparent choices on the ballot. Unfortunately, often their dissatisfaction is accompanied by a demeaning dismissal of the opposition. Candidates themselves, rather than rising to the occasion and agreeing to a standard of good campaign practice, are involved in a race to the bottom by all but abandoning responsible discourse and principled debate.
Of course, in a democracy, the ultimate responsibility rests with the electorate. We are the ones who have voted these people into power, foolishly accepting their campaign promises and hollow claims. Even worse, after we experience their obvious incompetence and transparent posturing, we reelect them over and over again. Surely we should be hesitant to look down our noses at third world countries or ridicule their absurd electoral practices and abuses.
The time has come to break the cycle. Evidence offered by the media (they are willing and enthusiastic contributors to this crisis) suggests that we are continuing this decline with a further erosion of trust and decency. We can’t keep repeating practices that have produced polarization and a persistent inability to govern. To be sure, we accept that democracy is a messy business and that substantive differences will remain in the different options offered by our political parties but, at the same time, there is increasing acceptance of the need for bold and new approaches if we are to regain our footing and stature.
The time has come for an innovative departure from the self-destructive past patterns that have brought us to this unfortunate place. The prospect of the major party candidates only promise “more of the same.” The public dissatisfaction with that choice has led us to a time ripe for a new and different approach. There is a sense that we are worn out, frustrated, and increasingly angry as we seek a meaningful response to enormous and complex problems. We are rightly fed up with the inertia and bickering of a government which has lost our respect. We understand that neither side will get everything it wants in the way of answers and solutions, but we deserve intelligent, rigorously debated, and productive compromise with a standard of civility committed to solutions.
Might we consider something that was floated (and dismissed) in the run up to the 2008 presidential election? Republican candidate, John McCain flirted with the idea of asking Senator Joe Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut, to be his running mate. McCain’s thought, as he explained it, was that there was a potential for fruitful common ground and a viable partnership between a centrist Republican and a centrist Democrat. He foresaw the partnership as a way beyond the intransigence of extreme party differences. Predictably, the party “machines” balked and McCain instead chose Republican Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin.
I’m sure a proposal like this or other non-conventional options will be seen as wishful thinking, impractical and naive. Beyond that, even as ardent a proponent of breaking this cycle as I am, I’m hard pressed to identify the leaders from both sides of the aisle who would be willing to buck the traditional base of his or her political party. I also have doubts that such an effort would gain the necessary and obscene financial backing that has become the unfortunate prerequisite to presidential politics.
I offer this only as a suggestion, aimed at stemming the current tide of our national malaise and a way to undo the present pattern of dysfunction. In the end, it’s up to us as concerned citizens, as we search for a roadmap to guide us in the hard work of governing in a democracy.
Arthur Merovick, Headmaster (retired) at Laguna Blanca School
