|
Contributors
J.F. Kelly, Jr. - Contributor
J.F.
Kelly, Jr. is a retired Navy Captain and bank executive who
writes on current events and military subjects. He is a resident
of Coronado, California. [go to Kelly index]
 The
Polarization of America
The shrinking middle ground...
[J. F. Kelly, Jr.] 7/14/04
It has been said often before but it has never been so clearly
evident that Americans, at least those of us who make our beliefs
and preferences known, are becoming increasingly polarized. Moderate
positions and expressions of honest doubt are about as rare today
as politicians who admit to not having all the answers.
People seem to be irresistibly attracted to either of the two
extremes on any position. The elusive middle ground seems harder
than ever to find. Indeed, it is difficult to conduct a polite
debate on the key political, social and ethical issues of the
day anymore without either or both sides exploding in acrimony.
The result, it seems to me, is a progressive erosion in the quality
of political discourse in the country today that is turning many
Americans off.
The divisions manifest themselves across a multitude of issues
and personalities, ranging from abortion to war and from minor
political figures to the president of the United States. Have
these deep divisions always been characteristic of Americans
and their political process or are things actually getting worse?
If the latter, when did it start?
In the space of my
lifetime, I have seen Americans divided over many issues and
leaders, but at some point, some position
prevailed, we came together as a people and moved on. Today,
the coming together phase seems conspicuously absent, even after
an election. We seem reluctant to rally around any leader that
we did not vote for. It’s as if we want them to fail and
damn the consequences to the nation.
With regard to the origins of this trend, I know that we have
blamed many problems, some unfairly, on the Vietnam War, but
that unpopular conflict gets the blame again. We have had, to
be sure, other bitter divisions in the past over such things
as civil rights, but we eventually got together again and put
the acrimony behind us. We never really got over the Vietnam
War, try as we might, and out of it grew a more or less permanent
protest culture.
Both major political parties must accept a share of the responsibility.
Prior to Bill Clinton, most presidents, during my lifetime, were
unifying presidents. Despite wide differences in popularity,
style, ability and accomplishments, even the least of them was
not as intensely disliked as many Republicans disliked Clinton.
You either liked Clinton or you disliked him. Few were neutral
on the matter. Almost four years out of office, he is still the
Democrat that Republicans most love to hate, with the possible
exception of his wife.
The shoe, of course,
is now on the other foot. Americans are as divided on George
W. Bush as they were on Clinton but again
the division is along political lines. He is either an inspiring
wartime leader or he is an incompetent bungler. He is America’s
best hope in the war on terrorism, or he is the primary problem.
You either love him or you hate him. Your view of Bush, however,
depends more on your political affiliation than anything he has
done or failed to do.
Americans seem to be aligning their beliefs on most major issues
to conform with the profiles that they believe are described
by the labels that they identify themselves with. If you are
a Republican and a conservative, chances are that you support
the war, are against abortion and embryonic stem cell research,
support a constitutional amendment to prohibit same-sex marriage,
favor school vouchers and support tax cuts. If you are a Democrat
and a liberal, you almost certainly take the alternate position
on all these issues.
Americans are now
almost evenly divided on whether or not removing Saddam Hussein
was worth the cost. A Wall Street Journal/NBC
poll, however, shows that division to be almost entirely along
party lines. Republicans said that it was worth it by a margin
of 72 to 18. Democrats said that it wasn’t worth it by
a score of 80 to 14. So when Democrats say that a majority of
Americans are now against the war, they should, perhaps, point
out that a majority of Republicans are not and, as always, poll
results have to be analyzed beyond the gross total numbers. Party
affiliation is still the greatest predictor of whether the respondent
is for or against the war.
In fact, party affiliation
and conservative/liberal labels appear to make more of a difference
in determining positions
on most major issues than any other characteristic including
religion, even on issues where churches have taken strong positions
such as same-sex marriage and abortion. Another Wall Street Journal/NBC
poll showed Catholics almost evenly divided on whether or not
they favored a constitutional amendment against same-sex marriage
and whether or not they favored a woman’s choice on abortion.
There was very little difference between the responses of Catholics
and those of non-Catholics. In other words, party affiliation
and political philosophy were more reliable predictors of positions
on these issues.
These trends and statistics portend, in my view, an increasingly
divided America on major issues and a hardening of views along
rigid party lines, leading to bitterly contested elections, the
results of which, will often fail to bring closure and unification.
It is perhaps unfortunate that we seem increasingly unwilling
to think through our own positions on important issues without
blindly accepting a party line or conforming to a profile we
think is appropriate for a conservative, liberal or any other
label we hang on ourselves.CRO
copyright
2004 J. F. Kelly, Jr.
§
|
