Politics as tribal war did not just happen, specific people made it happen. Said it before but now the point has the stamp of authority.
Q Is the current Congress demonstrably more partisan than those in the past? Why does it matter?
MANN: Partisanship particularly increased after the 1994 elections and then the appearance of the first unified Republican government since the 1950s. Now it is tribal warfare. The consequences are deadly serious. Party and ideology routinely trump institutional interests and responsibilities. Regular order — the set of rules, norms and traditions designed to ensure a fair and transparent process — was the first casualty. The results: No serious deliberation. No meaningful oversight of the executive. A culture of corruption. And grievously flawed policy formulation and implementation.
[Q] Congress has been rocked by the Foley scandal. Was the House GOP leadership’s response an example of reflexive partisanship? Are there larger lessons to learn from it?
ORNSTEIN: Part of the response to Foley was undoubtedly human nature — lawmakers wanting to take Foley at his word that he wouldn’t write any more improper e-mails. But it is hard to look at the responses of the collective majority leadership, including Speaker Dennis Hastert, GOP campaign chair Tom Reynolds and Page Board chair John Shimkus, without putting them into a context that makes it more damning.
The entire leadership team made sure that there was no significant ethics or lobbying reform in this Congress. They knew their majority was hanging in the balance, that the Duke Cunningham-Jack Abramoff-Tom DeLay scandal problem had not coalesced into an electoral catastrophe. The last thing they wanted was another embarrassing scandal. There is a lot to suggest that there was a systematic state of denial here, and an indifference to the possibility of a bigger problem that Foley might represent.
This is precisely why I think that independents often mistake partisan bitterness for some sort of inborn tribal instinct. In a language with multiple types of state-of-being verb, Spanish for example, it would be like mistaking ser for estar. In fact specific people made the decision to poison the atmosphere because they guaged, correctly, that a split America would benefit them politically. Our friends Gingrich and DeLay deserve credit for the job they did – our framers did a good job of creating a system that works despite and even because of the venality and self-interest of each individual involved. Our government takes effort to wreck, but recent times have shown that with a good plan and more than a little talent the job is far from impossible.
To be frank, I would have a lot more respect for principled moderates, the news media and even rightwingers themselves if they stopped treating the bitterness in DC as a passive-tense verb. It took the best effort of some great minds who have a right to take pride in a job well done. Never mind that murmuring from Hannah Arendt’s restless ghost.
***Update***
More at Atrios. Most people seem to think that partisan spite will outlive our current Republican leaders, but I don’t see why that should be. To maintain a steady drumbeat of the special kind of hate you need two things: incredible party discipline and a willingness to constantly screw with the rules to keep comity at a minimum. If you think that Democrats have either then you must be new here.
chopper
that’s why many of the promises made in 94 were so worthless. term limits? yeah, right. you guys are looking to take back the house, which you’ve only held for 4 years out of the last 63, and you’ll totally give up control once you’ve enacted what you want. that’s believable.
Pooh
Slightly OT, but Mann & Ornstein’s book is, though slightly dry in a Sophmore civics sort of way, quite good. I don’t know how Ornstein hasn’t been booted by AEI yet – he uses way too much empirical data and makes way too much sense…
Andrei
While I agree, I think one more thing that is required to seal the deal is the use of technology. We live in a time where information is nearly instanteous. Because of this, the use of technology (internet, television, radio, etc.) amplifies the effects of both pushing party discipline through talking points and the ability for those with less morals to abuse the system for their personal gains in power and control.
The Other Steve
The Gingrich philosophy could best be summarized with:
I don’t care if you vote Republican, just as long as you don’t vote for a Democrat.
The Other Steve
The internet allows people with whacko views who live far away from another, easy contact so they can commune about how they are out to get them.
On the other hand, it allows a lot of reasonable people who see the world as fucked up, to communicate and demand we do something about it.
Yeah, there is an early adopter advantage, but in the end it balances out.
Andrei
I’m not sure it balances out on its own. Negative effects have a longer lasting impression than positive effects. It’s why the addage that it takes ten times more effort to convince someone to buy your product if their first encounter with it was negative versus it being positive rings true.
The only way to get the balance back is for all those “reasonable” people to find some way to de-amplify the “whacko” noise created by effective use of technology. but it won’t happen on its own.
JoeTx
As long as the sheepy continue to watch Fox, there will be an “Us vs. Them” mentality.
Only a future great leader will be able to bring it back…
Larry M
I’m hoping that you are wrong. My fondest desire is that the Dems ratchet up the partisanship by an order of magnitude, and that a generation from now “Republican” will be considered the direst insult in the English language.
Upon the demise of the Republican party, of course, we can return to prior, lower levels of partisanship.
Jess
I agree, Andrei–I think the people who have brainwashed into thinking that liberals (and by extension Dems) are not merely wrong, but evil, are largely beyond reach. Once hate has been planted and nurtured it takes over the entire garden and is immensely difficult to uproot. To do so on a national level would take enormous resources that the Dems are never going to have, unless they become the champions of corporate power the way the GOP has. I came across an interesting post somewhere (can’t remember where–possibly Drum’s Political Animal) that quoted a Republican aide admitting that the GOP must outspend the Dems by more than 2 to 1 in order to maintain their political power, and the most cost effective way to do that is of course to sow hatred rather than argue policy.
rachel
That’s the kind of attitute that in the long, long run will get us peace in the Middle East. Well, *I* think it’ll be peaceful once they’ve all killed each other.
Chuck Butcher
When I look at the John Coles and others of his persuasion I know the value of having a healthy Republican Party. I do not agree with the small govt. policy, I think the theory is nice but the practice ludicrous, I think fiscal reason is more important than a balanced/surplus budget, I firmly believe there are things govt can achieve that can’t otherwise, but there is an overwhelming need for a counter balance to that. It is of the utmost importance that the arguments be had, that persuasion is expercised. This can only be accomplished where there is respect, and no, there is none today.
Larry M
Rachel,
A cogent objection, with one glaring problem: I have no hope that the Republican party (as an institution) will ever do anything to advance the cause of peace in the middle east. Thus cooperation with them, by definition, hurts the cause of peace. I realize that this is a recipe for 2 years of inaction until the filth currently occupying the White House leave it for (we can only hope) a number of jail cells, but inaction is better than making the problem worse. Any cooperation with the Republican establishment can only make the situation in the middle east far worse.
Of course there are many honorable people who now call themselves Republicans but are not part of the reublican establishment. The truely honorable and informed ones, like our host, aren’t going to be voting Republican until the Republican party cleans up its act. And since the Republican party will never clean up its act, they won’t go back. My prediction is that our host, and people like him, will never vote Republican again.