Politically Uncorrected: Incivility and its Discontents

Source: Flickr

Love and marriage, as the old ditty has it, may not always go together, but incivility and polarization sure go hand in hand in contemporary American politics. It’s virtually impossible to separate them. More importantly it has led to chronic dysfunctionality in government.

Recently, in a rare moment the Pennsylvania state party chairs, Democrat Nancy Patton Mills, and Republican Val DiGigiorgio, agreed to participate in a student-organized forum on civil discourse and polarization on the campus of Franklin & Marshall College.

What happened at the forum is revealing. Both party leaders decried the lack of civil discourse and urged compromise as a way forward. They agreed that progress is virtually impossible to achieve if polarization and fierce partisanship leads to meaningless and constant attacks on one another.

Particularly troubling to the party leaders was actually dealing with polarization among their membership – specifically bringing about compromise on issues their rank and file feel so strongly about. In fact, what led to the sharpest exchanges between the two-party chiefs was the extreme differences over the big issues of the day.

The fixedness of party policy positions became immediately evident when health care, climate change and gun control came up; where differences exist between Democrats and Republicans on these and many other issue compromise is virtually impossible to achieve.

Perhaps the most dramatic moment in the forum came when the GOP party head dramatically altered his tone on compromise, complaining bitterly about the treatment of Donald Trump, charging that Democrats have been much less compromising than Republicans, and arguing that his party had been “kicked in the teeth” by Democrats.

Thus the forum itself vividly demonstrated the polarization problem while making it clear that the problem was not limited to national and state levels, but had reached local governments as well.

That now chronic and corrosive polarization has transformed us into a bifurcated nation across a spectrum of issues, personalities and fundamental values. We agree to disagree on almost everything – and we are no longer agreeable about it. Indeed, incivility now permeates our national dialogue, compounding the political polarization underlying it.

Worse, perhaps, the historically hallowed notion of compromise, underlying our federal system of separation of powers, is increasingly an object of contempt and scorn. Our times are being compared for its divisiveness, lack of comity and corrosive spirit of vituperation to the earlier debate over slavery, the Civil War, the New Deal, and the fierce disagreement over the Vietnam.

The comparisons may be overdrawn, but perhaps excepting the Civil War era, we have not been so divided as a people about what America is or should aspire to become.

Nor is there any ambiguity about the toxic consequences of polarization. Government gridlock, flawed policies, growing chaos in our institutions and alienated voters is the bitter fruit of chronic polarization. If united we stand and divided we fall, the future looms as a wobbly one.

To be sure, elections still matter and in earlier decades they have often sorted things out, resolving the irresolvable, solving the insoluble, and returning the nation to political stability and harmony. Lately, however, elections more often simply mobilize the anger, fuel the fears and feed the divisiveness that polarizes us.

The problem is a fundamental one. The electorate and the politicians they elect have discovered ideology – both” right wing” and “left wing” varieties – often locking both voters and elected officials into rigid inflexible pre-formed thinking that sneers at the compromise and bargaining that have governed politics in earlier eras.

The great problem with introducing systematic ideological thinking into American politics is that the entire structure of shared and overlapping powers created by the Founding Fathers breaks down when rigid idealism replaces consensus and compromise.

Extreme politics and ideological thinking have always existed in American politics – but usually at the margins of the political dialogue and power. For much of American history politics has played out toward the center of the political spectrum orchestrated mostly by moderate and centrists willing to seek consensus among competing interests.

Those politicians are gone, that electorate is gone and increasingly America’s ability to govern itself is gone.

The underlying roots of our polarization inspired governmental dysfunctionality are not mysterious: our form of government is federal but our electorate more clearly resembles the ideologically driven coalition politics characterizing parliamentary systems (Like the UK). Our political “split personality” produces the schizophrenic politics witnessed daily.

Ultimately, we must decide whether to continue down the road we are on- away from consensus politics and stable governing – or we must turn back toward the moderate – centrist politics that allowed the country to thrive for almost two and a half centuries.

There is no third choice.

April 15th, 2019 | Posted in Features, Front Page Stories, Guest Commentary, Harrisburg, Top Stories | 7 Comments

7 thoughts on “Politically Uncorrected: Incivility and its Discontents”

  1. Joe Quinlan says:

    The Republican Party under Trump has become the party of American fascism. It’s a racist mass movement led by a demagogue. It is based on religious bigotry and xenophobia. Compromise with fascism is collaboration. Trump Fascism must be confronted at every turn, isolated and completely destroyed.

    Four of my uncles fought fascism in the Second World War. They were not civil to the enemies of democracy. In fact, they killed several of them. Civility in the face of growing fascist tyranny is not a virtue.

  2. Fundamental Fairness says:

    The reality is that King Scarnatti has yet to really come around about gerrymandering. The Republicans absolutely don’t want gerrymandering and will come up with any convoluted reasoning to block it. The congressional districts were so asinine that the transparent inequity was easily apparent. Thankfully, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court stopped this outrageous injustice. But still redistricting commission dies on the vine and King Scarnatti effectively blocks fundamental fairness.

  3. Mark O'Keefe says:

    Great column. However, I think the country was much more divided over Vietnam than it is today. Back then, you were judged by how you dressed and who you hung out with. And there were definitely places you couldn’t go if you had long hair. Today, those differences don’t exist. A person with long hair could be a liberal or a conservative.

  4. gulag Pittsburgh says:

    Good old hypocritical GOP. Bitching about how badly Trump is treated, while Trump is twitter trashing Pelosi over a media interview. And we await, the parts of the Mueller Report that Barr will deign to let us see.

    1. Huh says:

      Didnt you think Stack was a Republican?

  5. Larry says:

    Gerrymandering is at the root of this problem and division and thank God we in Pennsylvania have figured that out and have begun to see a way forward. Extremists only thrive when they chose their own extremists who control the vote for them. Ending gerrymandering will return our ability to compromise and work towards consensus again as our Founders envisioned.

    1. Huh says:

      If I could make the incorrect buzzer sound on this, I would.

Comments are closed.