Frank,
I’m not as sanguine about the motives and thought-processes of the “middle,” but your interpretation does make much sense. Still thinking about your words …
The polarization of voters — Rs huddling around the R pole; Ds huddling around the L pole — could also be due to “rationalization” of political parties.
Back in the 1970s, in the pre-Carter years, boweevil (sp.?) democrats were conservative Southerners, but still Democrats. Their own particular history and (then) recent civil rights legislation pushed the white South into the Democratic party. The D party, then, was tempered by the political moderation of Southern conservatives.
Fast forward to 2009. Moderates in the D party, now called “Blue Dogs” are a pitiful minority. Moderates in the R party are also a slim minority. Few northeastern moderates remain in the R party.
“Rationalization” occurs when the party makes ideological sense and its adherents share some sort of cultural/political POV. That is to say, a political party composed of like-minded members is rationalized because the party stands for a set of ideas that somehow cohere.
Thus, Republicans, for the most part, have a set of beliefs that arise from a realistic (some say jaded) view of human nature. In their view, civil society bridles the human tendency to coerce or dominate others. Political action, then, should only take place when civil society breaks down to the point where order needs to be reestablished.
Dems, have a set of beliefs that flip between viewing ordinary Americans as stupid and needy and viewing people as innately good and perfectible. (There’s an incoherence to their “faith.”) The badness of humanity comes from contact with civil society — the social environment in which people are reared — and not from an innate tendency to dominate. To Dems, political action, then, should be ever-present and potent, both to coerce society as a whole to behave in ways Ds deem good, as well as to train individual citizens to counter the values of civil society.
These POV are incompatible, aren’t they? These incompatible ur-beliefs, in my wee opinion, divide Dems from Reps.
Now, back to the polling data. Yes, the data suggests a widening split between the D and R. But this makes sense. It mirrors what voters are thinking, perhaps subliminally or unconsciously. It mirrors those ur-values that inform political choices. It mirrors the widening gap between D and R.
But only recently have political parties reflected ur-beliefs; that is, only recently have political parties been rationalized. Today, Ds stand for their set of beliefs and Rs stand for their set of beliefs.
I rather doubt these party differences can be papered over. Differences between D and R are too innate and deeply rooted to be moderated or compromised. They’re just too important. Too constitutive of who we are and what we believe.
Thus, I see moderates/Independents as irrational. Independents are refusing to make the choice. THey’re refusing to see the irrationality in political compromise. For this reason, too, I see the moderate middle slowly disappearing as information becomes more widely spread and political discussion heats up. As they know more and think a bit, society will further bifurcate. Its just that people, Frank, can’t stand in intellectual quicksand. Eventually, they’ll seek stable ground. The parties represent that ground. They make sense.
Excuse my rambling.
I’m quite curious about your thoughts, Sir.
Kris
Comments