The Elections

This week . . . weirdly, as the election results came in and the pundits chimed in, the partisan rancor felt, to me, less rather than more offensive. But then I realized that may be because elections are inherently about divisive partisanship. Elections are a zero-sum game. They are, by definition, primarily about winning. The problem is, governing is not primarily about winning (at least in a non-autocratic liberal democracy). It is about hashing out solutions amenable to various views, which means compromise. And until the mid to late 1960s we had “zero-sum election seasons” which ended. And then the politicians turned their hats around and went about their real business of the much longer “compromise governing season”. But as Sidney Blumenthal pointed out in his 1980 book The Permanent Campaign that began to change in the late 1960s. For various reasons, the inherently polarizing spirit of electioneering began to expand not just for the few months around an election, but full time. And as the emerging self-interested campaign-consulting class of professional fundraisers, PR hacks and political ad people and advisors emerged—happily fueling the lucrative battle-game of polarization—the divisive vitriol of the election season slowly overwhelmed the entire political enterprise.

So perhaps what I was feeling was that the overheated rhetoric of campaigning didn’t seem so bad around an election because it’s kind of what you would expect. What we should not expect is for that kind of electioneering gloves-off hyperbole to continue once the politicians get back to what should be their real jobs of governing. Except now their real jobs are campaigning. And raising money. Year round. (Just ask any Hill staffer what their bosses now spend much of their time doing).

So maybe the one of the solution to ending polarization is radical campaign reform…including public financing of elections? (I can feel the reactionary wheels of polarization cranking up at the mere suggestion.)

When reading these examples, check the above list and ask yourself: regardless of whether you agree or disagree, is this really advancing an intelligent resolution through the persuasive, rational arguments of advocacy…or simply fueling the fire of conflict through the divisive, emotional manipulations of polarization?

Here are just a few of the blue and red polarizing headlines from the past week.