Americans Are Polarized for Good Reason

Lew Rockwell.com ^ | 30 March 04 | J.D. Tuccille

[u-89]

Americans Are Polarized for Good Reason by J.D. Tuccille by J.D. Tuccille Americans are politically polarized, the pundits tell us, and the numbers bear out their claims. In a March USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll, 91% of Republicans approve of President Bush’s performance, while only 17% of Democrats agree. The divide goes deeper than preferences for the White House’s next tenant. Working from a December 2003 survey which finds that Americans passionately disagree on the Bush presidency, gay marriage, gun ownership, religion and other matters, pollster John Zogby writes, "the United States is slowly cleaving into separate nations culturally." Americans don’t even follow their opponents’ arguments. Valdis Krebs, a Cleveland-based network analysis expert, reports a study of online book purchases reveals that people almost exclusively buy political books that confirm their own beliefs. A few observers think the political divide is overstated. In a syndicated column, NPR correspondent Eric Weiner claims that America is "a nation that agrees on the vast majority of issues while it indulges in a loud – and mostly meaningless – shouting match over the few issues that divide us." But people battle over things they consider important, whether or not dispassionate observers agree. Societies have been torn apart by disagreements that seem irrelevant to outsiders. Hutus and Tutsis slaughtered one another over differences rooted in ancestral political and economic rivalries. A more convincing critique points out the unlikelihood of millions of Americans splitting evenly into two camps, each allied with a major political party. Such a simplistic division demands we believe that all supporters of gun rights also oppose same-sex marriage, and that all supporters of abortion rights want higher taxes. Rev. C. Welton Gaddy, president of the Washington, D.C.-based Interfaith Alliance, acknowledges the country’s political mosaic, telling the Newhouse News Service that rather than two Americas "there are probably three, four or five." However many camps there are, it’s apparent that Americans nurse bitter disagreements and increasingly see political battles in terms of good vs. evil. In truth, despite Mr. Weiner’s rosy outlook, government has so intruded into every nook and cranny of modern life that Americans have real reason to fear the outcome when their opponents control the levers of political power. Take the controversy over gay marriage as an example. Politicians debate the merits of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, but there’s no real reason that marriage of any sort should be a public policy issue. New York didn’t require marriage licenses until 1908 and many states that required licenses earlier provided for private alternatives, such as publishing banns. Likewise, private ownership of firearms and personal use of marijuana were regulated by states and localities, if at all, into the 1930s. Entangled in federal law in 2004, guns and dope now serve as defining issues for many Americans, and can decide the outcome of elections. Even Americans’ mealtimes are subject to official scrutiny. The federal government is rolling out an advertising campaign to nag people about their eating habits, and some public health groups want to impose high taxes on so-called "junk food" to discourage its consumption. Who can blame Americans for being at-daggers-drawn when marital arrangements and lunch menus are at the mercy of the victors in the next election? In his 1955 book, The Origins of Totalitarian Democracy, historian Jacob L. Talmon wrote that liberal democracy "recognizes a variety of levels of personal and collective endeavour, which are altogether outside the sphere of politics." In contrast, "totalitarian democracy treats all human thought and action as having social significance, and therefore as falling within the orbit of political action." That sounds familiar. Over the years, Americans have turned a country in which most areas of human life "are altogether outside the sphere of politics" into one in which every detail of life is treated as "falling within the orbit of political action." It’s not that the government never meddled in personal matters in the past, but such efforts were always divisive – like Prohibition. With a laundry list of Prohibition-level controversies at stake in every modern election, opposing factions can’t afford to lose at the polls. If high stakes explain the growing bitterness between America’s political factions, the solution is clear: lower the stakes. Get government out of any area of human life where its presence isn’t essential. Why wage electoral campaigns over the definition of marriage when you can get politicians out of the marriage business entirely and leave relations between consenting adults to the people involved? There are enough divisive issues in which government can’t help but be involved – such as defending the country against terrorism and invading countries that have nothing to do with terrorism – that we don’t need to seek out new grounds for domestic conflict. Shrinking the role of government won’t make people stop arguing, but it will improve the chances that they can afford to lose an occasional argument. March 30, 2004 J.D. Tuccille [send him mail] is an Arizona-based writer and political analyst. Copyright © 2004 LewRockwell.com

[u-89]

"government has so intruded into every nook and cranny of modern life that Americans have real reason to fear the outcome when their opponents control the levers of political power."

[Belisaurius]

Lew, you ignorant slut.

[RebelBanker]

Great article!

I must admit that I am shocked that this came from LewRockwell.com. Someone over there must have decided to try low-key logic rather than high volume rhetoric and see how it works.

I must say I agree wholeheartedly with the column's key point: "Get government out of any area of human life where its presence isn’t essential."

[Only1choice____Freedom]

I must say I agree wholeheartedly with the column's key point: "Get government out of any area of human life where its presence isn’t essential."

Trouble is that the only time they say this is when their guy is not in power.

[CSM]

Yep, we are a divided nation. Divided between the productive and the moochers!

[aimhigh]

API and UPI report that the French Government announced today that in light of the Madrid bombing, France has raised it's terror alert level from "run" to "hide." The only two higher levels in France are "surrender" and "collaborate"

[AZLiberty]

I like the preceding sentence, too:

If high stakes explain the growing bitterness between America’s political factions, the solution is clear: lower the stakes. Get government out of any area of human life where its presence isn’t essential.

[headsonpikes]

I can only assume that you are one of these assumptive American Socialists that the writer is so exercised about.

Why are you so fond of socialism?

You must have a gubmint check coming in, the cynical would surmise.

[TopQuark]

Over the years, Americans have turned a country in which most areas of human life "are altogether outside the sphere of politics" into one in which every detail of life is treated as "falling within the orbit of political action."

It is not Americans: the whole Western civilization has been on this path for almost two centuries. Two revolutions occurred almost simultaneously: we have perfected the representative government of the English, and the French invented socialism. Ever since socialism was experimenting with its forms --- Leninist, Stalinist, National (Nazi) of Hitler's fame, Maoist, the Swedish model... Despite over 100 million dead in these experiments, socialism has been expanding, and our view of the world has never took root anywhere else.

It is now clear that Europeans, who were largely socialist already, clinged to us only because they were afraid of another socialist ape --- the Soviet Union. Once that enemy was gone, all pretences disappeared, and Europe is now the land of socialist utopia. This time, they have England too.

We are holding off temporarily: we now have a second generation coming of people who know nothing of Western values --- 'cause they were all created by dead white males and are not taught in schools. One does not defend the values one does not have. By the end of the decade, we'll have Hillary running the country.

[cricket]

"In contrast, "totalitarian democracy treats all human thought and action as having social significance, and therefore as falling within the orbit of political action."

The totalitarians are winning.

Political Correctness is the 'law of the land' and today's Liberal totalitarians; having invaded almost every known area of our social and private behavior; now are staring at our dinner plate.

And they do not like what they see. . .

. . .and Condi Rice is going to give public testimony.

Actually, they have won.

[headsonpikes]

Good post!

I highly reccommend the works of Jacob Talmon, whom the author cites. He marvellously details the evolution of socialist utopianism and totalitarianism.

[clintonh8r]

Actually, they have won.

Who would have thought that you could control the White House, both houses of Congress, and the majority of state legislatures and governorships, and still lose the cultural war? It turns out that the levers of society are really controlled by the judiciary, the media, academia and government bureaucrats. While we were winning elections, the RATs were winning the culture war.

[TopQuark]

Many thanks. I have not read anything by him and probably should.

[monocle]

More to the point half of the wage earners pay federal income taxes and the other half don't.

[CSM]

I have the opinion that the Republican party is now a moderate party. In order to keep their identity the Democrats have moved further left, hence their looniness. The true Conservative no longer has representation. By moving to the middle, the Republicans have lost.

The ironic thing is that many Freepers are supportive of this exact situation. The constitution no longer has any meaning!

[CharacterCounts]

You have it exactly right. Roe v. Wade was the start of this. In one opinion, the court set aside all debate and threw the game in favor of the left. The left took immediate note and hudicial activism has been prevelent ever since. The left has won one victory after another in the courts that it could not win at an election

The job of the leftist media is to take the court decision and make it appear that it really is the majority view, in the hopes that it will becoms so. The real split in America isn't about the war on terror or the economy. Its about which side gets to appoint the next set of justices.

Sooner or later one side will feel so dienfranchised that they will no longer feel compelled to seek redress through the legal system and will resort to other means.

[headsonpikes]

His 'Political Messianism' and 'Myth of the Nation' are other important works.

His analysis of socialism as it developed in early 19th Century France in 'Origins' is illuminating and provocative, and the book is no doubt his most influential work.

He belongs with Hayek, Aron, and Orwell as insightful political intellects of this last century, imnsho.

[Yardstick]

This is one of those articles that rings like a bell. What it expresses is just so true.

The natural outcome of socialism in group rivalry and hatred. My neighbor and I may disagree about nearly everything, but so long as the government isn't forcing me to live under his worldview (or vice-versa) then we can still get along. But under socialism, this isn't possible. Under socialism we each have our fingers in each other's pie. Under socialism we can't escape from one another. We are subject, through a hyper-involved government, to our neighbor's will and worldview in all facets of our existence.

Talk about a recipe for hating your neighbor!

[Belisaurius]

Yeah, as a matter of fact, I DO have a gubmint check coming. They send me one every two weeks, and get this, whenever I'm deployed to the Middle-East, it's TAX-FREE. Is that a great deal, or what?

Lew is an ignorant slut, living in his 18th century fantasy world.

[cricket]

"

While we were winning elections, the RATs were winning the culture war."

. . .Liberalism fosters a 'willing mind' renders it weak. . .and then provides an 'outreach program'. . .

They make it work perfectly.