Abandoning The Partisan Paradigm

TruPolitics.net welcomes guest author Saylor Smith. Mr. Smith was an educator for over 40 years, and is the author of two novels. He currently resides in Eugene, Oregon. This is his second posting for the site.

I disliked the us vs. them mentality that dominated American life for most of the last quarter of the twentieth century, and I’m disgusted to note that it continues unabated here in the first decade of the new millennium. “We’re Number One” has become the most over-used cliché of all-time, applied in virtually every aspect of life, from the rivalries of high school forensics teams to the battles between major league baseball, basketball and football teams, to the overblown advertising claims of beer, soda pop, automobile and antacid pill manufacturers. Now, I’m sorry to report, that self-important attitude has begun to shape the growing political contentiousness between conservatives and liberals.

It was not too long ago that the minority party considered itself the “loyal opposition.” I always thought that had a nice ring to it: loyal even when opposed — we are, it suggested, all patriots here. There was not a hint of one-ups-man-ship in the presentation of the possessor of such an honest political position. The majority party representative knew that his or her position of ascendancy was tenuous at best and that time and the vagaries of modern life would undoubtedly reverse the parties’ relative positions all too soon. The minority party representative knew to have patience — and to be consistently, if nothing else, loyal.

We were, these men and women understood, in the life struggle together, Americans all, with many more natural impulses to unite us than to divide us.

Where and when did this mutual understanding change? Some might blame it on the “liberal” 1960s, the age of Medicare, Vietnam protests, Civil Rights legislation, free love, hippies, women’s liberation and political assassinations. The other side might point to the 1980s, which included the fall of the Berlin Wall,  Iran-Contra, “Star Wars,” the invasion of Grenada, construction of the Vietnam Memorial, and, of course, Reaganomics and the resulting deregulation of corporate America. These were decades when critical issues began to divide citizens in dramatic ways. Whereas Democrats and Republicans had always managed to maintain civil debate on the largest questions before the country, the new liberal vs. conservative fracas deteriorated into contentiousness that often crossed the line into vitriol and vicious hyperbole.

Today, sharpened by the hate speech of talk radio, the language of civilized debate no longer applies on the political stage in America. As standard operating procedure, politicians and their supporters insist on demonizing opponents. A political adversary today is not merely wrong on the issues; he or she is a danger to our way of life, un-American, a supporter of the enemy — a traitor. There is no “loyal opposition” any more; a fellow Congressman or Senator of the other party is no longer a colleague to be respected; he or she is a virtual enemy to be denigrated and defeated. Members of the U.S. Congress seem to spend more of their time writing or speaking against their political opponents than they do in legislating for the benefit of their constituents.

Now voters are moving in greater and greater numbers to change their registration from Democrat or Republican to Independent, a direct result, I would argue, of this unreasoning chauvinism by members of the so-called Right and Left. When an almost unknown Illinois state senator gave a speech at the 2004 Democratic convention reminding us that we live not in “conservative” America or “liberal” America, but the United States of America, most of us applauded the sentiment in the hope that “us vs. them” could become “all of us together.”

Democrats are not better than Republicans; they agree on many fundamental American truths, including this partial list: 1. That the U.S. Constitution offers us the best road map for the future; 2. That each of us must bear responsibility for his or her own actions; 3. That war is unconscionable and that we will commit to it only as a last resort; 4. That we must unite to take care of the least among us; 5. That the federal government must, as must each of its citizens, ultimately balance its economic books; 6. That the three branches of the federal government must retain equal levels of power and authority; and 7. That a strong national defense establishment is critical to provide protection for the people of the nation.

It seems highly likely that separate, divisive political parties have outlived their usefulness in the United States of America. We need politicians at all levels who have, as their constant goal, the establishment of measures that will benefit all of our citizens; politicians who will not weigh issues on a conservative vs. liberal scale but rather on a humanity scale; politicians who refuse to vote against their own consciences to assuage their party leaders.

I worked for a high school administrator who asked his teachers one question when they proposed program changes or requested funds for the implementation of new ideas in the classroom: “How will it benefit students?” He didn’t care if it was a “liberal” idea or a “conservative” idea. We should initiate a similar measurement tool in examining each federal proposal: “How will it benefit citizens?” Then, perhaps we can get out of our own way, forget the labels and make good things happen.

-Guest author Saylor Smith for TruPolitics.net