One remark that particularly caught my eye was from President Eisenhower in explaining what he called modern (meaning moderate) Republicanism. According to Ike, “the middle of the road is all of the usable surface. Both extremes – left and right – are in the gutters.” Little did he know how prophetic he was.
As discussed in earlier blogs, politics has become increasingly polarized. Political parties, in Canada and the U.S, used to put forth policies designed to appeal to the broadest possible cross-section of the populace. Now, the parties seem more concerned with their core supporters, with shoring up their base. As a result, they take extreme positions on the left or right rather than offering more moderate, middle of the road approaches. This was increasingly evident in Canada during the recent period of Conservative Government under Stephen Harper. Particularly striking was the desperate last-ditch effort in the fall of 2015 to rally the core by proposing a “barbaric cultural practices” tip line – a plan repudiated by the voters in the federal election that October.
Polarization Prevalent in U.S.
Polarization is even more intense in the U.S., where both parties have moved increasingly away from the centre. This trend has been exacerbated because of certain features of the American system of government. One of these is the primary system for choosing the candidate who will stand for a party in an upcoming election. Voting turnout has been declining for decades and it is those most actively interested in politics who pay attention to, and participate in, the primary elections. These political partisans respond to candidates who emphasize what distinguishes one party from the other. As a result, extremists, rather than moderates, are attractive to those who vote in primaries.
Another very significant development is the increasing importance of activist groups in selecting and molding candidates for office in U.S. politics. By their nature, such groups emphasize specific positions on the left or right of the political spectrum. For these groups, the ideology of candidates is more important than the amount of political experience they have. Those critical of the behaviour of career politicians may welcome the influx of “outsiders” with less background in politics. But having an increase in candidates who are less qualified and more ideological will only intensify the polarization that is already making American politics so dysfunctional.
The Role of Party Leadership
Political parties need to find ways to exert more influence over the calibre of candidates chosen. In Canada, the fact that the party leader must sign the nomination papers of those who run on the party label provides an obvious – if little used – mechanism for weeding out those regarded as undesirable. This power could be abused by a tyrannical leader, but that risk is limited, given the backlash that would result. Instead, it functions more as a final safeguard in the event that a local riding association chooses a clearly unsuitable candidate.
No such arrangement exists in the U.S. and it is difficult to see how anything comparable could be employed. For one thing, there isn’t a single leader of the party as is the case in Canada. Each party has a leader in the House and a Senate leader and one of the parties is represented by the President. It is not readily apparent who would exercise any kind of final veto power – and the establishment and exercise of any such power would undoubtedly be widely attacked as undermining the primary system. In the absence of change, however, the political parties and their policies increasingly forsake the paved road for the gutters.
The Role of the Public
The citizens who are supposed to be served by a democratic government could have a major role to play in moving politics out of the gutter. They could reject simplistic and extreme positions taken by parties. They could make sure to inform themselves about the issues of the day by consulting a variety of news sources, contemplating the diverse views presented, and considering what makes the most sense to them. Instead, however, mainstream media sources are branded fake news and people seek out sites that tell them what they want to hear. This unwillingness to contemplate alternative points of view feeds the polarization that is undermining democracy. Their behaviour seems to confirm the assessment given by Presidential candidate Adlai Stevenson (in another book I recently read, A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the White House, edited by Charles Osgood, 2008). Informed by academics that he enjoyed the support of thinking Americans, Stevenson replied: “That’s not enough; I am going to need a majority.”