While working this summer at a camp in Texas, one of my twelve year olds asked me, “What’s the difference between a Democrat and a Republican?” Her friends, normally distracted by their devices, were suddenly paying rapt attention. Ten expectant, Bible Belt-raised, “I-repeat-what-adults-say-verbatim-to-mom-and-dad” faces waited for my answer. I tried to think of a response that wouldn’t give away my obvious political leanings, but I wanted to be honest with them too.
I went with a bland textbook definition about preference in the power and size of government, which is, you know, true, but not at all the full story. It was like if they had asked what “Harry Potter” is about and I told them: “an orphan who is hated by some adults.” Technically true, but now, “The Boy Who Lived” sounds vaguely Dickensian.
It’s hard to describe the parties without delineating the extreme differences on every single political issue. Giving a description of the U.S. political system without slapping on biased, colorful words is just about impossible. The parties have become so different that it’s really hard to believe in one without despising the other.
In his final State of the Union address on Jan. 12, President Barack Obama reflected on the accomplishments of his administration but said that one of the “few regrets” of his presidency was that “rancor and suspicion between the parties has gotten worse instead of better.” Eliminating the rancor between the parties was one of the major messages touted by the younger, spryer Obama of 2008. The older, grayer Obama of 2016 knows better.
Obama has been one of the most consequential U.S. presidents in recent history, passing major healthcare reform and a record stimulus package, as well as reopening relations with Cuba and signing the Paris climate deal. He’s also the most polarizing president in the history of approval ratings. He currently sits at an 86 percent approval from Democrats and an 11 percent approval from Republicans, according to a Jan. 11 to Jan. 17 Gallup poll, leaving little doubt the country is divided. But correlation doesn’t necessarily mean causation, and I don’t know if Obama should be kicking himself for this one.
While Obama currently holds the title for most polarizing president, George W. Bush held the record before him, and Bill Clinton before Bush. There’s a definite trend of division in U.S. politics, and it isn’t just about who’s in charge — although the 2016 election cycle has certainly brought the total polarization of the parties to the forefront.
A recent article from The Slatest pointed out that the content of the parties’ primary debates is so contrasting, it’s as if the Democrats and Republicans are running for president of two different countries. The Republicans would have you start building a bunker, while the Democrats think the more pressing issues are on the domestic front. The so-called moderate voter doesn’t have many places to look for middle ground — you have to pick a team and throw yourself into it.
How did we get here? Because of the Internet’s popularity and the countless sources of political information — no matter how dubious these sources may be — people can pick their news, listen to and read things that will just reaffirm what they already believe. And now there is a lot of distrust of the mainstream media — it’s either the “liberal media” or corporately owned bias speaking for a particular presidential candidate. So people flock to other, independent news sources — usually ones that clearly reflect the views of one political party. You can have your own personal echo chamber.
More pressing than how we got here is how we plan to get out. What’s the breaking point? Your guess is as good as mine. Or Obama’s. He knows just how hard it is to deal with this divisive lunacy, but he can’t solve it on his own. Neither can the next president. The paradox is working together to figure out how to fix our political system, though our inability to work together is the problem with the political system in the first place.
2016 is going to be a wild ride.
Interesting coincidence–size and power of government was exactly how my mother explained it to me when I was about eight years old.