The Politicization of Politics

I don't know if it is just because I am too young to have paid much attention to the goings on of Congress before, or if this is a new trend, but it seems to me that, at least in my memory, Congress is suffering from a deep rift along party lines. It seems to me that politics in Washington are becoming more and more politicized. Of course, the reason we have two parties is to express two different points of view and represent a much broader scope of opinions than would one party. Also, our two party system exists to avoid the fifty-odd or however many parties functionally exist in Italy. But still, a two party system seems like it is set up to face off and now it seems like it has - and badly. We should have listened to George Washington when he told us, "You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heartburnings which spring from these [political divisions]; they tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection." I'd say!

I'm not going to claim that there have never been parties so split against each other or that the two parties have never disagreed with each other more. That would not be true. But right now the Democrats and Republicans seem to be stuck in a childlike and frankly obnoxious habit of erecting barriers around their own beliefs and refusing to budge from their ideological buttresses. I have my own ideas on how we got here, too.

One would be foolish to not label President Obama as charismatic. Or a mesmerizing orator. Or just kind of a cool, basketball-playing, late night talkshow-appearing, not quite (yet?) saxaphone-playing, rockstar President. All politics put aside, I think we can give him that. However, it would also be foolish to say that Mr. Obama's personality did not play a major role in the 2008 election. I'm not saying that the ridiculously high percentage of voter turnout was composed of swooning Obama-philes, but it definitely played a role. In addition was the dump of an economy, quagmire of a military conflict, and the general unpopularity of the preceding two-termed administration. Obama did - and still does - remind the American public of how poorly things were when he took office, painting the circumstances in a similarly frightening fashion as your typical Salvador Dali painting. Needless to say, that is pretty radical. And so were then-Senator Obama's remedies.

The election of 1932 pitted Republican incumbent Herbert Hoover against Democrat Franklin Roosevelt, but it was really much more than just an election. It was a competition between two different philosophies of the nature of a federal government. Of course, FDR won that election (and the next one, and the next one, and still the next one) and instituted his New Deal, which was a 180 degree turnaround from the Dual style of Federalism that had governed Federal/State relations since 1787. Here, the government spent what it didn't have to jumpstart the economy. I'm not saying the McCain/Obama faceoff was as dramatic as the Hoover/Roosevelt, but the concept is similar. Of course, Obama was elected and within the first 2-3 months Congress wrote and Obama signed a lengthy stimulus bill into law. This was a continuation of Bush Jr's bailout plan - on steroids. Billions of dollars going towards federal projects and efforts to improve the economy, as well as keeping businesses' heads above water. And similar to what happened in 1934 during the New Deal, people didn't like it. This very liberal action prompted a very conservative reaction which now includes the TEA Party movement. I think the main reason Obama was able to push his bill through Congress so quickly was because a) He told people it would work and they were convinced, and b) The economy was truly in a pretty bad state. But still - the American populace was very trusting of our new President and the plans he had campaigned on in 2008. Now that a politician was actually carrying through on his promises, people supported him and Obama enjoyed a comfortable honeymoon period. We see more of this, of Obama reacting to poor circumstances by passing legislation - The Healthcare bill this past winter, and the sweeping Financial Overhaul bill this week. Not to mention the period in which General Motors became Government Motors and the other corporations kept afloat by enormous bailouts. And this was all possible with the popular mandate Obama received giving him the green light to go ahead with these very liberal economic measures. This would not have been possible without a reason to pass these bills (the poor economy) and the popular mandate to do so (largely influenced by Obama's charismatic persona).

Now that Congress and the President have been able to pass these left wing pieces of legislation, however, the right wing has acted out - big time. Like I mentioned, the whole TEA Party movement is largely a function of the stimulus package and other such spending programs, and the party lines have been distinctively drawn. Also - since when does it take a near super-majority to pass a bill in the Senate? I'm afraid my future government students won't believe me when I say it takes a simple majority of a quorum to pass a bill, because all of the recent votes have required 60 (Democratic) voters. The filibuster is a tribute to the Senate's devotion to the tradition of free speech, and is a powerful threat against a bill. However, when it is abused as it has been by the Republican Senators, it tends to devalue the tool and put up an annoying barrier in front of government efficiency and getting bills through the whole process. Also, the cloture vote, which takes a proposal by 16 Senators and a vote of 60, was also a rare occurrence, another tribute to the devotion to free speech. But now, since Republican Senators have adopted the filibuster as a favorite in their right-wing backlash to left-wing policies, Democrats are forced to counter with abusing the cloture. Now all votes in the Senate have been defined by party, and who has enough votes to filibuster or block it.

To add to the equation, the economy is still a dump. We still have our military in what many people see as a losing battle. And Obama is still trying to push through huge pieces of legislation (financial overhaul) and still has super-ambitious ideas, e.g. end childhood hunger by 2012. Only now, he has lost a lot of that popular mandate he had earlier in his term. His approval ratings are low, the economy is still horrible, and we're seeing more of the same spending legislation that we saw last year. Some are getting fed up with this, but others are still stringent supporters. Since the two sides are so polarized, they have to fight to make their case, which results in stiff and loyal opposition to whatever the other side has to say or proposes in Congress. It's my theory that a lot of the programs (stimulus package, healthcare, etc) got pushed through because Obama was able to use his becoming personality to convince voters and his party that it was the right thing to do. Now things still aren't going so great, so people are not as gung-ho about the President as they once were, the Democrats in Congress are just as gung-ho about their legislation, and the opposition has countered with a ferocious negative response.

So much for a twenty-minute time limit. I've spent breaks and lunches for three days trying to straighten out my thoughts and still haven't done that great of a job. But let me try to summarize in one concept:
For every political action, there will be an equal and opposite political reaction. Now we have conservatives and liberals gnashing teeth at each other because neither side is willing to listen to the other (the Republicans really thought it was a good idea to protest extending unemployment benefits? I understand the point they made about "Where is this money coming from?!" - but do not make a political statement at the cost of the unemployed in a huge recession), much less provide bi-partisan support for a bill. Some may say that the Democrats started it all with leftist economic measures. Some may say Republicans started it with a fast retreat to the far right. Either way, I'm looking forward to the day when we can meet somewhere in the middle, and bills aren't decided by a stagnant numbers of seats.